Sitting of 16 May 1995

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

    Hospital Provision (South-west London)
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent consultations she has had concerning the provision of hospitals in south-west London. [22851]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): Local health authorities, national health service trusts and general practitioners in south-west London are considering the future provision of hospital services in the area.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my hon. Friend accept that although the London borough of Merton does not have a general hospital within its boundaries, thanks to Government reforms it already has unrivalled access to three excellent national health service hospitals, St. George's hospital, St. Helier hospital and Kingston hospital? Does he agree that the picture would be completed by the exciting new plans to rebuild the Nelson hospital in Wimbledon, so that my constituents can have access to the highest quality day surgery and out-patient care?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend has been a staunch advocate of that proposal. It is intended that the review of specialist services, which is under way, will improve services across the area that serves my hon. Friend's constituency. I am sure that his points will be borne in mind by all concerned.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: As London has half the number of health centres per person of other major cities in England and fewer GPs, health visitors and district nurses than it had in 1990, and as there has been a decrease of 2 per cent. in the number of GPs per head of the population in inner London in the past decade, how can the Minister claim to be presiding over a shift from hospital services to primary care? Surely he is getting rid of beds without providing alternative services.
    Mr. Malone: As it is essential to provide excellent health care in London, combine specialist services, improve primary care and continue the Government's investment in primary care, such as the £210 million investment in the London implementation zone scheme, why do the hon. Gentleman and his party want to stop all that in its tracks and call for yet another review?

    Consultant Specialties
    Rev. Martin Smyth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the shortage of staff in consultant specialties in the health service. [22852]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): In the five years to 1993, the number of hospital consultants in England increased by an average of 3 per cent. a year, well above the target of 2 per cent. set in 1987. Over the same period, the number of consultants in Northern Ireland increased by 12 per cent. The Government have established effective mechanisms to ensure that consultant numbers continue to expand to meet demand.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: If the Government are controlling numbers to meet demand, why are there continuing shortages, particularly among anaesthetists and paediatricians, which mean that operations have been cancelled? Is someone in the Department using new maths and not counting correctly? Is it job protectionism, or are hospitals saving money at the cost of patient care?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I explained that there has been a substantial increase in the number of consultants, but there are always times when there is particular pressure on certain categories. That is why we have set up a working arrangement with the professions, whereby one committee can monitor and anticipate where there is particular pressure. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, for example, in paediatrics there was a 5.5 per cent. increase in consultants and in accident and emergency there was a 6.7 per cent. increase. The increase has been above average in both those specialisms.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are committed to increasing the number of medical students and have taken on board the recommendations to that effect by the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee? Will she also comment on the training of doctors? Can she say anything further about the implementation of the Calman changes?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I can indeed inform my hon. Friend that, having not only published the first report of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee but acted on it, we shall shortly produce the second standing advisory committee report. We train about 500 more medical students a year than we did 10 years ago and we anticipate further increases. My hon. Friend referred to the important Calman proposals to improve and accelerate specialist training. We are working on their detailed implementation, from which future generations of consultants will greatly benefit.
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: Is the Secretary of State aware of public alarm at the number of casualty departments being temporarily closed—including at least five in London? Is she further aware of concern that—
    Hon. Members: Order.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question has already been widened.
    Mrs. Prentice: Is the Secretary of State aware that those closures might be due to staff shortages or, more

    135
    likely, to the Government's policy of permanently closing casualty departments? What guarantee can she give London in particular that such closures will not recur?
    Mrs. Bottomley: The hon. Lady identifies an area of special focus—accident and emergency departments—in which there has been an 11.1 per cent. increase in consultant appointments because it is moving towards a consultant-led service. That is precisely what underpins the move to larger A and E departments associated with minor injury centres. Junior doctors will increasingly want to staff areas that offer an A and E service according to best practice—well staffed, well equipped and of significant size.
    I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that the Royal College of Surgeons commented recently that placement in an A and E department is not necessary for training. As a result, we are holding discussions with professional groups to ensure that those jobs continue to be attractive. Our job must be to ensure top quality, well-staffed, well-equipped A and E departments for the people of this country.
    Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that consultant numbers have increased well ahead of target? Will she join me in congratulating North Hertfordshire NHS trust based at Lister hospital on the appointment of a new audiology consultant in September which, together with the new magnetic resonance imaging scanner later this month, will make a huge contribution to improved patient care for my constituents?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating his trust, which is a classic example of how trusts have used the opportunities of their status to improve patient services and make them more responsive. I confirm that there have been an extra 300 consultants a year for the last four years. We intend to maintain and improve that impressive record.

    Hospitals
    Mr. Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals there were in England in 1979, April 1991 and December 1994. [22853]
    Mr. Malone: In 1979 there were 2,023 hospitals in England, and in 1991 there were 1,624. For 1994, NHS Estates, using a different basis of calculation, has estimated the number at 1,440.
    Mr. Turner: Have not 245 hospitals closed since 1990—one per week since Conservative health reforms were introduced? Does the Minister agree that as a result of record waiting lists, hospital closures and bed losses, the NHS is at breaking point in many parts of the country? Operations have been cancelled, specialist beds have been unavailable and there has been the unholy sight of many people on trolleys waiting hours in casualty departments.
    Mr. Malone: If the hon. Gentleman were to look at his own constituency, he would see a different picture from that which he painted. In 1989–90, there were 560 waiters over two years; in 1995, there is none. In 1989–90, there were 214 two-year waiters; in 1995 there is none. Investment projects totalling £17 million are under way in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Of course there have been a number of closures, but substantially better
    136
    facilities have been put in their place. Why does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that when it is happening in his constituency?
    Mr. Rowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that people in my constituency have warmly welcomed the closure—regrettable though it is in some respects—of the oldest hospital in Britain, St. Bart's, and of All Saints hospital, the former workhouse? It is shortly to close, almost entirely owing to the large investment put into the Medway hospitals complex, which will provide unrivalled modern facilities. Does he agree that this counting of hospitals is meaningless?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is quite right. The purpose of the health service reforms was to allow services to be provided closer to people. That is precisely what my hon. Friend points out in respect of the reconfiguration of services in his constituency.
    Mrs. Beckett: Does the Minister accept that we are pleased to learn that he has found out some facts about hospitals, as it is not long since he told us that he did not know how to define one. I hope that that means that the questions that we table will in future be answered. Does he nevertheless accept that there is considerable concern in many parts of the country about the pace of change, and that when Ministers say, as they repeatedly do, that they do not know what is happening in terms of the provision of hospitals and do not know which hospitals or A and E departments are at risk, they add to that concern?
    The Secretary of State said a moment ago that Ministers are concerned about standards of hospital care and of accident and emergency provision. How can they know that standards are being met if they do not even know what is happening on the ground?
    Mr. Malone: The right hon. Lady is well aware that these matters are decided locally. When they are disputed or objected to by community health councils, they come to Ministers for decision. Hence a tremendous amount of reconfiguration of service and change is going on around the country by local agreement.
    It is not good enough to be obsessed with old buildings; it is far better to look at the new investment going into the health service. More than 700 schemes costing more than £1 million each have been completed in the course of the past decade. That is the measure of the Government's commitment to an improved health service. I do not understand why the right hon. Lady is obsessed with the past.

    Residential and Nursing Home Care
    Mr. Sims: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance she offers to local authorities in assessing the means of persons in need of residential and nursing home care; and what plans she has to amend the figures on which such calculations are based. [22854]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Comprehensive guidance was issued to local authorities in December 1992 and is regularly updated.
    Mr. Sims: At present, anyone with capital of more than £3,000 is expected to contribute towards the cost of his care, and anyone with more than £8,000 has to pay in full. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the figures were

    137
    inherited in 1993 from the income support system and have not been altered since? In fact, they date back to 1990. Does he agree that they are perhaps due for review?
    Will my hon. Friend consider clarifying the guidance that he gives local authorities, which take into account the full occupational pension of a person in a residential nursing home? This often means that the spouse left in the family home has no income whatever and may have to resort to income support.
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend's statement of the figures is correct. They were brought into line with income support figures in 1993, when the threshold was raised from £1,200 to £3,000. We do indeed keep the figures under review and will continue to do so.
    As for the occupational pension, local authorities have a discretion to enable a spouse to remain at home with the same standard of living to which he or she has been accustomed. My noble Friend Lord Mackay asked in another place for any evidence that this discretion was not being used properly to be brought to the Government's attention. I repeat that request today; to date we have received no such evidence. We shall, however, consider the matter, as we promised to do, in another place.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that literally thousands of people are terrified that they will become so frail that they will be removed—forcibly, if need be—from an NHS bed and sent to a private home, leaving their families unable to make up the difference between the fees and the amounts available? That not only frightens large numbers of people but implies that the system is on the verge of breaking down.
    Mr. Bowis: I refer the hon. Lady to the guidance that we recently issued on continuing care and on discharge; and to one of the conditions of the special transitional grant—that there should be agreement between the social services and hospitals. There has been no change to the system for charging introduced in 1948 by the then Labour Government. This Government introduced the discretion and the requirement that the value of the house be ignored for spouses and other members of a family who may remain at home.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend publish the results of his review? As my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has made clear, in parts of outer London, such as my constituency of Ruislip-Northwood, a place in a residential nursing home can cost several hundred pounds a week, which can lead to a spouse eventually having to sell the family home, causing great distress over and above that of looking after the sick patient. Will my hon. Friend publish the review and re-examine the criteria?
    Mr. Bowis: There is no review as such. I said that we kept the matter under review. If we decide to make a change, we shall announce it. However, I can reassure my hon. Friend that, where a spouse remains at home, there is no question under this Government of that spouse being turned out of the family home. That is precisely the requirement that we put into law which was not there under the previous Labour Government. We have also
    138
    given the discretion to enable that spouse to remain in the family home according to the standard of living to which he or she has been accustomed.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that people with on-going medical needs are being pressurised to move from hospitals into private nursing homes because of the in-built financial structure of the health care authority and its lack of beds? Surely anyone with an on-going medical need should be able to stay on in an NHS hospital.
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman is correct. If someone is deemed by a doctor to have a continuing in-patient health care need, that should be provided by the NHS, whether in a hospital or a bed purchased by the NHS. It is only if doctors decide that there is no longer an in-patient health need that a patient will be discharged into the community where the community health services will continue to be free to that individual. However, as has been the case since 1948, the social care needs would be paid for by the individual unless that individual's income warrants support by previously the benefit and now the community care system.
    Mr. Sumberg: Does my hon. Friend recognise that there is considerable concern among elderly people and their relatives that the family home, for which they have saved over many years, may well have to be sold? Will my hon. Friend urgently and radically consider proposals to exempt such homes?
    Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is correct to raise the concern of his constituents. I am happy to give him the assurance that we will continue to review the situation to ensure that the family is looked after. We already have in place assurances that we can give to families, and to spouses in particular, and now we must consider whether the figures that are in place are still adequate to meet the needs.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Does the Minister recall that one of the key objectives of the assessment process was the avoidance of unnecessary institutional care? Is it not a fact that many people are still being placed unnecessarily in care homes because of the requirement to spend the bulk of the community care grant in the private sector? Will the Minister make it clear which is more important—the proper assessment of individual needs or propping up the private care market?
    Mr. Bowis: Yet again, we see the naked hostility to the private sector that has been so apparent from the Labour party ever since we introduced the community care policy. It is clear that the assessment of the individual is central to community care. The individual takes part in that assessment and the individual and the individual's carers take part in discussions on how to meet the needs of that assessment.
    It is then a question of whether it is possible to enable the individual to stay at home with a package of care or whether it is better to place the person in residential care. That is a matter for the assessment, which should involve the appropriate medical input. We have no dogmatic view on whether someone should stay at home or go into residential care. We want the individual to receive the best care, irrespective of from which sector that care comes.

    Elective Surgery
    Mr. Ottaway: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of elective surgery is now carried out on a day-case basis. [22855]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): Half of all elective surgery is done on a day-care basis.
    Mr. Ottaway: In the light of that excellent answer, will my hon. Friend pay tribute to Croydon's Mayday healthcare trust? More than half its non-urgent surgery is carried out on a day-care basis, and it has just opened a brand-new paediatric day-case unit. Does my hon. Friend realise that, if he had listened to the Opposition last week, all that would have been put in jeopardy? Is it not the Conservative party that is looking forward, and the Labour party that is looking backward?
    Mr. Sackville: I can confirm that 90 per cent. of cataract operations carried out at the Mayday hospital, 73 per cent. of arthroscopies and 54 per cent. of laparoscopies are performed on a day-case basis. That is good news for patients in my hon. Friend's constituency, and I am glad that he has endorsed and paid tribute to what has been a central policy in my Department.
    Mrs. Mahon: When the Minister gives figures showing an increase in day-case surgery, does he take into account the extra work load for nurses? Does he not feel just a little ashamed of the fact that those who have made that increase possible are now balloting on whether to take industrial action?
    Is it not time that the Minister stopped insulting nurses, and started to pay them a proper rate for the job? At present, nurses are scrabbling about with trusts which do not care, and which are not—as the Minister claimed—offering them a 3 per cent. pay increase: they are offering 1 per cent., or 3 per cent. if extra elements are taken into account. That involves altering nurses' working conditions.
    Mr. Sackville: Nurses do a wonderful job in day-case units, and it is right and fitting for their pay to reflect that.

    Night Services (General Practitioners)
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the provision of night time services by general practitioners. [22856]
    Mr. Malone: Night-time services provided by family doctors are integral to British general practice. On 20 April, after discussions with general practitioner leaders, we proposed changes to strengthen services by increasing the support for local GPs working together to offer high-quality care to patients in their area.
    Mr. Coombs: No doubt my hon. Friend is aware that the number of night visits by GPs has more than doubled in the four years to last year. Is he fully satisfied that the proposals that the Department has put to the BMA—on which it will vote in the next few days—reflect that fact? How satisfied is he that the BMA will accept what is, on the face of it, a very reasonable proposition?
    Mr. Malone: It is perhaps not surprising that, when the hours of night cover were extended some years ago, night
    140
    fees and the number of night visits increased. About 50 per cent. of the increase in visits is attributable to that increase in hours of cover.
    As GPs across the country decide whether to accept the proposal, I ask them to bear two points in mind. First, it is fair to them; secondly, it is fair to their patients. It will encourage the sort of co-operative arrangement that I saw in Reading, which serves my hon. Friend's constituency. That is certainly one of the possible ways forward, providing first-class out-of-hours cover for patients.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: If the services are satisfactory, will the Minister condemn, and take steps to stamp out, the practice of hotels charging their residents for night-time visits when they are taken ill on the ground that national health service provision is inadequate and private doctors must be called in?
    Mr. Malone: There is nothing to prevent anyone who is resident in either a hotel or private premises from making his or her own arrangements to seek emergency care.
    Mr. Budgen: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is, in general, great satisfaction in Wolverhampton about the way in which GPs provide night-time services? Will he pay a sincere compliment to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner)? For 20 years, in all his observations about matters connected with the health service, the hon. Gentleman has screamed that there is a crisis, and has said that the best way of dealing with that crisis is to spend a large amount of someone else's money. Is he not to be commended for the splendid consistency of his views?
    Mr. Malone: His consistency is the equivalent of others who cry wolf too often and eventually get ignored. My hon. Friend makes a good, substantive point—that care in his constituency is good. The proposals for GP out-of-hours cover are designed to improve on that, to reduce the burden on medical practitioners who wish to undertake fewer night visits and to ensure that the quality of care for patients is improved during that important period when they need to call on medical services.

    GP Fundholding
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research her Department has undertaken into the administrative costs of general practitioner fundholding; and if she will make a statement. [22857]
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The management costs of general practitioner fundholding are kept under regular review. In the first three years of the scheme, general practitioner management costs were about 2 per cent. of budgets, which represents excellent value for money for the very real benefits to patients resulting from the scheme.
    Mr. Gunnell: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the magazine Fundholding, which can hardly be said to be unsympathetic to fundholders, has estimated that the amount spent on setting up the scheme and on administration was £98 million, and that the average cost per fundholding practice is more than £80,000. There is also plenty of research to show that this is a much more expensive way of purchasing for district health

    141
    authorities. Does not she think that the money should have been put into patient care and not into creating an expensive administrative system?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe, as does the King's Fund, that fundholding has been one of the most exciting aspects of our health service reforms. I recommend to the hon. Gentleman the words of the National Audit Office, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and Professor Howard Glennerster. They have all confirmed that fundholding has made care much more responsive to patients. The amount spent on management is modest compared with the substantial improvements in patient care and the better value for money that has been achieved by the scheme.
    Mr. Quentin Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Lincolnshire well over 50 per cent. of patients are now treated by fundholding general practitioners? Is not that a remarkable tribute to the popularity of fundholding among GPs and patients, and does not it vindicate the Government's decision to go ahead with this proposal despite the consistent opposition of the Labour party?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I commend the example of Lincolnshire, but perhaps the most interesting example is to be found in Derbyshire. In Derby, South, 78 per cent. of the population have fundholders. That shows how persuasive is the Opposition spokesman on health with her local general practitioners, all of whom totally disregarded her words and decided that there were benefits for their patients by taking up the fundholding option.
    Mrs. Beckett: Is the Secretary of State aware that managers in some parts of the country are said to be insisting that general practitioners become fundholders and are refusing to provide financial or administrative support to groups of GPs who want to become commissioning GPs although that is a much less expensive and more effective system? Those managers claim to be acting on instructions from the Department of Health. Why?
    Mrs. Bottomley: Let me make it clear that fundholding is and will remain voluntary. Undoubtedly, fundholding offers much more direct control to the general practitioner for securing, commissioning and monitoring services than joint commissioning. Joint commissioning clearly has a part to play, but in our view it is not as effective as proper GP fundholding. As the right hon. Lady will know, we have now set up 51 total fundholding projects which are being carefully evaluated to see what further lessons can be learned.
    Mr. Evennett: Does my right hon. Friend agree that GP fundholders are delivering a clear benefit to all patients in their areas? Does she further agree that the waiting time for the patients of GP fundholders tends to be shorter and that the opportunity for a better and more varied service in the surgery is greater?
    Mrs. Bottomley: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that he agrees that waiting time for all patients is shorter. Before the reforms there were 200,000 one-year waiters and he will know that there are now only 31,000. That affects all patients, irrespective of whether they have GP fundholders. It is right to say that the
    142
    Opposition do not care. They do not want to know the facts because they might get in the way of the rhetoric. I agree not only with my hon. Friend but with the OECD that GP fundholders have been more prepared to challenge hospital practices and demand improvements. The National Audit Office states:
    "the direct involvement of general practitioner fundholders in health care purchasing has led to improvements in the service provided for their patients".

    Broadgreen Hospital
    Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy that the accident and emergency department of Broadgreen hospital will not be closed until adequate alternative facilities are made available. [22858]
    Mr. Bowis: It already is.
    Mr. O'Hara: I am delighted to have that assurance. The Minister will be aware, however, that at the turn of the year the accident and emergency department has almost closed perforce due to lack of recruitment of qualified staff. He will also be aware of leaked reports that it was to be closed on 31 July when the contracts of staff recruited in crisis came to an end. Will he ensure that steps are in place to ensure that Broadgreen accident and emergency department is fully staffed to remain open after 31 July? Otherwise, my constituents in Knowsley, South will continue to live in fear and suspicion that the trust in which they have no trust is trying to engineer the closure of the department before adequate facilities are in place.
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman's constituents can have trust in the trust. One has to consider only the brand new A and E department at Fazakerley hospital, the largest and best equipped not only in this country but in Europe, the £2.7 million extension to the Royal Liverpool University hospital A and E department, and the new £9 million critical care unit at St. Helens and Knowsley hospital, to be completed in April 1996. The pledge is there that the A and E department at Broadgreen hospital will not be phased out until those facilities are in place.

    National Blood Authority
    Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met the chairman of the National Blood Authority to discuss rationalisation proposals. [22859]
    Mr. Sackville: Ministers meet the chairman of the National Blood Authority regularly.
    Mr. Illsley: The Minister will be aware of the national blood transfusion service's continued difficulties consequent upon those rationalisation proposals, the latest of which is the purchase by the NBA of blood-testing kits which are regarded as inferior for HIV and hepatitis testing and are banned in many countries. In the past few months, the level of blood donations has decreased in this country, staff employed in the blood transfusion service have been completely demoralised, many skilled staff have left the service and, above all, there has been a

    143
    complete loss of public confidence in that precious service. Will the Minister advise the chairman of the NBA to abandon the rationalisation proposals once and for all?
    Mr. Sackville: I am aware of a continuing attempt by the hon. Gentleman to make his political name by undermining the blood service—[Interruption.] He has continually claimed that blood donations are down, when they are holding at the level of last year. Demand for blood has gone up by 4 per cent. and donations have gone up by 5 per cent. As he knows, the plans to rationalise the blood service are to do with that fact that it has always been run regionally, so there is too much processing and too much testing. We must reduce those overheads on the service.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that blood centres must be run for the benefit of the donors who give their blood freely and the teams who so devotedly serve them? Does he further agree that nothing whatever in the consultation document, or in anything that Sir Colin Walker has subsequently said, militates against that? Will he further emphasise his comment that the Opposition's political agitation is causing great dismay and is unnecessary?
    Mr. Sackville: I confirm that, whatever happens, specialist services, such as the anti-D donors, are being retained in Lancaster. My hon. Friend is right: the allegations have been attempts to be undermine the confidence of donors, but they have failed.

    Statistics
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to change the way in which statistics are collected for publication on activities in the NHS. [22860]
    Mr. Sackville: There are no specific major changes in prospect, but each statistical return is reviewed at least once every three years, and every item is subjected to rigorous examination.
    Mr. Griffiths: Many people will be disappointed with that reply because a strong case exists for radically overhauling NHS statistics. For instance, does the Minister agree that we should publish statistics on the readmission of patients to hospital so that we can measure the quality of the care that they receive there, the success of the treatment and the availability of good quality community care?
    Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman is aware that in England we went over from deaths and discharges to a system of finished consultant episodes some years ago. Wales did not follow at that time, but it is now setting up a patient episode database which roughly mirrors our system. That is good news because the new Körner statistics are a proper measure of patient activity.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept that, however the figures are collated, there is strong evidence of a shortage of beds in London for the mentally ill, as was discussed in the Adjournment debate last Wednesday?
    Mr. Sackville: We are making considerable progress in the provision of intermediate beds and in all other areas of mental health. The Under-Secretary of State, my hon.
    144
    Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), has replied to such debates on numerous occasions and has explained the plans that are in place to ensure that we improve mental health services everywhere in the country.
    Ms Jowell: The Minister used statistics to defend the Secretary of State's reputation and to obscure the real information about patient care, which only goes to prove that Disraeli was right about statistics. Will the Minister now undertake to publish figures for the number of patients treated by the NHS and not what Ministers' jargon calls finished consultant episodes?
    Mr. Sackville: I begin by welcoming the hon. Lady to the Opposition Front Bench at Question Time. Unless we have reliable statistics which show the activity all over the health service, we do not know what is happening. There is no point in relying on individual incidents which are entirely unrepresentative of the health service, as the hon. Lady and her friends in the press continually do.
    Mr. Hendry: Is not the reality that the Opposition parties wish to change the way in which statistics are calculated because they are horrified at the number of additional patients being treated every year and appalled by the fact that waiting lists are falling and the only way they can achieve bad statistics is by changing the basis on which the statistics are collected? Can my hon. Friend confirm that in my constituency we have no patients waiting for more than 12 months for an operation? Is that not the statistic that really matters?
    Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend is right. If one ignores the fact that 120 patients are being treated now for every 100 treated before the reforms, which is an embarrassing statistic for the Opposition, it is impossible to measure the success of the reforms.

    Hospital Closures, London
    Mrs. Roche: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) hospital beds and (b) hospitals have been lost in London since 1990. [22861]
    Mr. Malone: The number of acute hospital beds in greater London has been reduced by around 1,900 between 1990–91 and 1993–94. The equivalent figure for inner London, including the special health authorities, is around 1,000. Information on the hospitals that have closed is not held centrally.
    Mrs. Roche: Given that a ward has recently closed in Hornsey central hospital in my constituency without consultation and that waiting lists have increased by 7 per cent. in the Whittington hospital, which also covers my constituency, does the Minister now accept that, although the Government may have won the vote last week, they did not win the argument in the House or with the people in London or in the constituencies?
    Mr. Malone: I will tell the hon. Lady what we did win last week and that was a vote for better health care in London, for bringing specialist medical care together on fewer sites, and obtaining better value for money and a better quality of health care. We made some progress towards improving London's health care in both the acute and primary care sectors and the Opposition want to call a halt to that progress.
    Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend accept that for many of us what is important is not the number of

    145
    hospitals or beds that are closed but the number of patients treated? In view of the extra primary care being offered, the number of day care patients being treated and the number of patients dealt with by general practitioners, would it not be extraordinary if the number of hospital beds stayed exactly the same?
    Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is quite right. The relevant statistic is the number of people treated. What is important is the amount of activity in the health service, not the simple number of beds. As for London, there is no bed target. It is up to individual health authorities to determine from time to time how many beds are necessary to provide care for the people living in their area. My hon. Friend is also right to point out that the Labour party is obsessed with the bricks and mortar of the health service, whereas we want to improve patient care.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May. [22881]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Griffiths: As the vast majority of the British public want to see the accounts of political parties open to maximum public scrutiny, will the Prime Minister join Labour in calling for the Nolan committee to examine all aspects of party political funding? Or what has he got to hide?
    The Prime Minister: As the whole House knows, within the past 18 months the Home Affairs Select committee conducted a full inquiry, into these matters. Subsequent to that inquriy, the conservative party has implemented in full the code of practice drawn up by the Committee. The Labour party has refused to do so.
    Mr. Lamont: Will the Prime Minister take an early opportunity to point out to the public that almost every country in Europe has had to put up taxes to deal with the effect on deficits of the recession? Will he also point out that, every after recent tax increases, the tax burden in this country in the 1990s will be lower than it was in the 1980s, just as it was lower in the 1980s than in the 1970s, including deficits? Will my right hon. Friend also point out that, thanks to Conservative Governments, this country has by a long way one of the lowest tax burdens in Europe?
    The Prime Minister rose—[Interruption.] My right hon. Friend is entirely right—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: I commend to hon. Members opposite the excellent speech that my right hon. Friend made on this matter on Friday last week. As a result of the recovery, and despite the tax changes that we were
    146
    compelled by the recession to make, households will actually be about £250 a year better off on average after tax and inflation this year.
    Mr. Blair: Given the latest pay and perks scandal in the utilities at the weekend and today's massive rise in electricity profits, does the Prime Minister recognise that the utilities have degenerated into an unseemly racket and that the sooner he orders a thorough overhaul of their system of regulation the better? [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. I will have no more barracking from sedentary positions by individual Back Benchers. They will be named the next time.
    The Prime Minister: Everyone wishes to see consumers protected. That is precisely why we have regulators to control prices and why, when necessary, the regulators have acted to control prices. Utility prices have fallen during the period of privatisation.
    Although I have not yet had the opportunity to consider in detail the proposals of the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I have to say that artificial plans to control profits smack very much of old Labour, not new Labour. The determination of what the Opposition call "reasonable profits" seems to me to be impossible. Who determines their level? Who says what is reasonable? What happens when profits bounce back after a period in which there have been losses? Do they apply just to the utilities or to other industries? These are the sort of questions that we would have asked of the Labour party in the 1970s; now we discover that we must ask them of the Labour party in the 1990s as well.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm the following? Electricity prices in real terms for domestic households have risen since privatisation, as the House of Commons Library confirmed this morning; water charges have risen by more than 40 per cent. since privatisation; gas complaints are up by 150 per cent. in the past year—[Interruption.] He can cap rail fares only by promising an open-ended subsidy from the taxpayer to privatised operators. Why does he always stick up for the excess profits and the managers who make themselves into millionaires rather than the hard-pressed consumer, who is forced to use such monopoly services and is fed up with the way they are being run?
    The Prime Minister: That was very well prepared, but almost entirely inaccurate. The reality is that the nationalised industries once cost the taxpayer £50 million a week and the privatised industries now yield £50 million a week. The average price of domestic electricity to households has fallen by 8.5 per cent. in real terms over the past two years; the price of gas has fallen by more than 20 per cent. in real terms since privatisation; BT's main prices have fallen by more than 35 per cent. in real terms since privatisation; Britain's water is now among the cleanest in Europe—[Interruption.] When those industries were all nationalised, prices went up year after year after year. The Opposition would like to control and regulate from the centre; they are determined to go back to when prices went up and not down year after year after year.
    Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yesterday's vote by the police, which showed that they do not wish routinely to carry arms? Does he feel, like me, that the best way in which to protect the

    147
    police from those who carry arms is to increase the sentences that we can inflict on such people, and will he consider bringing back the death penalty for the murder of police officers?
    The Prime Minister: I certainly very strongly support the decision not to carry firearms taken by the police in their ballot yesterday. That is wholly in tradition with policing in this country. I believe that it is the right decision and I warmly congratulate the police on having reached it. In recent years, we have increased the penalties for a large number of offences. I shall not retail them all at this moment, but I will willingly set them out in a parliamentary answer if my hon. Friend wishes me to do so. As my hon. Friend knows, I personally do not favour the return of capital punishment.
    Mr. Ashdown: If the Conservative party has put its house in order on the question of funding, why will the Prime Minister not allow Lord Nolan to look into it? Does not the question of funding of all political parties go to the heart of the public's concern about trust in our political system? Does the Prime Minister not realise that, while he got high marks for establishing the Nolan committee, he will get no marks if he now seeks to turn what he told us was to be the public's bloodhound into the Prime Minister's poodle?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone who has studied the membership of the Nolan committee or knows any of its members would remotely recognise the right hon. Gentleman's description of it. As he knows, there are only two ways of funding political parties in a free democracy. One is by subscription or donation freely given, and it is right in an open society that donors, if they wish, should preserve anonymity. [Interruption.] The other way is to fund political parties out of taxpayers' money. I do not favour that way and I hope that we shall not go in that direction. What is wrong about funding of political parties is when the funding of a party actually buys influence over its policy.[Interruption.] That is what is happening with the Opposition, where trade unions have 70 per cent. of the votes in Labour policy-making bodies, and even the proposal for dramatic reform would only diminish that to 50 per cent.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been signed there remains a serious threat of proliferation, and that the possession of a nuclear weapon is a measure of deterrence against those who would possess nuclear devices? Does he not find it absurd that Labour Front-Bench spokesmen say that they would hold Trident but would never use it? Does he think that that would deter anybody?
    The Prime Minister: I suppose that there is a logical case for saying that one would scrap Trident—although I passionately disagree with that case, as I believe that Trident is necessary as a deterrent—but it is absolutely intellectually unsustainable to say that one would have Trident as a deterrent, but to tell those whom it is there to deter that one would never use it. If that is their position, the Opposition might as well take the money and pour it down the nearest drain.
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May. [22882]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Griffiths: Can the Prime Minister confirm that there are now an extra 500,000 people, notably those on low incomes, paying tax, principally because of the cuts in the married person's allowance last month, and that, after 16 years of Tory government, there are a record 26.2 million people paying income tax? Is the message not clear: "Tory Governments damage your wallet"?
    The Prime Minister: First I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, if we had retained the Labour tax regime, there would have been an extra 1 million people in tax today. As for his specific questions, there are two substantive reasons why more people are paying tax this year. One is wage drift upwards. The second is the number of people who were unemployed but who are now in work and paying taxes. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that drop in unemployment.
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May. [22883]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jenkin: Further to the notice that I have given my right hon. Friend, as we approach the 1996 intergovernmental conference in Europe, and more particularly as we approach the 'reflections' group meeting in the summer, will he undertake to publish the Government's contribution to that group? Is it not essential that the IGC should address not stories about square strawberries and straight bananas, but the real public anxieties about growing European Union power—anxieties which the Leader of the Opposition apparently does not share, as he would give away the veto? Like one of his predecessors, the right hon. Gentleman may be fit to become a European Commissioner one day, but he is unfit to lead this nation.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of the matter that he proposed to raise. I certainly agree that the European Union needs to be more responsive to the views of its people, with less interference and less red tape. We shall enter the IGC with a positive agenda, providing for more intergovernmental co-operation in a Europe of nation states, including co-operation in foreign policy, in defence and in the international battle against crime.
    I believe that the European Union, both at the IGC and beyond, should give more consideration to Europe's place in the world rather than to the internal politics of the nations currently within it. We shall also press for more subsidiarity, more action against fraud and mismanagement, and a strengthened role for national parliaments. We shall not

    149
    surrender our veto or our opt-outs from the social chapter and the single currency. I will consider my hon. Friend's request that we should publish our paper.
    Mr. Wicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May. [22884]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Wicks: Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement of his Health Minister, Baroness Cumberlege, speaking to the Royal College of Nursing, that
    "community care clearly isn't working"
    and, if so, what does he intend to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: I understand from my hon. and noble Friend—who is more familiar with the quotation than I am—that the hon. Gentleman has quoted the remark out of context.
    Mr. Bill Walker: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May. [22885]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a tax-raising legislative assembly in Edinburgh which fails to address the West Lothian question and the number of Members from Scotland in this House is bound to be unworkable and will be merely a stepping stone to separation?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. It would be unworkable because some questions about it are unanswered and unanswerable. No one has yet explained why Scottish Members should be able to vote on English matters while English Members would not be able to vote on Scottish matters. There is silence from the Opposition on that. No one has yet explained why people who live in Scotland should pay more tax simply for the pleasure of being in Scotland. Again, there is silence from the Opposition. If the Opposition were serious about the constitution of Scotland, they would long ago have been able to answer a range of questions on the matter. Yet they still cannot answer them. Their policy is bad for Scotland, bad for the economy and bad for the United Kingdom.

Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
3.30 pm
Madam Speaker: We now come to a statement—[Interruption.] Will Members please leave the Chamber quickly as we have an important statement to hear now?
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the outcome of the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference.
For 25 years, the non-proliferation treaty has helped prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. It is one of the essential foundations of our security. On 11 May the parties to the treaty decided unanimously to extend the treaty indefinitely. That decision is excellent news. A permanent treaty, properly applied, will make the world a safer place. It will provide the stability and predictability essential to continuing efforts towards disarmament and to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
The conference also agreed by consensus a number of important texts, copies of which will be placed in the Library. The declaration on principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament calls upon states not party to the treaty, in particular those with unsafeguarded nuclear facilities, to join it as a matter of urgency. It affirms the support of all states parties for the safeguards regime administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency and for efforts to increase the agency's capability to detect undeclared nuclear activities.
The programme of action on disarmament in the declaration stresses the importance of completing negotiations for a universal and verifiable comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty no later than 1996, the early conclusion of negotiations on a convention banning world wide the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and the determined pursuit by the nuclear weapon states of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons.
The British delegation played a weighty part in negotiating the declaration. The Government endorse it. The objectives it sets are in line with the policies we have pursued and will continue to pursue. When I spoke to the conference on 18 April, I underlined our commitment to early progress on the comprehensive test ban treaty and a cut-off convention. As the House knows, we have dropped our requirement for so-called safety tests and we have stopped production of fissile material for explosive purposes. I made clear in New York our readiness to join multilateral negotiations for the global reduction of nuclear weapons when progressive reductions by the United States and Russia bring their forces to a level comparable with our own minimum deterrent.
The conference decided that the treaty's review mechanism should be strengthened. It agreed that review conferences should be held every five years, that those conferences should be prepared more intensively and that their proceedings should be better structured to make them more effective. We welcome these decisions. It is essential that adherence to the treaty be properly monitored.
The agreements reached in New York were the result of many months of careful and painstaking negotiation. Our delegation was one of 21 in the core negotiating
152
committee convened by the conference chairman. We worked closely with the United States, our European Union partners and other members of the group of western countries. We also collaborated closely with key non-aligned states. I would mention South Africa, in particular, which did outstanding work in achieving a result acceptable to all. The effort was immense and, for example, involved about 150 of our diplomatic posts around the world as they put our case, but it was abundantly worth while.
Mr. Robin Cook: May I welcome the extension of the non-proliferation treaty, which for two decades has provided an international barrier to the spread of nuclear weapons? May I also welcome the Foreign Secretary's praise for South Africa? Its decision to dismantle its nuclear devices and to play a full part in the non-proliferation treaty shows a commitment to nuclear disarmament on which the Government of South Africa are to be congratulated.
Will the Foreign Secretary admit, however, that the debates at the review conference were much more controversial than his statement acknowledges? Will he confirm that the conference failed to agree the review text on progress under the treaty because most non-aligned countries do not believe that enough has been done by the nuclear weapon powers to honour their commitment under article 6 to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament? Will he confirm that the European Union was unable to table a unanimous text because even a number of European countries did not accept that enough had been done under article 6 by both France and Britain?
Does the Foreign Secretary recall stating in January that he did
"not feel any particular pressure from…non-nuclear weapon states"
for nuclear disarmament by Britain? Can he honestly repeat that claim after three weeks of such pressure at the review conference? Will he now recognise that the extension of the non-proliferation treaty must not be taken as removing the pressure on the nuclear powers to negotiate towards disarmament?
May I press the Foreign Secretary on what steps the Government are going to take to implement the principles and objectives in the final declaration of the review conference? It may come as a surprise to his Back Benchers, but in his statement he took credit for the weighty part played by Britain in negotiating that declaration. What is Britain going to do now to honour it?
The declaration demands assurances by nuclear weapon powers that they will not use such weapons against countries that do not possess them. Will the British Government therefore abandon the right that they have claimed to use nuclear weapons against countries that have none? Can the Foreign Secretary name the circumstances in which he thinks that it would be justifiable to use nuclear weapons against such countries?
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): So the hon. Gentleman would disarm unilaterally?
Mr. Cook: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I am quoting from the declaration that the Conservative Government have claimed a weighty part in negotiating. The House wants to know what the Government are going to do to implement the commitments that they made in New York.

153
The declaration calls for respect for nuclear-free zones. Will the Government respect all such zones and, if so, will they drop their refusal to observe the south Pacific nuclear-free zone? The declaration calls for the detection capability of the International Atomic Energy Agency to be increased. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the safeguards budget of the agency has been frozen for 10 years? What, therefore, does he propose to do to increase its capability?
Finally, the Foreign Secretary stated that he endorsed the declaration and quoted the commitment in it to the elimination of nuclear weapons. His endorsement of that declaration is welcome, particularly since it has been reported that the British delegation privately lobbied to drop the commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons. In view of that position in the negotiations, and of the expression of disagreement with it from his Back Benchers, the Government will be judged on their commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons, not by his statement today, but by their record in the remaining two years available to them, and on what steps they take to working towards a world without nuclear weapons.
Mr. Hurd: I can answer some of the hon. Gentleman's specific questions. I am glad that he was glad about the outcome of the conference.
On funding, we agree that every effort should be made to ensure that the International Atomic Energy Agency has the necessary financial and human resources, and we are willing to consider a fully justified and controlled real increase in the agency's regular budget in 1997–98 to strengthen the safeguards regime.
On security assurances, the declaration states that we
"will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states parties to the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons except in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the UK, its dependent territories, its armed forces or other troops, its allies, or on a state towards which it has a security commitment, carried out or sustained by such a non-nuclear-weapon state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state."
The hon. Gentleman will want to study that declaration, but I think that it gives a reasonable answer to his question.
As I reported to the House when the hon. Gentleman questioned me about it a short time ago, I gave a certain number of undertakings in New York about the steps that we would now take. On a comprehensive test ban treaty, we no longer press for tests on safety grounds because we believe that we can maintain our deterrent without such tests. We have agreed to a cut-off in the production of fissile material and have given the security assurance that I mentioned. I also said that, in a world in which US and Russian nuclear forces were counted in hundreds rather than thousands, Britain would respond to the challenge of multilateral talks on the global reduction of nuclear arms. That corresponds closely to the wording of the declaration that was finally agreed.
The hon. Gentleman is in difficulty here. In the past few weeks, he has spent a good deal of energy setting out at considerable length in the broadsheets which he and his hon. Friends read, and in the New Statesman and Society, the reasons why the British Government could not achieve an indefinite extension of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty without making concessions about our deterrent which we were not willing to make. He has been proved entirely wrong. We have managed to join others in notching up this significant achievement for the greater
154
safety of the world without giving undertakings about our minimum national deterrent, which the hon. Gentleman wrongly said would be indispensable. He is clearly wrong, which is why we had those equivocations today.
We believe that our tactics and strategy were well directed and that we gave undertakings that were necessary, but not further undertakings that would weaken this country's security.
Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the indefinite extension of the treaty is good for the world, and that he and his colleagues in this country have played a significant part in achieving that result? Does he also accept, however, that the problem with all those treaty-based regimes is not so much signing the bits of paper as achieving monitoring, compliance, verification and the underpinning of intelligence, without which none of the treaties will work, because countries will sign them without necessarily complying with them? Will he assure us that resources will be put in place, both nationally and internationally, particularly in the intelligence sphere, to ensure that this treaty-based regime, like those for chemical and biological weapons when those treaties are signed, go forward and are made to work in an increasingly dangerous world?
Mr. Hurd: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. We need a treaty—we now have one—that is indefinitely extended. But having got the treaty signed, we must ensure that the signatures are worth while. We have anxieties about two countries that have signed the treaty: we have continuing anxieties about North Korea; and we have anxieties about Iran, which have been fairly well documented in recent weeks.
It is important that the IAEA is properly budgeted—the hon. Member for Livingston asked about this—to carry out its duties, and that member states use all their assets and abilities to document the carrying out of the treaty in practice.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I welcome the extension of the treaty, particularly the additional commitment to a test ban treaty? Does the Foreign Secretary share the disappointment of many that, so soon after the decision to extend the treaty, the Chinese Government carried out a nuclear test?
The Foreign Secretary did not refer to the middle east, but he will be aware that that is an area where the proliferation issue is at its most acute. When Israel refuses to acknowledge its possession of nuclear weapons, Iraq has previously signed the non-proliferation treaty but ignored it and Iran is clearly embarked on a programme designed to achieve nuclear capability, how will the treaty assist the issue of nuclear proliferation in the middle east?
Mr. Hurd: We noted the Chinese test yesterday. I was not particularly surprised by it, but it shows how far we still have to go. It is worth noting that the Chinese statement includes a clear commitment to abide by a comprehensive test ban treaty when it is agreed. The middle east has been a difficult area of negotiation because of the attitude taken by Israel, which is understandable, but to some extent out of date. The conference passed a resolution on the middle east. It does not single out Israel, but we believe that all non-party states in the middle east—there are several of them—

155
should adhere to the treaty and it is particularly important that states with unsafeguarded nuclear facilities should accept safeguards.
Mr. Nigel Forman: While welcoming the Government's willingness to support extra resources and appropriate personnel for the IAEA, if that proves necessary, will my right hon. Friend say more about the part that we may play in future multilateral negotiations on our strategic deterrent? He mentioned that we may be prepared to join those negotiations if and when the two super-powers, as they were once called, reduce their strategic armoury to roughly our level. Can he confirm that our level represents about 5 per cent., for example, of the American strategic capability?
Mr. Hurd: We believe that our level, which has substantially reduced in explosive power in recent years, is the minimum that we need. It is a small proportion of the armoury either of the United States and Russia. As I said in New York and repeated to the House a few minutes ago, a world in which American and Russian nuclear forces were counted in hundreds rather than thousands would be one in which we would respond to the challenge of multinational talks on the global reduction of nuclear arms. That is similar to what the Government have said before. It is reasonable, and it is as far as we could be expected to go.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Perhaps the Foreign Secretary would tell us what is so understandable about Israel's nuclear policy. Other countries could mount exactly identical arguments.
Mr. Hurd: It is understandable as, for many years, Israel was surrounded by neighbours who, to varying degrees, were in a state of hostility to her. That has passed, but the policy remains. Israel needs to move, but we can understand the security preoccupations which to some extent hold her back.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend commend the Government of the Ukraine on their positive programme of dismantling its nuclear forces, thus creating a very satisfactory background for the recent visit of President Clinton, which was an outstanding success? What part did the United Kingdom play in advising Ukrainian authorities on their programme of dismantling their nuclear forces and what part might we and our Western European Union partners play in confidence-building measures to restore Ukraine?
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is entirely right. If the Ukraine, which inherited some of the considerable power of the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons stockpile, had acted differently, the whole story would have had a much less happy ending. Ukraine had a political problem and wrestled with it and that was not easy. I and other Foreign Ministers from the west visiting Kiev urged the Ukrainians to move ahead, and they have done so. The result was satisfactory and, as my hon. Friend clearly knows, we and the Americans have given practical help to the Ukraine—for example, in transporting weapons to Russia for decommissioning.
Mr. David Winnick: Should not the Foreign Secretary's words condemning China's nuclear
156
test yesterday have been stronger? Why is it that, time and time again, excuses are made for that notorious police state? I know that the President of the Board of Trade is in China, but surely—as with South Africa in the past—appeasement does not pay. It is about time we stopped supporting a notorious tyranny.
Mr. Hurd: I am not conscious that I was supporting it. I simply explained what happened and what will be the content of the Chinese statement. I hope that the outcome will be a comprehensive test ban treaty that we are prepared to join and by which the Chinese, as they said yesterday, will abide when it is agreed. That is the way to make sure of no more tests of that kind.
Mr. Harold Elletson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the treaty's extension, but is he confident that all its signatories will be as good as their word? Will be specifically comment on the position of the Russian Government, who also signed the conventional forces in Europe treaty but who have completely ignored its provisions, to deploy extra tanks and troops on Russia's southern flank? Russia is also engaged in trying to sell to Iran nuclear reactors capable of producing plutonium.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. One needs the treaty, but one needs also the performance—and that does not necessarily follow the treaty. I cited earlier North Korea and Iran, because we are concerned about the extent to which the treaty is observed in practice in those countries. However, without the treaty, one does not have a leg to stand on in talking to such countries.
I have no reason to doubt Russian good faith, but we and the Russians have a problem in respect of the CFE treaty. I share my hon. Friend's concern about Russia's transactions with Iran, which have to some extent been whittled down as a result of President Clinton's visit to Moscow. Nevertheless, we all continue to feel anxiety about that aspect.
Mr. Harry Cohen: The treaty requires nuclear weapon states to move towards disarmament. Now that the Government have the indefinite extension that they wanted, how will the disarmament process work? The Defence Select Committee said that Trident was a significant enhancement of the UK's nuclear capacity. If the Foreign Secretary is not to call that Committee a bunch of liars—and I hope not—how will we meet our disarmament obligations?
Mr. Hurd: The wording was negotiated with some difficulty and is important. We undertook to take part in working towards a global reduction. It is clear in common sense that the first steps must be taken by countries that have hugely the greatest armouries. That is why I used the phrase in New York and today about the thousands of American and Russian weapons coming down to hundreds. That is a reasonable way of looking at the matter.
In 1998, by comparison with the 1970s, there will be a 59 per cent. reduction in the total explosive power of our deterrent, or 62 per cent. if one leaves maintenance and other stocks out of the calculation. That substantive reduction takes account of the abandonment of nuclear free-fall bombs. No one can seriously argue, unless they

157
are beneath-the-skin devotees of unilateral disarmament, that our deterrent plans can be substantially reduced and yet maintained.
Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Now that the treaty has been agreed and signed, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the real problem lies with those countries that would proliferate? China, which has just exploded a nuclear device, and North Korea are at the apex, but many scientists are prepared to sell their expertise to countries that have the money, such as Iran. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real issue is what the west is prepared to do to deter countries that would obtain the technology, develop nuclear weapons and proliferate? Has he established any mechanism for discussing that matter?
Mr. Hurd: We consider problems case by case. They certainly exist. China is a nuclear power, so yesterday's test will not be particularly surprising to my hon. Friend or anybody else.
As regards North Korea, there is an agreement with the United States to freeze, and later to dismantle, its nuclear programme. So far, that has been implemented—I emphasise the words "so far".
As for nuclear "professors", of course that is a real problem, particularly out of the Soviet Union, but it is one on which the Russian Government—and all of us—keep a close eye, case by case. So far, the consequences have not been as dangerous as predicted. But my hon. Friend is perfectly right: whether we talk about plutonium or expert knowledge, these are lines of watchfulness that must be carried through.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In his statement, did we not hear the Foreign Secretary claim that we were working closely with our European Union partners? How come, then, that three members of the EU declined to support any declaration praising Britain and France for our nuclear efforts?
What is being done about French testing in the south Pacific? Should we not give the same support to the Australians, in whose area the testing is being done, as many people in Britain gave the Canadians in the fishing dispute? Why should the Pacific be made filthy by our partners? If we have influence in the Union, why do we not use it?
Mr. Hurd: Just as our decision about testing was essentially one for us, so the French decision is one for them. We decided that we no longer need tests in the Nevada desert for the safety of our deterrent—we think there are ways that can be achieved without testing. It was not an easy decision, but we took it on the best advice.
What we aim for—this is true of France and China—is an indefinite ban on testing by which all will abide. The French have the same objective. After the success in New York we need to move forward to get precisely such an agreement.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the indefinite extension of the treaty is a tremendous success and a vindication of the Government's policy of negotiating from a position of strength? Does he share my concern at the fact that Opposition Members are talking yet again about making one-sided concessions with nothing in return—the old CND, old Labour party? Does he agree that the world is
158
a safer place because the Government ignored such advice during the 1980s? Will my right hon. Friend continue to ignore it and stand up for Britain's interests?
Mr. Hurd: I think that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and some of his hon. Friends may want to draw a line of forgetfulness under what they have been saying in the past few weeks. They have been proved wrong: my hon. Friend's analysis has been proved right. The only explanation for the excursion by the hon. Member for Livingston into this field has been a dim but fond recollection of the days when he said that Britain should immediately disengage from the nuclear arms race, and that it was nonsense on stilts for Britain to pretend to be a nuclear power. He has had a little nostalgic dream about the fond days of the past when he had a powerful voice but no responsibility. Now, albeit in a shadow way, he has responsibility—and on this occasion he has forgotten it.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Of course we all welcome the extension of the treaty, but I would caution the Foreign Secretary that many of us are impatient to see its aims fully implemented.
Will the documents agreed by consensus and to be placed in the Library be backed by a clear list of the countries that assented to or dissented from the consensus, together with the arguments used in each case? Was a baseline set and a timetable laid out for the multilateral negotiations that are to take place once Russia and America agree to reduce their warhead numbers to the minimum deterrent level of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Hurd: The answer to the hon. Lady's last question is no. The matter was carried as far as I have explained to the House. I shall see, in answer to the first part of her question, what can be given to her and the House—but the point about a consensus is that everybody agrees.
Mr. Gary Streeter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the news that Britain will be retaining its nuclear deterrent will be widely welcomed by all patriots who recognise, albeit reluctantly, that nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented? Does he share my concern that it is obvious from what Opposition Members have said today that the Labour party's commitment to Trident is paper-thin and, in the unlikely event of Labour forming the next Government, they would scrap Trident, leaving Britain unprotected and throwing 4,000 Plymouthians, whose jobs depend on the Trident submarine, out of work?
Mr. Hurd: The honest answer to my hon. Friend's question is that nothing about the Opposition's policy on these matters is clear. I thought that it was clear. I really did think until a few months ago that we had a consensus in favour of the Trident programme from all parties in the House. If there were such a consensus, it would be greatly to Britain's advantage. Since then, there has been a lot of cloudiness and a good deal of rowing back and nostalgia for the good old CND days. We look for a clear declaration to sort these matters out.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: What encouragement does the Secretary of State believe that he gives to non-nuclear states to stay non-nuclear when he refuses to rule out the first use of our nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power?
Mr. Hurd: That is the argument that the Opposition put before we achieved this agreement. Now that we have

159
achieved this agreement, the hon. Gentleman's argument is clearly out of date and wrong. We achieved the agreement without making the concession that he urged on us.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Foreign Secretary referred several times to putting our nuclear weapons into multilateral talks when the United States and Russia have reduced their weapon levels to a level similar to ours. Is not the truth of the matter that, on any likely time scale, that will probably happen after Trident has become redundant? So he is saying that Trident will never become part of any multilateral negotiations and that for the next 25 years we will carry on saying to people in the rest of the world who do not have nuclear weapons, "Don't do as we do, do as we say"?
Mr. Hurd: The basis of the treaty which has now been indefinitely renewed is the distinction between the five nuclear powers and the non-nuclear powers. That is a matter of history. It is also a matter of fact that, even when START 2 is implemented, British nuclear forces will be considerably less than 10 per cent. of the total nuclear forces available to the United States or Russia. Those are the two countries with the huge armouries.
That is why it is reasonable for us and for the French to say that a world in which American and Russian nuclear forces were no longer counted in thousands but in hundreds would be one where we would be ready to join in multilateral negotiations on the global reduction of nuclear arms. That is a reasonable position. It is not reasonable to ask us, as the Opposition did, to move earlier than that on the subject. They said that only if we moved earlier would we get the indefinite extension of the treaty, and they have been proved wrong.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What criticisms were made during the conference, particularly by the Government of Mexico, to the effect that Britain's building, extending, arming and commissioning of the Trident submarine fleet is a breach of the non-proliferation treaty? It is an enormous extension of the seaborne nuclear fire power. Would not Britain's greatest contribution now be to announce that it will decommission its nuclear weapons as part of a progress towards a nuclear-free world?
Mr. Hurd: I think that I have answered that question several times. Whatever the Mexicans may say, most people in the House believe that it is in our national interest to have a minimum national deterrent. It was argued that we could not sustain that and renew the treaty indefinitely. We have managed to do so.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Has the Foreign Secretary drawn a line of forgetfulness under the written answer that he gave me on 5 April 1990 when, in reply to a request from me to beef up the IAEA inspections of the Iraq nuclear weapons programme, he said that Saddam Hussein was a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty and, as such, the Government had full confidence that he would abide by his international obligations and not work on developing nuclear weapons?
Happily, the Gulf war intervened, or Saddam Hussein would have those nuclear weapons from those three programmes that he was developing despite the NPT. Can
160
the Foreign Secretary give us a guarantee today that the 30 unstable nations in the world that have intercontinental ballistic missiles, which in many cases are run by malign dictators, are not hoodwinking us and the IAEA inspectors in the same way as Saddam Hussein did?
Mr. Hurd: Saddam Hussein certainly did do that. It has now been corrected—but at great cost, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out.
A number of states have not signed the treaty. The hon. Gentleman knows which they are. Obviously, it is desirable for them to do so. A number of states have signed, but we are suspicious about their intentions: I have mentioned two in the House today. That is why we accept that the safeguards of the IAEA should be strengthened, and when there is a considered and costed programme we are prepared to support it.
Mr. John Hutton: I welcome the extension of the treaty, but will the Foreign Secretary tell us his view of the legal status of the declaration of principles and objectives that has accompanied its renewal? In particular, what new legal obligations on the United Kingdom Government will result from the extension in relation to a comprehensive test ban treaty and progress towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons?
Mr. Hurd: We have given undertakings on both points. I stated those undertakings in New York, and have reported them to the House. They are Government intentions, which we have openly declared.
I do not think that I should chance my arm in regard to the legal status of the declaration. It is not part of the treaty; it is alongside it. I think that it would be sensible if I wrote to the hon. Gentleman with a lawyer's answer. I shall make sure that I get it right, and will place the answer in the Library.
Mr. Robin Cook: The Foreign Secretary's reply has clouded the clarity of his opening statement, in which he pointed out that the declaration called for the total elimination of nuclear weapons. He said that he endorsed that declaration; indeed, he even claimed credit for a weighty part in its negotiation.
Unaccountably—although given several opportunities by his own Back Benchers—the Foreign Secretary failed to remind us that his Government are now committed to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. For the avoidance of doubt, will he now tell the House whether he and the Government accept that goal in the declaration and, if so, what specific contribution Britain will make to the elimination of nuclear weapons in the two years that are all that remain to the Government, who will then be out of office?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has misquoted me slightly, but only slightly. I reported to the House that the programme of action on disarmament in the declaration stresses the importance of, among other matters, the determined pursuit by the nuclear weapon states of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons. That is true, and it has been true ever since the treaty was signed.
During these exchanges, I have repeatedly answered questions from Opposition Members about how we intend to set about that. What I said about the hundreds of

161
weapons in the United Kingdom and the thousands of weapons possessed by the United States and Russia is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

Criminal Cases (Evidence Disclosure)
4.7 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement on disclosure of evidence in criminal cases.
The extent to which the law requires the prosecution to disclose evidence in advance of trial has caused increasing concern. It has become more and more apparent that the current arrangements do not serve the interests of justice, and are in need of reform. Today I am publishing a consultation document that sets out the Government's proposals for reforming the law. Subject to that consultation, we intend to legislate to put them into effect as soon as a suitable opportunity occurs.
The current disclosure requirements have given rise to the following problems. First, the sheer volume of material to be disclosed and copied to the defence places a very heavy burden on the police and the prosecuting authorities. The prosecution must make available to the defence large quantities of material, at great expense, much of which may not be relevant to the real issues in the case.
Secondly, under the current arrangements it is difficult to protect from disclosure sensitive material such as the identity of an informant or undercover police officer. The current rules often require disclosure to be made in cases where the actual relevance of that sensitive material may be marginal at best. Disclosure of the identity of an informant may place the informant's life in danger. The prosecution may have to choose between taking that appalling risk and abandoning the case to protect the informant, however strong the other evidence in the case may be.
Let me give an example to illustrate that point. Three individuals were arrested in possession of a number of incendiary devices with which they intended to damage a vehicle used for transporting animals. The evidence against them was overwhelming. Unknown to the police who arrested them, intelligence files were held centrally on the organisation to which the defendants belonged. None of that information was to form part of the prosecution case at the trial, but the trial judge ruled that those files should be disclosed to the defence. Since that would have compromised future investigations, the prosecution decided to offer no evidence rather than comply with the ruling. One of the defendants commented in a statement to the media:
"It was our intention to remove the animals from this vehicle and then damage it. The only reason this trial collapsed was because the prosecution refused to reveal to our defence lawyers material about us held on computer by the police."
Thirdly, the defence is generally not required to disclose anything about its case before the trial. The presentation of a defence at the last minute, with no advance warning to the prosecution, does not contribute to justice. The fact that the defendant has the opportunity to examine the whole of the evidence produced by the prosecution without having to give any indication of his case in advance encourages the manufacture of false defences. That serves to defeat the interests of justice.
The Royal Commission on criminal justice considered what might be done about the current disclosure requirements. The scheme that it devised provides a basis

163
on which we can build. We agree with it that a statutory disclosure scheme is needed, with the main elements set out in primary legislation underpinned by rules or a code of practice. We also agree with the idea of a phased approach to disclosure, under which the prosecution would disclose certain material at the first stage, the defence would then disclose something of its own case, and additional prosecution disclosure would be related to what the defence had disclosed.
But the test for initial prosecution disclosure that was proposed by the royal commission is very wide-ranging, and would not significantly reduce the current burdens on the police and the prosecuting authorities. The proposals for defence disclosure made by the royal commission are so general that they would not be of any real benefit in narrowing the issues in dispute. In fairness to the royal commission, it did not set out to devise a detailed solution to the problems of disclosure. That is the task of the Government, and it is to the Government's proposals that I now turn.
The task that we have set ourselves is to put in place a system that will reduce the burden of the current disclosure requirements without denying to the defendant access to material to which he should be entitled in the interests of justice. The scheme that I shall set out today would require the investigator to preserve any material gathered or generated during the criminal investigation that led to the charges against the defendant. It would then require the prosecutor to serve on the defence the material upon which he intends to rely at the trial, and also to disclose unused material in his possession, which might undermine the prosecution case.
For example, if part of the prosecution case is a statement by a witness that he saw the accused near the scene of the crime shortly after it was committed, it will be necessary to disclose a statement by another witness that he saw a person of a different description from the accused at the same time and place.
That test for prosecution disclosure is more limited than the current test. It is focused on what the prosecutor knows about the weaknesses in his own case. It does not require him to guess what the defence might be and to disclose anything that may be relevant to any possible defence. The test would also protect sensitive material more effectively than at present. In many cases, information from an informant or the pictures obtained from surveillance equipment are ancillary to the prosecution case and are not needed to prove the charges against the defendant. Such material tends to support the prosecution case rather than to undermine it. Under our proposals, the prosecutor would not need to disclose such material, nor would he need to apply for a court order to protect it.
The second stage in the process would be a requirement for the defendant to provide sufficient particulars of his case to identify the issues in dispute between the defence and the prosecution before the start of the trial. That should include the name and address of any witness whom he proposes to call. That will narrow the issues in dispute and enable the prosecutor to assess whether there is any additional undisclosed material that might assist that defence. If there is, the prosecutor would then be required to disclose it.
This system will work only if there are sanctions to enforce it. The defendant might simply refuse to disclose any details of his defence. If that happens, the prosecution
164
will be entitled to comment on that failure at trial, and the court will be able to draw whatever inference seems appropriate from it.
That approach will not penalise the defendant who has a genuine defence, who is prepared to disclose it in advance and who maintains it at the trial; nor does it affect the principle that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond reasonable doubt. No defendant will be compelled to incriminate himself. As with the existing provisions on inferences from silence, no one will be convicted simply on the basis of an inference drawn by the court from the response of the defence.
I have set out our proposals in detail in a Command Paper that I have published today. I have placed copies in the Library of the House.
The proposals extend to England and Wales only. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be publishing a paper inviting views on the introduction of a similar scheme in Northern Ireland.
There can be no doubt that the current arrangements have undermined public confidence in the criminal justice system by creating a gap between law and justice. My aim is to close that gap. The proposals should prove more effective in convicting the guilty, while continuing to protect the innocent. I commend them to the House.
Mr. Jack Straw: The Home Secretary is well aware that, for some time, the current wholly inadequate state of the law on disclosure has been a matter of great concern in this country and in the House. He will also be aware that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition expressed strong support for the royal commission's proposals when they were originally made two years ago, that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) moved amendments during the passage of Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill seeking better to regulate defence and prosecution disclosure, and that I made proposals to deal with the issue in a speech on 5 April this year to the Police Federation and the British Transport police at their meeting in Southport. The Secretary of State's conversion to the arguments that we have been making for more than two years is therefore welcome.
Public confidence in the criminal justice system is wholly undermined if there is a perception that its procedures and rules inhibit the quest for the truth and result in the innocent being convicted or in the guilty going free. There is widespread public impatience with the present trial process in England and Wales, and a feeling that too much of the system may resemble a game and too little a serious examination of the truth.
Although the overwhelming principle of the criminal justice system must be the protection of the genuinely innocent, does the Secretary of State accept that the whole process of police investigation and the conviction of the guilty would grind to a halt if the identity of informants, sites of surveillance and the identities of members of the public, who often courageously assist such police work, are routinely and gratuitously disclosed to the defence, even though it is not probative of the prosecution case?
Does he further accept that, so great is the current confusion in the law, that, in addition to the examples that the Secretary of State gave, there are a great many other examples of well-founded prosecutions of serious

165
criminals such as armed robbers having to be withdrawn because of the risk to informants' lives or the sites of surveillance, and that there are other occasions when police investigation not probative of the prosecution case could be compromised?
Does the Secretary of State accept that, given that there is a consultative period of almost three months, it would be better if time were taken to reflect on his detailed proposals? May I ask him four specific questions? First, will he give an idea of the time scale that he has in mind for primary legislation? Is it intended to legislate in the next Session of Parliament?
Secondly, relating to that, how does the Secretary of State's time scale in the document relate to the publication and then consideration by the House of the Scott inquiry into the sale of arms to Iraq? As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, part of that inquiry deals crucially with the issue of public interest immunity certificates signed by Secretaries of State, which is one means by which relevant evidence can be kept from the court and from the jury.
Thirdly, the Secretary of State said in his statement that there would be a requirement for the defence to disclose the name and address of any witness whom he or she proposed to call. Does he accept that such a requirement could be open to abuse by the prosecution, so mere will be strong grounds for there to be safeguards by way of rules about the circumstances, if any, in which such defence witnesses should be approached by the police or the prosecuting authorities?
Mr. Oliver Heald: That is always done in respect of alibis.
Mr. Straw: I hear what the hon. Gentleman said, but that is a special circumstance to which the Secretary of State referred.
Fourthly, does the Secretary of State recognise that, while there is no doubt that a new system is needed—something about which I have spoken at length—it is essential that we get the balance right between the needs of the prosecution and the rights of the defence? If we do not, rather than being faced with a strengthening of the process, we shall be faced in future years with more miscarriages of justice. Will the Secretary of State bear it in mind that almost every notorious miscarriage of justice that has come to public attention in recent years has involved a failure of the prosecution at some stage to disclose material evidence?
The Secretary of State said that there would be an obligation on the prosecution, for example, to disclose the statement by another witness that he or she saw a person of a different description from the accused at the same time and place. That is welcome. The Secretary of State also said that there should be sanctions in order to ensure that the system operated. Does he accept that sanctions must apply to the prosecution as well as to the defence and that, where there is a wilful failure by the police or the prosecution to disclose relevant evidence of the type of which he spoke, that should be a matter for the disciplinary rules of the police and the prosecuting authorities and should, in some cases, be made a criminal offence?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what I took to be his general welcome for the thrust of the proposals. He asked four specific questions. On the
166
time scale for legislation, he will understand that I cannot go beyond what I said in my statement, which is that, subject to the consultation exercise, we intend to legislate as soon as a suitable opportunity occurs.
As I have no idea what will emerge from the Scott inquiry, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot answer his question about any relationship between what may emerge from the report of that inquiry and these proposals. It must remain entirely a matter for speculation as to whether there will be any relationship between any recommendations in the report and these proposals.
I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), albeit from a sedentary position, about the requirement for the defence to disclose the names and addresses of witnesses. That is already a requirement in the context of an alibi defence. We propose to build on that and to adopt a similar approach to that which already exists in that context. Therefore, I see no great difficulty there.
Of course we must seek the right balance between the needs of the prosecution and the rights of the defence. We have not had that balance in the past. The system has been weighted too much in favour of the criminal and against the protection of the public, and it is that imbalance which I sought to put right in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and in these proposals.
The hon. Gentleman began his contribution in an extraordinary way. He sought to take credit for having thought of these things first. He talked about the proposals that he put forward in his speech to the British Transport police on 5 April. It would be as well if I reminded the House what those proposals were. He proposed that the matter be sent to the Law Commission. That was the extent of the hon. Gentleman's proposals on 5 April.
As for the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) in the Standing Committee debating the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, it was not moved as a free-standing change to the law but, as he made absolutely clear when he was moving it, as an alternative to the Government's proposals to provide for inferences to be drawn from the right to silence. He said that the Committee had
"a choice between the Government's proposal to abolish the right to silence"—
he got that wrong—
"and the Opposition's alternative".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 1 February 1994; c. 351.]
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he still opposes our proposals on the right to silence or whether he now joins the Government, the police and the Lord Chief Justice, who all think that the changes to the law are sensible, balanced and reasonable.
Sir Ivan Lawrence: Just as my right hon. and learned Friend has already dealt with miscarriages of justice involving the conviction of the innocent, so he is now dealing with those involving the acquittal of the guilty. I think that most people will support the broad thrust of the proposals. In particular, both sides in a criminal trial will welcome any provision that reduces the mass of paper that currently flies about in all directions at great public expense. Also, most people will agree that the defence ought to expose the broad nature of the defence ahead of the trial so that the issues can be narrowed down and the trial shortened.

167
Some care must be taken, however, to provide safeguards when the defence has to disclose the names and addresses of potential witnesses, not all of whom are necessarily people of clean and impeccable background and who might be deterred from giving evidence in the first place, which would be in conflict with justice. There must be protection, and it is not enough for my right hon. and learned Friend to say that we already have that requirement in respect of alibis, because in those circumstances the courts do not require the alibi notice to be given effect in the course of a trial if they do not think that justice will be done. If my right hon. and learned Friend does not want the courts to circumnavigate his proposal, appropriate safeguards must be established.
I welcome the fact that this is a consultation document from which, we hope, all kinds of recommendations will flow and be heard before legislation is implemented.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his general support of the proposals. He of course brings considerable experience and expertise to bear on his consideration of these matters. I note what he says about the proposal that the defence should be required to make available the names and addresses of witnesses. I do not entirely share his concerns in that respect, but he is quite right to point out that the document is to be the basis of a consultation exercise and I shall, of course, listen carefully to all the issues raised during the consultation exercise.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I join the general response being given to the Home Secretary's proposals. They go in the right direction, and it is clearly correct that there should be a royal commission set of recommendations, a consultation paper and, eventually, legislation.
The idea that the defence must also assist in the trial and not keep its hand secret to the last is not only right but meets the public's desire to secure a more correct balance.
The matter that probably needs the most careful adjudication—a matter on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman touched and to which he is clearly alert—is that of who determines what material gathered or held by the prosecution may or may not be relevant to the defence and is required to be seen in advance by the defence.
There is, of course, a difference between incidentally held material, as in the example that the Home Secretary gave, which should not be disclosed, and material gathered in the course of investigating a case, which the prosecution may not regard as relevant either to support or undermine the case, but which the defence should see in order to ensure that it knows the full range of the case assembled against it. If that matter can be adjudicated fairly, there will further grounds for belief that the balance will be far better in future.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the proposals. I understand the point that he made. He has put his finger on the heart of that part of the set of proposals which will need the most careful consideration. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will accept, that the requirement on the defence to identify the essence of its defence will help to achieve a proper resolution of the considerations to which
168
he referred. It will help to achieve a better balance in the interests of justice. I entirely agree, however, that we shall have to consider the matter very carefully in the light of the views expressed in the consultation exercise.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Before we proceed, I remind hon. Members that I have to keep in mind the other business that the House has to conduct today. Therefore, I ask for brisk questions and brisk answers so that we might move on to other business fairly soon.
Mr. Julian Brazier: In strongly welcoming the proposals, may I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to look again at section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which is being used to introduce an agent provocateur argument through the back door? Even with the new guidelines, it could still be used to deny juries the opportunity to hear the evidence because the prosecution needs to protect an informer.
Mr. Howard: I shall certainly give my hon. Friend an undertaking to look at that section, and I am grateful for the welcome that he gave the proposals.
Mr. John Fraser: Given escalating costs of criminal defence, will the Home Secretary think twice before introducing disclosure provisions for summary trials, most of which end in convictions in any event? The effect of the proposals in that case would be only to lengthen the process and add to the expense. Is not non-disclosure the crucial issue? Of course we must protect people from intimidation in a society of guns and great amounts of money, but the crucial issue is surely who makes the decision about disclosure and what the sanctions are if he or she gets it wrong.
Mr. Howard: I am not sure that I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns about cost. We are all, of course, concerned about cost, but I hope that the effect of the proposals, relieving as they do the police and the prosecution from the voluminous burdens placed on them, will be to reduce the costs of criminal trials. That is one of the questions on which I specifically invite views in the consultation paper. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of proper disclosure being made by the prosecution. That is, of course, as he is quite right to say, at the heart of the proposals.
Mr. James Couchman: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that his announcement is very welcome news. He will also be aware that several of our Kent colleagues and I have been conveying to him the views of our chief constable on the question of disclosure. Is he confident that his proposed steps will meet the various concerns of the police as they have been represented to him? There is no doubt whatever that the acquittal of serious criminals—because of the disclosure procedures heretofore—is a major affront to the criminal justice system.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. Indeed, I am aware of the views of the chief constable of Kent, not only through representations made by my hon. Friend and other colleagues from Kent, but because the chief constable personally has left me in no doubt of his strong views on the matter. I am not able to report to the House the chief constable's reactions to the

169
proposals, but the president of the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales has already given them a very warm welcome.
Mr. David Trimble: I am sure that the Home Secretary realises that the proposals are broadly welcomed by myself and my colleagues. He is quite right that the high volume of material can simply lead to mistakes. I became aware of a case in my constituency in recent weeks of a mistake enabling a terrorist organisation to issue direct threats to witnesses, notwithstanding ceasefires.
May I query the procedures with regard to Northern Ireland? Does the Home Secretary realise that, on this matter, the legal system and the law in Northern Ireland are not significantly different? I must therefore query why we must have a separate consultation exercise. Cannot the two proceed in tandem? Cannot the changes be made by one piece of legislation, as is happening with the Criminal Appeal Bill? As he knows, during consultation on that Bill, practitioners in Northern Ireland said that they wanted to be included in the legislation. I worry that a different procedure would enable the Northern Ireland Office to drag its feet, to prevent proper discussion of Northern Ireland matters in the House.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the proposals, but I do not think that there is any basis for the strictures that he has passed on the Northern Ireland Office. I have said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intends to publish similar proposals for Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not in a position today to give him any assurance about the legislative vehicle for such proposals, but I am sure that it will be the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend, as it is mine, to proceed with due expedition on the matter.
Mr. David Ashby: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that disclosure has reached ridiculous proportions, and that his reconsideration of the subject is welcome. However, he should be mindful of the fact that some of the most notorious cases that have reached the Court of Appeal have resulted from non-disclosure. The Crown Prosecution Service takes a lot of reminding that all its staff and all of us who are prosecutors are administrators of justice, and we must all ensure that justice is done.
One specific matter that I wish to raise is the fact that, despite that great idea about alibis, alibi notices are being ignored. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, if we are to have disclosure by the defence—and that is right—it should perhaps be accompanied by an opening statement by the defence in front of the jury? Would it not assist the jury enormously to hear the prosecution speech and then a defence statement, so that it knew what issues to look for in the evidence?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. His precise suggestion goes somewhat beyond the proposals as they stand, but I am perfectly prepared to consider it in the context of the consultation exercise.
Mr. Chris Mullin: I welcome the Home Secretary's proposals in so far as they are intended to make the criminal trial a process of truth seeking. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that there is a
170
danger that when the defence case is disclosed in advance, the police or the prosecution may be tempted to try to nobble witnesses—or to "refresh their memories", to use a phrase that I have heard? Does he recall that, in the Guildford case, for example, a key defence witness was seen off by the threat of being charged with the offences with which four innocent people were eventually charged? That disposed of him for 15 years.
Mr. Howard: I do not think that it is at all appropriate to infer from particular cases, however serious, generalised allegations about a propensity on the part of the police to behave in the way that the hon. Gentleman has imputed to them. I do not believe that what he suggests would happen. During the consultation exercise, we can consider the importance of putting in place proper safeguards.
Mr. Michael Stephen: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his proposals will be widely welcomed both in my constituency and throughout the country? It is surely in the interests of justice that both parties to a criminal trial should know what case they have to meet before the trial begins. My constituents are sick and tired of hardened criminals escaping conviction by springing ambush defences on the prosecution.
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with his assessment of the view of the public, and I share that view.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: I, too, welcome the Home Secretary's efforts to deal with what has become the farce of disclosure—both in terms of the volume of material, and because of the way in which witnesses for the prosecution can have their names disclosed to the prejudice of the trial. I was also greatly shocked when a senior police officer told me of a murder case that had to be dropped because of such problems.
The importance of dealing with disclosure lies in the detail. Will the Home Secretary give us the assurance that, both during the consultation process and, more importantly, when legislation comes before the House, he and his fellow Ministers will deal with it in the most bipartisan way possible, so that we can get the detail right and provide lasting rules on disclosure, which will avoid miscarriages of justice, and which can be preserved over a long period as good law?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the proposals. I am perfectly happy to give him the undertaking that both during the consultation exercise and while any legislation is being taken through Parliament, we shall consider the detailed suggestions made in as clear-headed, receptive and objective a way as possible. Our only aim is to achieve the best possible balance and the best possible system of criminal justice. That is what we regard as the ultimate goal of all our endeavours.
Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. and learned Friend knows of my concerns about this matter over many years. Those concerns reflect in particular those of the police about the burdens placed on them by the present arrangements. I am also concerned that, as has been made clear this afternoon, many trials have collapsed as a consequence. Given that the consultation and legislation will take several months, and given that so many of the difficult decisions that have been taken

171
relating to disclosure seem to be matters of interpretation and discretion by the judiciary, can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what arrangements he, my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General might have in mind to improve the guidelines to judges for the current disclosure rules? My right hon. and learned Friend will know that there is still some concern about those guidelines and the way in which they are exercised.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right to remind the House of the concerns that he has expressed on the matter for a long period, and I am grateful to him for the suggestions that he made. I fear, however, that I cannot respond as positively as I might like to his invitation to issue guidance to the judiciary. It is not a matter for me, nor is it a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor. It is a matter for the courts, the Court of Appeal and perhaps the Lord Chief Justice.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: With the dark horse in the next Secretary of State for Scotland stakes sitting beside him, could the Home Secretary tell the House what the position is in relation to Scottish law, and in particular to disclosure? The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know of the great anxieties that many serious people have over the biggest case of murder against western civilians since 1945—that is, Lockerbie.
In relation to the English responsibilities—since some evidence was found in England—could the Home Secretary look at Mr. Francovitch's film, which appeared last Thursday night, and ask senior officials at the Home Office whether there are any conclusions relating to the non-disclosure of evidence which the Crown Office said it has, as that is a matter that pertains to the Home Office?
Mr. Howard: I am not sure which would be the greater lack of wisdom—to draw inferences from the film to which the hon. Gentleman referred, or for me to try to explain to the House the Scottish law on disclosure. I am certainly aware of my limitations, so I have no intention of responding to the hon. Gentleman's request. I have no doubt that he will raise the matter in due course with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: I very much welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has said today, and I particularly welcome his response to the royal commission's comments about the need for the prosecution to provide such vast amounts of material for the defence, particularly in cases in which serious professional criminals can comb through that material in the hope of chancing upon something that might provide a defence. That has been an abuse for many years, and I hope that, after the consultation period, my right hon. and
172
learned Friend will produce legislative proposals to correct that mischief as soon as possible—preferably in the next Session.
On the day when the true attitude of Labour Front-Bench Members has been shown by the attempt of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) and his colleagues to compromise the independence of the judiciary by threatening to politicise them, may I once again congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on ensuring that the guilty are convicted and are not slipping out on technicalities?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. We shall look at the point that he made during the consultation exercise, and I share his views. I do not wish to extend the scope of these questions and answers by referring to the proposals made by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).
Mr. Gary Streeter: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that much damage has been done to the reputation of the criminal justice system in the past few years by apparently guilty men getting away on legal technicalities. Is he aware that the most important point resulting from his announcement today is that it will start to restore public confidence in the criminal justice system by putting guilty men where they belong—behind bars?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right to put his finger on that point. We must enhance public confidence in the criminal justice system, and everything that I have sought to do in my two years in this job has been designed to achieve that objective. The proposals certainly will play their part in taking that objective forward.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the importance of the new procedure is that it will have an impact on every criminal case, by narrowing the issues and reducing the amount of disclosure that is required? It will therefore save time, and make the administration of justice in England and Wales much more efficient. Does he accept that the proposals go further and are far better than the amendments tabled by the Labour party in Committee on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994? Those amendments did not involve any substantial reduction in the amount of disclosure that has to be made, whereas these proposals do. Will not the photocopiers of the Crown Prosecution Service run more quietly as a result?
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is entirely right. In recognition of the inadequacy of the proposals put forward by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth in the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) decided that, rather than adopting the course suggested by his hon. Friend, he would send the matter off to the Law Commission. The hon. Member for Blackburn was right to recognise those deficiencies, but we have been able to find a satisfactory solution without the further delay that referring the matter to the Law Commission would involve.

Points of Order
4.45 pm
Mr. Richard Tracey: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On a number of occasions, I have heard you speak to the House about the use of House of Commons notepaper and the House's portcullis insignia, and all hon. Members have received guidelines on the matter from the Serjeant at Arms. I have before me a letter to a business man on House of Commons notepaper, which promotes a conference involving leading members of the Opposition Front Bench. The letter is signed by one of those hon. Members. Delegates are asked to pay £295 a head for the conference, which is to be organised by professional conference organisers called Hobsbawm Macaulay Communications Ltd., which is obviously a commercial operation.
It seems to me that that is an abuse of House of Commons paper and insignia. In the light of what Lord Nolan has been saying to all of us in the past few days, surely that is the type of abuse that the House should not allow.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to let me have a copy of the item to which he referred, although I have only been able to glance at it. He knows that the supervision and enforcement of the regulations that govern the use of the portcullis and of House of Commons stationery is a matter for the Serjeant at Arms. I would appreciate it if he let the Serjeant at Arms have a copy of the correspondence to which he referred.
Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that an announcement about the jobseeker's allowance was made a short while ago in another place. The other place has
174
been told that the introduction of the allowance has been postponed from April 1996 to October 1996. I have no idea why that has been done. I do not know whether it is due to a systems failure or administrative problems, or whether it is a political and tactical retreat because of the unpopularity of the legislation. But it seems to me that the House should be told, and I wonder whether you have received any indication from Ministers of an intention to come to the House to explain what is a major development in a sensitive area of policy.
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that the Government are seeking to make a statement on the matter, but those on the Treasury Bench will have made a note of what the hon. Gentleman said. I understand that, in due course—I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman when "due course" is—we shall be receiving an amendment from the Lords. I understand the hon. Gentleman's impatience at this time.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I do not think that there can be anything further to that point of order, as I have made a ruling. I cannot give any more information, although the hon. Lady may have some information to give the House.
Mrs. Taylor: May I seek your guidance? Would it be possible, at a suitable point during today's business—perhaps after a vote—for the appropriate Secretary of State to come to the House to make a statement on the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)?
Madam Speaker: I am always available to a Minister who seeks to inform me that he wishes to make a statement. If that were the case, I would be here in the Chair to deal with that statement.

Employment of Illegal Immigrants
4.48 pm
Mr. Nigel Waterson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it unlawful to employ an illegal immigrant; and for connected purposes.
Rarely have so many people been on the move across the globe. Millions of people, both economic migrants and genuine asylum seekers, are abandoning their countries and looking for a better, or at least a safer, life elsewhere. It is a problem faced by every advanced country. The recent reimposition of some border controls in "Schengenland" underlines the problem, which must be faced with both firmness and fairness.
How big is the problem? Estimates vary dramatically. The Home Office is quick to point out that there are no official estimates of the number of illegal immigrants in the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary said recently:
"by its very nature, illegal immigration is difficult to measure and any estimates would be highly speculative."—[Official Report, 20 April 1995; Vol. 258, 328]
We know that, in 1994, 7,240 illegal entrants were detected and, in the same period, 3,670 were removed or departed voluntarily from the UK. In addition, 4,750 persons were issued with a notice of intention to deport.
Mr. Peter Tompkins, the former chief inspector of the immigration service, claimed that almost 40,000 illegal immigrants enter the UK a year. In his view, immigration officers catch only about one in seven illegal immigrants. There has been a sharp growth in the number of cases from eastern Europe and north Africa and, with 1997 looming, there must be worries about potential immigration from Hong Kong.
One of the most worrying statistics is the extent to which asylum is being abused. In 1994, about 80 per cent. of asylum decisions were outright refusals.
A significant number of those employed in hotels and restaurants, in factories or on farms at harvest time will be illegal immigrants. That is not a problem that any responsible Government could ignore and yet, bizarrely—this is the central thrust of my Bill—it is not an offence at present to employ an illegal immigrant and there is no general requirement on employers to satisfy themselves about the immigration status of their employees.
Of course, it is an offence to assist illegal entry, and it has been held that acts to facilitate entry into the United Kingdom can be pursued under that provision, even once the illegal immigrant has already got through the port of entry and perhaps has even started work.
Another existing offence is harbouring. It is an offence knowingly to harbour anyone who one may know, or have reasonable cause for believing, is either an illegal immigrant or an overstayer, or is in breach of a condition not to work or to register with the police. The offence is triable only summarily, with a penalty of a fine or a maximum of six months' imprisonment and prosecutions are rare.
There is clearly a yawning gap in the law. A statutory requirement should be laid on employers of permanent and casual labour that they must check the immigration status of job applicants. If they are not satisfied, they should refuse to employ them and, ideally, pass the relevant information on to the authorities. I do not believe
176
that that would be an onerous burden on employers, for I believe strongly in the Government's deregulation initiative.
Taking a lead from the offence of harbouring, the prosecution should have to show that the employer knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the person he employed was an illegal entrant or an overstayer, or was in breach of conditions. That would give the requisite element of what we lawyers call mens rea. Penalties should be tough—heavy fines and a maximum prison term of up to five years. There should also be a right of trial at the Crown court for serious cases.
I am delighted to have seen recently some press speculation that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has it in mind to introduce such legislation in the next Queen's Speech.
My Bill calls for one measure, but I recognise that a range of measures are needed to tackle the growing problem. We must continue to operate our own strict border controls, in line with the 1985 European Union declaration. There must be no question of article 7a of the treaty of Rome being allowed to dilute our determination.
Next, we must develop a more efficient and fraud-proof system for the issue of national insurance numbers. We must also continue to crack down on social security excesses. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has already gone to great lengths to combat fraud and deter so-called benefit tourists. We have to go further.
As I pointed out, the great majority of applications for asylum are bogus. Furthermore, most asylum seekers originally enter this country as visitors or students and on the basis that they will not become a charge on the public purse. It is only later—sometimes a very short time later—that they claim asylum. That entitles them to claim a range of benefits: income support at 90 per cent. of the full rate, housing benefit, council tax benefit and family credit. An asylum seeker is also allowed free medical treatment under the national health service and, if receiving income support, free prescriptions, medical and dental treatment and concessionary eye treatment.
In 1985, 5,060 asylum seekers were awaiting a decision. That figure had risen to 55,000 last year, of which, statistically, 80 per cent. will turn out to be bogus. Yet, as long as those 55,000 are waiting for a decision, they are entitled to all the benefits that I described. The British have always been a fair and generous people, but enough is enough.
Above all, we must press ahead with a compulsory and comprehensive system of identity cards. They will have many benefits, not least in tracking down illegal immigrants and overstayers.
Mr. John Spellar: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. None of these issues relate to the Bill as it was outlined on the Order Paper.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): The most recent contribution was going rather wide of the Bill, and I hope that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) will return to the specifics.
Mr. Waterson: To return to the central theme of my Bill, I have no doubt that it will provoke some howls of protest from Opposition Members and from some of the organisations that purport to represent the best interests of

177
ethnic minorities, but I hope that they will come to recognise that the present situation is simply unfair. It is unfair on the indigenous population and it is unfair on legal immigrants—the existing ethnic minorities in this country.
Perhaps above all, it is unfair on those illegal immigrants who are employed in restaurant kitchens, sweatshops and the fields as a modern form of slave labour. They are often paid minimal wages by employers who know that, no matter how harsh the conditions, the workers will not and cannot complain.
Hon. Members may have seen recent press reports about a sweatshop in London employing illegal Turkish workers. Hours are long and conditions basic. There is no canteen and little attempt to ensure health and safety at work. A worker can earn as little as £1.50 an hour and there is no overtime rate. Recently, half the sweatshop's 60 workers walked out in a dispute over piece rates. The Turkish owner called the police and the workers fled—some jumping from second-floor windows. Pay rates for those who remain have been cut in retaliation. We owe it as much to those people as to our own British citizens to put a stop to that sort of practice.
4.57 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Bill could have been made to sound reasonable, at least to some people outside this House who have been fed myths about the extent of illegal immigration and how easy it is to evade controls.
I will speak briefly against the Bill because it foreshadows a debate that we will probably have at greater length in the next few weeks, if some of the reports that have been trailed in the press recently are anything to go by. We have been told that, even now, Ministers are planning to introduce controls and that the Bill, or something very like it, is one of the options that they have considered.
The comment in The Guardian last week summed up what is going on. It said:
"Never have the hurdles to enter Britain been so high, yet ministers are even now planning a series of … trip wires to catch the slim numbers of illegal immigrants who do slip through. What's going on? An election is approaching."
That is precisely what the proposed legislation is about. It is being presented as if thousands of illegal immigrants were employed in hotels and sweat shops, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Gerrard: No, I wish to be brief.
If it is true—I suspect that it is—that illegal immigrants are working in sweatshops making clothes and the like, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) should have thought of an alternative solution—a minimum wage. Employers would then have no incentive or ability to employ people in sweatshops.
My main concern is what will happen as a consequence of the Bill. If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or I were to apply for a job with such legislation in place, we would not be asked about our immigration status for the simple reason that our skin is white, but many of my constituents from Pakistan or the Caribbean—decent, law-abiding British
178
citizens—will be asked to prove their immigration status. I ask the House to consider what the Bill would do for race relations.
Moreover, how could employers with no expertise in the matter be qualified to make the judgment that the Bill asks them to make? It is not simple to decide someone's immigration status. The result would simply be checks on everyone who is not white, and deteriorating race relations. I do not argue in favour of illegal immigration, although we could argue whether the present immigration laws are fair and reasonable, but that is not what the debate is about.
The Bill is based on prejudice and, if implemented, it would foster prejudice and destroy good race relations. It is a nasty, vicious little proposal, which I hope will get no further in the House.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 74, Noes 65.

Division No. 148]

[5.01 pm

AYES

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Ashby, David

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Batiste, Spencer

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Bendall, Vivian

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Body, Sir Richard

Mills, Iain

Booth, Hartley

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Butcher, John

Moate, Sir Roger

Butterfill, John

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Carrington, Matthew

Neubert, Sir Michael

Carttiss, Michael

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Powell, William (Corby)

Congdon, David

Riddick, Graham

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Robathan, Andrew

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Shaw, David (Dover)

Couchman, James

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Day, Stephen

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Spink, Dr Robert

Dunn, Bob

Spring, Richard

Durant, Sir Anthony

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Elletson, Harold

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Fabricant, Michael

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Fishburn, Dudley

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Gardiner, Sir George

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Waterson, Nigel

Harris, David

Wilshire, David

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Yeo, Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Jenkin, Bernard

Tellers for the Ayes:

Jessel, Toby

Mr. Nick Hawkins and

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Mr. John Sykes.

NOES

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Caborn, Richard

Austin-Walker, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Barnes, Harry

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Bayley, Hugh

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Bennett, Andrew F

Cam, Jamie

Bermingham, Gerald

Clapham, Michael

179

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

McMaster, Gordon

Connarty, Michael

McNamara, Kevin

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

MacShane, Denis

Dalyell, Tam

Madden, Max

Donohoe, Brian H

Mahon, Alice

Eagle, Ms Angela

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Enright, Derek

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Etherington, Bill

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Gapes, Mike

O'Hara, Edward

Gerrard, Neil

Parry, Robert

Godman, Dr Norman A

Patchett, Terry

Godsiff, Roger

Rendel, David

Gordon, Mildred

Rooney, Terry

Graham, Thomas

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Sedgemore, Brian

Gunnell, John

Skinner, Dennis

Harvey, Nick

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Hutton, John

Tipping, Paddy

Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)

Wicks, Malcolm

Janner, Greville

Wise, Audrey

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Wray, Jimmy

Khabra, Piara S

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Lewis, Terry

Livingstone, Ken

Tellers for the Noes:

McAllion, John

Mr. Harry Cohen and

Macdonald, Calum

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nigel Waterson, Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Angela Knight, Mr. John Marshall, Mr. John Sykes, Mr. Harold Elletson, Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Spencer Batiste, Mr. David Shaw, Mr. James Clappison, Mr. Charles Hendry and Dr. Robert Spink.

Employment of Illegal Immigrants
  Employment of Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Nigel Waterson accordingly presented a Bill to make it unlawful to employ an illegal immigrant; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July and to be printed. [Bill 123.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 25th May, do adjourn till Tuesday 6th June.—[Mr. Bates.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Gas Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  Gas Bill
    Clause 8

      STANDARD CONDITIONS OF LICENCES
      Amendment made: No. 3, in page 11, line 25, leave out 'and 26(1A)' and insert ', 26(1A) and 27(1A)'.—[Mr. Eggar.]
      5.13 pm
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 12, line 41, at end add—
      '(3) Standard conditions for gas suppliers shall include a duty on licence holders to take account of the needs of low income customers in laying down methods of payment and procedures regarding debt and disconnection.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 53, in page 12, line 41, at end add—
      '(3) Standard conditions for gas suppliers shall include a duty on licence holders to provide special services including those services that must be delivered by appropriately qualified home service advisers for meeting the needs of consumers of gas conveyed through pipes who are disabled or aged 60 years and over.'.
      Mr. Griffiths: The amendments are important because they concern the role of home service advisers who help elderly, disabled and blind people in their homes. At a face-to-face meeting, British Gas told me that it had to cut the budget in that sector to compete with the new firms that the Government seek to bring into the gas market. British Gas envisages that those firms will set low standards, so it has been forced to cut its services in line with them.
      I shall spend a few moments telling the House about the people who will suffer because of those terrible cuts by British Gas. Some 18 months ago, British Gas had more 150 home service advisers, who do not only visit schools and teach children about the value of using gas wisely and safely—an issue of danger of which everyone is well aware, especially people of our parents' and grandparents' generation. More importantly, the British Gas home service advisers have developed an unique role. They visit the homes of elderly, blind and disabled people and ensure that the gas fittings are safe and easy to use.
      If, for instance, by some misfortune a constituent should become blind and is a gas user, British Gas will send in a home service adviser at no cost to ensure that the appropriate Braille stickers are stuck onto the controls of the cooker to identify the grill, the oven and other parts of the cooker. For those with the misfortune to suffer from arthritis, which afflicts not just the elderly but younger people too, British Gas will send in a home service adviser with a range of adaptations to help them switch on their cooker. If it has small, fiddly knobs larger ones will be fitted so that the controls can be used more easily. If a heater cannot be operated because the control is at an awkward angle or of an awkward size so that arthritic fingers cannot grasp it, the home service adviser will adapt it as necessary.
      The amendments seek to ensure that the service is not only preserved, but extended to those entering the gas market, so that new gas companies which seek to cream

      181
      off domestic customers cannot turn their backs on those who are elderly, disabled or blind. That is vital because British Gas has already begun the process.
      Some 18 months ago, British Gas employed 136 home service advisers; now there are 78. It has reduced by about 50 the number of home service advisers so that geographical areas covering thousands of square miles of the country no longer benefit directly from that service. Last autumn, British Gas took away from Inverness, Aberdeen and the north of Scotland the only home service adviser based there. Now, if someone requests that service from British Gas, somebody from Perth, Edinburgh or Glasgow has to travel 100 or 150 miles to Inverness or to Thurso in the north of Scotland. A service that people took for granted a year ago has been cut by British Gas which told me and the Minister that it can no longer afford the £30 million to finance that and other related service.
      The amendments seek to ensure that the service is restored. The cuts in Scotland from 10 home service advisers 18 months ago to four now has been universally reflected throughout the United Kingdom. There are now no home service advisers on call in many constituencies. The service may be provided after some delay. If British Gas internal papers are to be believed, it may be provided at a cost, and British Gas has floated the cost of £25 for the service. The service may be withdrawn altogether. We believe that unless it is incorporated in the Bill, we may lose that extremely valuable service. We may lose the advice and help that is given by those highly trained key staff who visit people's homes.
      The Minister has already said that he wants the service protected, but under his stewardship, albeit remotely, the number of home service advisers has been cut by some 40 per cent. It is all very well for the Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and promise us that he wants that tremendous service to continue when he has done nothing to stop British Gas cutting it to the bone.
      If the Bill is left unamended, elderly, disabled and blind people will no longer be able to rely on a service that allows them to stay in their homes and that is part of community care. Until the Government insisted on further privatisation, British Gas did that job well. In the face of brutal competition, British Gas has slashed its budget and the number of home advisers.
      The Minister will be hard pressed to reassure the House that he can redress the balance and ensure that the elderly, the disabled and the blind enjoy an enhanced level of service. We want a guarantee that the number of advisers will be restored to the number that existed as recently as last autumn. Unless the Minister gives that assurance, we will view all his assurances on the Bill with considerable scepticism.
      The Minister for Industry and Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): The hon. Gentleman has gone in yet again for exaggerated rhetoric. It is interesting that, on the day that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) has made a speech allegedly in favour of competition, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) is claiming that the only form of competition is that which preserves in concrete the present situation. That approach is not taken by the Bill. The Government's approach is to maintain or enhance existing standards through licensing. Condition 17 of the gas suppliers licence will require licence holders to provide a series of special services on request and without charge to pensioners and the disabled. Some will require home visits.
      182
      There is an obligation to provide on request a free annual safety check of appliances and fittings on the customer's side of the meter. There is an obligation to provide on request a meter reading every quarter when neither the customer nor any other person living with the customer is able to read the meter. There is also an obligation to reposition gas meters. Those are three examples of visits to consumers' homes being required as a matter of practice.
      As a general principle, we do not intend to require all gas suppliers to do things exactly the same as British Gas. That is the nature of competition. There may be alternative ways of providing the same or better quality services, which competitors are free to develop and from which customers could doubtless benefit.
      The amendment—like so many presented by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South—seeks to make competition impossible and impracticable. The theme of the Opposition and their amendments is so to curb and confine the area in which competition can occur that there would be no competition. The amendment is the latest and most obvious example of the hon. Gentleman's contributions, and I cannot accept it.
      Ms Ann Coffey: The Minister will doubtless say that the terms of amendment No. 52 are already contained in condition 19 of the standard licence. However, it states that, when customers cannot pay,
      "the arrangements shall in relation to any of the licensee's domestic customers who through misfortune or inability to cope with credit terms for the supply of gas for domestic use incurs obligations to pay for gas for such use which he finds difficulty in discharging provide for".
      So, provided that that criterion is met, the supplier is obliged to consider certain arrangements for payment. It broadly continues the present arrangements for protecting consumers in debt but the phrase "misfortune or inability" is curious.
      How will such a customer be distinguished? Who will make the judgment that the customer is part of the deserving poor rather than of the undeserving poor? It appears that it will be for the supplier to decide whether the consumer is a can't-payer or a won't-payer and whether the supplier has any obligation to the defaulting customer. Defaulting customers have no effective redress in disputes over their rights. If a supplier decides that a customer is not part of the deserving poor, the customer has no way of making any representations against that decision.
      It is procedurally unclear who is obliged to take the initiative in bringing the appropriate arrangements into play. Will it be for the supplier to investigate or for the consumer to make his or her case when a debt has accumulated? The conditions leave it to the supplier to nominate conditions of supply, having made the judgment that an individual is part of the undeserving poor. That leaves customers with few rights. The director general would not be involved in any such disputes.
      Amendment No. 52 is important in placing an obligation on the director general to make certain that the licence conditions are discharged. Perhaps the director general could intervene in disputes between suppliers and their customers over the terms on which gas is supplied. Although condition 19 is part of the social obligation, its

      183
      drafting is unclear. I presume that the Minister will not accept the amendment but I would like to hear his response to my comments.
      Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I had expected the Minister to take the opportunity to persuade the House. He ducked the key issue of why it was right for British Gas to cut the number of home service advisers from 136 to 78, and he did not dwell on the valuable function performed by those advisers. The Minister commented on the lunchtime remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), in which I had a hand. The hon. Gentleman stated that his view of competition is not the same as ours. I say, "Hear, hear" to that. The Minister's approach is to make sure that the elderly or disabled go to the wall. That is the guiding principle of the Government of the day. If we support competition, it will not be at the cost of the poor, elderly, blind or otherwise disabled. If that is the clear blue water between Labour and the Conservative party, I am happy to be standing on this shore, not that one.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 15
      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendment made: No. 55, in page 16, line 31, after 'enactments', insert 'and instrument'.—[Mr. Eggar.]
    Clause 17

      SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT
      Amendments made: No. 56, in page 17, line 11, at end insert—
      '( ) Without prejudice to section 13 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (anticipatory exercise of powers), any power conferred on the Secretary of State or the Director by a provision of this Act which comes into force by virtue of subsection (2) above may be exercised before the appointed day provided that nothing done in the exercise of that power has effect before that day.'.
      No. 15, in page 17, line 15, after 'Act' insert
      ', except this section, subsections (1) to (6) of section 11 and paragraph 15 of Schedule 5,'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

    Schedule 2

      THE GAS CODE
      Amendments made: No. 57, in page 19, line 27, leave out
      'premises owned or occupied by him'
      and insert 'particular premises'.
      No. 58, in page 19, line 32, after first 'gas', insert 'conveyed to his premises'.
      No. 59, in page 19, line 33, leave out 'his' and insert 'those'.
      No. 60, in page 21, line 27, leave out 'Sub-paragraph (3) below applies' and insert
      'Sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A) below apply'.
      No. 61, in page 21, line 41, at beginning insert
      'If no other gas supplier has become a relevant supplier,'.
      No. 62, in page 21, line 45, at end insert—
      '(3A) If—

      (a) another gas supplier has become a relevant supplier ("the new supplier"); and

      184

      (b) the supplier has assigned to the new supplier his right to recover the charges due to him from the consumer,

      sub-paragraph (3) above shall apply as if any reference to the supplier were a reference to the new supplier.'.
      No. 63, in page 21, line 46, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 48 and insert
      'Sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A) above shall have effect subject to any restrictions imposed by conditions of the supplier's licence or, as the case may be, the new supplier's licence; and the powers conferred by those sub-paragraphs'.
      No. 64, in page 22, line 7, at end insert—

      THE GAS CODE

        'Deemed contracts in certain cases
        7A.—(1) Where a gas supplier supplies gas to a consumer otherwise than in pursuance of a contract, the supplier shall be deemed to have contracted with the consumer for the supply of gas as from the time when he began so to supply gas to the consumer.

        (2) Where—

        (a) a gas supplier ceases to supply gas to a consumer by reason of his ceasing to be the owner or occupier of any premises; and

        (b) otherwise than by arrangement with the supplier or another gas supplier, a new owner or occupier of the premises takes a supply of gas,

        the supplier shall be deemed to have contracted with the new owner or occupier for the supply of gas as from the time when the new owner or occupier began to take such a supply.

        (3) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall not apply in any case where gas is supplied or, as the case may be, a supply of gas is taken at a rate which is reasonably expected to exceed 75,000 therms a year.

        (4) If a gas supplier at any time so elects, sub-paragraph (3) above shall have effect, so far as relating to him and to supplies begun to be made or taken after that time, as if the reference to 75,000 therms were a reference to 2,500 therms.

        (5) If a gas supplier at any time withdraws an election under sub-paragraph (4) above, sub-paragraph (3) above shall have effect, so far as relating to him and to supplies begun to be made or taken after that time, without the modification made by sub-paragraph (4) above.

        (6) The express terms and conditions of a contract which, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above, is deemed to have been made shall be provided for by a scheme made under this paragraph.

        (7) Each gas supplier shall make, and from time to time revise, a scheme for determining the terms and conditions which are to be incorporated in the contracts which, by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (2) above, are to be deemed to have been made.

        (8) A scheme under this paragraph may make different provisions for different cases or classes of cases determined by, or in accordance with, the provisions of the scheme.

        (9) As soon as practicable after a gas supplier makes a scheme under this paragraph, a revision of such a scheme, an election under sub-paragraph (4) above or a withdrawal under sub-paragraph (5) above of such an election, he shall—

        (a) publish, in such manner as he considers appropriate for bringing it to the attention of persons likely to be affected by it, a notice stating the effect of the scheme, revision, election or withdrawal;

        (b) send a copy of the scheme, revision, election or withdrawal to the Director and to the Council; and

        (c) if so requested by any other person, send such a copy to that person without charge to him.'.

        No. 16, in page 22, line 21, leave out 'discontinue' and insert 'cut off.
        No. 65, in page 22, line 29, leave out 'any' and insert 'a consumer's'.
        No. 66, in page 22, line 30, leave out 'any' and insert 'a consumer's'.
        No. 67, in page 22, line 44, leave out from 'off to end of line 48 and insert

        185
        ', the consent of the supplier who cut off the supply, or the consent of a person who is or is about to become a relevant gas supplier'.
        No. 68, in page 23, line 22, at end insert—

        'Failure to notify disconnection of meter
        .—(1) This paragraph applies where any meter through which gas has been supplied to any premises is completely disconnected, that is to say, is disconnected both from the service pipe and from all other pipes within the premises.
        (2) Except in so far as it is not reasonably practicable for him to do so, the person making the disconnection shall—

        (a) ascertain the name and address of the owner of the meter; and

        (b) inform that owner of the disconnection and of the address at which the meter will be available for collection.

        (3) If any person fails to comply with sub-paragraph (2) above, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Eggar.]
        Mr. Eggar: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 25, line 2, after 'informed' insert
        'by any person ("the informant")'.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 18 and 19.
        Mr. Eggar: It might be of assistance to the House if I mentioned that these amendments give effect to a commitment that I gave in Committee, following our debates there.
        Amendment agreed to.
        Amendments made: No. 18, in page 25, line 3, leave out from 'gas' to 'to' in line 8 and insert
        '(other than one, in the case of a transporter, that he is required by sub-paragraph (1) above to prevent), he passes the information on, without avoidable delay, either—
        (a) to a responsible person, that is to say, a person appearing to him—

        (i) to be responsible (whether under that sub-paragraph or otherwise) for preventing the escape; or

        (ii)".

        No. 19, in page 25, line 9, at end insert 'or
        (b) to a nominated person, that is to say, a person nominated by a responsible person to receive information about escapes of gas on his behalf.
        (6) There shall be a sufficient compliance with sub-paragraph (5) above if the transporter, supplier or shipper is satisfied that the informant—

        (a) intends to pass the information on, without avoidable delay, to a nominated person; and

        (b) is in a position to do so.

        (7) References in sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) above to the passing on of information to a nominated person are references to the passing on of information to that person in such manner (if any) as may be specified by the responsible person by whom that person was nominated.'
        No. 20, in page 26, line 27, leave out 'from the supplier' and insert 'or'.
        No. 21, in page 26, line 29, leave out from third 'gas' to end of line 33.
        No. 22, in page 26, line 41, leave out 'gas fitting or meter' and insert
        'meter or other gas fitting'.
        No. 23, in page 26, line 46, at end insert—

        'Entry for removing fittings and meters
        .—(1) This paragraph applies where—
        186

        (a) a person occupying premises supplied with gas through a meter or other gas fitting owned by a public gas transporter or gas supplier ceases to take a supply through that meter or fitting; or

        (b) a person entering into occupation of any premises previously supplied with gas through a meter or other gas fitting so owned does not take a supply of gas through that meter or fitting.

        (2) Any officer authorised by the public gas transporter or gas supplier, after 24 hours' notice to the occupier, or to the owner of the premises if they are unoccupied, may at all reasonable times, on production of some duly authenticated document showing his authority, enter the premises for the purpose of removing the meter or other gas fitting.
        (3) Sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 19 above applies for the purposes of this paragraph as it applies for the purposes of that paragraph.'—[Mr. Eggar.]
        5.30 pm
        Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move amendment No. 88, in page 27, line 44, at end add—

        'Duties of relevant gas shipper or supplier in relation to gas fittings
        23. (1) It shall be the duty of any relevant gas shipper or supplier to make arrangements for the supply of spare parts for, or replacements of, any gas fitting or appliance of a type approved under Regulations made under this Act or under any other enactment.
        (2) The Secretary of State shall—

        (a) make Regulations specifying the nature and extent of the obligations imposed by subsection (1) above upon relevant gas shippers or suppliers; and

        (b) monitor the carrying out of those obligations, which may be modified or added to in further Regulations.

        (3) Regulations made under subsection (2) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
        We now move to an issue that is also of great importance to the consumers of gas, of whom notionally the Minister is in favour—that is presumably why he has introduced the Bill. I say "notionally", because there is an element of doubt, as we heard during the last debate.
        Amendment No. 88, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms), relates to spare parts and the replacement of approved appliances—everything inside the house which is known in the technical jargon as "upstream" of the supply, which means everything the other side of the meter which is the responsibility of the householder who pays for the gas and not of the supplier.
        Newham knows all about the production and supply of gas. In Victorian times, and until fairly recently—before North sea gas—we had more than 700 acres of land dedicated to this very purpose. We had Beckton, one of the biggest gas works in the world, 90 miles of railway lines, and a workshop capable of making railway locomotives. So gas skills are indigenous to the area.
        The beginnings of the gas industry, from the earliest days of the Gas Light and Coke company, whose works were in Marsham street—those round foundations are reputed to have something to do with original gasholders—were approved in this House. Gas was originally used for lighting; power and heating came later. The rules governing its use were approved in this very House. The interests of the producer were balanced against those of the consumer of a very dangerous but very useful product.

        187
        Over the years, all the private gas companies linked the safety of their product with the safety and interests of consumers. If a gas appliance goes wrong, or is faulty, the consequences are much greater than with electricity. If a fuse blows, that is inconvenient; if there is a gas leak, or something is wrong with a gas appliance, it is a very different matter.
        The historic link between the obligations on the supplier and the safety of the consumer and the general public was a principle well-known to this House. I understand, however, that this Bill disaggregates the two. There is, necessarily, a well-known set of regulations relating to approved appliances. One cannot just connect any appliance from any manufacturer to any supply of gas. The calorific value has to be right; the appliance has to be adjusted correctly and approved. If not, problems will follow. That is only common sense.
        Over the years, the Gas Light and Coke Company, or North Thames Gas as it became—British Gas as it now is—prized that link. Many of my constituents were involved in gas servicing and were proud of it. Now, for the first time, the pattern is to be disrupted and possibly even destroyed. Time and again with privatisation measures, the Government have given us assurances that all is well. As I shall show briefly, however, this time things have begun to go wrong even before the legislation leaves this House.
        Some 200 of the 700 acres that I have mentioned were used, first by the North Thames gas board and then by British Gas, as a service centre for the whole of London, originally, and then for the whole of south-east England. Until not long ago, that service centre was being expanded. Workshops and depots were being closed as far away as Letchworth and other parts of the south-east, and the plan was to build a depot at Bromley-by-Bow, to the east of the River Lea—in West Ham, not Tower Hamlets. It was a good service site with plenty of roads, space and good workshops.
        That integrated site is now to be broken up, under the legislation, into five or six units run by different firms. Wire fences are even being put up on the site. That does not seem to make sense, but the Government think it a good thing. The main point about the site is the giant store. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East and I have visited it, so we know that it houses no fewer than 20,000 spare parts. No doubt there are various types of each part; the mind boggles at how many bits and pieces are stored there in total—all in giant stacks, serviced by the latest unmanned electronically guided vehicles.
        The parts are sent to service engineers and distribution depots all over south-east England in just a few hours. The parts are packed away in trailers which return to the warehouse and take them away overnight to the depots. Like many Londoners, I have personal experience of British Gas's relatively good efficiency. It had a bad time in the conversion period, but since then I have found the company extra-efficient.
        Within the company finances, I suspect that the process may be something of a loss leader. As we know, however, loss leaders produce more profits and turnover: that is what they are there for. If the organisation is split up by the Bill into different businesses—to be known, I believe, as service and sales—one section will be left more
        188
        vulnerable than the other as the two cease to be integrated and each tries to make a profit for itself without any statutory responsibility for the welfare of the other.
        Mr. Stephen Timms: On the basis of our visit, does my hon. Friend agree that the facility at Bromley-by-Bow is an impressive operation which has been the beneficiary of substantial investment by British Gas in the recent past? Does he further agree that there is a link between the uncertainty which now hangs over that operation, and perhaps others like it, which the amendment addresses, and the marked fall in customer confidence in British Gas as reported by the Gas Consumers Council in its 1994 annual report?
        Mr. Spearing: The fact of rising complaints about the gas industry is well known. I think that I can satisfy my hon. Friend because even before the legislation has completed its passage through the House changes are being made in plans for servicing in particular. Spare parts and servicing go together. If one has an annual inspection of gas appliances—I am not declaring an interest, but all consumers do—if there is something wrong, the service engineer promises to come back the next day or the next week with a spare part. He has got to get it, so it is all part of one thing.
        We were told that that giant depot, which I believe is efficient and could have coped with an area larger than south-east England, would be closed—just like that—and 200 or 300 people were to be made redundant, despite their skills and their pride in their work. Pride in service is the sort of thing that Conservative Members are keen on. Those people were not to be made compulsorily redundant: they could have had a job in Derby or Nottingham or somewhere like that. The whole gubbins, the whole bang shoot, was to be dissipated.
        I wrote to British Gas to ask what it was all about. I wrote a thesis several pages long, which I will not bore the House with, analysing the Gas Bill. I received a reply from Mr. Norman Blacker, one of the directors of British Gas, who had been allocated the task by Mr. Giordano, who also sent me a short reply. Mr. Blacker said:
        "Your letter also asks about our Service and Retail operations. Our new Service Business Unit already operates in a highly competitive market. Our reorganisation is designed to allow us to compete effectively with the other 40,000 or so companies operating in this field. At the same time we will maintain our aim of providing high standards of service throughout the country."
        Note that he says "maintain our aim", not "maintain the standards". The letter continued:
        "Service will be introducing home-based working for its engineers to help increase our competitiveness by removing the need for expensive depots which are only used for a short period every day. Customers will not notice any adverse effect as a result of the service they receive from our engineers, who will obtain their work information and parts directly, rather than having to make a special journey to a depot … This should save time during the working day and make for more efficient operations … Details of how this home-based working pattern will be implemented are being discussed with the relevant trade unions."
        In other words, men in vans, parked outside their homes, having delivered in all sorts of curious places, would cut out the distribution depots.
        Mr. Ted Rowlands: I draw my hon. Friend's attention to an illustration of exactly that. With a fanfare of trumpets, the noble Lord Walker opened a major depot as part of his valleys initiative. It has now been closed. Instead, the engineers

        189
        go to a green box at the side of a petrol filling station to pick up their bags and instructions. It may be efficient, but it is completely contradictory to the policy adopted only recently by the noble Lord Walker.
        Mr. Spearing: I am not surprised to hear what my hon. Friend says. My recollection is that, other than being very successful in public relations as Secretary of State for Wales—
        Mr. Rowlands: And Secretary of State for Energy.
        Mr. Spearing:—and Secretary of State for Energy, when I think he was very much concerned with gas, he is some functionary in the gas world. I suppose that he must have come under the scrutiny of another noble Lord in a recent report about which we all know—an interesting link.
        5.45 pm
        I am grateful to my hon. Friend but, unknown to him, I was coming to same topic. In the Observer on 22 January 1995, an article headed
        "British Gas engineers go to church for spares"
        said:
        "British Gas service engineers are using motorway flyovers, pub car parks and church halls as collection points for spare parts, as the company struggles to introduce a new service infrastructure."
        Mr. Rowlands: And petrol filling stations.
        Mr. Spearing: And petrol filling stations, as my hon. Friend says. I do not think that the Government can deny that. Is that unconnected with what my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East reminded us of, if we needed reminding—the downturn in service standards and upturn in complaints? Does the Minister deny that the one follows the other? That is before the appointed day and before the 40,000 competing service engineers get going.
        I wonder what sort of cut-throat competition there will now be in the industry. Is competition really required? We may disagree with double gas pipes in the ground—that may seem stupid enough—or gas from different suppliers going into one house on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, but is it necessary to have people other than suppliers competing? The Minister must either deny that that is going on or accept it and, I hope, support the amendment.
        The depot at Bromley-by-Bow, with the skills and loyalty of its staff who are working all the time, is a symbol of service to the public throughout the nation. The knock-on effect of its closure and its replacement by the church hall, motorway flyover and filling station, about which we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), is a symbol of the downturn in the standards of maintenance.
        What about the skills in the gas service industry? Many years ago in my other job, I helped to place school pupils—experience outside the House, as Lord Nolan calls it, and very useful—and I found that British Gas apprenticeships were not only the most sought after but were often the start of lifelong careers. Many people from my part of the world and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East served the gas industry for most of their lives and were pleased to do so under the relatively benign regime of the Gas Light and Coke Company and the even better regime of British Gas and the publicly owned sector of it. Their skills and those of
        190
        the private contractors under some sort of licence which some think is not good enough, were built up on the apprenticeships of the gas industry. What will happen to those skills?
        This is part of so-called privatisation. This commodity, which is of great value to us, is not produced privately. It is publicly owned gas in the middle of the North sea, or thereabouts, piped to us. The gas in the North sea cannot be owned other than by the British people. I see that the Minister nods. Under this legislation, it is being privately distributed by a curious system of competition under the regulator. The obligations on the supplier should be to maintain those services that we have had from private and public gas suppliers alike. I believe that that is incorporated in the amendment.
        Even if we do not get very far tonight, I am looking to the Minister to deny any of the facts that I have presented and to say why the obligation in the amendment, perhaps in another form, should not be incorporated in this important Bill, which for the first time disaggregates the obligation of the supplier to supply, maintain and provide—at a reasonable cost, of course—for the safety of the equipment upstream of the meter.
        Mr. Eggar: I do not want to be unnecessarily unkind to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), but at least some of his obiter dicta suggest that he has not read the Bill in its entirety and does not understand the full implications of what is proposed. In fairness to him, however, I concede that he was concentrating on a constituency point.
        The hon. Gentleman failed to appreciate that the 40,000 competitors to whom he and, I believe, Mr. Blacker referred have been around for a long time. For years, they—the so-called Corgi-approved operators—have competed with British Gas, including the element of British Gas that looks after appliances "upstream of the meter", as the hon. Gentleman put it. There has never been any obligation on those operators to stock limitless spare parts; like garages, they have developed a system that has allowed them access to warehouses. I believe that they have sometimes had direct access to British Gas warehouses.
        The amendment proposes that new suppliers should be obliged to keep a stock of spares for which, in fact, they would have no use. Many of those suppliers supply only gas, and have no desire to supply appliances. They recognise not only that British Gas will continue—presumably—to provide an effective spares service, but that those 40,000 competitors will do the same. The hon. Gentleman's proposal constitutes an imposition on potential suppliers: it is rather like requiring water companies to supply washers to repair leaking taps, which no one has ever suggested.
        I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about employment in his constituency, and appreciate that, as a constituency Member, he must support the interests of his constituents. I must say, however, that the logic of his amendment is fundamentally flawed. The competitive marketplace has provided many sources of servicing and spares, and I have no doubt that it will continue to do so without the need for legislative intervention.
        Mr. Nigel Griffiths: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has done the House a service in highlighting the problems that now face gas

        191
        consumers. They are of recent making. British Gas is fearful of the opening of a competitive market, and the impact on the public is clear to my hon. Friend and to me—and, I think, to 8 million gas consumers. It is a good prelude to what will happen when the Bill is enacted.
        Before 1 January, British Gas service engineers held a range of spares in their vans. Those spares were held in depots throughout the country, in case engineers were called out in an emergency to cut off cookers or heaters because they contained defective parts. That was part of the service for which customers paid, and it enabled engineers to reconnect many appliances because their vans contained standard stock from the depots.
        In Committee, the Minister argued forcefully for an end to that practice. He failed to take on board not just the fact that members of the public might be left without a working cooker or heater—which, of course, is a tremendous imposition on the elderly and disabled—but the fact that an irresponsible or, indeed, criminally negligent person might reconnect the appliance without having it fixed. That would mean a cost to the community: not merely the person concerned, but his or her family and neighbours, might be blown up. In his creditable amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South seeks to ensure that gas suppliers supply more than just gas itself.
        A very old hand—a former director of British Gas, now retired—told me, "The problem with the gas market now is that you do not have to know anything about it; you just have to have a phone, a desk and a sympathetic bank manager. You order the gas on the phone, at beach-head prices, and agree to supply it somewhere—and British Gas TransCo has to put it down its pipes. You have no social obligations; you have no obligations to hold spares that the public might want."
        My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South focused perceptively on my main fear, eliciting a hopelessly inadequate response from the Minister. I fear that the new gas competitors will merely supply gas, and that people who have problems with their gas appliances—regardless of whether they have been supplied by British Gas—will be left to lump it, no matter how old, poor or crippled they may be. I fear that the new competitors, as private contractors, will be able to walk away from the problem.
        My hon. Friend rightly sought to pin the Minister down, and he did so with a degree of cleverness which belied the Minister's own clever view of himself. He pinned the Minister down to saying, "Why should people who are simply supplying gas—for that is what competition is about—supply any additional services? Why should they keep spare parts at all?"
        Having discussed the amendment with my hon. Friend, I can say that he knows that this excellent measure is likely to receive a sympathetic hearing from people more thoughtful than the Government.
        Mr. Spearing: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman usually knows the rules of the House in great detail, but I must point out to him that on this occasion he does not need the leave of the House to speak.
        Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I believe in good insurance policies.
        I shall, I hope, find it not too difficult to demolish the logic of the Minister, who claims that I am illogical. He began by saying that I had not read the Bill—I confess that I have not read all of it—and that something in the Bill rendered the amendment redundant. Having implied that the evidence was there, however, he did not produce it. He also said, "Of course I forgive the hon. Gentleman, and pat him on the head: he was making a constituency point, which he had to make. We all know about that, ho ho."
        In fact, my point applies to 8 million consumers. It is illustrated by what is happening in a depot in West Ham, which is three times the size of a football pitch and which, according to the accountants, will be too costly to maintain. "Oh," says the Minister, "There will be 40,000 contractors, all ready and waiting. Indeed, they are there now." He means the CORGI contractors.
        I shall not go into the details, because we must make progress, but there is considerable worry about the standards to which those so-called CORGI contractors operate. That may have been dealt with in other parts of the Bill. Those contractors have been riding on the backs of the gas suppliers, especially in my part of the world, which is covered by North Thames Gas.
        The Minister says, "Well, the contractors will be able to provide spares from somewhere else." Owing to various factors and the involvement of other people, however, the cost of the operation will escalate. Showrooms have been mentioned. I recall that someone in another place about which we are not supposed to know wrote a wonderful article about how he tried to obtain a new electric stove.
        It was possible to go to a one-stop shop for electrical appliances, which provided advice and a variety of products, but will that be possible in future? Will it be possible to pay bills, obtain advice, examine appliances and secure spare parts? I very much doubt it. There will not be such a service. The Minister said that there would be an imposition on new suppliers, and therein lies the rub. He is defending the new suppliers but is there not an obligation on all public gas suppliers, whether old or new, to make the supply safe for the consumer?
        6 pm
        The Minister used water supply as an analogy. Perhaps he does not know that many years ago I had a slight connection with the water industry—not, I hasten to add, in terms of income but as a decorative vice-president of the British Waterworks Association. There is all the difference in the world between a leaking tap and a gas leak. A water leak is visible and the supply can be turned off at the main or other action taken. Perhaps the Minister does not know that water companies readily supplied free washers. A consumer could telephone the supplier, who fitted the washer free. It was covered by the water rates, in the old days when we paid water rates and not water charges. The Minister's analogy with the water industry and water taps is therefore wrong.

        193
        It is clear that people want gas and are willing to pay for it, but they want it supplied in a safe manner and they want to be assured that equipment and spare parts are available. The Bill will not maintain the standards to which people in this country have been accustomed from the gas industry for perhaps more than a century. I hope that at some later stage in the progress of the Bill that will be understood and rectified. As I know where the Bill goes next, and as the Government may have second thoughts, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 3

      OTHER AMENDMENTS OF PART I OF 1986 ACT
      Amendments made: No. 69, in page 28, leave out lines 31 to 35 and insert—
      '(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, a consent under subsection (2) above may be given subject to compliance with—

      (a) such modification or other conditions as the Director considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of protecting the interests of consumers; and

      (b) such incidental or consequential modification conditions as he considers necessary or expedient.'.

      No. 70, in page 29, line 25, after '4', insert ', 7A'.
      No. 71, in page 35, line 13, leave out
      'with gas by a gas supplier'
      and insert
      'by a gas supplier with gas conveyed to particular premises'.
      No. 24, in page 30, line 45, leave out 'after consultation with' and insert 'with the consent of'.
      No. 25, in page 31, line 30, at end insert—
      '( ) the making or maintenance of the connection would involve a new or increased supply of gas to the premises in question;'.
      No. 26, in page 31, line 35, leave out 'that rate' and insert
      'the new or increased supply'.
      No. 27, in page 33, line 35, at end insert—
      '( ) The Director may by notice in writing require a public gas transporter to give to the Director, or to any person appointed by him for the purpose, within such time and at such place as may be specified in the notice, such information as the Director may reasonably require for the purpose of making regulations under this section or of giving directions under such regulations.'
      No. 28, in page 34, line 18, leave out second 'of' and insert 'owned or occupied by'.
      No. 4, in page 36, line 53, leave out 'and (4)' insert 'to (4A)'.
      No. 5, in page 37, line 14, leave out 'the stamping of' and insert 'another person to stamp'.
      No. 6, in page 37, line 18, leave out
      'or authorised to stamp it'.
      No. 7, in page 37, line 21, leave out from 'submission' to 'and' in line 22.
      No. 8, in page 37, line 24, at end insert—
      '(4A) A meter examiner may authorise another person to stamp a meter, notwithstanding that he has not himself examined it, if—

      (a) the meter was manufactured or repaired by that person;

      (b) that person has obtained the consent of the Director to his stamping of the meter; and

      (c) any conditions subject to which the consent was given have been satisfied.'.

      No. 29, in page 43, line 9, leave out from beginning to 'with' in line 10 and insert 'he has consulted'.
      194
      No. 9, in page 43, line 48, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 2 on page 44 and insert
      'licences under section 7 above, licences under subsection (1) of section 7A above or licences under subsection (2) of that section, he—
      (a)'.
      No. 10, in page 44, line 5, at end insert 'and
      (b) may make such incidental or consequential modifications as he considers necessary or expedient of any conditions of licences under that provision granted before that time.'.
      No. 72, in page 46, line 34, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1A) above'.
      No. 11, in page 46, line 48, leave out from 'holder" to 'a' in line 49 and insert—

      '(a) in relation to a reference under subsection (1A) above, means the holder of a licence to which the reference relates;

      (b) in relation to the modification of'.

      No. 12, in page 46, line 50, leave out
      'a licence holder whose licence'
      and insert
      'the holder of a licence which'.
      No. 30, in page 48, leave out lines 6 to 8 and insert—
      '(b) for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
      "(b) the circumstances are as mentioned in section 73(1) of that Act (order on report on merger reference) and at least one of the two or more enterprises which ceased, or (in the application of that provision as it has effect by virtue of section 75(4)(e) of that Act) which would cease, to be distinct enterprises was or, as the case may be, is engaged in the carrying on of activities authorised by a licence;".'
      No. 73, in page 53, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert—

      ' "(a) such activities as are mentioned in section 5(1) above; and

      (b) activities ancillary to such activities.".'.

      No. 74, in page 54, line 11, leave out from 'activities' to 'and' in line 12 and insert
      'to which this subsection applies'.
      No. 75, in page 54, leave out lines 22 to 24 and insert
      'the carrying on of activities to which this subsection applies'.
      No. 76, in page 54, line 26, at end insert—
      '( ) Subsections (2) and (3) above apply to—

      (a) activities required or authorised by licences;

      (b) such activities as are mentioned in section 5(1) above, whether or not so authorised; and

      (c) the storage of gas.'.

      No. 31, in page 56, line 11, leave out 'road' and insert 'motor'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

    Schedule 4

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 32, in page 64, line 23, after 'and' insert 'section 22A(1)(b) of and'.
      No. 77, in page 66, line 42, at end insert—

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
        'Central Rating Lists Regulations 1994 (S. I. 1994/3121)
        . In Part 3 of the Schedule to the Central Rating Lists Regulations 1994, for the words "public gas supplier", in both places where they occur, there shall be substituted the words "public gas transporter".'.—[Mr. Eggar.]
    Schedule 5

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
      Sir John Hannam: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 68, line 19, leave out from 'register' to end of line 22 and insert—
      'and
      (b) subject to that and to the provisions of any contract entered into before the passing of this Act shall be binding on all persons.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 41, in page 68, line 27, at end insert—
      '(7) No provision such as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) above shall apply to any contract entered into before the passing of this Act.'.
      Sir John Hannam: The amendments deal with the assignment of rights and liabilities. Like so many of my hon. Friends, I welcomed the Bill when it was introduced in March. Consumers in the industrial and commercial gas supply market have already benefited by substantial savings of up to 20 per cent. as a result of competitive marketing. In April 1996, when the domestic gas pilot project comes into operation in the south-west, my constituents in and around Exeter will be some of the first domestic users to benefit from the liberalisation of this market.
      The anticipated price differential from which my constituents will benefit can be compared with the reductions that occurred in the telecom market when increased competitiveness forced British Telecom to become more efficient, allowing it to narrow its margins in line with the rest of the market. That has been the experience in the supply of gas to the industrial market, almost to the point at which the independent suppliers are now finding it hard to realise a respectable return on their investment in such a competitive marketplace.
      When the industrial market was opened up, the composition of the initial supplier or producers of gas from the North sea remained unchanged, as did the size of the marketplace, creating the demand for a supply of gas in factories, smelting works and brick works throughout the United Kingdom's industrial base. Similarly, exploration and production companies will continue to produce gas from the fields that they have been operating for as long as 15 years, and the domestic market will remain constant, or its size and the demand for gas may increase.
      For those reasons, I am concerned at the precedent that is being set in paragraph 2 of schedule 5 to the Bill, which effectively invites the renegotiation of gas supply contracts at the well or production end just because the gas supplier at the street or consumer end will possibly change at some time between 1996 and 1998 or beyond.
      Historically, most gas sale contracts have been long-term arrangements, typically for the projected life of a field, and they were concluded between the field owners and British Gas. For example, the Hewett field principal agreement was concluded in 1968 and still survives.
      Gasfield owners require some certainty that the buyer will buy a certain amount of gas in each contract year, and British Gas required some certainty that the seller
      196
      would deliver those same amounts each year. Gas sale contracts have been concluded in that way for a number of reasons, principally that, first, gas is not a commodity which can be easily moved around the world like oil. Therefore, a seller's choice of buyer is restricted and for many years the only customer has been British Gas.
      Secondly, the cost of offshore operations is such that, as soon as the field is brought on stream, it cannot be economically suspended. The decision to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in a particular asset has been taken on the basis of a secure long-term contract to sell the gas that is produced. I should mention that the capital investment going into that hundreds of millions of pounds development has been raised to commission exploration and development projects, and has been offered by banks on the understanding that repayment would be achieved from a steady revenue stream arising from one long-term contract and one long-term customer: British Gas, which, one would assume, has an exceptional credit and status rating in corporate lending circles.
      Paragraph 2 of schedule 5 as currently drafted would permit British Gas to assign gas contracts, without counter-party assent, to an affiliate that may not have the financial means and structure necessary, or even the inclination to meet commitments that British Gas made on freely entering into those contracts, such as take or pay contracts. As written, that could and would include existing gas supply contracts. As the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said:
      "If the going got really rough, British Gas could allow those smaller operations to founder as companies and its obligations would then disappear. The gas suppliers would be left to pick up the tab."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 April 1995; c. 327.]
      If the provision were enacted in its current form, it would have profoundly damaging consequences, both in relation to the future development of Britain's offshore oil and gas resources—and hence longer-term gas supply security—and internationally to the sanctity of contracts, a principle that is fundamental to the interests of a country whose offshore sector enjoys such extensive international investment.
      By applying the schedule in a retrospective manner, there is a strong chance that the sanctity of contracts, an essential prerequisite of long-run international business, will be threatened. Let us not forget that those contracts were freely entered into by two responsible and consenting parties.
      I know that this matter has been discussed to some extent in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Minister likened the guarantees for gas contracts to other items "of varying magnitude" which British Gas purchases. He mentioned everything from computers, to telephones to office cleaners. With all due respect, it is not quite appropriate to compare gas contracts worth millions of pounds with cleaning contracts.
      As we know, liberalisation is happening in a phased manner, commencing with a trial area of approximately 2 million homes in the west country around April next year. I can find no valid reason why the assigning of rights and liabilities should not apply to gas contracts negotiated and agreed after the Bill has received Royal Assent.

      197
      My proposed amendments avoid the provisions of schedule 5 applying to contracts in existence before Royal Assent. Amendment No. 41 makes the transfer binding on everyone, subject to the consent of anyone whose consent would otherwise be necessary under the terms of the contract. That serves to clarify the position that the amendments, grouped together, attempt to preserve only existing contractual positions.
      Any gas supply contracts negotiated after Royal Assent would be subject to liabilities being reassigned, but then at least both parties negotiating would be aware of that extra dimension during negotiation.
      In that way, sanctity of contract would be maintained and the future development of Britain's offshore oil and gas resources, and hence longer-term gas supply security, would no longer be threatened. The United Kingdom continental shelf would continue to receive the extensive international investment that it enjoys.
      I know that my hon. Friend has had meetings with the United Kingdom Offshore Association in recent days and over the past week and that he is fully aware of the concerns of the gas supply industry. I hope that he will respond to those fears today.
      Mr. O'Neill: The amendment is broadly the same as the amendment that we debated in Committee, and it is being considered at roughly the same stage in proceedings as that amendment. It is unfortunate that such an important matter should be considered at what is, to all intents and purposes, the fag end of proceedings. It is important, however, that we debate it again, because, in Committee, the Minister did not fully appreciate the concerns that were expressed by the other parties, as it were, in the liberalisation process: the suppliers of gas in the first instance.
      Discussions have taken place. It would be useful if the Minister reported on them this evening. I am not sure whether they will necessarily be accepted by everyone in the industry. Like the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), a number of people from a variety of companies have come to see me. Although there is always a degree of special pleading in these matters, tonight I shall focus only on one important point: the sanctity of contract.
      6.15 pm
      I can well imagine that, perhaps in about 18 months' time, if a Labour Government were to introduce utilities regulations or changes in arrangements that were seen to favour a major employer who had a fully unionised work force and to whom it was considered the Labour party might be sympathetic, and if some attempt were made to nudge a piece of legislation slightly in that employer's direction, that tilting would be regarded with great suspicion and as something akin to the end of western civilisation. People would say that the Labour party was seeking to distort the law of contract, on which the whole of our business system seems to rest. As a consequence, we would be the subject of opprobrium from the press and everyone else.
      The Government may be lucky that they have not attracted such attention, and that the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association and bodies such as Brindex have been adopting a softly, softly approach, but contracts that were entered into before the original privatisation, which have been running, as has been said,
      198
      for the best part of 25 years in one or two instances, still have some time to go, and a number of considerations must be taken into account.
      We would like to think that the good name of Britain would not be the subject of international disdain. The United Kingdom continental shelf has still some time to operate as an active oil and gas field. We want to ensure that companies will come to the North sea and to the west of Shetland in the certain knowledge that, when a deal is struck, it is struck in all good faith, and that abrogations will not take place.
      We recognise that circumstances have changed and that British Gas does not require gas in the quantities to which it once subscribed. When it entered into some of those contracts, it did not have the Morecambe field at its disposal. It does not need all the gas that it is contracted to purchase, but it might be able to purchase more if it were not taking so much of its gas from the Morecambe field. That is an internal matter that must be the subject of negotiation.
      It will be helpful if the Minister tells us what the state of the negotiations are. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Exeter, in the initial consideration of this matter, the Minister's response was not fully considered or wholly adequate as he drew analogies with other pieces of privatisation legislation that, frankly, were not directly relevant. He also, in relation to British Gas's operation, drew internal analogies that were not appropriate because, as has been pointed out, agreements for office supplies and the like are different from agreements that are entered into on a large financial scale and that relate to important contracts of an international character. I hope that the Minister will be able to give some hope that there will be stability and that negotiations will be entered into, with all sides being able to reach a satisfactory compromise.
      It has been argued that the amendment would perhaps tilt the balance too much the other way. In many respects, and quite deservedly so on occasions, the Minister is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. On this occasion, he has shown favour to a British company for reasons that were not fully appreciated, and that favour could rebound on other British companies at other times. As I said, if a Labour Government had introduced the provision, we would have had the coals of hell heaped on our heads, and probably correctly so, because it would have suggested a degree of favour for one company against another and would undermine the sanctity of contract law.
      It is incumbent upon the Minister to tell us now, in terms that he was not able to use in Committee, where he stands. We also need to know, through their trade associations, how satisfied the oil and gas companies have been with some of the undertakings that he has suggested might be the way out of this difficult problem.
      Mr. Robert Banks: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on tabling the amendment and on the way in which he presented his case. He has drawn support from the Opposition Front Bench, which usually strikes a chord of alarm, but the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) stressed the sanctity of contracts, and that rings true with me because it is why I support the amendment.
      As far as possible, I have always resisted retrospective legislation. I believe that contracts undertaken, particularly in this instance, should always be honoured

      199
      as best as is possible. I support and fully respect the merits of the Bill. It is a great Bill. It frees up competition and will do a remarkable job in reducing prices for the consumer. It makes British Gas a wholly different animal with the separation of gas supplies from the monopoly over the gas pipeline network.
      Although there is full justification for the new arrangement, those companies with long-term investments based on supply contracts with British Gas are disadvantaged because British Gas is not held to the original contracts, as has been expressed, and because gas companies are having to renegotiate from a position of weakness. In the past, British Gas has benefited from the continuity of its supplies at prices which were set under the contractual agreements. As has been said, in some cases those agreements go back over 20 years or more. At the same time, gas companies have had the opportunity to plan and raise finance on a long-term investment programme on the basis of the contracts that have been given.
      Mr. Michael Clapham: Is it not a fact that all those contracts are indexed to either the retail prices index or the price of oil?
      Mr. Banks: I do not know the answer to that because I do not have that information. I imagine that some of the contracts would be indexed and some would not. That is a matter that we could check at a later date.
      We must bear in mind not just the on-going revenue that arises from the contracts and the assuredness of the programme of investment that the companies have made and must continue to make, but the dismantling of the gas rigs when they have exhausted their fields. There is a big question mark about how the rigs are to be disposed of. Considerable costs will be involved, and the contracts will become all the more valuable because that must be borne in mind.
      The fact that these companies will have to renegotiate the pricing levels of gas while British Gas will have a free hand to place the contracts with one or more of its affiliate companies causes some concern because, as I understand it, those companies do not have the right to voice their opinions as to the viability, competitiveness, competence and financial stability of the affiliate companies. All in all, a great deal of work has to be done to arrive at a position that is fair to the companies that supply British Gas and which will ensure that they get a fair deal in the future. Those companies will naturally want assurances about the companies that will take over the contracts that they had, hitherto, with British Gas. That should be fully understood by British Gas and I should like to see it woven into the legislation in some way.
      The length of the contractual obligations and the price structures in the original contracts should be taken into account in the negotiations of new terms which will be necessary as a result of this legislation. We must look carefully at the situation because some companies with substantial infrastructure investments will suffer considerable losses. I accept that we are facing changed circumstances, but there are obligations that must be fulfilled if we are to see the contracts honoured.
      Gas companies achieving a high price structure—higher than the market at present—as a result of some of the old contracts could be placed in a more favourable
      200
      position for the price cutting of the surplus gas that they have available to put on the market. That causes a problem—I recognise that the Minister accepts that—because it would be unrealistic for a company to benefit in that way; to cut out competition and achieve a greater share of the gas market as a result of an overgenerous new price structure.
      I hope that the message that will be recorded in Hansard will be taken account of, and that their Lordships in another place will take note of our debate on this subject.
      I believe that, where decisions have been made on the basis of contracts that have been entered into, those contracts must be recognised and there is an obligation to ensure that those companies do not suffer unnecessarily from the new terms and conditions that will now apply and which will have to be renegotiated.
      Mr. Bill Michie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to inform the House that some members of the Select Committee on Members' Interests have walked out after two votes—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise this matter, he must do so in another way. It is not a point of order.
      Mr. Michie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
      Mr. Michie: It is the same point of order—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on that. That is enough.
      Mr. Eggar: I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) for raising this important subject. I am grateful also for the contribution from the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill). Over the past week or so, I have been involved in detailed discussions with individual producer companies as well as with British Gas, UKOOA and Brindex—the trade associations of the independent producers and the offshore operators. They are aware of the general thrust of what I am about to say.
      Suggestions have been made that the provisions of schedule 5 would encourage the abrogation of commercial contracts and give an unfair commercial advantage to British Gas. That was the thrust of the remarks of the hon. Member for Clackmannan and was behind the concerns expressed by my hon. Friends. I do not accept that view, but it would be helpful if I described how the Government see the position.
      I have said consistently that the successful establishment of a competitive gas supply market will require some adjustment to the contractual arrangements under which gas is produced and delivered to suppliers. British Gas will no longer hold a monopoly and will, inevitably, lose market share to the new suppliers. Some adjustment to the previous contractual arrangements appropriate to a monopoly supplier will be necessary. However, there is no reason why that process should result in disruption of the market if it is carried out in an orderly manner between the commercial interests involved. I want to see British Gas and the producers developing the new contractual framework on an even-handed basis.

      201
      I recognise that many companies have made significant investments to support their gas contracts—that was the point made by my hon. Friends—and that they have a legitimate interest in maintaining an acceptable overall position. That in turn should assure the continuation of offshore investment in future gas production, which is extremely important to the United Kingdom.
      Schedule 5 closely follows similar provisions in several other statutes so there is ample precedent for the wording of schedule 5. A key feature of the arrangements proposed in the Bill is the separation of the functions of gas transportation and supply. That is to ensure that competing suppliers, including the supply arms of British Gas, use the pipeline network on the same basis.
      6.30 pm
      It follows, therefore, that provision must be made for a scheme under which British Gas will allocate its various rights and obligations among the different legal entities that it will need to create in order to carry on its business. That is integral to the Bill. I can, however, assure the House that it is not the Government's intention that the provisions should give any commercial interest an unfair advantage over any other. Schedule 5 emphatically does not create a right for British Gas simply to walk away from contracts.
      The Government's objective is to ensure a framework for a competitive gas industry in which all can participate on an equitable basis. The Government will be watching the developing commercial discussions very carefully to ensure that this overriding objective is met.
      I hope that what I have said has allayed the fears of my hon. Friends and answered some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan. It is an important and sensitive matter. Large sums of money are at stake and the future of the gas industry—onshore and offshore—is greatly affected by the terms of the contracts. We do not take the matter lightly, and I know that the producers and British Gas—do not do so. I am confident that, in the light of what I have said, the producers, British Gas and other entities will be able to reach a satisfactory commercial conclusion to the benefit of all involved.
      Sir John Hannam: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments which will assist in reassuring the gas supply industry. Certainly, the issue needed to be debated today and will no doubt be debated again in another place. However, in the light of my right hon. Friend's helpful remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendments made: No. 13, in page 69, line 19, at end insert—
      '( ) As soon as practicable after making a scheme under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall publish the text of each licence which by virtue of the scheme is treated as granted under section 7 or 7A(1) or (2) of the 1986 Act; and any text so published shall be treated as authoritative unless the contrary is shown.'.
      No. 78, in page 70, line 19, at end insert—

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

        'Transfers under paragraph 6: corporation tax
        .—(1) Any shares issued to the public gas supplier by a transferee in pursuance of the scheme under paragraph 2 above shall be treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts as if they had been issued wholly in consideration of a subscription paid to the transferee (and attributable equally between those shares) of an amount equal to the difference between—
        202

        (a) the value, on the appointed day, of the property, rights and liabilities vested in the transferee by paragraph 6 above; and

        (b) the principal sum payable under any debentures issued to the supplier by the transferee in pursuance of the scheme.

        (2) The value required to be determined for the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(a) above is market value, as defined in section 272 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.
        (3) Any debenture issued to the public gas supplier by a transferee in pursuance of the scheme under paragraph 2 above shall be treated for the purposes of the Corporation Tax Acts as if it had been issued—

        (a) wholly in consideration of a loan made to the transferee of an amount equal to the principal sum payable under the debenture; and

        (b) wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the trade or business carried on by the transferee.

        (4) For the purposes of Chapter II of Part VI of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (definition of distributions), where in the case of any transfer under paragraph 6 above any consideration given or treated as given in respect of a security relating to—

        (a) any liability; or

        (b) the use of the principal to which any liability, being a liability to interest or an equivalent liability, relates,

        would fall (apart from this sub-paragraph) to be regarded for those purposes as new consideration received by the public gas supplier, that consideration shall be treated instead, to the extent that it relates to so much of the liability as falls in consequence of the transfer to be discharged by the transferee, as if it were new consideration received by the transferee.'.
        No. 79, in page 70, line 19, at end insert—

        'Transfers under paragraph 6: petroleum revenue tax and gas levy
        Where any transfer is effected by paragraph 6 above, the transferee shall be treated—

        (a) for the purposes of section 10(1)(a) of the Oil Taxation Act 1975; and

        (b) for the purposes of the Gas Levy Act 1981,

        as if it were the same person as the public gas supplier.'.
        No. 80, in page 70, line 19, at end insert—

        'Transfers under paragraph 6: consequential modifications of rating provisions
        .—(1) This paragraph applies where any transfer effected by paragraph 6 above is a transfer of a hereditament which, immediately before the appointed day, falls within the description set out in Part 3 of the Schedule to the Central Rating Lists Regulations 1994.

        (2) The Secretary of State may by order make such modifications of that Part of that Schedule, and of the British Gas plc (Rateable Values) Order 1994, as may appear to him necessary or expedient as a consequence of the transfer.

        (3) An order under this paragraph which is made after the appointed day may have effect as from that day or any later day.

        (4) Where, by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) above, an order under this paragraph has effect from a day earlier than that on which it is made, any necessary alteration shall be made with effect from that earlier day to any central rating list in which the hereditament is shown.

        (5) An order under this paragraph shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

        No. 33, in page 70, line 42, leave out '("the gas' and insert '(a "gas".
        No. 34, in page 71, line 4, leave out third 'the' and insert 'each'.
        No. 35, in page 71, line 22, at end insert 'concerned'.
        No. 36, in page 71, line 22, at end insert—

        203
        '( ) A scheme under this paragraph may make different provisions for different cases or classes of cases determined by, or in accordance with, the provisions of the scheme.
        ( ) As soon as practicable after making a scheme under this paragraph, the Secretary of State shall publish, as respects each different case or class of case—

        (a) the text of any exemption which by virtue of the scheme is treated as granted under section 6A of the 1986 Act; and

        (b) the text of any licence which by virtue of the scheme is treated as granted under section 7A(1) or (2) of that Act;

        and any text so published shall be treated as authoritative unless the contrary is shown.'
        No. 37, in page 71, line 23, leave out second 'the' and insert 'each'.
        No. 38, in page 71, line 28, leave out 'the gas supplier' and insert
        'such gas suppliers as he considers appropriate'.
        No. 39, in page 71, line 29, leave out second 'the' and insert 'each'.
        No. 14, in page 71, line 47, leave out
        'have effect on and after that day'
        and insert
        'be treated for the purposes of section 5(1)(c) of the 1986 Act'.
        No. 81, in page 71, line 48, after 'supplier's', insert 'transport'.
        No. 82, in page 72, line 1, leave out 'paragraph' and insert
        'Part of this Schedule "transport'.
        No. 83, in page 73, line 42, at end insert—

        'Recovery of gas charges etc.
        .—(1) Where—

        (a) such a demand as is mentioned in paragraph 7(5) of Schedule 5 to the 1986 Act (recovery of gas charges etc.) has been made by a public gas supplier; and

        (b) the payment demanded is not made before the appointed day,

        paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 2B to the 1986 Act shall have effect as if the demand had been made by the supplier's domestic supply successor on the day on which it was made by the supplier.

        (2) Where—

        (a) such a notice of intention as is mentioned in paragraph 7(5) of Schedule 5 to the 1986 Act has been given by a public gas supplier; and

        (b) the supply of gas is not cut off before the appointed day,

        paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 2B to the 1986 Act shall have effect as if the notice had been given by the supplier's domestic supply successor on the day on which it was given by the supplier.

        (3) In this Part of this Schedule "domestic supply successor", in relation to a public gas supplier, means the person who becomes the holder of a licence under subsection (1) of section 7A of the 1986 Act by virtue of the scheme made by or in relation to that supplier under Part I of this Schedule.'.

        No. 84, in page 73, line 42, at end insert—

        'Use of antifluctuators and valves
        . Any notice—

        (a) which has been given by a public gas supplier under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) of paragraph 8 (use of antifluctuators and valves) of Schedule 5 to the 1986 Act; and

        (b) which is in force immediately before the appointed day, shall have effect on and after that day as if it had been given on that day under sub-paragraph (1) or, as the case may be, sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 13 of Schedule 2B to that Act by the supplier's transport successor.'.

        No. 85, in page 73, line 42, at end insert—

        'Restoration of supply without consent
        .—(1) Where—

        (a) a supply of gas to any premises has been cut off by a public gas supplier under paragraph 8 (use of antifluctuators and valves) or paragraph 9 (improper use of gas) of Schedule 5 to the 1986 Act; and

        (b) the supply is not restored before the appointed day,

        paragraph 9 of Schedule 2B to that Act shall have effect as if those premises had been disconnected on that day by the supplier's transport successor otherwise than in the exercise of such a power as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.
        (2) Where—

        (a) a supply of gas to any premises has been cut off by a public gas supplier otherwise than under paragraph 8 or 9 of Schedule 5 to the 1986 Act and otherwise than in the exercise of a power conferred by regulations under section 18(2) of that Act; and

        (b) the supply is not restored before the appointed day,

        paragraph 9 of Schedule 2B to that Act shall have effect as if a supply of gas to those premises had been cut off on that day by the supplier's domestic supply successor otherwise than in the exercise of such a power as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.'.
        No. 86, in page 73, line 42, at end insert—

        'Failure to notify connection or disconnection of service pipe
        . Any notice—

        (a) which has been given to a public gas supplier under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 12 (failure to notify connection or disconnection of service pipe) of Schedule 5 to the 1986 Act; and

        (b) which is in force immediately before the appointed day,

        shall have effect on and after that day as if it had been given on that day under sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 10 of Schedule 2B to that Act to the supplier's transport successor.'.
        No. 87, in page 73, line 42, at end insert—

        'Rating provisions
        . Nothing in this Act shall affect the operation of the following, namely—

        (a) sections 19 and 33 of and Schedules 3 and 6 to the General Rate Act 1967 and Schedule 3 to the Local Government Act 1974, so far as those provisions of those Acts continue to have effect in relation to periods ending before 1st April 1990;

        (b) the Central Rating Lists Regulations 1989, so far as those Regulations continue to have effect in relation to periods ending before 1st April 1995; and

        (c) the Central Rating Lists Regulations 1994, so far as those Regulations have effect in relation to periods ending before the appointed day.'.—[Mr. Eggar.]

        Order for Third Reading read.
        Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.— [Mr. Eggar.]
        6.33 pm
        Mr. O'Neill: On Second Reading, we tabled a reasoned amendment because, although we did not oppose the principle of the Bill, we had misgivings about the way in which it dealt with a number of issues. We expressed a number of qualifications, to which we returned in Committee. We sought additional protection for consumers, especially those on low incomes and income support, and wanted explicit guarantees that the possibility of cherry-picking and social dumping would not be allowed, but we did not get them.
        We also asked about postalised pricing. The Minister said last night that he hoped that he could achieve such pricing but thought that it might not last. We were

        205
        extremely concerned about all aspects of safety and matters relating to the health and safety of those working in the gas industry. In addition, we drew attention to our misgivings about the financial status of people who might be involved in the licensing process and we wanted an undertaking from the Minister about the financial status of the "fit and proper" persons.
        There were debates about the concerns of some regional electricity companies, but they were not considered to be of major significance. However, we felt that the Government had not given proper status to energy efficiency or the Energy Saving Trust. Indeed, they paid scant regard to the amendments that the trust offered to the Committee and to both parties.
        We were all fortunate in having access to the support and lobbying of a number of groups from the gas industry, including British Gas and the United Kingdom Offshore Operators Association, from individual potential independent gas suppliers and a range of consumer organisations, some of which wanted status in legislation. We recognised that and sought to have them enshrined in the legislation.
        We also felt that the Gas Consumers Council, whose future had been in some doubt, should be given certain formal responsibilities to justify its continued existence and to back its claim for additional resources. We were able to secure the interest of the trade unions involved, including Unison, which covers a plethora of different groups in the gas supply industry, and the GMB, which historically organised manual workers in the industry.
        All those organisations made their amendments freely available to members of the Committee but, as far as I can recall, they were only twice picked up by Conservatives, perhaps by Back Benchers who were able to make their point and influence Ministers behind the Chair. It certainly did not happen in the Committee itself, where Conservative Back Benchers made the fewest contributions that I can recall. The one exception was the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who tabled an amendment that was subsequently defeated by the Government and Labour members of the Committee because we felt that it would endanger certain aspects of the organisation of British Gas.
        Never had I been in a Committee or participated in a debate on Report in which there were so few speeches from Conservative Back Benchers, and never has so little been offered by the Government in response to reasoned arguments and debate. Inoffensive amendments were even apparently tabled by the Liberals but they, too, received no support from the Government.
        The Bill has been a disappointment. We approached it believing that it was wrong that British Gas should continue to enjoy the last remaining monopoly in the gas market—the domestic market. We recognised that British Gas had enjoyed a monopoly and that the original privatisation legislation included a number of privileges in return for it meeting certain social obligations. Some of those social obligations have been diluted in the Bill because it was conceded that British Gas no longer had a monopoly of domestic gas supply and therefore should not have to carry burdens. None of the burdens or obligations that we have identified has been enshrined in the Bill.
        Time after time, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has pointed out the dilution of the quality of service that British Gas offers to
        206
        consumers. There is little prospect of any improvement being made by any of the independent suppliers, either in overall or individual commitment. One group, spearheaded by United Gas, published a paper called "39 Steps and More", but because of the opposition of other independents the "and more" part was quietly dropped and we were back to the 39 undertakings to which British Gas was prepared to agree.
        If we had had to consider only that aspect of the Bill, we could have said that vested interests were being taken into account and that the Government were listening to their friends in the City and in business, but there were other areas of concern too.
        I should like to touch on the specific area of regulation, to which we returned in Prime Minister's Question Time today, when the division between the views of Conservative and Opposition Members was clear. We have found that division repeatedly when we have sought to address regulation. We felt that, after some nine years of privatisation and nine years of operation of the Office of Gas Supply under two different directors general, it would be appropriate to assess the situation, yet in Committee, on Report and whenever we have debated regulation we have come up against a buffer of complacency, embodied by the Minister for Industry and Energy. He says that there is nothing wrong with the world and that everything is fine. The only thing that the Government say about regulation is that, when perfect competition is achieved, somehow there will be no need for regulators. Indeed, they said last night that, like Lenin's state, regulation will somehow wither when perfect competition arises.
        The nature of the market, the commodity it sells and the service that it provides to 18 million households across the country, whereby households may be heated and food may be prepared, cannot be determined exclusively by the regulator or the market alone. A regulator must take account of more than simply market considerations. It has been argued that if we changed the rules, somehow politics would intrude into the market system.
        We know that, at the moment, provisions are made for the regulator to take account of the needs of elderly and disabled people, yet not of those who are on income support or low incomes. If two groups can be identified, it would be reasonable to introduce a third. It would be no less political. Indeed, we drew attention last night to the debates and the demonstrations that disabled people have staged inside and outside the Palace of Westminster in recent months. To say that disablement is not a political issue and that the rights of the disadvantaged and those on low pay is a political issue is nonsense.
        I realise that there is a desire for us to complete our business this evening, so I shall not detain the House much longer. We entered into the liberalisation debate on gas in a spirit of co-operation and offered constructive criticism of the proposals. None of the issues that we have raised have received a scintilla of support or an ounce of co-operation from the Government; the Government have not travelled an inch along the road towards a compromise. For those reasons, I urge my hon. Friends to vote against Third Reading.
        When we take office, we shall certainly wish to attack British Gas's monopoly and legislate for changes in it and in the gas market generally. We do not like the way in which this Bill will regulate the gas market so that 18 million families, who are dependent on gas, will have to

        207
        enter the market to attain the means by which they cook their food and heat their homes. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friends to join me in opposing the Bill.
        6.44 pm
        Mr. Rowlands: This Gas Bill is the third in a trilogy over the past 12 years. As a veteran of the previous two, I should like to consider briefly the contents of this Bill in the context of the evolution of the legislative process of gas privatisation.
        I do not think that even the Minister could argue that there has been a logical progression in the gas privatisation process. The three Bills since 1982 have demonstrated in many ways the three contradictory objectives of privatisation: first, the Treasury demanded the maximum money possible; secondly, there was the idea of people's capitalism, with premiums on shares, which meant that the Government were not able to collect as much money; and, thirdly, enshrined in this Bill, there has been the idea of trying to create some new form of competition in what are otherwise monopolies.
        As a Front-Bench spokesman on the original 1982 legislation, I remember fascinating debates with Lord Lawson, who envisaged legislation that would create an American-style privatisation—a common carriership and a huge collection of companies drawing off it. That vision was waylaid, as the Minister will be well aware because he too is a veteran of some of the arguments in the 1980s, by the corporatist tendency of Lord Walker. Barons Rooke and Walker got together and did a deal, which constituted the Gas Act of 1986. That deal basically enshrined British Gas's monopoly in the domestic market. The original Lawson legislation never intended to include the last remaining corporatist tendency, which was personified by Lord Walker and led to the 1986 Act. The Bill, as I see it, is trying to return to the original Lawson vision and create some new competition in gas.
        I think that we have been very lucky, because the 1986 Act would not have produced anything like the same support for the consumer had it not been for the inspired appointment of the first director general of Ofgas, Sir James McKinnon. McKinnon has been much reviled in many circles, but he was the first regulator to care for consumers. The Littlechilds and the Carsbergs have been more interested in the theory of competition and in models. McKinnon, on behalf of the consumer, tenaciously attacked the monopoly powers of British Gas during his tenure of office.
        Before we break up a large public corporation and the dominant share that it has had in domestic gas consumption, I should like to pay it one tribute. The Bill would not have been possible if it had not been for a nationalised public corporation that built the most remarkable, technically efficient natural gas pipeline. It was an amazing success story of professional and technical expertise, which was driven through despite great difficulty.
        Whatever occurs in the field of competition as a result of this Bill will be dependent on that amazing exercise in technical proficiency by a nationalised concern. I know that it is now unfashionable to talk about such things—even, to a certain extent, in my party—but I pay tribute to the enormous post-war visionary generation,
        208
        represented by an era of professionals, especially technical gas engineers, who built the pipeline that will enable people to develop and thrive.
        Two potential absurdities and two concerns arise from the Bill. The first absurdity is already happening and will become even more evident if the Bill proceeds. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has described it. In future, when a gas engineer attends a safety call at somebody's house, identifies the problem and disconnects the supply, he will no longer be allowed to deal with the problem. He will no longer be able to repair the appliance, as he would have done in the old days. Presumably he now has to hand out a card and say, "This is the list of people you can phone." Instead of being able to deal with the problem, his operation will be ring-fenced and he will be able to deal only with the safety of the supply. In the past, he could have solved the whole problem and restored both the appliance and the supply, but now he will not be allowed to do so.
        That is an appalling illustration of the nonsense and absurdity that will arise from the Bill. The second absurdity is the question of who will become the new competitors. I see the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs on the Government Front Bench, and as he represents Brecon and Radnor, I ask him: who will be the new competitors in south Wales? The margins for such competitors will be very small; who will they be?
        In fact, the only competitor to British Gas likely to emerge in south Wales is the monopolistic South Wales Electricity company. What a rich irony, and what an extraordinary situation it would be if the competition came only from another private monopoly supplier of a rival form of energy. That would reveal the absurdity of some aspects of the Bill.
        I have two more concerns, one of which involves safety. I am worried not about the powers in the Bill—on safety, those are strong enough—but about the people. We have had safe gas supplies for a generation, because of the fantastic training supplied by the British gas industry since the second world war. A whole generation of gas engineers were brought up properly to care for safety and to do a Rolls-Royce job. But the new generation of gas suppliers will not devote the same effort and money as the gas industry used to devote to developing gas engineers of that quality. In fact, they will draw on the quality of the generations trained by British Gas.
        Secondly, as one who represents a valley community a long way from the southern North sea, my second concern is the differential pricing that will result from the Bill. We are reassured that there will be only a 2 per cent. difference, but all the figures are guesstimates. We are told that competition will result in a 10 per cent. saving, but that for communities at the end of the line, such as most of the valley communities, that saving will be only 8 per cent. Certainly the communities in Brecon and Radnor, represented by the Under-Secretary of State, will be at the end of the line.
        What will be the scale and character of the differential gas pricing? I do not believe in the 2 per cent. difference; it is a guesstimate. What will happen if the price differentials widen? Our communities will be disadvantaged as a result of the so-called competitive legislation.

        209
        I said at the beginning of my speech that this was the third in a trilogy of Gas Bills. I make one prediction: before the end of the century there will be another Gas Bill to put right the wrongs that the Bill before us will have created.
        6.52 pm
        Mr. Kevin Hughes: As we all know, the Bill has been comprehensively discussed in Committee and on Report, and the same is now happening on Third Reading. By now, the Minister for Industry and Energy should be well aware of the concerns of hon. Members, not least Opposition Members. Yesterday, uncharacteristically, I was able to welcome his announcement of extra funding for the Health and Safety Executive. That shows that he has at least listened to some of the concerns expressed by Opposition Members—and it puts paid to the rumours that his ears were only painted on.
        I also welcomed the Government's decision in Committee to table a subsequent amendment slightly to change the conditions for receipt of the special home services for the elderly. The Ministers knows that I was worried about that, and I am pleased that the Government decided to respond to the concerns about equal treatment for men and women.
        The protection in the Bill for low-income customers is minimal. The main requirement relevant to them is that a licence must not be drafted so as to exclude the premises of customers likely to default. For the provision of services for elderly people, the Government have been prepared to give special protection in the Bill. Although I welcome that, I ask the Minister why the two cases are different. The Government have not given a convincing response to that question.
        Yesterday, we discussed the possibility of access to services being restricted by requirements for deposits or specific payment methods. The Government said that they did not believe that gas companies would attempt to do that, but in a competitive market one cannot rule out the possibility. Had they offered more support for the Labour amendments, we would have been able to send a clear message to the gas suppliers to ensure that they provided a reasonably low-cost service encompassing proper choice for all who want it.
        The practice of offering different prices to similar-volume consumers should not be allowed when competition is introduced into the market. It would be bad for low-income and elderly consumers alike, because they constitute the vast majority of the 20 per cent. of households with no banking facilities.
        The Government have not done enough to protect the more vulnerable consumers from the effects of the introduction of full competition into the service. The prospect of cherry-picking remains a problem, and customers will be left to face it alone. The Government have made their position clear, but I hope that they have listened to what has been said about the need to involve consumers and to recognise the special obligations that fall on companies that provide such an important service.
        Affordable warmth is too important to be sacrificed to competition. British Gas may be big business, but that carries with it big responsibilities that affect public safety and the quality of people's lives; potential suppliers to the domestic market must recognise that fact. I hope that the Minister will convey our feelings to them.
        6.56 pm
        Mr. Clapham: It will come as no surprise to the Minister to know that I am rather sceptical about the Bill. No one knows where competition in gas will take us, and many people may be disadvantaged. Already in Canada, whose gas industry is deregulated, prices have increased.
        That could happen in the United Kingdom, because although there is now an oversupply of gas, the Minister will know that there is an enormous demand for gas within the energy industry. It is predicted that, by the end of the century, we shall be using as much as 40 million tonnes of gas, in coal equivalent. I also understand—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that there are now several new applications for gas-fired power stations, and that too will increase the use of gas.
        In addition to the deregulation of the domestic market, the increasing marketing risks of gas production may inhibit the development of new gas fields. Those two factors—energy use and the marketing risks—could lead to higher prices. Yet yesterday, the Minister rejected the amendment that would have required the regulator to take account of supply.
        The Bill is inadequate without the amendments that were tabled by the Opposition. Unfortunately, neither in Committee nor on Report was the Minister prepared to accept any of those amendments, which would have improved it. Some of them would have given the consumer safeguards. As it stands, the Bill fails to deal with consumer protection, security of supply and, in part, safety. Without new clauses 3, 6, 9 and 10, which the Minister rejected yesterday, the consumer has no statutory protection.
        The Gas Consumers Council should be able to monitor the impact of the Bill on customers and to keep an eye on the prices charged and the quality of service delivered. That is fundamental if we are to ensure that the high standards set by British Gas are maintained. It is also essential that information on prices is widely publicised. I pointed out to the Minister yesterday that low-income customers on pre-payment meters consuming large quantities of gas are paying far more than other gas customers. The irony is that some customers with arrears are seeking pre-payment meters in the belief that they will save them money. Without the publication of prices in a standard form, people will not be given the opportunity to make informed choices.
        When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry reported on the domestic gas market, it was unsure whether there would be advantages in terms of costs, benefits or risks. It would appear that only a small part of the cost of a therm of gas is likely to be influenced by competition. The standing charge is clearly an important element, and the Minister is aware that the regulator has proposed that the transportation element of the standing charge should be £15. That is possible because of a cross-subsidy from large users to small users. Without that mechanism, there would be millions of losers.
        Do the Government intend to ensure that that cross-subsidy will continue without jeopardy? The Select Committee emphasised the need for assurance on that factor. I do not feel that social purposes will be in any way advanced by the Bill, and I urge Conservative Members to support the Opposition.
        7.1 pm
        Mr. Nick Harvey: I had considerable sympathy with the plaintive cry of the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) about the Government and the Minister. They were faced with Opposition members of the Committee who were essentially sympathetic to the subject, but having moved about 270 amendments of their own, they did not find it in their hearts to accommodate a few more from the Opposition, not least my own which, as the hon. Gentleman said, were comparatively inoffensive.
        The Bill is far from perfect, its most obvious flaw being the primacy it seems to give to the creation of competition in a perfect theoretical framework over the practical interests of serving the consumer. Those points have been put forward by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) and his colleagues at length—often at considerable length.
        The Bill seeks to create a competitive framework for the supply of gas to the domestic consumer which will in the long term serve the consumer better than a continuing monopoly—albeit a regulated one. It may well be that, as the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) mentioned, we will find ourselves returning to legislate again on the gas industry before the end of the century. I hope that that will not be so, and I also hope that those seeking amendments of the sort which have been tabled will have better fortune in another place. But the fact remains that the measure will be in the best interests of domestic gas consumers and, for that reason, I shall be supporting it this evening.
        7.5 pm
        Mr. Nigel Griffiths: First, may I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Sir D. Knox) for chairing the Committee and being so patient with us as we went through a considerable number of amendments? The amendments came mainly from the Government because this is such half-baked legislation.
        I also thank my hon. Friends who have spoken today—in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—and my colleagues who have spoken with such conviction on Third Reading, including my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). My hon. Friends spoke at length on behalf of their constituents and 18 million gas consumers. I should also like to thank my hon. Friends who spoke in Committee, including my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Ms Coffey), for Neath (Mr. Hain), for Dulwich (Ms Jowell), for Dagenham (Ms Church) and for Coventry North-East (Mr. Ainsworth).
        This is the Third Reading of what Ministers have been trailing in the press as landmark legislation which is taking privatisation through the 1990s and is building on the so-called successes of the 1980s—successes which have turned sour for so many millions of consumers. It is amazing that not one Conservative Member spoke on Third Reading except the Minister. The Government could not get one of their own Back Benchers to stand up and say that the further privatisation of British Gas is worth supporting. It is also worth noting that none of the
        212
        hon. Members from the Scottish National party is in the Chamber, and no Scottish nationalist has spoken at all in this important gas debate.
        Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
        Mr. Griffiths: I am delighted to see anybody who wishes to defend the SNP, which is a dying breed.
        Mr. Robathan: I understood that the Labour party wanted to go home at 7 o'clock, and I did not speak for that reason.
        Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is sadly mistaken. We would be happy to fight this Bill until 7 o'clock, 8 o'clock or 10 o'clock at night, but the hon. Gentleman wants to maintain his supine position.
        The Bill is supposed to be the flagship of the Government's legislation for this Session and, by giving a free hand to the private sector to lure customers away from British Gas, allows the chancers a chance to get their snouts in the trough. Yet from the hour that the Bill appeared in the Queen's Speech on 16 November, its progress has been a shambles.
        Publication was expected in January, but it did not appear. The Bill did not surface at the beginning of February, or at the middle or the end of February. When it did appear in March, the schedules were not ready. We debated the Second Reading without key schedules, which did not appear until the week after the House gave the Bill its Second Reading. The schedules—the blueprint for the detail of the Bill—were simply not available because the Government had an army of civil servants struggling to close all the loopholes in this chancer's charter.
        Second reading came and went, and still there were no schedules. It is no wonder the Government delayed producing the schedules. All the things that the Minister promised the House at Second Reading—guaranteed protection for elderly and disabled consumers, safeguards to protect rural gas customers and safeguards for low income groups—are not fully dealt with.
        In Committee—a full 17 weeks after the Queen's Speech—the shambles continued. Some 71 amendments were tabled by the Minister to his own Bill. The Minister accuses us of opposing the legislation. Too right, but we could not match his opposition to the Bill, as shown by the number of amendments he had to table to it. He has tabled some 160 amendments to this half-baked legislation. He is saying to the House and to 8 million consumers, "Trust us—the future of gas is safe in our hands."
        The Minister told the House yesterday that the poor executives of British Gas were going to make only 9p a share out of their executive options, when the real figure made so far by executives who have ripped off so many consumers is 85p, or about £1 million to the six directors of British Gas. The Minister feared that gas firms would be put off buying into British Gas if there were too many consumer safeguards in the Bill.
        British Gas has already axed services and cut staff in preparation for the Bill, but the public outcry has forced the Government to introduce a battery of amendments to make sure that at least there are some consumer protections. However, the protections included are not adequate. That is why a staggering total of 231 amendments to the Government's own legislation have

        213
        been tabled. The Committee chairman, the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands, voiced his grave reservations about the number of amendments which had been tabled, and about the fact that the Minister had tabled them so late. With more than 70 amendments tabled in the past few days, we cannot recommend this legislation to 18 million domestic gas consumers.
        Who has been absent through all this? It is no wonder that the President of the Board of Trade left the Cabinet on Monday and took a plane to China. He has decided that this legislation is not safe in the Minister's hands.
        Let us consider the Government's track record and why we oppose the Bill on principle. The Minister told us that British Gas has cut prices to consumers by 21 per cent., but the price that it has been paying for that gas has fallen by more than 27 per cent. since 1986. We want to know what has happened to the 6 per cent. cut that British Gas has enjoyed, which has not been passed on to consumers.
        The Government say that the Bill will guarantee no cuts. It is vital that we challenge that. We challenged the cuts—the loss of 160 gas showrooms and 50 home service advisers for disabled and elderly gas consumers. We know that there will now be no curbs on British Gas or any of its competitor companies. The Government have rejected curbs on executive pay, effective safeguards for elderly and disabled consumers, price guarantees for the future and all the consumer protection that we proposed. We reject the Government and all that they stand for, and I urge the House to reject the Bill.
        7.10 pm
        Mr. Eggar: With the leave of the House, may I first say what a pleasure it was to be in a debate again with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)—these debates go back 10 years or so, but I enjoyed this one none the less. May I add my thanks to that given by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Chairman of the Standing Committee and everyone who has been involved in preparing and drafting the Bill and helping to steer it through Committee and Report? May I also join with the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), who paid tribute to the various groups outside the House who have played a constructive role as the Bill has been considered?
        As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South pointed out, we have had to introduce a number of technical amendments. Despite the fun that he was having at our expense, I am grateful to him and his colleagues for the sensible way in which we were able to handle those amendments. I would much rather not have had to proceed in that way, but there was no alternative.
        The general objective of the Bill remains to build on successful experience in the industrial and commercial gas supply sector and to provide a sound foundation for the phased introduction of the benefits of competition to the 18 million domestic gas customers in the United Kingdom. Conservative Members believe that competition will reduce prices and improve services for consumers.
        Opposition Members seem completely unable to grasp that the introduction of competition can benefit customers, whether they move to another independent supplier or stay with British Gas, and that has been a constant theme during the passage of the Bill. The reality is that nothing sharpens up a company and improves its performance
        214
        more than the prospect of its customers taking their business elsewhere. Despite that essential truth, the Opposition think that customers need to be protected from having a choice.
        The Opposition consistently say that they are concerned about what the hon. Member for Clackmannan calls cherry-picking. They are really concerned about not being able to interfere and dictate the results before the competition commences. The old Labour party is in the ascendant.
        I shall deal briefly with the points raised by Opposition Members. They claim that the Bill lacks adequate protection for groups of vulnerable customers. Let us examine that criticism. First, special services for pensioners, the disabled and the blind will continue, just as they have with British Gas. Indeed, the Bill and the licence ensure that those requirements for those groups will be as tough as or tougher than they are at present.
        The Opposition have suggested that the social obligations are inadequate because they are not on the face of the Bill, but they simply do not appear to understand that a licence condition, as structured in the Bill, is as legally binding as a provision in the legislation. A large number of the current obligations of British Gas are dealt with in its licence. Of course, the standard conditions of licences cannot be changed without the agreement of the Secretary of State.
        Some Opposition Members claimed that the Bill would discriminate against low-income customers, yet the real interest of those customers is in getting cheaper gas. That is what they want and, because prices will come down as a result of the Bill, they will benefit more, proportionately, from price reductions than other customers.
        If Opposition Members are really concerned about helping low-income customers, they should have supported the Bill wholeheartedly. In practice, they have opposed it in detail and, had their amendments been carried, they would have made it virtually impossible for competition to arise in any meaningful sense.
        I think that there is one thing on which hon. Members on both sides of the House are agreed—we are all concerned to protect the interests of those customers who have genuine difficulties in paying their bills. The Government are as concerned about that as anyone in the House; that is why all suppliers, as a condition of their licences, will have to follow debt and disconnection procedures that are designed to assist those in genuine difficulty.
        Today, The Times said that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South
        "clearly believes in the formulation of policy on the run."
        It also commented:
        "fund managers … perceive Mr. Griffiths' style to be long on threats and short on debate."
        Those of us who were members of the Standing Committee with the hon. Gentleman know that the fund managers are right, but we can go further and say that he is long on prejudice and short on analysis. His speeches have been wrong in almost every regard.
        I shall give one example. In Committee, he said:
        "the public are concerned that British Gas is proposing to downgrade all the current licence conditions and to review the provision of Braille controls for blind people."

        215
        He continued:
        "I fear that blind, disabled and elderly people will be forced to pick up the bill for such services."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 March 1995; c. 32.]
        Either in ignorance or deliberately, he was misleading the Committee, because the truth is that the draft standard conditions of licences make it clear that the existing service requirement will continue. The free gas safety check, special adaptors and controls, passwords and special inquiry facilities for the blind and disabled will all be there and will be guaranteed—all without charge.
        The hon. Member for Clackmannan referred, at the beginning of this Third Reading debate, to the regulator and the role of regulation. He referred to the speech that his right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) made this afternoon, which I have here. The general thrust was that, at present, the regulator has too much discretionary power.
        After reading that analysis, I considered the amendments that the Opposition tabled to the Bill. In some areas, they tabled amendments that would have given the regulator more power, not less. They wanted the regulator to have the power to challenge the terms of consumers' contracts and, in effect, to be involved in decisions on the remuneration of gas company executives. They wanted the regulator to have a duty to secure choice to all consumers and not merely to promote it. Only yesterday, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) was inviting the House to agree that the regulator should have regard for the industrial and strategic interests of the British economy.
        On the one hand, the right hon. Member for Copeland, who leads his party on these matters, is saying that the regulator has too much discretionary power and, on the other, that the Opposition have been tabling amendments designed to increase that power throughout the passage of the Bill. It is no good the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South just grinning. He claimed earlier in our proceedings that he had written the speech for the right hon. Member for Copeland, so he does not understand either his amendments in Committee or what he has written for the right hon. Member for Copeland. He cannot have it both ways.
        The Labour party's attitude to the Bill has been absolutely fascinating. We have seen a battle played out between old Labour—the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) are in their places—and so-called "new" Labour. The hon. Member for Clackmannan made a speech last November in which he said:
        "it is not the function of Labour to defend British Gas as the monopoly supplier of gas to any sector of the UK market."
        At that time, new Labour was on top and apparently in favour of competition.
        To be fair, on Second Reading the right hon. Member for Copeland endorsed that competition. But official Labour abstained on Second Reading and it was left to the hon. Members for Bolsover, for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), for Preston (Mrs. Wise), for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) to vote against Second Reading. In Committee, new Labour prevailed, except the hon. Member for Neath when he bothered to turn up and make speeches for the benefit of his local papers. [Interruption.]
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. What started as a series of private conversations has now become a hubbub. I am not prepared to preside over a hubbub. I therefore ask for considerably greater quiet.
        Mr. Eggar: After hours of debate and a well-trailed speech by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) in which he extolled the virtues of competition, today on Third Reading the Opposition have a chance to say conclusively whether they are in favour of competition. That is the choice they must make in a few seconds when we go in to the Lobbies. Will the official Opposition represent a victory for new Labour in favour of competition, or for old Labour against competition? If they oppose Third Reading, they will show what we all know: that the Labour party has not changed and is still in favour of state control and against competition. A vote against Third Reading will be a vote for the hon. Member for Bolsover.
        Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 228.

        Division No. 149]

        [7.22 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

        Carrington, Matthew

        Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

        Carttiss, Michael

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Cash, William

        Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Alton, David

        Chidgey, David

        Amess, David

        Clappison, James

        Arbuthnot, James

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

        Coe, Sebastian

        Ashby, David

        Congdon, David

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Conway, Derek

        Atkins, Robert

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

        Couchman, James

        Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

        Cran, James

        Baldry, Tony

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

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

        Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

        Bates, Michael

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Batiste, Spencer

        Day, Stephen

        Bendall, Vivian

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Body, Sir Richard

        Dover, Den

        Booth, Hartley

        Duncan, Alan

        Boswell, Tim

        Duncan-Smith, Iain

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Dunn, Bob

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Durant, Sir Anthony

        Bowis, John

        Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Elletson, Harold

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Brazier, Julian

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Bright, Sir Graham

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

        Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Evennett, David

        Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

        Faber, David

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Fabricant, Michael

        Burns, Simon

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Burt, Alistair

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Butcher, John

        Fishbum, Dudley

        Butler, Peter

        Forman, Nigel

        Butterfill, John

        Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Forth, Eric

        Carlisle, John (Luton North)

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

        217

        Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        Lightbown, David

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        French, Douglas

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Gale, Roger

        Lord, Michael

        Gallie, Phil

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Gardiner, Sir George

        Lynne, Ms Liz

        Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Garnier, Edward

        MacKay, Andrew

        Gill, Christopher

        Maclean, David

        Gillan, Cheryl

        Maclennan, Robert

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Madel, Sir David

        Gorst, Sir John

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

        Malone, Gerald

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Mans, Keith

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Marlow, Tony

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Grylls, Sir Michael

        Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Hague, William

        Mates, Michael

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Mellor, Rt Hon David

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Merchant, Piers

        Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

        Hannam, Sir John

        Mills, Iain

        Hargreaves, Andrew

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        Harris, David

        Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

        Harvey, Nick

        Moate, Sir Roger

        Haselhurst, Alan

        Monro, Sir Hector

        Hawkins, Nick

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Hayes, Jerry

        Needham, Rt Hon Richard

        Heald, Oliver

        Nelson, Anthony

        Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Heathcoat-Amory, David

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Hendry, Charles

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Hicks, Robert

        Nicholson, David

        Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

        Norris, Steve

        Hill, James (Southampton Test)

        Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Horam, John

        Ottaway, Richard

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Page, Richard

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

        Patnick, Sir Irvine

        Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Pawsey, James

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Hunter, Andrew

        Pickles, Eric

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

        Jack, Michael

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Jessel, Toby

        Rendel, David

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Riddick, Graham

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

        Robathan, Andrew

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Kennedy, Charies (Ross,C&S)

        Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

        King, Rt Hon Tom

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        Knapman, Roger

        Sackville, Tom

        Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

        Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

        Knight, Greg (Derby N)

        Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

        Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Shepnard, Rt Hon Gillian

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Lang, Rt Hon Ian

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Lawrence, Sir Ivan

        Sims, Roger

        Legg, Barry

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Leigh, Edward

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

        Soames, Nicholas

        Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Lidington, David

        Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

        218

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Trend, Michael

        Spring, Richard

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Sproat, Iain

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

        Viggers, Peter

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

        Walden, George

        Steen, Anthony

        Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

        Stephen, Michael

        Wallace, James

        Stem, Michael

        Waller, Gary

        Stewart, Allan

        Ward, John

        Streeter, Gary

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Sumberg, David

        Waterson, Nigel

        Watts, John

        Sykes, John

        Wells, Bowen

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Whitney, Ray

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Whittingdale, John

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Wilkinson, John

        Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

        Willetts, David

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Wilshire, David

        Thomason, Roy

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

        Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

        Wolfson, Mark

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Yeo, Tim

        Thornton, Sir Malcolm

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Thumham, Peter

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

        Mr. Sydney Chapman and

        Tracey, Richard

        Mr. Timothy Wood.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Cousins, Jim

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Cummings, John

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Anderson, Ms Janet (Rossendale)

        Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

        Anderson, Ms Janet

        Dafis, Cynog

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Dalyell, Tam

        Ashton, Joe

        Darling, Alistair

        Austin-Walker, John

        Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Barnes, Harry

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Barron, Kevin

        Denham, John

        Battle, John

        Dewar, Donald

        Bayley, Hugh

        Dixon, Don

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Dobson, Frank

        Bell, Stuart

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Dowd, Jim

        Berry, Roger

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Betts, Clive

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Blunkett, David

        Eagle, Ms Angela

        Boateng, Paul

        Eastham, Ken

        Bradley, Keith

        Enright, Derek

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Etherington, Bill

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

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Burden, Richard

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret

        Byers, Stephen

        Faulds, Andrew

        Caborn, Richard

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Callaghan, Jim

        Flynn, Paul

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyfh V)

        Foulkes, George

        Canavan, Dennis

        Fraser, John

        Cann, Jamie

        Fyfe, Maria

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Galbraith, Sam

        Church, Judith

        Galloway, George

        Clapham, Michael

        Gapes, Mike

        Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

        Garrett, John

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Gerrard, Neil

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        Clelland, David

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Godsiff, Roger

        Coffey, Ann

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Cohen, Harry

        Gordon, Mildred

        Connarty, Michael

        Graham, Thomas

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Cook, Robin (Livingston)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Corbett, Robin

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Grocott, Bruce

        219

        Gunnell, John

        O'Hara, Edward

        Hain, Peter

        Olner, Bill

        Hall, Mike

        O'Neill, Martin

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Parry, Robert

        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

        Prescott, Rt Hon John

        Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

        Purchase, Ken

        Hoyle, Doug

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Randall, Stuart

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Raynsford, Nick

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Reid, Dr John

        Hutton, John

        Robertson, George (Hamilton)

        Illsley, Eric

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

        Ingram, Adam

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

        Rogers, Allan

        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)

        Salmond, Alex

        Jowell, Tessa

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Khabra, Piara S

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Short, Clare

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Lewis, Terry

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Litherland, Robert

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

        Livingstone, Ken

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Snape, Peter

        Loyden, Eddie

        Soley, Clive

        McAllion, John

        Spellar, John

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

        McCartney, Ian

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Macdonald, Calum

        Stevenson, George

        McFall, John

        Stott, Roger

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Straw, Jack

        McLeish, Henry

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        McMaster, Gordon

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        McNamara, Kevin

        Timms, Stephen

        MacShane, Denis

        Tipping, Paddy

        Madden, Max

        Touhig, Don

        Mahon, Alice

        Turner, Dennis

        Mandelson, Peter

        Vaz, Keith

        Marek, Dr John

        Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

        Martlew, Eric

        Wareing, Robert N

        Meacher, Michael

        Watson, Mike

        Meale, Alan

        Welsh, Andrew

        Michael, Alun

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

        Milburn, Alan

        Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

        Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

        Wilson, Brian

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Winnick, David

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Wise, Audrey

        Morley, Elliot

        Worthington, Tony

        Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

        Wray, Jimmy

        Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Wright, Dr Tony

        Mudie, George

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Mullin, Chris

        Murphy, Paul

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Mr. John Owen Jones and

        O'Brien, William (Nonmanton)

        Mr. Joe Benton.

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Bill read the Third time, and passed.
        Mr. Donald Dewar: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I briefly ask your advice on a matter of some importance? In another place, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish announced that the jobseeker's allowance would not be introduced as planned on 1 April 1996, but would be introduced in October 1996—a delay of six months. Since then, we have obtained a little further information which makes the matter even more important.
        In a written answer today, we are told that Ministers
        "have concluded that, in order to deliver an excellent service to unemployed people from day one"—
        which sounds an interesting euphemism—
        "JSA should be introduced in October 1996."
        It continues:
        "the duration of an unemployed claimant's entitlement to Unemployment Benefit will, from April 1996, be the same as it would have been had JSA been introduced on that date."
        In other words, the cut from 12 to six months in entitlement will take effect from 1 April.
        I am also told, although I cannot confirm it, that lower rates of unemployment benefit will be introduced as though JSA had been introduced on 1 April and that changes in structure, such as the differential rates for those below and above the age of 25 will be introduced on 1 April. I may be wrong, but it appears that the change in Government intention is a retreat in theory but not in substance, and that, to put it quite frankly, what happened today was a form of deception in terms of an apparent announcement that does not bear examination.
        My concern is that, if they mean what they appear to mean, today's changes are extremely important. They also raise important issues about the Government, if they can announce that they do not intend to implement changes and then smuggle them in administratively. There would appear to be no need for a statement in the House or any administrative regulation or legislation in order to change unemployment structures into some kind of ghost of the jobseeker's allowance.
        In view of all that, it is important that we have a statement at the earliest possible opportunity. I wonder whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have had any intimation of one, or if Ministers can reassure us that these rather mysterious and opaque goings on will be explained to the House so that we can judge them for what they are worth and take the appropriate action.
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have had no intimation that a statement is to be made, but the Leader of the House is present and no doubt he will have heard what was said. Even if no statement is forthcoming, one can rely on the ingenuity of hon. Members in finding other legitimate ways of raising the issue.
        Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?
        Mr. McCartney: No, it is a different point of order. I am the hon. Member who put the questions on the Order Paper on 11 May for written answer on 16 May. The parliamentary questions were delivered to me after they were submitted to the press in the Press Gallery. However, despite that, looking at the detail of the written answers,

        221
        it is clear that some fundamental questions still require answers. First, the Government did not state in the written answer—
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It seems to me that the hon. Member is raising the same point of order. I have said that I can deal only with matters that relate to responsibilities of the Chair. This is clearly not the responsibility of the Chair.
        Mr. McCartney: I am raising a different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, relating to whether the Secretary of State has exceeded his powers in respect of the answer that I was given, which requires a response. I apologise if I am delaying the House, but the answer is vital to the business of the House. The position is clear—
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but I can deal only with matters that relate to the responsibilities of the Chair. The matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers clearly do not. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to desist.
        Mr. McCartney: I do not want to incur your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, but—
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have effectively asked the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat. We must move on.
        Mr. McCartney: The question that relates to the Chair is whether the Secretary of State's answer of 16 May in respect of my question of 11 May is ultra vires. If so, both the Leader of the House—who is present—and Ministers should come to the House with an explanation.
        Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Those matters are not for the Chair. I am not prepared to consider them further.

    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

      FEES AND CHARGES
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c),
      That the draft Department of Trade and Industry (Fees) (Amendment) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 3rd April, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Question agreed to.

      NORTHERN IRELAND
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c),
      That the draft Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 3rd April, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Question agreed to.

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

      TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),
      That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 10589/94 and 4674/95, relating to the liberalisation of telecommunications infrastructure, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 28th April 1995, relating to a future regulatory framework for telecommunications, and supports the Government's view that competition in the provision of telecoms services and infrastructure is essential to guarantee the widespread availability of affordable high quality telecoms within the European Community.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
      Question agreed to.

  RJB (Mining)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: I want to draw the attention of the House to certain events in my constituency on the Tinsley site and to ask questions of the Minister about the role played by RJB (Mining) and other companies with which its chairman, Richard Budge, has been associated. My questions concern the opencasting of the Tinsley site; the failure to provide an airport there; the role played by Sheffield development corporation, British Coal and its officials, and Ministers; and whether Richard Budge is a fit and proper person to run British Coal operations.
  I shall not delve into the history of efforts to provide an airport for Sheffield, which is the largest city in Europe not to have an airport. During the 1980s, another survey of potential sites was made. The site at the top of the list, in terms of commercial viability and Civil Aviation Authority air safety, was Tinsley. Interest in the city, from a council and business perspective, was also being developed.
  In 1987, British Coal changed that scenario by indicating that it wanted to opencast at Tinsley. Contrary to statements made from time to time, there has from the beginning been a close link between the opencasting at the site and the airport development, with the gains from the former helping to fund the latter being a key to subsequent events. The first sign of British Coal's wish to opencast was a press release, which stated that opencasting on the site would help to finance the proposed Sheffield airport and would not delay the city's wish to have the short take-off and landing airport in operation by 1991. We are now in 1995, and there is not an aeroplane in sight, let alone a runway. Nevertheless, that press release confirms the early link between the opencasting site and the provision of an airport.
  I was not against opencasting on the Tinsley site. There are differences of view among Opposition Members about opencasting, and I oppose it when it is proposed for green-field sites and risks destroying the environment. The Tinsley site was extremely polluted, with the cost of ridding it of chemicals and other pollutants from the former steel works estimated at £20 million. It was badly despoiled but an ideal location, being next to the Ml in Sheffield's industrial corridor. It was a prime site for development.
  I declare an interest as a Member of Parliament sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union, which has members employed in the opencast industry. The site would create jobs, but there were local concerns about dust and pollution. The city council, which was then the planning authority, took steps as part of the planning agreement to ensure controls and constraints on times of working. We were also conscious of the fact that, if we turned down British Coal's proposals, its application for opencasting might have been granted on appeal, yielding none of the potential benefits for the locality.
  In general, I support the provision of an airport on the Tinsley site. Again, community concerns about noise and flying hours must be taken into account. I am particularly aware of Phillimore school in my constituency, because recently there has been speculation that a requirement
  224
  fully to insulate the school from aircraft noise might be relaxed. I am not in favour of any such relaxation, but want the original proposals for proper insulation to be implemented.
  There was full consultation and opinion surveys. I attended public meetings with colleagues and representatives of British Coal Opencast, and a community liaison group was established. By and large, the opencasting operations did not have a massive impact on the community. However, given the profits made from that site, I am concerned about constituents such as Mrs. Lilley, a pensioner. Dust from the site made it necessary to have cleaned her husband's headstone in the local cemetery. That cost her £100, which she could ill afford— and that bill still has not been paid by Richard Budge, his company or anybody else connected with the opencast operations. That sort of meanness is typical of the way in which the city of Sheffield has been ripped off.
  There is real anger that British Coal got coal out of the site and Richard Budge got money out of it, but Sheffield still does not have an airport. Many supposed community benefits have not happened.
  At the end of the consultation process in 1989, an initial planning agreement was drawn up, which clearly linked the opencast arrangements and the airport. From the beginning, Tony Palmer, British Coal Opencast's regional director, attended meetings that linked the two. He was associated with the press release that I mentioned. I found him to be a fair and open person with whom to do business. I put that on record because his consultation was very thorough. Sheffield city council was still the planning authority and granted the initial permission, and British Coal then placed a contract with A. F. Budge through its subsidiary, A. F. Budge (Mining), to opencast the site.
  There were benefits for the community in return. A £250,000 community fund was established and many local groups have been involved in developing projects. A gipsy site was relocated and given improved facilities, which was welcome and important. Five holes of a local golf course were relocated and a new club house provided. There was also the access road to the edge of the site, to be built at a cost of £1.7 million. That, too, would benefit its future development.
  There was also an agreement that once the site had been used for opencast mining, the ground would be compacted in such a way as to be suitable for laying a runway. Has the ground been thus compacted? People who worked on the site claim that the job was never done properly—the earth was just tipped back on to the site, and if anyone tried to lay a runway on it, he would end up with the airport equivalent of a traffic calming measure. Bumps would appear as the ground settled.
  On 14 July 1989 a contract was agreed between British Coal Opencast and A. F. Budge (Mining) for 800,000 tonnes of coal to be extracted from the site. The planning gains were to be the other side of the coin; but clearly British Coal and A. F. Budge (Mining) were to make large profits from the site—there is no dispute about that. Indeed, just today I received from a Minister at the Department of the Environment a letter accepting the fact that all those community gains were specifically lodged in the original planning agreement, and formed part of it.
  Immediately the initial planning agreement was drawn up, planning responsibility transferred from Sheffield city council to Sheffield development corporation. In the

  225
  recent "Panorama" programme, which included a great deal of excellent information, one of the issues that was not absolutely clear was the fact that, as events unfolded, the responsibility lay not with Sheffield city council but with Sheffield development corporation.
  It is clear from the whole affair that the only gains to the community from the entire process were those stipulated in the planning agreement signed by Sheffield city council, which got the matter right and achieved something for the local community. The rest of the problems appeared once the council had left the scene—I shall return to some of the advice given by councillors in due course.
  The development corporation was set up against the advice of the city council. We, like the chamber of commerce, opposed it in principle—the latter believed that it could work with us. Sheffield city council had entered into partnerships and joint working arrangements with the private sector in the mid-1980s, so nothing could be further from the truth than the view that Labour councils cannot sit down and talk to business, or that we are against development and against creating new industries and jobs.
  The Government's view, however, was that the regeneration of derelict areas, and in particular of an area of Sheffield which had lost 40,000 jobs following the collapse of the steel and engineering industries, was a matter for development corporations. David Trippier, the Minister at the time, came to see me when I was leader of the council and asked what our response would be to a Sheffield development corporation with £50 million to spend.
  I said that I thought that the city council, in conjunction with Government and private industry, working on a tripartite basis, would spend the money better and with more democratic accountability. I added that, if the Government were making it a take-it-or-leave-it offer, we would not wish away a development corporation with £50 million, which could benefit local people. Certainly, we opposed it in principle, but once it was established we would sit down and work with it and try to make it as big a success as possible. That was a difficult decision for the council, but none of what follows can be laid at the door of the city council's refusing to work with the development corporation.
  We entered into a unique agreement with the corporation, trying to ensure that as much democratic accountability and openness as possible were brought to bear on the proceedings. We sat down with it to work for the benefit of the people of Sheffield. In all that follows, however, it is important to bear it in mind that this was ultimately a non-accountable body—except perhaps to Ministers, who must surely be responsible for what development corporations do, because no one else can be. Supposedly, furthermore, the body was set up not only because local Labour councillors would not work with business but because business acumen was needed to reach the right development decisions on behalf of local people. One can only smile at that in the light of what ensued.
  In May 1990 Sheffield development corporation entered into a new agreement with A. F. Budge for the construction and operation of an airport on the site at Tinsley. It was going to be cross-subsidised by the development of adjacent land, by the company, for a business park. In some ways, that seemed a sensible
  226
  arrangement. But then, some time later, on 12 March 1991, came an extension to the opencast contract belonging to British Coal and lodged with AFB (Mining). That extension altered the tonnage to be taken from the site, from the 800,000 tonnes that the opencast executive had agreed initially with Sheffield city council, to 1.1 million tonnes.
  I have seen communications from Ministers stating that there was no link between the opencast operation and the provision of infrastructure for, and the construction of, the airport. Nevertheless, from the very beginning in 1989, the initial planning agreement linked the two. Now Ministers claim that the extension of the agreement to mine opencast coal on the site was not linked with the further agreement to allow AFB (Mining) to develop the site for an airport. That is a key point in the whole discussion.
  I have a letter, dated 15 May, from the office of the chairman of the British Coal Corporation, signed by Mr. Bryn Morris, corporate affairs director, in which he states:
  "In May 1990, Sheffield Development Corporation entered into an agreement with A. F. Budge (Mining) Ltd for the construction and operation of the airport and the development of adjacent land".
  So far, we do not disagree.
  "Subsequently, on 12 March 1991 the opencast contract between British Coal and A. F. Budge (Mining) Ltd was altered, with the tonnage to be extracted from the site increased. This was as a consequence of the agreement between A. F. Budge (Mining) Ltd and the SDC with regard to the airport construction, which extended the time available for the operation of the opencast site."
  So British Coal believes that the agreement to build the infrastructure for the airport and the extension of the opencast contract were linked—that, at any rate, is how its corporate affairs director understands the situation.
  Ultimately, not the original 800,000 tonnes, nor even the extra 300,000 tonnes, were taken from the site: 1.5 million tonnes of coal were extracted. How was the extraction of the coal assessed? How did 400,000 tonnes more appear, as if by magic, right at the end of the scheme? Who did the calculations; who benefited from them; and what did the community get for the extra coal extracted? It appeared in no agreement, but it just so happens that 1.5 million tonnes was the amount initially requested by British Coal's opencast division back in 1987—a request that Sheffield city council refused to accept in the planning agreement of 1989.
  In my mind, and in the minds of local people and of British Coal's opencast division, the airport agreement and the extension of the opencasting agreement were certainly linked, under the same parent company—A. F. Budge (Mining). Will the Minister publish all details of the agreements, so that if there is any dispute about them, the public and Members of the House can see them and come to their own conclusions about the truth of the matter?
  On 15 March 1991, three days after the extension of the opencast agreement, another peculiar event took place. The opencast contractor, A. F. Budge (Mining), agreed to take over responsibility for any defects resulting from the improper compacting of the site within five years of the completion of that compacting. In return for taking over and guaranteeing to put right any defects—I should have thought that the contractor should be responsible for defects in any case—British Coal Opencast paid to A. F. Budge (Mining) £1 million. A private contractor

  227
  received £1 million of public money to put right the defects that resulted from its own failure to compact the site properly.
  That of itself begs quite a few questions. Given that AFB (Mining) and its subsidiaries have now gone out of business, is British Coal Opencast still responsible for putting right defects on the site? Who is responsible? Having paid £1 million, is British Coal now left with the responsibility for putting right any defects of compaction? In other words, did it hand over £1 million to a private company for no return, or did it transfer those responsibilities in the deal done with RJB (Mining) as part of its takeover of British Coal's responsibilities in Britain? It would be interesting to hear the Minister's response.
  What checks were carried out before the sell-off of all the operations on the viability of the work carried out by RJB (Mining) on the site? Was it compacted properly? I have asked the question and I shall repeat it because it is so important. When British Coal gave £1 million to AFB (Mining) in March 1991 for a guarantee that defects would be put right five years after work on compacting finished, just a year or more before the company became insolvent, what checks did British Coal Opencast make on the viability of the company? It is incredible that a public body should have accepted a guarantee from a private company stretching more than five years ahead, yet within 18 months that private company had gone bankrupt. Were any checks on its financial viability carried out?
  In March 1992, the A. F. Budge group was restructured and Richard Budge, through his new company, RJB (Mining), bought out AFB (Mining)'s interests. The opencast contract at Tinsley was novated to that new company, but not the airport agreement. That is the crux of the issue. Why was the airport agreement not transferred to the new company when, clearly, all the way along the key issue was that the profits from the opencasting operation would help fund the airport project? Going back to the initial proposals in 1987, there is no doubt about that.
  What is in some ways worse about the issue is that the agreement to guarantee any defects of compacting once they had become apparent after the opencasting had finished was not novated along with the rest of the opencast contract to RJB (Mining); it was kept in the A. F. Budge group and eventually novated to Sheffield airport, which was a subsidiary of the AFB group. Therefore, the responsibilities for carrying out the opencasting went to RJB (Mining), with all the profits, but the responsibility for putting the defects right, if there were any at the end of the contract, were left with a different company, which went into liquidation 18 months later.
  Why was that allowed to happen? Given that Government approval must have been necessary for the novation of those two contracts to different companies, why was a split allowed at the time? Already, 1 million tonnes of coal had been taken out and half a million tonnes were to be taken out in the next year.
  We know from asking questions that the airport arrangements were approved by Ministers. It is also clear from questions that I have asked that, although Ministers say that they did not approve the split of responsibilities between the two companies, they were clearly aware of
  228
  it. That split took place in March 1992. An answer that I received today from the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment states:
  "My Department was notified in December 1991 of the proposed company restructuring which would separate the mining and airport construction interest within the A. F. Budge group. No approval was required from my Department."
  Why not? The Department had approved the initial airport contracts. Therefore, it must have had interest in whether they would go ahead. Yet it allowed that restructuring to take place and the split of responsibilities, including the novating of the compacting defects arrangement to a different company, apparently without any concern from Ministers that something very wrong was about to happen.
  Those are all the very arrangements that led to the concerns of and investigations by Coopers and Lybrand into the role of the A. F. Budge directors, including Richard Budge himself, which led to the investigations by the insolvency unit and by the official receiver. Yet, despite the fact that those arrangements subsequently led to all those investigations, at the time Ministers were not concerned. They did not say that it was a matter on which they must take a view because it was so serious. They simply got the information and apparently did nothing with it.
  That leads me to a range of questions that have to be answered by Ministers. In the end, we are talking about the spending of public money with no return. Why were the responsibilities allowed to be split in the way that they were—responsibility for the airport and its cost in one company and the benefits of and the profit from opencasting in another company? At that time, could not the problems of the A. F. Budge group have been foreseen? A company that went into liquidation within 18 months would not have given the impression at the time that it was financially sound. What financial checks were done on the companies in question by civil servants? What advice did Ministers get? Why were no cross-guarantees required? Were they even requested from the Budge companies so that one arrangement could support the other in the event of a company failure? What were the contract details? Will Ministers publish them?
  At the end of the day, who made the decisions? Was it British Coal Opencast or the Sheffield development corporation? Ministers clearly knew about the arrangements. What advice did they give to the development corporation? If they did not give approval, did they give any advice throughout the whole of this? If they did not give approval, why not? Why did they not take the matter seriously?
  What in all this was the role of Richard Budge himself? He was a director of A. F. Budge at the time. He had a 35 per cent. personal stake in the Sheffield airport company. It all looks too convenient, does it not? Somehow he manages to buy out the profitable parts of the business, with all the profits from opencasting, with an extra 300,000 tonnes agreed, which turns into an extra 700,000 tonnes without any particular approval being given, and with the costs of any defect arrangements being transferred to another company, so he is not responsible for them, yet all the responsibilities for providing the airport are left with another company.
  Throughout all this, Sheffield city council was not involved because, as I said, from 1989 it ceased to be the planning authority. However, I have seen a brief that Sheffield city council's treasurer's department gave to

  229
  counsel at the time on the issue, which asks many questions about what was going on at Tinsley, but I simply cannot believe that its staff were the only people with their eyes open asking questions about what was happening.
  The brief asks who the opencast mining contract was with—British Coal or R. J. Budge (Mining) Ltd.—because it seems rather confused throughout. What were the main financial provisions of the contract? They were never revealed. Had there been any significant changes in the terms of the original contract? Clearly there had, but it is not clear what they were. Had there been any changes to the parties to the contract or any of the sureties for the performance of the contract? What the sureties were and whether there were any is not clear. Had the contract been satisfactorily performed, operationally and financially? When would it be completed? In what state would the site be left on completion of the contract? That was an important question because of the doubts over compaction.
  On the airport contract, the brief asked whether it was with A. F. Budge (Mining) Ltd., now renamed R. J. Budge (Mining) Ltd., with A. F. Budge Ltd. as surety for performance. What were the main financial provisions of the contract? Had there been any significant changes to the terms of the original contract? Why was the contract transferred to Sheffield Airports Ltd. when the R. J. Budge group split off from the A. F. Budge group? Why was the contract not left with RJB (Mining), perhaps retaining the A. F. Budge Ltd. guarantee and obtaining a guarantee from R. J. Budge's new holding company, RJB (Mining) plc? As Sheffield Airports Ltd. was only 65 per cent. owned by A. F. Budge Ltd., was the remaining 35 per cent. owned by Mr. R. J. Budge personally? Were any sureties or guarantees obtained from Mr. R. J. Budge?
  How far, if at all, has the contract been fulfilled to date, operationally, financially and so forth? How was the Budge group selected to undertake the opencast mining and the airport contracts? What inquiries were made about the financial status of the Budge group before the contracts were entered into? How were the opencast mining contract and the airport contract linked? Did they stand alone commercially, or were the profits of the opencast mining expected to be ploughed back into the airport construction? Why was it decided to allow the contracts to be split between the two groups of companies?
  If the Minister does not take shorthand, I shall be happy to give him that load of questions later; but I do not think that I should have to ask them tonight, or that officers in Sheffield city council should have to ask them. Civil servants should have been briefing Ministers, and Ministers should have considered them and then given advice to Sheffield development corporation. As a result of that advice, responsibility for the provision of the airport and profits from opencasting should not have been split as they were.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: Certain factors worsen the position. For instance—in the knowledge that they had not asked all the questions about the crook R. J. Budge, or seemingly had not—the same Government, faced with a bid from the same R. J. Budge to take over all the English pits and 20 other opencast sites, then allowed the man to be a serious bidder. There was no one else in the field, because he had bid for all three regions.
  230
  The Government allowed Budge to take the sites for £900 million-odd. Then, when he had them—with, as I have said, no other serious bidder in the field—this negligent Government knocked another £100 million of taxpayers' money off the original successful bid to allow their Tory friend the contract. It is a sorry saga, which started with the Sheffield airport site and the opencast sites and has ended with the success of a man who is likely to pour large sums into Tory party coffers for the next general election while telling miners that they must have a wage freeze.
  Mr. Betts: As my hon. Friend has said, the whole matter prompts questions about the judgment of Ministers and the propriety of the actions of Mr. Richard Budge. Is he really a fit and proper person to control the future of British mining?
  The matter did not end there, however. Not deterred by the fact that the responsibility for Sheffield airport had passed from him, Richard Budge saw the potential for such an airport—provided he did not have to fund it with the profits of his opencast operation.
  In January 1993, lo and behold, there was a bid for the open partnership fund, for a Sheffield aerocentre project. That bid came from none other than a company headed by Mr. Richard Budge, whose proposals required £2 million of Government funds and another £1 million from Sheffield development corporation—as well as International Development Association grants of more than £2 million, which have subsequently been agreed.
  Having had the money from the site and having separated the profit from that generated by the airport project through RJB (Mining), Mr. Budge then saw the possibility of developing the airport project and the business site associated with it at public expense. Again, questions must be asked about how that could be allowed to happen so soon. The Government eventually turned down the airport bid, but IDA grants to the tune of £2 million have been allocated.
  A new company called Glenlivet has now become involved in the Sheffield airport project. As far as I am aware, it is not owned by Richard Budge or connected with him in any way—apart from the fact that the man in charge of the operation, Mr. Mike Shields, just happens to be the person who was in charge of Richard Budge's proposal to build the airport a few months earlier. I am not trying to persuade Ministers that Sheffield airport is not a good idea worthy of Government support. What I am questioning is whether the degree of Government support that will now be necessary is greater than it would have been, because some of the profits from the opencast operation should have gone into the airport rather than Richard Budge's pocket.
  Indeed, Ministers might now spell out to us the extra cost to public funds of developing the airport—a cost that would not have been necessary had the original agreements been kept in one company, rather than being split. The responsibility for spending that money remains somewhere between Ministers, Sheffield development corporation and British Coal; Ministers might well expand on where they think it lies.
  The role of Richard Budge throughout the affair prompts many questions. First, when the airport and opencast responsibilities were split between the two companies, did not Richard Budge—as a director of A. F. Budge—know the state of the company and its various

  231
  offshoots? As a director, was he not aware that the company was in financial difficulties? Should not Ministers ask those questions? Did Richard Budge not know that the airport deal was worth funding? Did he not have plans to retain an interest in it? Did he simply not want the responsibility of putting in his own money, preferring an opportunity to come back for more Government money rather than using the opencast profits?
  Did not Richard Budge also cleverly manipulate the situation so that he would not end up with liability for the compaction defects on the site, but—although he was a contractor on the site—the liability would lie with Sheffield Airport Ltd., a subsidiary of the A. F. Budge group, which went into liquidation? Did Richard Budge reach any understanding with people on the site at Tinsley that the ground would not be compacted properly, so that even if money is now given for an airport more will have to be spent on putting right a site that should have been put right as one of the consequences of the original planning agreement? That certainly needs investigation; perhaps, if the Minister cannot give an answer tonight, he will commit the Government to carrying out such an investigation and reporting back.
  How far was all this sorry mess taken into account in the determination of whether Richard Budge was a fit and proper person to take over British Coal operations—and, indeed, whether he was a fit and proper person to be a director of any public company? What was the role of Ministers, who clearly knew all about the actions at Tinsley, in deciding the fate of Richard Budge?
  Was not their ultimate decision not to take action against him taken against the advice of Coopers and Lybrand, against the advice of the consultancy unit in the Department of Trade and Industry and against the advice of the official receiver? Perhaps Ministers will spell out who advised them of what at various stages. My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping)—who will probably want to speak later—has written a letter, a copy of which I have seen, asking Ministers to give the precise timetable; it will be interesting when Ministers respond to that.
  Is it true that officials involved in the privatisation of British Coal attended meetings of officials in the insolvency unit while discussion of Richard Budge's future was taking place? Did Ministers themselves attend those meetings before final decisions about Richard Budge's future were made? Why was Richard Budge treated differently from the other directors of A. F. Budge, against whom action is apparently being taken? Richard Budge was a director of the same company; apparently, he took illegal loans. There are still question marks over those issues. He was responsible for the restructuring of the arrangements at Tinsley, which allowed him to walk away from his responsibilities to Sheffield airport and the defects in the compacting agreement.
  Why did not Ministers tell the House about all those matters, and the various investigations that were taking place, when they presented their privatisation proposals to the House? Why did they leave themselves no alternative—no other companies in the frame that could be considered for the buy-out of British Coal operations? Did they not effectively put themselves in a completely
  232
  unviable position? If they had disqualified Richard Budge, they would have had no alternative, and the privatisation proposals would have fallen flat on their face.
  I am sorry to go on for so long, but these extremely complicated issues need many answers by Ministers. A few matters are crystal clear. The opencasting and the airport were linked from 1987 when British Coal made its first proposals, and they were clearly linked in the first planning agreement in 1989. The council planning agreement at that time contained an arrangement whereby planning gains for the community took various forms and were linked to the start of an airport. That agreement was extended. It was agreed to take an extra amount of coal from the site and extra work was to be carried out on the airport infrastructure.
  At some stage, those responsibilities were split, airport responsibilities remaining with the A. F. Budge group and RJB (Mining) taking on board the profitable operations of opencast mining on the site. There is, of course, no link between those two sets of responsibilities. After the split was carried out, no guarantees or sureties were apparently entered into or even asked for by SDC or by Ministers.
  It is also clear that 1.5 million tonnes of coal were extracted from the site—nearly twice the amount allowed in the initial planning agreement. It was 400,000 tonnes more than even the extended agreement that was reached subsequently, and all that extra profit went into the pockets probably of British Coal but also of Richard Budge and his company and there was no return to the community.
  The precise nature of the unpublished agreements is unclear. Who knew what and who made the decisions on all these matters as between SDC, British Coal and Ministers? What information was sought and what prior investigations were carried out before contracts were entered into with A. F. Budge and RJB (Mining) or any of the other companies involved? Were there any contingency arrangements? Why were guarantees not required and what will be the extra cost to public funds resulting from the collapse of A. F Budge and the fact that the airport will now have to receive more funding from the public purse?
  Why has secrecy surrounded all those matters and why is public money being spent and the public interest being involved without proper openness? Was the ground finally properly compacted, and why was the defects agreement separated from the responsibility for opencasting and novated to Sheffield airport instead of RJB (Mining)? Why were the extra 400,000 tonnes of coal extracted and what benefit did that give to the community? What was the role of Richard Budge in all this? How much profit did he make? How many responsibilities did he leave behind that should properly have been paid for out of that profit? What did he know about the whole arrangement throughout?
  It is just too convenient for Richard Budge somehow to make an arrangement under which he walks away with all the money while responsibilities for community provision are left behind by another company of which he is a director and which just happens to go into liquidation a few months later. In view of all that, there must be questions as to whether he is a fit and proper person to run the coal industry, bearing in mind all the other questions that have been raised about his role as a director of A. F. Budge at the time.

  233
  The history of the matter is a mixture of administrative incompetence, financial ineptitude, negligence and perhaps naivety and lack of accountability. It has all the appearance of sharp practice by the only individual who seemed to know what he was doing in his own interests. That person is Richard Budge, the chairman of RJB (Mining). As the Government, British Coal and SDC appeared to squander public resources or watch while they were being squandered, A. F. Budge collapsed, but Richard Budge walked away with the profits, not from the tonnage as originally agreed but from 1.5 million tones, thereby giving himself an even stronger financial base from which to mount his bid to run British Coal.
  In my view and the view of my constituents that has left deep unease and concern about the whole situation but especially about Richard Budge and his company. That unease and concern will be addressed only by a full public inquiry into this whole affair. It has to be brought out into the open and must be the subject of full public scrutiny.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) has sought the agreement of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) and the Minister to take part in the debate. Any other hon. Member hoping to catch my eye must do likewise.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Stephen Byers: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on securing this debate. He has understandably concentrated on the effect of RJB (Mining) on the Tinsley site in Sheffield and also raised some wider issues about the role of Richard Budge and the part that RJB (Mining) will play now that it has control of what remains of the English coalfield. I want to address those wider issues.
  The House will be aware that on 12 October 1994 RJB (Mining) was named by the Government as the preferred bidder for the remains of the English coalfield. As my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe said, the chairman of that company is Mr. Richard Budge. Based on information in my possession, I have to say that there must be serious doubts about whether it was appropriate for the Government, in view of what they knew about the conduct of Richard Budge as a former director of A. F. Budge, to name his company as the preferred bidder.
  I understand that Richard Budge was named by Coopers and Lybrand in its report and also in the first report by the official receiver. As I shall later show, there were two reports by the official receiver. The first report named Richard Budge as a person whose conduct was such that an application should be made to the court for him to be disqualified from holding a future directorship in any company. These are serious allegations, which I shall seek to support in my contribution.
  We need to be aware that at the time of these events two issues were effectively running in parallel. One was the investigation into the collapse of the A. F. Budge group of companies. In addition, the Government's political imperative was to secure the privatisation of the coal industry. In December 1992, administrative receivers were appointed to the A. F. Budge group of companies and Coopers and Lybrand was appointed to report to the
  234
  insolvency service, which is part of the Department of Trade and Industry. It was to report on the events surrounding the collapse of A. F. Budge and in particular on the liabilities, responsibilities and conduct of individual directors of the A. F. Budge group.
  The Coopers and Lybrand report was submitted to the insolvency service on 28 September 1993. I understand that that report highlights the conduct of, in particular, three former directors of A. F. Budge and questions their fitness to be directors. One of the three named was Mr. Richard Budge. The insolvency service took time to consider the Coopers and Lybrand report and the official receiver reported on 25 July 1994.
  I understand that on that date the official receiver recommended that a report be made to the court under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 applying for three former directors of A. F. Budge, one of whom was Mr. Richard Budge, to be disqualified from holding office as directors of any company. That report was not acted upon. Word had begun to circulate in the Department of Trade and Industry and to set alarm bells ringing in the special unit which had been set up to oversee the privatisation of the coal industry. Everything was put on hold until a decision was taken about who the preferred bidder for the coal industry was to be.
  Tenders were submitted in September 1994 and, as we know, on 12 October 1994 RJB (Mining) was named as the preferred bidder for the English coalfield. It is of particular interest that no fallback position was announced at the time. It was agreed that RJB (Mining) should be the one and only company to form the substantive part of the preferred bidder. The Government, however, had a problem: what should they do with the official receiver's report of 25 July?
  The official receiver was asked to reconsider the position. On 11 November, 14 November and 15 November 1994, he interviewed the three directors named in his original report for disqualification, no doubt to try to find out whether new evidence existed of which he had not been aware before his original report. Mr. Richard Budge was interviewed on the first of those dates. Following those interviews, advice was given by the official receiver to Ministers. On 21 November 1994, the decision was taken to bring disqualification proceedings against just two of those interviewed, and Mr. Richard Budge escaped liability and responsibility. Following that recommendation, on 7 December 1994 a report against the remaining two directors was made to a court for their disqualification as company directors. With one bound, Mr. Richard Budge was free.
  Given the Government's commitments to the privatisation of the coal industry, Labour Members will understand why it was so important that some quick solution was found to get Mr. Richard Budge off the hook. In addition to the political imperative, however, he clearly had friends in high places. On no less than seven separate occasions, he met the Minister for Industry and Energy, who is responsible for coal privatisation, to discuss matters relating to that privatisation. Those meetings were all held at important and strategic times: 17 June 1992, 29 June 1992, 1 March 1993, 26 March 1993, 15 April 1993, 15 June 1993 and 7 July 1994. He had access to a Minister that even many Labour Members do not have.
  Of course, Mr. Budge has other friends in high places. I am told that people attending Doncaster races on 10 September 1993—I do not know whether you were there,

  235
  Mr. Deputy Speaker—were surprised to see a helicopter emblazoned with the RJB (Mining) logo land in the centre of the race track. Mr. Richard Budge got out, which was not unexpected, given that it was his helicopter, but who was he accompanied by? He was with Lord Wakeham, at that time Leader of the House of Lords and a member of the Cabinet, who was out for a day at the races.
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: Does my hon. Friend recall that the noble Lord was called in during the coal crisis, when the Government wanted to close pits, to sort out the problem, and that he chaired a Cabinet committee to resolve the issue? Was he not therefore a man with real influence?
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Hon. Members should never forget that it was Lord Wakeham who, when he was a Member of this House and Minister with responsibility for energy, awarded a contract to Rothschild to advise the Government on coal industry privatisation. I shall not discuss the fact that he is now a Rothschild director as that would not be appropriate for this debate.
  Clearly, therefore, Mr. Richard Budge is a man with friends in high places. He knows how to operate the system on behalf of RJB (Mining). I was interested to learn that in 1993 he took over Clipstone colliery in Nottinghamshire, that he made a deal, that he effectively reopened it after it had been closed for a fairly short time, and that, as the new owner, he entered into an arrangement with North Nottinghamshire training and enterprise council whereby for every miner he re-employed he would receive a grant of £1,000 for retraining purposes.
  In total, in 1993–94, he obtained £150,000 for RJB (Mining) from that TEC. What is of particular interest is that the House of Commons Library informs me that in 1993–94, the same year in which Mr. Budge's company received £150,000 from North Nottinghamshire TEC, he was a director of that TEC.
  Many questions need to be answered. The Minister will be pleased to learn that I have just two to add to the list submitted by my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe. Will the Minister now publish the Coopers and Lybrand report into the conduct of the former directors of A. F. Budge? Secondly, will he publish the official receiver's initial report of 25 July 1994? Refusal to do so will lead all reasonable people to believe that there is a cover-up and that the Government have something to hide.
  All the available information points to this being a shameful and shoddy affair. The issue will not go away. Labour Members will continue to pursue it until we receive some straight answers to those important questions.
  8.37 pm
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on securing the debate. I should like to put on the record my thanks to the Minister for allowing me to take part and for his helpful attitude to questions since he became a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry only a few weeks ago. His openness contrasts with the difficulties that we have had in obtaining information.
  236
  I wish the people who have bought the newly privatised industry no harm. I regret the passing of the coal industry into the private sector, but I wish the new coal owners well because they have a monstrous task before them. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will recall perhaps better than anyone that contracts with the generators run until 1998. Some of us are have real concerns about what the coal industry faces after that. In view of that, I wish the people who own the industry, and more particularly the people who work in it, well and a good future.
  I want to raise issues that some of my colleagues have not dealt with and to extend the debate. I remind the Minister that on 12 October 1994 Mr. Richard Budge was named as the preferred bidder in a blaze of glory at the Tory party conference. We also know that in November 1994 he made a bid of £914 million for the three English coal regions. We know that because I have a copy of the presentation that he took round the City.
  At the end of November 1994 I wrote to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to say that I was extremely concerned about the bid. It was far in excess of anybody else's bid and I suspected that there would be negotiations to knock the bid down. A few days later I was proved right because the deal concluded for the sale of the coal industry in England to Mr. Budge was £815 million. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has already asked the relevant question, but I want to reinforce it: how is it that, in only a few days, the value of the coal industry fell by £99 million? Clear questions need to be asked and clear answers need to be given.
  That is not the end of the matter. We know that the deal that Mr. Budge did with the Department of Trade and Industry through all the brokers was to buy the industry, as miners in Nottinghamshire say, on the never-never. All the other bidders were told that they had to pay cash up front. The deal that was eventually concluded allowed RJB (Mining) to buy the industry over three years with deferred payments. So, as well as the £99 million loss, I calculate that the deferred payments over three years will result in a further loss of £116 million.
  Some of my hon. Friends have already pointed out that the preferred bidder was named in October. I find it staggering that the other bidders—a wide range of other people could have bought the English coal industry—were told between October and December to go away and not to keep their financing in place. So, from a very early day, the Government were committed to Mr. Budge. Part of the problem now is that the Government walked down the gangplank with Mr. Budge and, when the going got tough and the sea got stormy, they had no alternative but to jump into the water with him.
  These are significant issues and I am delighted that the Public Accounts Committee is looking at these matters. I hope that things will be clarified when the Public Accounts Committee receives the report. My only sadness is that it will be the autumn before we know about this. Many of us were raising concerns about the proposed sale in the autumn of last year and it is bizarre that we can examine the matter only in retrospect. That is one of the reasons why I welcome the debate. I hope that the Minister will be open and honest about the dealings and the relationships with RJB (Mining).
  There are other issues that concern me. I have looked carefully at the documents that RJB (Mining) has produced over the years. I was interested to see that in its

  237
  "Pathfinder" prospectus, which was published in November 1994, it says that the company's chief executive, Mr. Richard Budge, received an annual salary of £235,000. For the year after the purchase of British Coal—the present year—his salary will increase to £290,000 plus a £50,000 acquisition bonus. Put another way, that reflects a salary increase of 45 per cent. The prospectus also shows that the remuneration committee of RJB (Mining) will have a discretionary power to pay a performance-related bonus of up to 100 per cent. at the end of 1995 if the company performs well. In the space of just over a year Mr. Budge's salary could increase to £630,000—an increase of 168 per cent. from November 1994.
  What galls the miners in Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire and throughout the country—all those who work for Mr. Budge and RJB (Mining)—is the letter that they received in February. Mr. Budge wrote to the work force saying that there would not be a base rate adjustment in pay until March 1998. He justified that in the letter by saying that, because of the alleged difficult and competitive economic climate, the company could not afford to pay more.
  It is staggering that miners throughout England who have worked hard and raised productivity by 150 per cent. in recent years as well as producing coal at half the cost of Germany should be told by their new chief executive, "Times are tough, lads, and you will take a pay freeze until March 1998. However, if things go well for me, my salary will increase to £630,000—an increase of 168 per cent."
  RJB (Mining) was purchased by Mr. Budge out of A. F. Budge in a management buy-out in February 1992. It is clear that, even before the buy-out A. F. Budge was facing major financial difficulties. One of the things that concerns me as a taxpayer—I hope that the Minister will pursue this point with the chairman of British Coal—is how in 1991 British Coal could make advance payments of £10.5 million to A. F. Budge for an opencast site at Eastpit near Swansea. That is an unprecedented interest-free loan. It has not been possible at this stage to get to the bottom of the matter with British Coal.
  Mr. Michael Clapham: In his research into A. F. Budge, has my hon. Friend come across any contributions to the Conservative party? If so, can he quantify the contributions that have been made over recent years?
  Mr. Tipping: I shall come to that in a moment.
  We ought to acknowledge that the payment of £10.5 million to A. F. Budge in 1991, according to its then chairman and chief executive, Mr. Tony Budge, kept the company afloat for an extra year. There is no doubt about that. In a sense, A. F. Budge was being looked after by the taxpayer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) has just suggested, we need to examine the relationship between A. F. Budge, Mr. Tony Budge and the Conservative party.
  There is no doubt that there are clear links. I understand that, despite his difficulties, Mr. Tony Budge is still the vice-president of the Newark Conservative party. I know from experience that Mr. Tony Budge has raised a great deal of money for the Conservative party through fund-raising events and that he was chairman of an east midlands group of industrialists which also raised money
  238
  for the Conservative party. Although his company was looked after with £10.5 million, it is clear that he had previously been looking after the Conservatives.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) talked about the process of A. F. Budge going into liquidation and asked a number of specific questions about the timetable of events. When did Ministers receive reports from Coopers and Lybrand and then from the Official Receiver and when were decisions taken to prosecute former directors of A. F. Budge? I find it very difficult to understand why three directors of A. F. Budge—Mr. Tony Budge, his wife, Janet Budge, and a finance director, face court action whereas Mr. Richard Budge does not.
  My principal concern relates to the loans that Richard Budge had from the companies with which he has been associated. I have no doubt—indeed, it is documented in the reports that Ministers have received from Coopers and Lybrand—that Mr. Richard Budge had a loan account of £400 million with A. F. Budge.
  People like me wanted to know what a loan account is. In simple terms, it means borrowings from a company. One of Mr. Richard Budge's borrowings from A. F. Budge was £12,500 for the hire of a marquee for a family party. In addition, on 30 March 1991, a payment of £10,000 in petty cash was made to him. That is extremely disturbing behaviour, and I believe that Coopers and Lybrand and the liquidators found such payments distressing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend said, Mr. Richard Budge was criticised in the reports. On a D2 form, it was said that Mr. Richard Budge's behaviour made him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.
  The prospectus issued by RJB Mining in the autumn of last year contains a paragraph which states that Mr. Richard Budge paid back £325,000 to the liquidators, without admitting any liability, in order to pay the loans that he had had with the company. I believe that that payment is in breach of the Companies Acts and that Coopers and Lybrand and the draft report produced by the Insolvency Service took the same view.
  There appears to be a record of pathological behaviour because, having bitten once, Mr. Richard Budge bit again. The prospectus also contains the following phrase:
  "During the financial period ended 31 December 1992, the company entered into credit transactions with R. J. Budge. In so doing, the company did not comply with the provisions of the Companies Act. The maximum aggregate value of these transactions was £70,442".
  Mr. Richard Budge had a loan account of £400,000 with A. F. Budge. He cleared it at the insistence of the liquidators but, as his own company prospectus makes clear, he went on to have a further loan account with his new company amounting to £70,000 in breach of the Companies Acts.
  Ministers cannot say that they were unaware of such behaviour as the documents are a matter of public record. Indeed, I would go further and remind the Minister that, in December last year, I wrote to his colleague, the President of the Board of Trade, pointing out a raft of issues that led me to be concerned about the fitness of Mr. Richard Budge to run the deep coal industry.
  I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade before the contract to buy the industry was signed on 24 December. I have now written again, asking him to produce a detailed timetable of when reports were

  239
  received from the liquidators, who was involved in making decisions, what advice Ministers received from their civil servants and whether it is true that the DTI unit involved in selling the coal industry was holding meetings in another part of the building with the Insolvency Service to consider what might happen to Mr. Richard Budge?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe talked about the ingenious financing that enabled the good to be cherry-picked by Mr. Richard Budge's company and the liabilities to be left elsewhere. Let me draw the Minister's attention to a company called Moira Pottery based in Leicester. It was a loss-making company acquired by A. F. Budge which was interested not in pottery but in the opencast reserves that lay underneath the company's premises. We now know, because the record is at Companies house, that when RJB Mining was bought out of A. F. Budge, Moira Pottery was acquired for £1. It was subsequently valued at £1 million. Accusations are being made that there were attempts to transfer A. F. Budge's prime assets out of the company and into a new company, RJB Mining.
  People are extremely concerned about those issues. The time has now come for the Minister and his colleagues who were there before him to come clean. I am delighted that the Public Accounts Committee is looking at the matter. I regret that it will take time to report. Many of us want to see a strong, deep coal industry in this country. The men who work in the industry deserve that. For that industry to succeed, it is important that the whole tale is told and that all the secrets are let out of the cupboard so that the coal industry can go forward, into a new future without skeletons. There are enough skeletons in the history of the coal industry without there being more holding it back.
  8.59 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on not only his skill in securing this Adjournment debate, but on somehow managing to get it into a time frame in which half an hour has extended to something like two and a half hours? I think that that is only right, however. It is a complicated subject and it is only right that we discuss it and try to clear up some of the misunderstandings and dispel some of the conspiracy theories that seem to be puzzling and worrying Opposition Members.
  May I say right at the start that I well understand the concern of the hon. Member for Attercliffe over the failure of the Sheffield city airport project to go ahead. I do not want to damage his political standing in Sheffield. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman and I sat side by side and watched the "Panorama" programme on which he appeared. I thought that he gave a splendid presentation in which he represented, quite justifiably, the concerns of his constituents. Of course the "Panorama" programme had been so edited that it was as jerky as a silent first world war film. But that is by the by.
  Before I address the questions raised, I would like to make one or two general points regarding coal privatisation. The Labour party continues to suggest that coal privatisation has been a mistake and a failure. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is not present at
  240
  the moment. He came into the House, issued one of his usual rants and has since disappeared. I regret to say that he, among others, will not accept the reality that privatisation has been a considerable success. We set out a clear objective to achieve the largest economically viable coal industry in the long term and to ensure value for money for the taxpayer. As the House knows, the sale was successfully concluded in December, and it was far from being the failure predicted by so many Opposition Members.
  Mr. Clapham: The Minister must realise that, in 1993, before the coal closure programme was enacted, there were 50 collieries. At the present time, there are some 28 collieries, which were previously part of British Coal, and there are a number of other smaller collieries, which have always been outside the public sector. Those 50 collieries employed 50,000 men. At the present time, around 6,000 men are employed in the industry. In other words, we have seen the loss of 44,000 jobs since 1993. How can he justify that as a success? The other thing that the Minister must remember is that the remaining 28 collieries are high-technology collieries, which were transformed by the public purse. Of course productivity in those collieries is high—purely and simply because of the mining technology which was paid for by the taxpayer.
  Mr. Page: I do not want to get diverted too far down that route. Otherwise, we would have to be here, if we were allowed, until about 12 o'clock. I must delicately point out to the hon. Gentleman that, if he looks at the history of the coal industry, he would find that his party has closed more mines and put more miners out of work than any other. I commend his courage in allowing me to draw attention to that point.
  We have, as I say, created a successful industry and in creating that successful industry, we have received proceeds just short of £1 billion, which is a significant boost for public finances. Competition has been increased, with the transfer of former British Coal mines to a number of companies. RJB (Mining) now operates or is developing a total of 20 collieries, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) said, across central and northern England—more than British Coal operated or was developing at the time of privatisation. Coal Investments is operating or developing half a dozen collieries. Scottish Coal operates another significant deep-mine complex, and there are management and employee buy-out teams at Tower colliery in south Wales and Hatfield in Yorkshire. Between them, those companies have some 29 former British Coal collieries, twice the number that it had been claimed would survive.
  In the new private sector, companies are making a success of their business. New customers are being found. British Steel has bought British-mined coal from Tower colliery in place of imports for the first time for many years. Tower colliery is even selling coal to France. New employment opportunities are opening up with the re-opening of collieries that have been on care and maintenance and the new apprenticeship schemes offer by RJB (Mining). Productivity is improving and costs are coming down.
  I shall now talk about the case of RBJ (Mining), and I shall start with Sheffield airport, on which the hon. Gentleman legitimately spent so much of his time. As I said earlier, he has been assiduous in pursuing the matter

  241
  on behalf of his constituents, and I already understand the acute disappointment that he must feel because the Sheffield airport project has not gone ahead.
  The hon. Gentleman started by expressing concern about the splitting of the responsibility for providing the infrastructure for an airport at Tinsley, Sheffield, and about the Government's role. I shall outline some of the essential facts, and do my best to answer as many as I can of the questions that have been asked. But at one stage in the debate the questions were coming like machine-gun bullets, and I shall certainly not be able to answer all of those. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall read the Official Report of the debate afterwards. I hope that Hansard has faithfully recorded all the points that he made, and I shall return to him and let him have the details about all the questions that I do not cover tonight.
  In May 1990 A. F. Budge (Mining) Ltd.—which subsequently became RJB (Mining) Ltd.—and A. F. Budge Ltd. contracted with Sheffield development corporation for the construction and running of an airport at Tinsley Park, Sheffield, part of which was then being worked as an opencast coal mine by A. F. Budge (Mining) Ltd. under a contract from British Coal.
  Such a disposal of a large area of land for what might be described as an unusual use required the consent of the Secretary of State for the Environment. As the hon. Gentleman will know from the answer given to him on 9 May—he has already referred to it—such approval was given. Subsequently several variations in the terms and time scales provided for in the contract were agreed between the parties.
  During 1991 discussions took place to separate the Budge mining operations run by Mr. R. J. Budge from the principal Budge construction and other companies run by his brother, Mr. A. F. Budge. That involved, among other things, the formation of a new company—Sheffield Airport Ltd., a subsidiary of A. F. Budge Ltd., the holding company of the Budge Group of companies. Those discussions were concluded in February 1992, when there was a management buy-out, led by Mr. R. J. Budge, of the coal mining operations.
  The terms of the airport contract for Tinsley Park were varied, releasing A. F. Budge (Mining) Ltd. and bringing in Sheffield Airport Ltd., which, with A. F. Budge Ltd. as surety, was to undertake the development—although it was my understanding that the intention remained that A. F. Budge (Contractors) Ltd., another A. F. Budge Group company, would carry out the work.
  Let us be clear about three things. First, the restructuring of the A. F. Budge Group and the disposal of the coal mining operations were the subject of detailed consideration and reports by solicitors and accountants acting for the parties. The agreements were crawled over by accountants and solicitors.
  Secondly, the variation of the Tinsley Park airport contract, releasing A. F. Budge (Mining) Ltd., was agreed to by the Sheffield development corporation. The hon. Member for Attercliffe asked many questions about who had agreed to this and who had agreed to that. I must remind him that Sheffield development corporation was not an innocent party standing on one side. It was in a position to make many of those inquiries and to find out many of the answers before going ahead.
  Thirdly, as the hon. Gentleman will also know from the answer given to him on 9 May, although the Department of the Environment was aware of the variations of the
  242
  contract, it was not necessary for it to give its approval or otherwise to be involved, as the holding company, A. F. Budge Ltd., continued as surety for the performance of the contract. I am not aware that the administrative receivers or the liquidators for the A. F. Budge Group of companies have sought to challenge the transaction itself.
  To complete the history—
  Mr. Betts: The Minister referred to the fact that the A. F. Budge Group had a surety for Sheffield Airport Ltd. and the provision of the airport. That does not answer the question about the splitting of responsibilities for mining and making a profit and building the airport and incurring expense. The letter from the office of the chairman of British Coal which I read out said that those two matters were linked and that agreements were drawn up.
  Mr. Page: I am unaware of the contents of the letter that the hon. Gentleman received from British Coal, but the information which he has given suggests that these agreements were not linked and that the Sheffield development corporation agreed to the particular splits which took place. A degree of responsibility for this matter must lie with the Sheffield development corporation.
  I wish to complete the history of Tinsley Park, which I recognise is most disappointing to the Sheffield development corporation and the people of Sheffield. The administrative receivers were appointed in relation to A. F. Budge Ltd. in December 1992, and subsequently in relation to other A. F. Budge Group companies.
  Clearly the A. F. Budge Group was not in a position to undertake any construction on the site. In March 1993, Sheffield Airport Ltd.—which had no other business assets—formally notified the Sheffield development corporation that it was not able to proceed with the development. Discussions took place between the corporation and the administrative receivers to try to find a solution, but none could be found. The site was eventually handed back to the corporation. Sheffield Airport Ltd. was wound up by the courts in October 1993, with the corporation claiming payments under the contract relating to the purchaser of an area of land adjoining Tinsley Park which the A. F. Budge Group intended to develop as a business complex.
  I am told that the notified liabilities of that company total some £407,000, although further claims could come under the contract. The minimal assets of £10,000 are likely to be absorbed by the costs of winding up. The hon. Member for Attercliffe has asked for some form of inquiry, but he will know from the answer given to him by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on 9 May that that Department has no plans for a public inquiry into the contract relating to the Tinsley Park airport development.
  With regard to the A. F. Budge Group, detailed consideration was given to the restructuring which took place in February 1992, including the disposal of the mining operation by that group, the administrative receivers and the official receivers. That consideration was taken into account in their reports to the Insolvency Service under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. It was also taken into consideration in the service's decision in relation to disqualification proceedings.

  243
  A few points were raised over the compaction of the site at Tinsley Park. The hon. Gentleman is concerned about what happened to the £1 million paid by British Coal for compaction once the mining had finished and the site had been prepared for the construction of the airport. It is my understanding that the payment to A. F. Budge (Mining) Ltd. went into the A. F. Budge Group account, and was used with other group funds, to finance on-going group operations.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what checks were carried out on financial liability, but that is a commercial matter for British Coal.
  For accounting purposes, A. F. Budge (Mining) Ltd. was thus shown as owing the £1 million by A. F. Budge Ltd. on an inter-company account.
  When the A. F. Budge Group was restructured and its mining operations were bought out in February 1992, Sheffield Airport Ltd. took over some of the obligations of A. F. Budge (Mining) Ltd. in relation to the airport development contract. The inter-company account of £1 million shown as due to A. F. Budge (Mining) Ltd. by A. F. Budge Ltd. was transferred to Sheffield Airport Ltd. As far as I am aware, no cash changed hands. I am sure that the administrative receivers of the A. F. Budge Group and the liquidators of Sheffield Airport Ltd. considered any questions raised about the use of those moneys.
  One of the questions raised in the debate dealt with the tender price.
  Mr. Betts: I have been listening with interest to what the Minister had to say about compaction. He has not said why the obligations to guarantee putting right the defects in compaction work five years after that work had been completed were novated to Sheffield airport, which seems a strange company to take on that responsibility, and not transferred with the novation of the contracts on opencasting to RJB (Mining), which would have seemed a more logical and legitimate place for them to rest.
  Mr. Page: I cannot say why it went that way. I have had no evidence to suggest that the compacting has not been done correctly. If it has not, in the first instance, it will be a matter for British Coal.
  The reduction in the bid by RJB (Mining) was made out to be some sort of back-door deal, but it was not. The tender price was adjusted as envisaged in the information memorandum issued by Rothschilds. The adjustments reflected developments since tenders were submitted in September 1994—or information that was not available to bidders when they submitted their tenders. The adjustments would have been available to any other preferred bidder. As I said, even after those adjustments, RJB's bid was considerably higher than the others.
  The hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers), beguilingly, tried to suggest that, if I could release the reports of the official receivers and Coopers and Lybrand, I would be a decent, open and honest sort of fellow. I am afraid that this is where I am going to be a constant disappointment to the House because those reports are confidential and come under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. If they were not confidential, in future many people would be reluctant to give
  244
  information in such cases and the truth of the operations of one or two companies would not, therefore, come to hand and the correct decisions might not be made.
  Mr. Tipping: Will that report be made available to the National Audit Office, which is acting for the Public Accounts Committee in looking at the sale?
  Mr. Page: The straight answer is that I do not know. I served for seven years on the Public Accounts Committee and we were most assiduous in trying to get information out of aspects of Government when we thought that we could find out where money had been wasted or spent incorrectly. I am afraid that that is a question that the hon. Gentleman will have to direct to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
  The hon. Member for Wallsend tried to work up some sort of conspiracy theory, suggesting that the Government were trying to help one of their friends—all that about secret meetings and Ministers getting involved with people who are involved in the industry. It would have been a peculiar way of doing it and an expensive form of conspiracy if, after one of those conspiratorial meetings, the gentlemen involved paid £200 million plus more than the nearest bidder. The hon. Gentleman also asked me about a timetable and perhaps I can help him a little.
  On 9 December 1992, the first A. F. Budge Group company was put into administrative receivership. On 28 September 1993, administrative receivers submitted conduct reports on directors. On 25 July 1994, the official receiver submitted reports of initial investigations, including considerations of administrative receivers' conduct reports. The Treasury solicitors were instructed and counsel was engaged to advise on preparation of the case. Administrative receivers were employed to undertake further inquiries at the direction of the official receiver.
  On 12 October, RJB (Mining) was told that it was the preferred bidder. On 21 November, the Insolvency Service decided to instigate proceedings against the three directors, who have already been mentioned, and the decision was endorsed by the Minister. But, as has been made perfectly clear, proceedings were not taken against Mr. Richard Budge and other directors. On 7 December, summonses were served against those three directors and, on 8 February this year, the first hearing of application in the case was outlined to the court. The hearing was then adjourned to a second formal hearing.
  Mr. Tipping: It is helpful to know that timetable. I thought that I heard the Minister say a few seconds ago that counsel was instructed to take the prosecution forward. Was legal advice taken from just one counsel, or was it taken from a variety of sources?
  Mr. Page: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman if I am incorrect, but I believe that more than one source of legal advice was obtained.
  Mr. Byers: The timetable reflects the sequence of events that I outlined. However, the important point is that we had the report from the official receiver on 25 July. Will the Minister confirm that that report recommended that disqualification proceedings should be taken against Mr. Richard Budge because he was not a fit person? On

  245
  12 October, he was then declared to be the preferred bidder. He was re-interviewed on 11 November and, lo and behold, on 21 November he was suddenly free and disqualification proceedings were not to be taken against him. That is my interpretation of events. What recommendations did the official receiver make on 25 July concerning Mr. Richard Budge?
  Mr. Page: As I mentioned earlier, the report is confidential and I cannot reveal its contents. As I was saying, the hon. Gentleman could draw one or two conclusions from the timetable and details that I have given, which any prudent politician would deduce.
  Mr. Betts: May I help the Minister on that point? He may be trying to tell Opposition Members that if the official receiver's report in July did not recommend that action should be taken against Mr. Richard Budge, there would be no need for further interviews.
  Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman must not deduce anything from what I have said.
  Mr. Betts: I can deduce what I like.
  Mr. Page: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman can deduce things. That is entirely up to him. It is his privilege. I see nothing peculiar in the various representatives in this matter undertaking a series of interviews with a number of people who have been involved in this matter. In no way does it imply a crime, irresponsible act or shortcoming.
  The Department started out with a clear objective to return the British coal mining industry to the private sector to secure the largest economically viable coal industry in the long term while ensuring value for money for taxpayers. That has brought significant improvements. One or two Opposition Members conveniently forget that, since 1979, the coal industry has had stuffed down its throat £19 billion of taxpayers' money. I look forward to the day when it starts to pay some tax back to the people of this country.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Nine o'clock.

TREASURY

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of by how much imports of manufactures would have to fall in each industry to take up the spare capacity of each of the principal import-saving and export industries, all other things remaining the same; [23792]

  (2) what estimate he has made of by how much exports of manufactures would have to increase in each industry to take up the spare capacity of each of the principal

  Cigarettes £ per 20

  HRT £ per 250g

  Cigars £ per 5 small

  Pipe £ per 250g

  Actual

  Real

  Actual

  Real

  Actual

  Real

  Actual

  Real

  1965

  0.27

  2.72

  1966

  0.27

  2.61

  1967

  0.23

  2.14

  1968

  0.24

  2.18

  1969

  0.26

  2.23

  1970

  0.26

  2.12

  1971

  0.26

  1.96

  1972

  0.27

  1.88

  1973

  0.27

  1.74

  1974

  0.32

  1.84

  1975

  0.42

  2.02

  1976

  0.45

  1.75

  1977

  0.49

  1.64

  17.70

  25.72

  0.52

  1.74

  16.95

  23.22

  1978

  0.55

  1.67

  18.90

  27.05

  0.54

  1.64

  17.50

  22.80

  1979

  0.66

  1.83

  19.20

  25.57

  0.55

  1.53

  17.80

  21.68

  1980

  0.73

  1.71

  9.10

  21.37

  0.63

  1.48

  7.70

  18.08

  1981

  0.95

  1.97

  10.10

  20.98

  0.72

  1.50

  8.30

  17.24

  1982

  1.02

  1.89

  13.20

  24.48

  0.89

  1.65

  10.50

  19.47

  1983

  1.09

  1.93

  14.60

  25.80

  0.97

  1.71

  11.60

  20.50

  1984

  1.23

  2.07

  15.60

  26.23

  1.03

  1.73

  12.10

  20.34

  1985

  1.33

  2.13

  17.50

  28.01

  1.14

  1.82

  12.50

  20.01

  1986

  1.48

  2.25

  18.90

  28.67

  1.18

  1.79

  13.10

  19.87

  1987

  1.52

  2.22

  21.10

  30.81

  1.22

  1.78

  13.60

  19.86

  1988

  1.56

  2.20

  21.40

  30.25

  1.24

  1.75

  13.90

  19.65

  1989

  1.63

  2.14

  22.30

  29.33

  1.29

  1.70

  14.30

  18.81

  1990

  1.67

  2.04

  23.00

  28.10

  1.35

  1.65

  15.00

  18.33

  1991

  1.80

  2.02

  25.10

  28.15

  1.46

  1.64

  15.70

  17.61

  1992

  2.08

  2.24

  29.00

  31.22

  1.64

  1.77

  18.00

  19.38

  1993

  2.27

  2.40

  31.70

  33.56

  1.76

  1.86

  19.10

  20.22

  1994

  2.52

  2.60

  35.30

  36.47

  1.91

  1.97

  21.10

  21.80

  1995

  2.70

  2.70

  36.80

  36.80

  2.02

  2.02

  22.60

  22.60

  1 10 ounces

  Note:

  Actual prices at 1 January. Real prices at January 1995 prices, calculated using the RPI (All Items).

  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received in the last year concerning tobacco taxation; how many have been in favour of(a) an increase and (b) a decrease in the level of taxation; and if he will list the representations received. [22961]
  106
  import-saving and export industries, all other things remaining the same.[23791]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Confederation of British Industry's April Quarterly Industrial Trends survey reported the strongest rise in export optimism since July 1973. This does not suggest that manufacturing companies are running short of spare capacity.

  Tobacco
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list in each year since 1965 the cost, in current and in real terms, of an average(a) packet of 20 cigarettes, (b) 250g of hand-rolling tobacco, (c) packet of five cigars and (d) 250g of pipe tobacco. [22960]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Information on average prices for tobacco products is not readily available. The table gives information based on manufacturers' recommended retail prices during the period 1965–1995 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.

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  We have received a number of representations. The majority of these asked that tobacco taxation should be kept at a minimum. I regret that more precise information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Alcohol Smuggling
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the estimated loss in tax due to illegal imports of(a) beer and (b) wine for (i) 1980, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1990, (iv) 1994 and (v) 1995. [23260]

  (2) what is the estimated amount of illegal imports of (a) beer and (b) wine for (i) 1980, (ii) 1985, (iii) 1990, (iv) 1994 and (v) 1995.[23259]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Before the completion of the single market on 1 January 1993 only seizures of spirits were separately recorded as seizures of other alcoholic drinks were insignificant. It is by definition impossible to calculate the true extent of smuggling and there is no current estimate. The actual amount of goods seized and the corresponding revenue evaded during the last two financial years are shown in the table.

  Beer

  Wine

  Financial year ending

  Revenue (£000s)

  Quantity (hlitres)

  Revenue (£000s)

  Quantity (hlitres)

  31 March 1994

  500

  7,000

  155

  840

  31 March 1995

  1,000

  11,000

  330

  1,900

  Cross-border Shopping
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the loss of revenue from cross-border shopping. [23357]

  Administrative costs1 of privatization

  £ million

  Year

  Selling and other commissions

  Marketing2

  Receiving bank costs

  UK advisers Fees

  UK underwriting

  Other costs3

  Total

  Amersham International

  1982

  —

  0.1

  —

  —

  0.4

  —

  2.9

  Associated British Ports

  1983

  —

  0.3

  —

  —

  0.4

  —

  2.6

  1984

  —

  0.1

  —

  —

  40.9

  —

  1.4

  British Aerospace

  1981

  —

  0.6

  —

  —

  42.3

  —

  5.6

  1985

  —

  1.9

  —

  —

  7.0

  —

  17.8

  BAA

  1987

  4.2

  10

  16.0

  2.4

  13.6

  —

  46.2

  British Airways

  1987

  2.9

  6.2

  8.3

  4.3

  7.8

  5.2

  34.7

  BP

  1979

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3.8

  —

  7

  1983

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8.3

  —

  22.8

  1987

  2.1

  48.3

  4.7

  5.4

  38.2

  55.3

  5154.0

  British Steel

  1988

  1.7

  11.6

  4.3

  5.6

  21.3

  13.9

  58.4

  BT

  1984

  13

  14

  20

  6

  74

  58

  185

  1991

  30.2

  38.8

  39.1

  7.4

  —

  66.9

  182.4

  1993

  48.5

  29.2

  14.9

  5.6

  —

  32.9

  131.2

  Britoil

  1982

  —

  0.3

  —

  —

  9.8

  —

  12.6

  1985

  —

  4.1

  3.7

  —

  6.9

  5.6

  23.3

  Cable and Wireless

  1981

  —

  0.3

  —

  —

  43.4

  —

  8.9

  1983

  0.2

  0.9

  —

  —

  4.3

  —

  12.5

  1985

  —

  2.8

  —

  —

  8.7

  —

  21.4

  Enterprise Oil

  1984

  —

  0.2

  —

  —

  47.0

  —

  10.7

  National Freight Consortium

  1982

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.3

  Rolls-Royce

  1987

  4.2

  4.0

  11.0

  2.2

  12.5

  —

  33.9

  1 Only costs borne by the Exchequer are shown. Costs shown include VAT and stamp duty, but exclude the cost of incentives and interest earned on application monies.

  2 Including the operation of the Share Information Office (where applicable).

  3 Includes overseas expenses.

  4 Includes some advisory fees.

  5 Excludes the cost of the Bank of England purchase scheme (27m).

  108
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Estimates for the amount of legal cross border shopping for alcohol and tobacco in the year to December 1994 are now available.

  The consequential loss of tax revenue may be expressed in one of two ways. On the traditional measurement, which formed the basis of the Customs and Excise advice to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee in 1994 and excludes both additional consumption effects and pre-single-market purchases, the revenue loss would be £210 million compared with the previous estimate of £200 million. However, given the additional passage of time, I am minded in future estimates to stop deducting the value of the pre-single-market element. On that adjusted basis the total revenue loss is £360 million.

  Privatised Companies
  Ms Armstrong
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the administrative costs of the share offers relating to(a) International, (b) Associated British Ports, (c) British Aerospace, (d) the British Airports Authority, (e) British Airways, (f) British Petroleum, (g) the British Steel Company, (h) British Telecom, (i) Britoil, (j) Cable and Wireless, (k) Enterprise Oil, (l) the National Freight Corporation and (m) Rolls-Royce on the basis of the answer of 23 March, Official Report, column 287. [23027]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]The table shows the administrative costs for the sales requested. These costs have been shown disaggregated into the same categories as the answer of 23 March,Official Report, column 287 to the degree that this information is held centrally. Administrative costs for these sales of just under £1 billion need to be set in the context of their gross proceeds of over £32 billion.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish estimates for the revenue cost in 1996–97 and for a full year of reducing the 20 per cent. tax rate to(a) 5 per cent., (b) 7 per cent., (c) 9 per cent., (d) 10 per cent., (e) 12 per cent., (f) 15 per cent., (g) 16 per cent. and (h) 18 per cent. on taxable income of (i) £1,000, (ii) £2,000 (iii) £3,000 and (iv) £3,200 retaining any balance of £3,200 at the 20 per cent. rate. [23354]

  (2) if he will provide estimates for the revenue cost in 1995–96 and for a full year of reducing the 20 per cent. tax rate to (a) 5 per cent., (b) 7 per cent., (c) 9 per cent., (d) 10 per cent., (e) 12 per cent., (f) 15 per cent., (g) 16 per cent. and (h) 18 per cent., on taxable income of (i) £1,000, (ii) £2,000 (iii) £3,000 and (iv) £3,200 retaining any balance of £3,200 at the 20 per cent. rate. [23974]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: The table gives available estimates showing the variation in revenue costs over the specified ranges of tax rates and bands of taxable incomes. No change in the rate of advance corporation tax or the rate of tax on dividends has been assumed.

  Full year revenue cost, at 1995–96 levels1

  Band of taxable income (£)

  5 per cent.

  (£ billion) lower rate 10 per cent.

  18 per cent.

  1,000

  3.8

  2.5

  0.5

  2,000

  7.3

  4.9

  1.0

  3,000

  10.5

  7.0

  1.4

  3,200

  11.1

  7.5

  1.5

  1 The figures include consequential effects on the yield of capital gains tax.

  Tax Burden
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out in the form of table 4A9 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96, revised tables, what the average ratio is if non-North sea taxes and national insurance contributions to non-North sea gross domestic product for(a) 1965–66 to 1969–70, (b) 1970–71 to 1973–74, (c) 1974–75 to 1978–79 and (d) 1979–80 to 1996–97. [21759]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 28 April 1995]: The figures requested are (a) 34¼ per cent., (b) 34¾ per cent., (c) 36 per cent, and (d) 37 per cent. But the tax burden should not be looked at alone. Since 1979 the public finances have been in much better shape and people are much better off than in the period 1974–75 to 1978–79.

  The average public sector borrowing requirement has been 2.5 per cent. of gross domestic product well below the 6.8 per cent. average during the 1974–77 to 1978–79 Government. Sound public finances are the key to lasting improvements in living standards.

  VAT on Fuel
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount which will be raised from VAT on domestic fuel in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98 at its present rate of 8 per cent. [24366]
  110
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The total revenue raised from the introduction of VAT on domestic fuel is estimated to be as follows:

  Year

  £ million

  1995–96

  1,230

  1996–97

  1,320

  1997–98

  1,325

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

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 17 March 1995]: The Treasury has no central budget for publications. Expenditure on publications and pamphlets since 1988–89 was as follows:

  Year

  Expenditure

  £ At 1994 prices

  1988–89

  202,700

  272,197

  1989–90

  207,285

  260,136

  1990–91

  218,531

  253,854

  1991–92

  139,865

  161,892

  1992–93

  171,311

  180,090

  1993–94

  202,719

  206,773

  1994–95

  238,139

  238,139

  No individual publication between 1993 to 1995 cost more than £50,000.

  Comparable data relating to the agencies and public bodies responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The Treasury does not have a specific advertising budget. Since 1993, £8.1 million has been spent on advertising the sale of the Government's remaining share in the electricity generating companies in England and Wales.

  Information about publicity costs since 1979 including publications and pamphlets, for the Treasury and the Chancellor's agencies and public bodies, could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Unleaded Fuel
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake a review of the excise differential favouring unleaded and super-unleaded fuels. [24182]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]My right hon. and learned Friend will be reviewing the tax treatment of all road fuels in the run-up to the budget in the normal way.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Malaysia
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs between which dates in March and April 1989 the Secretary of State for Defence visited Malaysia; which Malaysian Government Ministers he met; and if aid funding for Malaysia was discussed during that visit. [22675]

  Mr. Goodlad
  My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Younger, while Secretary of State for Defence, paid a visit to Malaysia on 31 March 1989 as part of a tour of the region. He met the Malaysian Ministers of Defence and Finance. The purpose of his visit was to discuss defence matters, but it is normal for a Cabinet Minister on such visits to discuss any important outstanding issues. In a general discussion on bilateral issues with the Finance Minister, he asked about progress on two planned civil infrastructure projects for which aid and trade provision support had been offered—the Pergau dam and another project not in the event won by a British firm.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the report on dual capable nuclear technology, prepared by John Large, sent to him by Greenpeace on 4 May; and what response he has made to the questions raised about United Kingdom nuclear export policy in the report. [24399]

  Mr. David Davis
  I have seen the report sent to the Foreign Secretary by Greenpeace. It points to dangers of which we are aware, but it underestimates the complexities of developing nuclear weapons. I am satisfied that our nuclear export policy meets our obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty not

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Applied

  Issued

  Refused

  Applied

  Issued

  Refused

  Applied

  Issued

  Refused

  a) New York

  15,425

  15,033

  157

  17,498

  17,312

  130

  18,726

  18,559

  110

  b) Moscow

  50,303

  49,732

  1,502

  61,367

  59,743

  1,624

  86,661

  84,761

  1,900

  c) St. Petersburg

  —

  —

  —

  1,429

  1,313

  116

  16,622

  15,820

  607

  d) Accra

  16,699

  11,507

  5,048

  15,753

  11,051

  4,094

  16,130

  11,684

  3,825

  e) Lagos

  47,181

  31,552

  11,145

  44,526

  29,447

  9,894

  49,176

  32,411

  10,529

  f) Abuja

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,113

  4,955

  655

  g) New Delhi

  39,291

  32,261

  3,464

  37,148

  31,652

  3,708

  43,258

  35,857

  7,373

  h) Bombay

  38,913

  34,905

  4,301

  37,988

  34,125

  3,785

  43,425

  39,924

  3,342

  j) Calcutta

  7,156

  6,538

  232

  6,826

  6,491

  253

  7,308

  7,139

  153

  k) Madras

  10,363

  10,079

  291

  10,348

  10,043

  247

  12,807

  12,624

  204

  l) Dhaka

  18,414

  14,043

  3,901

  19,359

  14,990

  4,447

  20,861

  14,615

  5,892

  m) Islamabad

  45,625

  31,611

  10,791

  41,485

  30,715

  9,526

  42,445

  29,850

  10,018

  n) Karachi

  23,397

  19,169

  2,610

  24,368

  20,712

  2,181

  28,266

  22,921

  2,516

  p) Colombo

  9,026

  7,139

  1,172

  9,200

  7,937

  874

  9,969

  7,610

  821

  It should be noted that St. Petersburg started entry clearance work in November 1993 and Abuja in February 1994.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest political developments in Nigeria. [24183]
  112
  to assist, encourage or induce non-weapon states to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons.

  Brazil
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Brazilian President on his recent visit to the United Kingdom, regarding human rights abuses and in particular the case of Wagnor dos Santos. [24487]

  Mr. David Davis
  The Brazilian Government are well aware of the concern felt in Britain about human rights abuses. We are in regular touch with them.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek assurances that the safety of Wagnor dos Santos will be safeguarded by the Brazilian authorities and that the shooting of him will be investigated with a view to bringing those responsible to justice. [24488]

  Mr. David Davis
  We understand that the case of Wagnor dos Santos is under investigation by the Brazilian authorities. Our embassy is monitoring developments.

  Immigration
  Dr. Kim Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many entry clearance applications were (1) made, (2) granted and (3) refused in(a) New York, (b) Moscow, (c) St. Petersburg, (d) Accra, (e) Lagos, (f) Abuja, (g) New Delhi, (h) Bombay, (j) Calcutta, (k) Madras, (l) Dhaka, (m) Islamabad, (n) Karachi and (o) Colombo in the financial years (i) 1992–93, (ii) 1993–94 and (iii) 1994–95 to the latest convenient date. [22648]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: During 1992, 1993 and 1994 calendar years the number of UK entry clearance applications 1) made, 2) granted and 3) refused in the posts listed was as follows:

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: The national constitutional conference is expected to present its report to the Nigerian Government in June. We urge the authorities to respond quickly to the conference recommendations and announce their plans for the next stage of the political process, including a credible timetable for an early transition to civilian democratic rule.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to prevent the recruitment of mercenaries, including former members of the British armed forces, by the Government of Sierra Leone. [24296]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: The recruitment of mercenaries of whatever nationality is a matter for the Government of Sierra Leone.

  Rwanda and Burundi
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to strengthen the United Kingdom's diplomatic representation in Rwanda and Burundi. [24916]

  Mr. Baldry
  We have informed the Government of Rwanda of our intention to replace the British Government's liaison office in Kigali with an embassy as soon as protocol and staffing formalities permit. We have also established a temporary office in Bujumbura staffed by a diplomatic service officer.

TRANSPORT

  Gospel Oak to Barking Line
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when resignalling of part of the Gospel Oak-Barking line to replace obsolete semaphore and colour light signalling will be undertaken. [24490]

  Mr. Norris
  I understand form Railtrack there are no current plans to replace the signalling equipment on the Barking-Gospel Oak line.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the condition of railway viaducts and over-bridges on the north London line, between Gospel Oak and Camden Road stations; if they are able to carry heavy freight trains with special reference to the Mendip rail aggregate trains; what restrictions are currently being imposed on the section of railway between Gospel Oak and Camden Road; and what remedial works are required on the viaducts and over-bridges in the Kentish Town area to permit all freight trains to traverse the line.[24489]

  Road accident casualties by severity and road type in England and Great Britain: 1990–93

  Non-trunk A-roads

  Trunk roads

  Motorways

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  Slightly injured

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  Slightly injured

  Killed

  Seriously injured

  Slightly injured

  England

  1990

  1,781

  19,078

  92,325

  804

  5,781

  23,818

  211

  1,500

  8,255

  1991

  1,604

  16,441

  85,628

  649

  4,650

  21,363

  208

  1,272

  7,775

  1992

  1,435

  15,844

  87,383

  594

  4,225

  21,562

  219

  1,214

  8,408

  1993

  1,374

  14,724

  89,209

  526

  3,853

  20,712

  181

  1,233

  8,912

  Great Britain

  1990

  2,088

  22,079

  103,950

  1,023

  7,423

  28,800

  229

  1,643

  8,969

  1991

  1,855

  19,160

  96,429

  848

  6,165

  26,086

  234

  1,394

  8,377

  1992

  1,671

  18,407

  97,790

  792

  5,575

  25,852

  238

  1,338

  9,046

  1993

  1,589

  16,871

  99,160

  689

  5,035

  24,933

  201

  1,338

  9,507

  114
  Mr. Norris
  Railtrack inform me that work is now under way on the arch at Kentish Town. This is due to be completed in mid-June and there can then be a resumption of freight traffic. Railtrack is at the moment carrying out a complete structural survey of the north London line.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if passenger services over the Gospel Oak-Barking line are delayed more than 30 seconds when freight trains are diverted over the line; and if passenger trains are cancelled to avoid Railtrack Anglia incurring financial penalties from the freight train operators. [24491]

  Mr. Norris
  Railtrack is required to treat both freight and passenger operators fairly. I understand from Railtrack that no passenger trains have been cancelled to avoid Railtrack incurring financial penalties. All train operators are entitled to penalty payments from Railtrack if their services are delayed.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much are the penalties imposed on Railtrack when passenger trains are cancelled on the Gospel Oak-Barking line. [24492]

  Mr. Norris
  Penalties for the cancellation of trains are payable under the existing track access agreement and are a commercial matter between Railtrack, the train operating unit and the British Railways Board. I understand that a new performance regime is currently being negotiated between the British Railways Board, the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and Railtrack, and will be subject to the approval of the Rail Regulator.

  Severn Tunnel
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans his Department has for the temporary or permanent closure of the Severn tunnel. [24485]

  Mr. Watts
  There are no plans for the temporary or permanent closure of the Severn tunnel.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many casualties have been killed, seriously injured and slightly injured on(a) A-class non-trunks roads, (b) trunk roads and (c) motorways for each year since 1990 in (i) England and (ii) in the United Kingdom as a whole. [24452]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the following table. Figures are given for England and Great Britain as equivalent data for Northern Ireland are not available.

  Pedestrian Deaths and Injuries
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what were the national quarterly figures for(a) pedestrian deaths, (b) pedestrian serious injuries, and (c) pedestrian slight injuries for people aged 60 years and over for the period 1990 to 1993; [24453]

  (2) what were the national quarterly figures for (a) pedestrian deaths, (b) pedestrian serious injuries, and (c) pedestrian slight injuries for people aged 60 years and over for his Department's baseline years of 1981 and 1985.[24455]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Pedestrian casualties aged 60 and over

  Number of casualties

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1981

  947

  3,912

  6,334

  11,193

  1985

  869

  3,866

  6,060

  10,795

  1981–1985 Average

  895.6

  3,908.8

  6,340.0

  11,144.4

  1990

  Quarter 1

  254

  968

  1,806

  3,028

  Quarter 2

  167

  642

  1,369

  2,178

  Quarter 3

  141

  692

  1,387

  2,220

  Quarter 4

  277

  1,115

  1,879

  3,271

  Total

  839

  3,417

  6,441

  10,697

  1991

  Quarter 1

  178

  812

  1,488

  2,478

  Quarter 2

  128

  619

  1,308

  2,055

  Quarter 3

  172

  661

  1,362

  2,195

  Quarter 4

  276

  990

  1,704

  2,970

  Total

  754

  3,082

  5,862

  9,698

  1992

  Quarter 1

  172

  767

  1,320

  2,259

  Quarter 2

  120

  545

  1,170

  1,835

  Quarter 3

  156

  559

  1,203

  1,918

  Quarter 4

  230

  924

  1,655

  2,809

  Total

  678

  2,795

  5,348

  8,821

  1993

  Quarter 1

  171

  646

  1,298

  2,115

  Quarter 2

  102

  515

  1,168

  1,785

  Quarter 3

  119

  572

  1,166

  1,857

  Quarter 4

  240

  858

  1,560

  2,658

  Total

  632

  2,591

  5,192

  8,415

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the quarterly figures for(a) pedestrian deaths, (b) pedestrian serious injuries and (c) pedestrian slight injuries for people aged 60 years and over in Birmingham for the period 1990 to 1993. [24456]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  Severity

  Year

  Quarter

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  1990

  Q1

  1

  23

  42

  66

  Q2

  9

  17

  22

  48

  Q3

  2

  7

  26

  35

  Q4

  7

  25

  40

  72

  1991

  Q1

  5

  23

  34

  62

  Q2

  2

  14

  32

  48

  Q3

  3

  17

  37

  57

  116

  Severity

  Year

  Quarter

  Fatal

  Serious

  Slight

  Total

  Q4

  6

  27

  28

  61

  1992

  Q1

  6

  18

  36

  60

  Q2

  5

  12

  46

  63

  Q3

  3

  16

  30

  49

  Q4

  6

  24

  47

  77

  1993

  Q1

  3

  19

  22

  44

  Q2

  1

  9

  31

  41

  Q3

  4

  19

  21

  44

  Q4

  6

  26

  42

  74

  Annual totals

  1990

  19

  72

  130

  221

  1991

  16

  81

  131

  228

  1992

  20

  70

  159

  249

  1993

  14

  73

  116

  203

  Kiwi Arrow and Pelander Collision
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what reports he has received of the collision off the Isle of Wight between the Kiwi Arrow and the Pelander; what were the weather conditions at the time of the collision; what assessment he has made of the bearing the Donaldson report has on the circumstances of this collision; what reports he has had from the port authorities where these two ships docked; if he intends to hold an inquiry; what representations he will be making to the International Maritime Organisation about this accident; what representations he is making to the ship registers of the two vessels; what reports he has received from his inspectors about these two vessels; what reports he has received from Her Majesty's Coastguard about this incident; and if he will make a statement.[23780]

  Mr. Norris
  At the time of the collision between Kiwi Arrow and Pelander the sea was calm and visibility was approximately five nautical miles. The Solent coastguard responded immediately to the distress call, but both ships were able to proceed to Southampton under their own power. Two surveyors from the Marine Safety Agency carried out a port state control inspection of both ships to examine the damage.

  As the incident occurred outside the United Kingdom's territorial waters and involved non-UK registered ships, the responsibility for accident investigation rests with the flag states of the Kiwi Arrow and Pelander. However, an inspector from the Marine Accident Investigation Branch visited the ships when in Southampton to obtain background information concerning the incident which has been sent to both administrations.

  The flag states have been asked to advise of the outcome of an investigation into the causes of this accident. Under the provisions of the international conventions, any representations made to the International Maritime Organisation on the circumstances of this collision will be a matter for the flag states. The flag states have been asked to inform the MSA of the measures they intend to take to ensure that the ships comply with international requirements before departure. Neither ship will be permitted to leave Southampton until the MSA is satisfied that they are fit to proceed to sea.
  117
  Until the full facts of this incident are known and its causes established, it would be premature to make an assessment of any bearing the Donaldson report might have on the circumstances of the incident.

  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contact his Department has had with the French marine authorities about the collision between the Kiwi Arrow and the Pelander off the Isle of Wight; and what joint action channel marine countries and authorities can take to prevent incidents of this type. [23781]

  Mr. Norris
  The collision was in the UK search and rescue region and the immediate response was coordinated accordingly by Solent coastguard. No assistance was sought from the French authorities because UK lifeboats and other vessels were in the vicinity and were available to render adequate assistance.

  No contact with the French has been made since because neither Kiwi Arrow nor Pelander is registered under the French flag and the accident occurred in international waters.

  The UK Government and marine authorities will continue to work closely with all our European partners, including our counterparts in the channel, in order to seek to eliminate incidents of this nature and to minimise the pollution of the seas and endangerment of life at sea. My Department, through the Coastguard Agency and the Marine Safety Agency, maintains regular contact with the French authorities about safety, search and rescue and counter-pollution matters in the English channel.

  Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many foreign HGVs were(a) stopped for safety checks, (b) found defective and (c) not permitted to continue in each of the last three years. [24039]

  Mr. Norris
  The number of foreign HGVs inspected at the roadside and prohibited from use because of defects likely to cause danger of injury is as follows:

  Year

  Foreign HGVs inspected at roadside

  Immediate prohibitions issued (defect likely to cause danger of injury)

  1994–95

  5,575

  310

  1993–94

  6,060

  230

  1992–93

  6,175

  413

  Delayed prohibitions are not issued to foreign vehicles.

  Passenger Boats
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the consequences of the implementation of regulations introduced by the Marine Safety Agency on passenger-carrying boats on narrow, shallow canals; what account was taken of the existing safety record; and if he will make a statement. [24145]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.
  118
  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Warren Hawksley, dated 16 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Question about the regulations for passenger carrying vessels on narrow, shallow canals.
  New regulations for passenger vessels operating on inland waterways were introduced in 1992 following an extensive consultation exercise. As a result of the consultation the inland waterways were split into four categories, the required survivability standard and scale of safety equipment varies according to the risk associated with the category of water.
  Passenger vessels of the type you have asked are in the least onerous category, narrow waterways with a depth of water of up to 1.5 metres. The requirements applied to these vessels were not significantly changed.
  The MSA is currently assessing all merchant shipping regulations as part of the Government initiative on deregulation. This will include the safety requirements for small passenger vessels.

  Herald of Free Enterprise
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) which are the two long-term recommendations of the Herald of Free Enterprise inquiry that have not been implemented; and why there were considered unnecessary; [22908]

  (2) which are the two long-term recommendations of the Herald of Free Enterprise inquiry that have been implemented in alternative ways, and what these are. [22911]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 9 April 1995]: The two long-term recommendations of the court of inquiry which were not implemented because they were considered unnecessary were the recommendation that roll-on roll-off passenger ferries should have dedicated pumps capable of stripping at a rate of at least 600 tonnes an hour and that there should be drain valves which must be controlled remotely and operable from the bridge.

  Both recommendations were considered, but after consultation were felt to be unnecessary because, in practice, existing drainage arrangements could already cope with amounts of water approaching these levels. Moreover, pumps of the size recommended could not cope with the significantly larger volume of water involved in catastrophic flooding as occurred on the Herald of Free Enterprise and, indeed, on the Estonia. There may also be difficulties in guaranteeing power supplies in situations of catastrophic flooding. Automatic drain valves are now fitted as a matter of course, so there is no need for their remote control.

  The two long-term recommendations implemented in alternative ways were the recommendations that the freeboard from the margin line to the vehicle deck should be increased to a minimum of perhaps 1 m, and that attention should be given to achieving substantially higher downflooding angles. These recommendations were addressed through an extensive research programme and the subsequent adoption of the SOLAS 90 survivability standard for existing ships.

  Land Compensation Act
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures the Highways Agency follows to inform affected individuals of their right to make retrospective claims under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, as amended, in respect of any depreciation of more than £50
  119
  in the value of certain interests in land caused by the use of new or altered highways and resulting from specified physical factors. [23797]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 16 May 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures the Highways Agency follows to inform affected individuals of their right to make retrospective claims under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 in respect of depreciation in value of interests in land caused by the use of new or altered highways.
  The Highways Agency places public notices in the local press at the date of opening of a new or altered road and again shortly before the first date when owners are entitled by the legislation to make Part I claims, which is one year after the road opens. General press releases are also issued.
  The Highways Agency also draws attention to the entitlement of owners to make Part I claims in its booklet "Your Home and Trunk Road Proposals" which is made available at public consultations and exhibitions about scheme proposals. This booklet draws attention to further guidance which is available in other booklets and from Highways Agency offices of the particular circumstances which may affect an individual owner's entitlement to claim and action which they should take, if, for example, they wish to sell their property before the date when claims can be accepted.
  Special consideration for ex-gratia payment is given to any claims which are made outside the statutory claim period (more than seven years after, the road is opened) if it can be shown that initial advertising was inadequate, or there were convincing reasons why an owner could not have submitted a claim which was valid under the statutory provisions.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the Highways Agency sends individual letters to affected individuals informing them of their right to make retrospective claims under part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973, as amended, in respect of any depreciation of more than £50 in the value of certain interests in land caused by the use of new or altered highways and resulting from specified physical factors. [23798]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. David Chidgey, dated 16 May 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport if the Highways Agency sends individual letters to affected individuals informing them of their right to make retrospective claims under Part I of the Land Compensation Act 1973 in respect of depreciation in value of interests in land caused by the use of new or altered highways.
  The Highways Agency does not send letters to individuals in these circumstances as it is not practicable to attempt to identify every individual who may be entitled to claim. I have explained the existing arrangements publicising the entitlement of owners to claim in my answer to your Parliamentary Question reference 1684/94/95.
  We understand that local agents may also contact individual owners, advise them of their entitlements and submit claims on their behalf. The Highways Agency reimburses the cost of any agents fees incurred in submitting a valid claim.

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assumptions were made in the SOLAS 90 standards for evacuation of roll-on/roll-off ferries of the percentage 120
  of passengers who are (a) disabled, (b) infants, (c) drunk, (d) wheelchair bound and (e) asleep when the emergency occurs. [24483]

  Mr. Norris
  This is an operational matter for the Marine Safety Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. M. Bradley to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 16 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the evacuation of various categories of passengers from roll-on-roll-off ferries.
  There is no specific reference in the Solas 90 standard as to what percentage of passengers may fall into any of the categories listed in your question. However, minimum training requirements for personnel nominated to assist passengers in emergency situations have been established and are promulgated by way of a Merchant Shipping Notice.

  Road Use
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has the total mileage been of(a) all A class non-trunk road, (b) all trunk roads and (c) all motorways, in each year since 1990 for (i) England and (ii) the United Kingdom as a whole. [24454]

  Mr. Norris
  The table sets out the road length figures by road type for 1990 to 1994.

  miles

  A Clans Non-trunk

  Trunk

  Motorway

  England

  UK

  England

  UK

  England

  UK

  1990

  15,445

  23,125

  5,085

  7,965

  1,673

  1,977

  1991

  15,728

  23,393

  4,888

  7,768

  1,692

  1,995

  1992

  15,748

  23,424

  4,890

  7,754

  1,699

  2,016

  1993

  15,815

  23,478

  4,836

  7,694

  1,700

  2,021

  1994

  15,891

  23,551

  4,792

  7,641

  1,705

  2,044

  Note:

  Roads in Northern Ireland are not classified in the same way as the rest of Great Britain. Therefore the figures provided for the United Kingdom include the lengths of class 1(A) single carriageway roads and class 1(A) dual carriage roads in Northern Ireland as A class non-trunk roads and trunk roads respectively.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the salary details for the newly appointed chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency and details of any bonus or performance pay schemes. [24424]

  Mr. Norris
  The chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency was appointed on 1 April 1995 at a salary of £58,000 per annum. He is also eligible for an annual performance bonus of up to 15 per cent. of salary.

  Rural Economy
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [24326]

  Mr. Norris
  Proposals for the White Paper on the rural economy 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.

  Highways Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the chief executive of the Highways Agency has received either a performance related bonus or any pay increase since his appointment. [24428]

  Mr. Norris
  The chief executive of the Highways Agency received a 2.5 per cent. pay increase on 1 April 1995. He has received no other pay increase since his appointment. He is, however, eligible for a performance bonus of up to 20 per cent. of salary for the year ending 31 March 1995. This has not yet been assessed.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Aid and Trade Provision
  Ms Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list aid and trade programme supported projects, since 1993, by country, purpose, all companies involved, and value. [23183]

  Mr. Baldry
  A list of all the companies involved in ATP projects on which ATP agreements have been concluded since 1993 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Rwanda
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy in 122
  respect of the plan of the European Commission to suspend rehabilitation assistance to Rwanda. [23613]

  Mr. Baldry
  Some aspects of the EC's longer-term aid plans have been temporarily suspended pending the outcome of the Kibeho inquiry. But at our insistence there will be no immediate effect on humanitarian aid, all planned health and education assistance, support for human rights monitoring and the rule of law. The suspension will therefore have little immediate effect. There will be a review at the Development Council on 1 June which my noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will attend.

  China
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what protests the United Kingdom has been made to China in respect of(a) compulsory abortion policies, (b) compulsory sterilisation policies, (c) proposed eugenics legislation and (d) treatment of women under Chinese legislation since 1990. [23697]

  Mr. Baldry
  We frequently raise with the Chinese authorities our concerns over human rights abuses in China. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the issue during his talks with the Chinese Foreign Minister and Vice Premier in New York on 18 April. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), also discussed this issue with the Chinese Vice Foreign Minister when he visited China in July last year.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Science Budget
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects the Director General of the Research Councils to publish his review of the science budget portfolio; and if he will make a statement. [24367]

  Mr. David Hunt
  I have today placed copies of the Director General's review in the Libraries of both Houses. In addition, I have placed in the libraries copies of the research councils' own analyses of the strengths and weakness of the UK science and engineering base and a summary of the centres that the director general visited and the organisations that he met.

  This is an excellent assessment of the state of science and engineering research in Britain today. It shows that we have major strengths in many areas and that we are continuing to build on those strengths for the benefit of Britain and British industry. Although there are no serious problems in the science and engineering base, the review exposes some weaknesses and describes the corrective action taken in the expenditure allocations I announced on 2 February 1995.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what research has been carried out by the Medical Research Council into the impact of fluoride on(a) the bone structure of children and adults, (b) the immune system and (c) the incidence of hip fractures. [23737]

  Mr. Horam
  The Medical Research Council is not currently funding any research in these areas.

  However, in 1990, scientists at the MRC environmental epidemiology unit in Southampton published findings snowing that water fluoridation up to levels of around 1 mg/litre was unlikely to reduce hip fracture incidence. Also, in December 1993, the MRC set up an ad hoc working group to review the evidence regarding the possible effects of fluoridation of public water supply on the incidence of osteoporosis and to suggest guidelines for the formulation of scientific strategy in this field. The working group highlighted the need to establish accurate estimates of total fluoride intake in any future studies.

  The MRC is willing to consider high quality research proposals in these areas, in competition with those in other fields.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 2 May 1995. [23165]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 16 May. [23164]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my 124
  duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

  Lockerbie
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the United Nations the letter of 20 February from the Bundesminsterium der Justig to Mrs. Lisa Mosey of Glossop, relating to the Lockerbie bombing, a copy of which has been sent to him. [24499]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Review Bodies
  Mr. Shersby
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the current membership of the School Teachers Review Body and the Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration. [24874]

  The Prime Minster
  The current membership, with effect from 1 April 1995, is as follows:

  Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration

  Mr. Brandon Gough (Chairman)

  Ms Christina Boyden

  Miss Sally Field

  Dr. Elizabeth Nelson

  Mr. David Penton

  Mr. Michael Innes

  Mr. John Bennigsen

  Mrs. Beryl Brewer

  School Teachers Review Body

  Mr. John Gardiner (Chairman)

  Mrs. Brigita Amey

  Mrs. Gill Rostron

  Mrs. Anna Vinton

  Mr. Michael Harding

  Mrs. Julia Cuthbertson

  Mr. Phillip Halsey CB LVO

  Mrs. Elizabeth Drummond

  Sir Alan Cox CBE

  Lady Cobham
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Prime Minister how many quangos Lady Cobham has been appointed to; and if he will list them; and what salary is paid to her in respect of each appointment. [24144]

  The Prime Minister
  According to the information available to the public appointments unit, Lady Cobham currently holds four ministerial appointments to public bodies as follows:

  Body

  Post

  Salary

  London Docklands development corporation

  Member

  £6,830

  Museum and Galleries Commission

  Member

  Unpaid

  Victoria and Albert museum

  Trustee

  Unpaid

  Historic Palaces advisory group

  Member

  Unpaid

  Hong Kong
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his latest assessment of the potential to maintain and develop trade links with Hong Kong in future years; what action
  125
  is being taken by Her Majesty's Government to encourage inward investment from and outward investment to Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement. [24130]

  The Prime Minister
  Hong Kong is our 12th largest market and I expect trading links to continue at this level well into the future. The Department of Trade and Industry maintains a strong promotional programme to encourage British business to take full advantage of the opportunities Hong Kong offers. British investment in Hong Kong, which is very substantial, continues to grow. The Department of Trade and Industry's Invest in Britain Bureau has recently established an office in Hong Kong to encourage greater flows of investment from the Asia Pacific, including Hong Kong.

  Former Prime Ministers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Prime Minister what(a) allowances and (b) facilities are currently available to former Prime Ministers who serve in (i) either or (ii) neither House of Parliament. [24014]

  The Prime Minister
  In addition to the normal allowances for which they are eligible as members of either House of Parliament, former Prime Ministers receive a financial allowance to help meet the continuing additional office costs which they are liable to incur because of their special positions in public life. This allowance is payable in respect of actual office and secretarial expenses incurred in connection with public duties arising from their previous tenure of the office of Prime Minister, up to an amount equal to that of the parliamentary office costs allowance. The allowance is not payable to a former Prime Minister occupying the position of Leader of the Opposition and therefore in receipt of Short money.

  Other facilities available to all former Prime Ministers are: physical protection, as necessary; the use of an official car; access to the official papers of their Administration. Briefing and help from local posts may also be provided in connection with overseas visits.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister which non-departmental bodies within the responsibility of his Department are subject to scrutiny by(a) the ombudsmen, (b) the National Audit Office, (c) the Audit Commission and (d) other monitoring officers; which are covered by the citizens charters; in which performance indicators apply; and in which members are liable to surcharge. [23966]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: None.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish the rules on capital, income and contributions governing eligibility for(a) criminal legal aid, (b) civil legal aid and (c) green form cases for each of the previous six financial years. [24514]
  126
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The rules governing qualification for civil legal aid, criminal legal aid and green form advice and assistance are set out in full in the legal aid handbook, produced every year by the Legal Aid Board.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of the population was eligible for green form assistance in(a) 1973, (b) 1974, (c) 1984 and (d) each of the previous six financial years. [24515]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Department does not generally produce estimates of financial eligibility for green form advice and assistance and figures are not available for 1973, 1974 and 1984. However, in 1993 the Department estimated that around 21 per cent. of households were eligible. The green form disposable income eligibility limit was increased by nearly 15 per cent. to £70 in April 1994 and by a further 1.8 per cent. in April this year. Eligibility is correspondingly now at a higher level, probably somewhere between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of gross domestic product was expended on(a) civil legal aid and (b) criminal legal aid in each of the last six years; and what were the equivalent figures in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, America, France, Germany and Spain. [24516]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The percentage of gross domestic product expended on legal aid in England and Wales in each of the last six years was as follows:

  Percentage criminal legal aid

  Percentage civil legal aid

  1988–89

  0.051

  0.054

  1989–90

  0.055

  0.059

  1990–91

  0.060

  0.068

  1991–92

  0.069

  0.088

  1992–93

  0.070

  0.114

  1993–94

  0.068

  0.130

  It is not possible to provide comparative figures for the other countries in question since the information is not readily available.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of the population was eligible for criminal legal aid in(a) 1965, (b) 1970, (c) 1980 and (d) each of the previous six financial years. [24519]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  There is no upper financial limit for criminal legal aid, so the question of eligible population does not arise. In determining applications, the courts consider whether it is in the interests of justice for legal aid to be granted and whether the defendant needs help with the costs.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of the population was eligible for civil legal aid in(a) 1965, (b) 1969, (c) 1979 and (d) each of the previous six financial years. [24520]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Department has no estimates of eligibility for 1965 and 1969. The
  127
  Department's estimates of the proportion of households eligible for civil legal aid in the other years requested are as follows:

  1979–80: 77 per cent.

  1989–90: 58 per cent.

  1990–91: 57 per cent.

  1991–92: 51 per cent. (53 per cent. for personal injury cases)

  1992–93: 53 per cent. (57 per cent. for personal injury cases)

  1993–94: 48 per cent. (51 per cent. for personal injury cases)

  1994–95: 48 per cent. (51 per cent. for personal injury cases)

  Estimates are based on data published in the Family Expenditure Survey.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what has been the change in total expenditure on legal aid in each of the previous six financial years; and how these changes differ from the changes in the rate of inflation. [24521]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Increases in respect of total net expenditure on legal aid in comparison with increases in

  £ million

  Circuit

  Case type

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  South Easter

  Trials

  57.698

  63.183

  75.129

  88.749

  106.848

  111.546

  Appeals

  0.686

  0.739

  1.381

  1.141

  1.181

  1.367

  Sentencing

  0.481

  0.580

  0.604

  0.780

  0.776

  0.615

  Midland and Oxon

  Trials

  14.843

  17.723

  20.643

  22.520

  27.695

  31.719

  Appeals

  0.367

  0.631

  0.477

  0.495

  0.528

  0.704

  Sentencing

  0.285

  0.285

  0.359

  0.460

  0.392

  0.277

  Northern

  Trials

  13.700

  16.412

  18.286

  23.225

  28.359

  28.664

  Appeals

  0.360

  0.436

  0.474

  0.640

  0.666

  0.713

  Sentencing

  0.172

  0.192

  0.257

  0.343

  0.310

  0.242

  North Eastern

  Trials

  12.472

  12.955

  14.469

  18.151

  19.890

  22.697

  Appeals

  0.292

  0.319

  0.334

  0.420

  0.458

  0.532

  Sentencing

  0.189

  0.222

  0.238

  0.288

  0.294

  0.247

  Wales and Chester

  Trials

  6.071

  6.743

  7.444

  9.866

  10.916

  14.097

  Appeals

  0.127

  0.121

  0.144

  0.208

  0.194

  0.201

  Sentencing

  0.073

  0.073

  0.094

  0.125

  0.127

  0.097

  Western

  Trials

  9.444

  12.072

  13.960

  16.124

  18.459

  18.710

  Appeals

  0.262

  0.264

  0.363

  0.422

  0.453

  0.438

  Sentencing

  0.134

  0.140

  0.190

  0.224

  0.212

  0.163

  Details of gross criminal legal aid expenditure in the magistrates courts, by region, are given in table general 6 of the Legal Aid Board's annual reports for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94, and in appendix 4D of the annual report of the Law Society for 1988–89 and appendix 4D of the Legal Aid Board's annual report for 1989–90, copies of which are available in the Library. A breakdown of expenditure in each year by type of case is not available.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary,Lord Chancellor's Department what was the level of civil legal aid expenditure(a) by region (b) by type of case for each of the last six financial years. [24523]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Details of gross expenditure on civil legal aid, by region, and giving a limited breakdown of type of case, are given in table general 6 of the Legal Aid Board's annual reports for the years 1990–91 to 1993–94, and in appendix 4D of the annual report of the Law Society for 1988–89 and appendix 4D of the Legal Aid Board's annual report for 1989–90, copies of which are available in the Library.
  128
  the rate of inflation, in each of the last six years, were as follows:

  Percentage change in expenditure

  Percentage change in inflation (gdp)

  1988–89

  9.4

  6.7

  1989–90

  19.1

  7.0

  1990–91

  20.7

  8.1

  1991–92

  32.8

  6.3

  1992–93

  20.7

  3.8

  1993–94

  10.7

  3.3

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the level of criminal legal aid expenditure(a) by region and (b) by type of case for each of the last six financial years. [24522]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The table shows gross Crown court legal aid expenditure on a regional and case type basis for each of the last six financial years for which records are available.

  Woolf Review
  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to implement those reforms to the civil justice system recommended by Lord Woolf and accepted by the Government; and if(a) primary legislation, (b) statutory instruments and (c) practice directions will be require to implement those recommendations. [24517]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Lord Woolf expects to present his interim report to the Lord Chancellor in June and to complete his inquiry by this time next year. When Lord Woolf's proposals are received the Lord Chancellor will consider how best to take matters forward.

  Mr. Boateng
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects(a) to receive and (b) to publish the interim report of Lord Woolf's civil justice review. [24578]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Lord Woolf expects to publish his interim report in June.

WALES

  Suicide
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the suicide rates for persons employed in agriculture in each county of Wales. [23407]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available information is for deaths registered as suicide in 1993 and is given in the following table:

  Suicide of farmers and farm workers in Wales, 1993

  Number

  Rate per 1,000 farmers and farm workers1

  Clwyd

  1

  0.14

  Dyfed

  5

  0.28

  Gwent

  1

  0.26

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  —

  —

  Powys

  4

  0.39

  South Glamorgan

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  —

  —

  Wales

  11

  0.22

  Source:

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and June Agricultural Census.

  Note:

  1 At June 1993, as estimated by the Agricultural Census which excludes very small holdings with very little or no agricultural activity.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish data relating to the Welsh housing stock that is comparable to the energy supplement to the 1991 "English House Condition Survey". [23671]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Data for the housing stock in Wales comparable to the energy supplement to the 1991 "English House Condition Survey" are not available. The 1993 "Welsh House Condition Survey" did not cover energy consumption or related matters.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales to what extent the action plan he has agreed with the board and chairman of the Countryside Council for Wales differs from the conclusions of his departmental financial management policy review; and if he will make a statement on the principal components. [24478]

  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 W. Roberts) on 3 November 1994. The action plan reflects the conclusions of the review of these functions.

  Employment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people are currently in full-time employment in Wales; and how many were employed full-time in 1987. [24193]
  130
  Mr. Redwood
  According to the Employment Department, the number of full-time employees in employment in Wales was 677,000 in December 1994 and 704,000 in September 1987.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, if he will list the numbers of long-term unemployed people in each of the constituencies of Wales. [24195]

  Mr. Redwood
  The data requested are available from the NOMIS database, which can be accessed by the staff of the Library of the House.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in the Deeside constituency are self-employed; and how many were self-employed in 1987. [24192]

  Mr. Redwood
  According to the 1991 census of population, the number of self-employed residents aged 16 and over in the Alyn and Deeside constituency was 3,629. Data for 1987 are not available.

  Business Expenditure
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he has taken to encourage business expenditure on research and development in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [24338]

  Mr. Redwood
  My Department actively encourages business expenditure on research and development through the promotion of a number of Government initiatives to encourage innovation, including the SMART and SPUR schemes.

  Play Areas
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued to local authorities to encourage the provision of safety surfacing on play areas; what special financial provision he has made available to local authorities to encourage and enable them to meet this need; and if he will make a statement. [24087]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In January 1992 a joint publication, "Playground Safety Guidelines", was issued by the Department of Education and Science, the National Children's Play and Recreation unit, and the Welsh Office to Welsh local authorities, interested voluntary organisations, the Sports Council for Wales, the Welsh Trades Union Congress, trade unions in the education field and church education authorities.

  Local authorities fund the provision of safety surfacing on play areas from resources made available through the annual revenue and capital settlements. It is for individual authorities to determine the priority they give to this provision when apportioning resources between services. Central Government support is provided by way of grant to help meet the costs of Play Wales, an advisory body made up of representatives from county and district councils and the voluntary sector.

  Smoking
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales 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

  131
  station and (ii) rest, recreation and refreshment facilities at Gwydyr house, Whitehall, London. [24198]

  Mr. Redwood
  The general rule is that staff in Gwydyr house are not allowed to smoke at their work station, unless they are the sole occupier of a room, through smoking is allowed in the locker room for security staff and messengers, which is also used as the work station for the drivers of official cars.

  Smoking is not allowed in the room designated as the refreshment-rest room for the building.

  Hospital Visits, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will visit(a) Dobbs Hill hospital, (b) Deeside hospital and (c) Meadowsleigh hospital.

  Mr. Redwood
  I have no current plans to visit these hospitals.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish his guidelines concerning the declaration of interests of quango board members when dealing with agenda items which may involve pecuniary interests; and what are the Welsh Office guidelines concerning public access to such information. [24339]

  Mr. Redwood
  Guidance on the treatment of the financial interests of board members is included in the "Code of Best Practice for Board Members of Public Bodies" published by H M Treasury in June 1994. All Welsh executive non-departmental public bodies are establishing registers of members' interests which will be published or made available for inspection.

  Giant Hogweed
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he plans to require the owners of land to which the public may have access to eradicate heracleum manteggazzianum; if he will give local authorities a duty to control heracleum manteggazzianum; and if he will make a statement about the dangers associated with this plant. [24100]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Controls on the spread of the plant already exist. It is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to introduce the plant into the wild. There is, however, no evidence to show that it is widespread or that it causes a particular problem in Wales. The control of the plant is a matter for relevant local authorities if there is a perceived threat to public health. Direct contact with the plant can cause severe irritation to the skin as well as swelling and painful blistering.

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of policy planning guidance in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [24497]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon.Member to the reply I gave him on 24 April 1995 at column 371.

  Sheep
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the estimated sheep population in Wales 132
  in 1980, 1985, 1990, and 1994; and what percentage of the United Kingdom flock they formed. [24558]

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

  Sheep population in Wales

  Total sheep and lambs (000s)1

  Total as a percentage of the UK flock

  1980

  8,013.8

  25.5

  1985

  9,129.7

  25.6

  1990

  10,935.3

  25.0

  1994

  11,092.6

  25.6

  Source:

  June Agricultural Census and Minor Holdings Census.

  Note:

  1 At 1 June.

  Operations Cancelled
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set up a system for the collection of data on(a) cancellations and (b) double cancellations of hospital operations; and if he will make a statement. [24718]

  Mr. Redwood
  As part of monitoring the patient's charter, information on cancelled operations is reported regularly to the Welsh Office. Between 1 April and 31 December 1994, 18 patients were admitted to a Welsh hospital more than one month after the second cancellation of a non-urgent operation.

  From January 1995 the information collected on cancellations was altered to reflect the tightening of the related charter standard to focus on the number of patients who experience a delay of more than a month after the cancellation of just one non-urgent operation. During the three months to 31 March 1995, Welsh hospitals reported that 27 patients had experienced such a delay during the same quarter hospitals in Wales treated 189,059 as in-patients and day cases.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what rights under the patient's charter patients whose operations have been cancelled twice, due to shortage of intensive care beds, after they have been prepared for surgery have.

  Mr. Redwood
  The latest edition of the Patient's Charter for Wales, which was published in October 1994, makes it clear that patients should receive priority treatment within a month if they have had to face the cancellation of a non-urgent operation. Hospital performance against the new standard is monitored quarterly by my Department.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the chairman of the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff Royal Infirmary trust concerning patients with liver cancer who have had their operation cancelled twice due to a lack of intensive care beds after being prepared for surgery. [24719]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have not discussed these specific cases with the chairman of the NHS trust involved. However, on 4 April my Department asked all health authorities and hospitals in Wales to review urgently the
  133
  need for intensive care beds and to ensure adequate provision is available.

  Policy Reviews
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what arrangements he has made for publishing the conclusion of the 1991–92 financial management and policy reviews of the Welsh development agency, the Development Board for Rural Wales and the Land Authority for Wales. [24869]

  Mr. Redwood
  I have today arranged for copies of the conclusions of all three reviews, and of the action taken in response, to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Number of in-patient cases and day cases per 100,000 population1

  Health authority of residence

  Discharges and deaths

  Completed consultant episodes2

  1980

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1990–913

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Clwyd

  10,945

  13,800

  14,027

  12,590

  19,106

  20,283

  21,908

  East Dyfed

  10,746

  13,892

  14,430

  15,929

  21,244

  27,123

  27,623

  Gwent

  9,897

  14,022

  15,053

  17,514

  18,149

  20,286

  21,000

  Gwynedd

  11,893

  15,280

  17,046

  17,760

  21,124

  17,274

  21,036

  Mid Glamorgan

  11,727

  16,553

  18,131

  21,504

  25,064

  25,530

  26,821

  Pembrokeshire

  11,337

  13,164

  14,358

  15,684

  21,361

  25,381

  24,738

  Powys

  6,303

  8,085

  8,765

  10,122

  12,977

  14,222

  15,435

  South Glamorgan

  10,762

  16,342

  17,433

  18,063

  20,768

  21,737

  22,193

  West Glamorgan

  10,329

  14,305

  15,045

  14,212

  18,326

  18,434

  21,527

  1 Excluding patients treated outside Wales.

  2 Where there is more than one completed consultant episode during a patient's in hospital, only the first of these episodes is counted.

  3 Data for 1990–91 are incomplete in some areas.

EDUCATION

  Stratford Grant-maintained School
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) of 5 May,Official Report, column 338, on Stratford grant-maintained school, what is the latest date she expects to receive the strategy adopted by the new governing body and the period over which it will be subject to appraisal; [23872]

  (2) if she will name all the governors of Stratford grant-maintained school; when and at what meeting Mrs. Marinda Bailey was elected chairman of the school's governing body; when she was appointed to the governors; and what qualifications, experience or local knowledge she possesses relevant to this post. [23874]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend announced on 5 May four new appointments to the governing body of Stratford school. She expects the newly constituted governing body to begin work immediately on a range of strategies to improve the standards of education on offer. Ofsted will be undertaking another monitoring visit to the school in the autumn term and my right hon. Friend expects there to be significant signs of improvement by then.

  I understand that Mrs. Merinda Bailey was elected chairman of governors at the governing body meeting on the 4 May 1995. She was previously vice-chairman and is a parent of a pupil at the school. The names of all the governors can be obtained from the school.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the maximum planned intake in September at Stratford grant-maintained school and the
  134
  Government thinking and policy on these three bodies has evolved since these reviews, as I have explained to the House.

  Morbidity Rates
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the average morbidity in terms of annual admissions to hospital per 100,000 population in each district health authority in(a) 1980, (b) 1984, (c) 1985 and (d) each year since 1990–91.

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  [holding answer 14 March 1995]: Latest estimates of the number of in-patient cases and day cases per 100,000 population are given in the following table.

  number of forms this represents; how many (a) pupils and (b) forms had entered each September since the school attained grant-maintained status; how many other pupils joined during each academic year as a grant-maintained school; and how many are entered to join in September 1995. [23873]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Stratford school's approved admissions number at the time of the decision on grant-maintained status was 180, indicating six forms of entry. The Department does not collect information in the precise form requested. Returns from the school indicate the following first-year intakes, organised in each case in five forms:

  September 1991: 124 pupils

  September 1992: 116 pupils

  September 1993: 129 pupils

  September 1994: 111 pupils

  An estimated figure for the 1995 intake can be provided by the school.

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) of 5 May,Official Report, column 338, on Stratford grant-maintained school, what consultancy help the school has received; for what purpose; at what cost and from whom; and what further grants it has received from the Funding Agency for Schools and for what purposes. [23875]

  Mr. Forth
  Decisions on the appointment of consultants in a grant-maintained school are the responsibility of the school's governing body. The cost of consultancies is met from within a school's normal recurrent funding, plus any additional grants which may have been agreed.
  135
  The funding of Stratford school is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Mathematics and English Teachers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many qualified(a) mathematics and (b) English teachers there were in secondary schools in each year since 1979; and what proportion of the total of teachers of each subject they represent. [23982]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is available only for 1984, 1988 and 1992 from the secondary school staffing surveys. In those years the number of full-time teachers who were teaching mathematics and English in maintained secondary schools in England and who had post A-level qualifications in the subject were as follows:

  Year

  Number of Maths teachers ('000)

  Number with Maths qualification ('000)

  Percentage with qualification

  1984

  40.5

  30.0

  74

  1988

  35.5

  26.1

  73

  1992

  31.0

  23.5

  76

  Year

  Number of English teachers (000)

  Number with English qualification (000)

  Percentage with qualification

  1984

  42.8

  30.8

  72

  1988

  36.3

  26.1

  72

  1992

  30.8

  22.4

  73

  The total number of full-time teachers with post A-level qualifications in mathematics and English, including those not teaching the subjects, are as follows.

  Thousands

  Year

  Mathematics

  English

  1984

  47.9

  54.6

  1988

  42.0

  45.7

  1992

  38.1

  40.1

  School Transport, Brent
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consideration she gave to issuing a section 68 or 99 direction to Brent borough council in relation to its school transport policy for denominational schools; and if she will make a statement. [24597]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering whether in her view Brent local education authority is acting unreasonably or unlawfully when dealing with applications for free transport to denominational schools.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many people work for(a) the Higher Education Funding Council, (b) the Funding Agency for Schools, (c) the Further Education Funding Council and (d) the Teacher Training Agency; and how much was spent on (i) administration and (ii) salaries in respect of each, in the last financial year. [23983]
  136
  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Staff (fte) March 1995

  Administration Costs1 £000

  Salary costs2 £000

  HEFCE

  193.5

  6,635

  5,113

  FAS3

  261.8

  6,712

  4,215

  FEFC

  390

  13,200

  10,600

  TTA4

  48.2

  1,106

  536

  1 Excludes salary costs.

  2 Includes employers national insurance and superannuation costs.

  3 The FAS was established with effect from 1 April 1994. Staff numbers have built up over the year.

  4 The TTA was established on 21 September 1994. Staff numbers have increased gradually over the 6 month period.

  Vocational Training and Education
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the priority she attaches to the involvement of industry in vocational training and education. [24493]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Govnerment attach high priority to the involvement of industry in vocational training and education. In the case of general national vocational qualifications, for which my Department is responsible, industry is involved in the preparation, development and, through work placements, the delivery of the qualifications.

  Student Funding
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will announce the postgraduate bursary and studentship rates payable by this Department for the academic year 1995–96. [24873]

  Mr. Boswell
  The main maintenance rates under the Department's own postgraduate awards scheme for certain professional and vocational courses in the academic year 1995–96 will be as follows. 1994–95 rates are shown in brackets:

  1995–96 £

  Bursaries

  London

  3,375 (3,295)

  Elsewhere

  2,665 (2,600)

  Parental home

  2,015 (1,965)

  Studentship

  London

  5,695 (5,555)

  Elsewhere

  4,525 (4,415)

  Parental home

  3,335 (3,255)

  These represent increases of 2.5 per cent. on the current year's rates. The relevant supplementary allowances will be increased broadly in line.

  Capital Spending, Northamptonshire
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the capital spending approvals allowed for Northamptonshire schools in each year since 1987–88. [23940]
  137
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Credit approvals for building work at county and voluntary controlled schools in Northamptonshire are as follows:

  Year

  Amount £000

  1987–88

  1,460

  1988–89

  2,823

  1989–90

  3,676

  1990–91

  5,218

  1991–92

  7,887

  1992–93

  4,107

  1993–94

  4,558

  1994–95

  3,404

  1995–96

  3,454

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the applications she has received to open new grant-maintained schools. [23664]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Applications to establish new grant-maintained schools have been received from three independent schools:Oak Hill school, Avon, to establish an all age interdenominational Christian school;
  St. Anselm's college, Wirral, to establish an 11–18 Roman Catholic grammar school for boys; and
  Upton Hall convent school, Wirral, to establish an 11–18 Roman Catholic grammar school for girls.

  A fourth application, for the establishment of a new grant-maintained Jewish high school in Leeds, has been withdrawn. A number of prospective promoters of new grant-maintained schools are currently in consultation with the Funding Agency for Schools.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the arrangements within her

  Pupils and Full-Time Equivalent of Qualified Teachers in Maintained schools in each local education authority area in England January 1994

  Pupils

  FTE Qualified Teachers

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Local Education Authority area

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Full-time

  FTE

  FTE

  FTE

  Corporation of London

  0

  0

  20

  194

  0

  0.0

  13.6

  0.0

  Camden

  33

  40

  495

  10,433

  10,657

  3.0

  521.6

  696.7

  Greenwich

  342

  332

  2,298

  18,782

  13,980

  23.0

  948.9

  854.5

  Hackney

  108

  62

  1,398

  15,485

  7,445

  8.0

  812.7

  509.5

  Hammersmith

  303

  275

  600

  8,591

  5,885

  26.3

  471.2

  387.7

  Islington

  177

  153

  579

  15,078

  7,215

  13.2

  757.6

  469.7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  83

  169

  231

  6,210

  3,162

  15.0

  357.5

  253.8

  Lambeth

  262

  190

  1,439

  17,493

  6,306

  20.0

  953.8

  425.3

  Lewisham

  136

  97

  2,122

  18,692

  10,888

  9.0

  917.9

  671.1

  Southwark

  346

  199

  1,894

  20,626

  9,384

  21.6

  963.4

  551.2

  Tower Hamlets

  280

  432

  1,054

  20,678

  11,888

  38.1

  1,179.5

  837.2

  Wandsworth

  102

  114

  1,324

  16,113

  8,941

  9.5

  845.8

  606.8

  Westminster

  136

  53

  581

  8,645

  7,464

  12.0

  508.4

  482.0

  Barking

  0

  0

  1,815

  14,287

  9,756

  0.0

  687.1

  570.3

  Barnet

  532

  21

  2,109

  21,893

  18,790

  15.0

  1,091.3

  1,251.8

  Bexley

  0

  0

  1,425

  18,083

  14,525

  0.0

  801.1

  882.4

  Brent

  42

  181

  1,713

  20,691

  12,688

  15.0

  978.5

  799.7

  Bromley

  0

  0

  169

  22,261

  17,150

  0.0

  916.8

  1,059.2

  Croydon

  462

  0

  1,125

  25,891

  14,909

  13.5

  1,212.0

  881.3

  Ealing

  498

  16

  3,118

  22,477

  13,480

  16.3

  1,130.8

  829.2

  Enfield

  0

  0

  1,713

  22,110

  17,848

  0.0

  1,018.9

  1,076.1

  Haringey

  71

  168

  1,991

  17,786

  9,222

  14.5

  922.9

  662.4

  138
  Department for monitoring complaints about grant-maintained schools; and how many complaints have been received to date over (a) admissions, (b) exclusions and (c) the conduct of the schools. [23665]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department receives a variety of complaints about schools of all kinds—independent, local authority maintained and grant maintained—which are followed up as appropriate. Details are not aggregated, nor recorded by school type.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list for each application from a grant-maintained school for a change of character to(a) add whole or partial selection of pupils and (b) to add or extend a sixth form (i) the number of objections submitted to the Secretary of State, (ii) the number of objections submitted by the governing bodies of other schools and (iii) if an objection was submitted by the local education authority. [23125]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: The information requested has been placed in the Library. The table includes only statutory objections. Some cases were supported by a large a number of signatories.

  Teacher and Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the numbers in each local education authority area and nationally of(a) provisional full-time equivalent teachers for (i) nursery, (ii) primary and (iii) secondary schools as at January 1995 and (v) the provisional pupil numbers in (i) nursery, (ii) primary and (iii) secondary schools as at January 1994. [23666]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on pupils and the full-time equivalent of qualified teachers in maintained schools in each local education authority area in England in January 1994, the latest date for which information is available, is shown in the table. Information for January 1995 will not be available until the autumn.
  139

  Pupils and Full-Time Equivalent of Qualified Teachers in Maintained schools in each local education authority area in England. January 1994

  Pupils

  FTE Qualified Teachers

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Local Education Authority area

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Full-time

  FTE

  FTE

  FTE

  Harrow

  0

  0

  1,016

  18,332

  8,320

  0.0

  916.9

  531.6

  Havering

  0

  0

  1,471

  18,637

  14,892

  0.0

  837.5

  901.2

  Hillingdon

  120

  0

  3,125

  17,418

  14,115

  3.2

  858.9

  860.2

  Hounslow

  0

  0

  2,395

  17,200

  14,526

  0.0

  872.8

  894.8

  Kingston upon Thames

  157

  63

  1,463

  9,308

  7,787

  8.8

  427.3

  487.3

  Merton

  0

  0

  2,866

  12,788

  7,313

  0.0

  702.7

  453.7

  Newham

  851

  84

  3,527

  22,059

  14,067

  27.0

  981.0

  823.8

  Redbridge

  0

  0

  1,264

  18,443

  15,362

  0.0

  832.3

  927.4

  Richmond upon Thames

  62

  8

  1,790

  9,405

  7,622

  2.0

  500.1

  451.2

  Sutton

  241

  0

  1,609

  11,861

  11,359

  6.0

  518.2

  671.6

  Waltham Forest

  279

  41

  2,216

  17,948

  11,506

  9.1

  870.7

  722.0

  Birmingham

  1,460

  865

  6,318

  101,382

  64,728

  71.1

  4,495.3

  3,961.2

  Coventry

  176

  30

  1,946

  27,879

  19,013

  8.4

  1,272.2

  1,201.2

  Dudley

  60

  10

  2,764

  26,818

  18,124

  1.0

  1,252.7

  1,083.5

  Sandwell

  106

  111

  4,308

  27,983

  18,418

  9.0

  1,339.5

  1,158.5

  Solihull

  0

  0

  1,837

  18,283

  13,505

  0.0

  823.2

  823.3

  Walsall

  719

  88

  3,517

  25,009

  19,506

  16.8

  1,194.9

  1,233.9

  Wolverhampton

  826

  0

  2,978

  22,630

  16,001

  20.1

  1,130.4

  1,041.1

  Knowsley

  0

  0

  2,748

  16,252

  9,096

  0.0

  749.3

  537.2

  Liverpool

  362

  218

  5,416

  46,200

  30,556

  22.0

  2,093.1

  1,920.8

  St. Helens

  70

  5

  1,596

  16,039

  11,759

  2.0

  764.1

  771.1

  Sefton

  313

  3

  2,189

  25,210

  19,030

  8.0

  1,136.0

  1,159.9

  Wirral

  314

  12

  1,960

  29,672

  21,159

  8.5

  1,359.2

  1,299.3

  Bolton

  497

  27

  2,278

  25,360

  17,031

  15.0

  1,201.9

  1,059.6

  Bury

  105

  56

  1,224

  16,024

  10,332

  5.4

  712.1

  603.6

  Manchester

  160

  417

  2,842

  44,081

  21,693

  27.6

  2,040.1

  1,383.1

  Oldham

  0

  0

  1,519

  23,255

  16,331

  0.0

  1,049.9

  1,050.1

  Rochdale

  865

  50

  1,107

  20,551

  12,942

  22.5

  869.9

  767.6

  Salford

  517

  457

  852

  22,413

  11,639

  32.0

  964.9

  700.2

  Stockport

  845

  81

  1,050

  24,545

  16,019

  20.0

  1,061.1

  977.8

  Tameside

  344

  0

  2,198

  21,098

  13,372

  10.0

  891.2

  767.9

  Trafford

  0

  0

  2,257

  18,308

  11,947

  0.0

  795.8

  735.8

  Wigan

  189

  4

  2,012

  27,951

  19,523

  6.0

  1,267.2

  1,237.2

  Barnsley

  181

  0

  2,787

  18,715

  12,730

  4.0

  831.3

  743.6

  Doncaster

  0

  0

  3,435

  26,024

  21,868

  0.0

  1,178.8

  1,343.8

  Rotherham

  401

  1

  2,726

  22,228

  18,187

  10.0

  1,105.6

  1,148.9

  Sheffield

  722

  129

  5,058

  39,505

  26,981

  24.6

  1,873.4

  1,637.4

  Bradford

  320

  196

  5,840

  35,389

  46,297

  22.5

  1,802.5

  2,680.2

  Calderdale

  0

  0

  1,566

  18,315

  13,390

  0.0

  806.8

  822.1

  Kirkless

  569

  0

  3,849

  33,870

  24,875

  17.0

  1,618.3

  1,572.7

  Leeds

  92

  0

  8,526

  60,902

  43,627

  4.6

  2,782.0

  2,728.1

  Wakefield

  478

  0

  4,361

  26,347

  20,084

  13.0

  1,235.5

  1,232.1

  Gateshead

  57

  7

  1,770

  16,596

  11,751

  2.0

  810.8

  748.7

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  30

  594

  1,547

  20,894

  16,902

  25.4

  946.2

  1,023.6

  North Tyneside

  186

  38

  2,318

  14,297

  14,342

  6.3

  667.7

  844.9

  South Tyneside

  408

  18

  1,792

  14,231

  9,570

  11.0

  652.9

  563.3

  Sunderland

  995

  41

  2,318

  27,739

  19,436

  29.0

  1,310.2

  1,209.1

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  14

  155

  122

  0.0

  11.5

  13.8

  Avon

  1,116

  784

  3,278

  77,422

  54,418

  68.1

  3,423.4

  3,352.3

  Bedfordshire

  1,160

  338

  4,275

  39,236

  44,711

  47.2

  1,880.1

  2,592.5

  Berkshire

  2,031

  134

  4,259

  58,196

  47,005

  63.2

  2,630.7

  2,935.8

  Buckinghamshire

  569

  0

  4,348

  58,017

  37,166

  12.5

  2,617.1

  2,216.8

  Cambridgeshire

  715

  18

  1,570

  57,557

  40,904

  19.3

  2,505.7

  2,398.2

  Cheshire

  814

  25

  4,686

  85,258

  63,583

  19.0

  3,665.4

  3,788.0

  Cleveland

  134

  0

  9,124

  55,978

  36,437

  4.0

  2,540.4

  2,144.3

  Cornwall

  96

  21

  3,270

  37,261

  28,977

  3.3

  1,669.5

  1,678.0

  Cumbria

  802

  1

  2,252

  40,588

  31,215

  18.0

  1,853.2

  1,947.5

  Derbyshire

  1,423

  146

  9,237

  76,181

  57,548

  43.8

  3,461.3

  3,670.5

  Devon

  259

  44

  2,450

  78,183

  58,826

  6.4

  3,461.3

  3,593.7

  Dorset

  0

  0

  4,570

  41,233

  41,286

  0.0

  1,859.7

  2,399.5

  Durham

  2,530

  47

  4,577

  51,757

  37,708

  63.1

  2,356.3

  2,271.6

  East Sussex

  300

  0

  3,960

  48,021

  34,349

  7.6

  2,244.8

  2,129.2

  Essex

  296

  0

  2,334

  121,663

  95,893

  8.0

  5,389.3

  5,594.0

  Gloucestershire

  0

  0

  15

  43,582

  33,389

  0.0

  1,940.6

  1,890.8

  Hampshire

  298

  2

  5,430

  131,883

  79,199

  8.8

  5,998.2

  4,827.8

  Hereford and Worcester

  0

  0

  1.188

  48.063

  47,472

  0.0

  2,189.1

  2,748.4

  140 141

  Pupils and Full-Time Equivalent of Qualified Teachers in Maintained schools in each local education authority area in England. January 1994

  Pupils

  FTE Qualified Teachers

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Nursery

  Primary

  Secondary

  Local Education Authority area

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Full-time

  FTE

  FTE

  FTE

  Hertfordshire

  1,710

  53

  7,709

  77,116

  68,347

  43.2

  3,654.6

  4,352.8

  Humberside

  967

  186

  7,334

  78,075

  56,111

  30.5

  3,366.5

  3,212.1

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  175

  7,039

  10,498

  0.0

  320.1

  597.5

  Kent

  85

  0

  5,261

  123,973

  102,229

  2.1

  5,296.6

  6,127.3

  Lancashire

  3,448

  87

  4,294

  126,282

  84,257

  90.9

  5,592.1

  5,221.7

  Leicestershire

  50

  0

  4,253

  76,195

  59,963

  1.1

  3,488.2

  3,657.2

  Lincolnshire

  187

  57

  1,149

  48,695

  37,841

  7.3

  2,113.2

  2,391.4

  Norfolk

  390

  7

  2,277

  60,354

  41,078

  11.0

  2,804.4

  2,624.0

  North Yorkshire

  402

  1

  3,632

  55,608

  44,013

  9.0

  2,502.5

  2,757.9

  Northamptonshire

  612

  0

  2,309

  48,956

  44,910

  16.6

  2,213.7

  2,712.6

  Northumberland

  90

  38

  2,898

  18,794

  29,329

  3.0

  834.7

  1,622.4

  Nottinghamshire

  598

  11

  12,866

  80,018

  63,768

  18.2

  3,774.4

  4,027.5

  Oxfordshire

  1,137

  52

  2,071

  39,242

  35,127

  40.3

  1,870.9

  2,090.8

  Shropshire

  173

  0

  2,057

  33,934

  25,223

  4.0

  1,515.9

  1,571.5

  Somerset

  0

  0

  554

  35,899

  28,038

  0.0

  1,604.1

  1,692.6

  Staffordshire

  1,392

  736

  3,332

  90,182

  69,487

  50.2

  3,661.2

  3,971.3

  Suffolk

  97

  0

  3,031

  41,324

  48,024

  2.1

  1,981.3

  2,955.5

  Surrey

  334

  84

  2,913

  70,412

  45,405

  18.1

  3,292.3

  2,698.8

  Warwickshire

  758

  0

  1,335

  45,111

  25,087

  18.0

  2,067.5

  1,562.7

  West Sussex

  465

  18

  646

  52,512

  39,952

  14.0

  2,401.3

  2,420.6

  Wiltshire

  0

  0

  709

  47,496

  34,487

  0.0

  2,089.0

  2,064.5

  England

  43,428

  9,046

  296,406

  3,945,344

  2,933,598

  1,575.2

  180,557.7

  178,780.1

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many school playing fields there were in each year since 1979. [23667]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 23 January,Official Report, columns 37–8.

  Admission Appeals
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many admission appeals were made by parents failing to obtain a place for their child in the school of their choice in the latest available year in each local education area and nationally. [23668]

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

  Appeals lodged by parents against non-admission of their children to maintained (including Grant maintained) primary and secondary schools in each local education authority area in England.

  Academic year 1992–93

  Local Education Authority area

  Total appeals lodged

  Corporation of London

  1

  Camden

  378

  Greenwich

  393

  Hackney

  371

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  231

  Islington

  392

  Kensington and Chelsea

  58

  Lambeth

  380

  Lewisham

  784

  Southwark

  352

  Tower Hamlets

  596

  Wands worth

  154

  Westminster

  227

  Barking and Dagenham

  174

  142

  Appeals lodged by parents against non-admission of their children to maintained (including Grant maintained) primary and secondary schools in each local education authority area in England.

  Academic year 1992–93

  Local Education Authority area

  Total appeals lodged

  Barnet

  918

  Bexley

  434

  Brent

  145

  Bromley

  879

  Croydon

  831

  Ealing

  288

  Enfield

  710

  Haringey

  340

  Harrow

  372

  Havering

  388

  Hillingdon

  314

  Hounslow

  318

  Kingston upon Thames

  125

  Merton

  233

  Newham

  39

  Redbridge

  503

  Richmond upon Thames

  227

  Sutton

  572

  Waltham Forest

  511

  Birmingham

  1,957

  Coventry

  437

  Dudley

  193

  Sandwell

  161

  Solihull

  258

  Walsall

  39

  Wolverhampton

  75

  Knowsley

  34

  Liverpool

  897

  St. Helens

  134

  Sefton

  123

  Wirral

  438

  Bolton

  233

  Bury

  619

  Manchester

  1,263

  Oldham

  378

  143

  Appeals lodged by parents against non-admission of their children to maintained (including Grant maintained) primary and secondary schools in each local education authority area in England.

  Academic year 1992–93

  Local Education Authority area

  Total appeals lodged

  Rochdale

  262

  Salford

  134

  Stockport

  92

  Tameside

  173

  Trafford

  237

  Wigan

  158

  Barnsley

  0

  Doncaster

  55

  Rotherham

  140

  Sheffield

  595

  Bradford

  1,457

  Calderdale

  138

  Kirklees

  221

  Leeds

  2,360

  Wakefield

  93

  Gateshead

  29

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  136

  North Tyneside

  16

  South Tyneside

  45

  Sunderland

  73

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Avon

  1,115

  Bedfordshire

  92

  Berkshire

  625

  Buckinghamshire1

  580

  Cambridge

  315

  Cheshire

  147

  Cleveland

  80

  Cornwall

  51

  Cumbria

  99

  Derbyshire

  485

  Devon

  541

  Dorset

  340

  Durham

  392

  East Sussex

  298

  Essex

  440

  Gloucestershire

  279

  Hampshire

  148

  Hereford and Worcester

  273

  Hertfordshire

  1,071

  Humberside

  457

  Isle of Wight

  37

  Kent1

  975

  Lancashire

  2,400

  Leicestershire

  373

  Lincolnshire

  240

  Norfolk

  183

  North Yorkshire

  533

  Northamptonshire

  103

  Northumberland

  51

  Nottinghamshire

  322

  Oxfordshire

  374

  Shropshire

  360

  Somerset

  379

  Staffordshire

  190

  Suffolk

  150

  Surrey

  640

  Warwickshire

  160

  West Sussex

  187

  Wiltshire

  151

  England

  41,927

  1 LEAs which did not submit a complete return.

  Physical Education
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list for each year since 1979(a) the number and (b) the percentage of qualified physical education teachers in (i) primary and (ii) secondary schools. [23669]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested for secondary schools is available only for 1984, 1988 and 1992 from the secondary school staffing surveys. In those years the number of full-time teachers who were teaching physical education in maintained secondary schools in England and who had a post-A-level qualification in physical education was as follows:

  Year

  Number of PE teachers ('000)

  Number with a PE qualification ('000)

  Percentage with qualification

  1984

  37.9

  21.6

  57

  1988

  30.3

  18.4

  61

  1992

  24.4

  16.5

  68

  The total number of full-time teachers with a physical education qualification, including those not reaching PE, in each year was:

  Year

  All teachers with a PE qualification (thousands)

  1984

  36.4

  1988

  31.6

  1992

  30.3

  No figures are available centrally for the number of physical education teachers in primary schools.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of the appropriate age group has attained university entrance standards in each year since 1979. [23388]

  Mr. Boswell
  There is no formal minimum qualification for entrance to higher education; however, the normal requirement for young entrants is that the candidate possesses two or more A-levels, or the equivalent.

  Figures for the proportions of students obtaining two or more A-levels are shown in the Department for Education and Office for Standards in Education departmental report which is held in the Library. The figures are in annex B, table D (page 80): GCE A/AS level examinations, England 1979–80 to 1993–94.

DEFENCE

  Land Mines
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received this year concerning the United Kingdom policy on land mines; and what proposals he has to change Government policy on this issue. [23941]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has received a number of representations this year about land mines. We have no plans to change our policy on this issue.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what trials or low-level flying exercises were undertaken by the RAF over the Sheffield city conurbation on Monday 1 May; for what purpose; and if he will make a statement. [23640]

  Mr. Soames
  Military aircrews are instructed to avoid flying low over major towns and conurbations. We have no record of any specific authority having been given for a waiver of this regulation in respect of Sheffield on Monday 1 May. If the hon. Member is concerned about a particular incident he should provide details, including the times, the names and addresses of any witnesses and, if possible, the number of aircraft involved, to my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence who will arrange for the matter to be investigated.

  Mr. Perry Miller
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his Answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 401, how many days' notice his former special adviser, Mr. Perry Miller, was required to give under his terms and conditions of employment following the decision to end his employment; and how many days Mr. Miller actually served following his notification that he wished to end his appointment. [24609]

  Mr. Rifkind
  Under his terms and conditions of employment, Mr. Perry Miller was required to give 35 days notice; he served 57 days following formal notification that he wished to end his employment.

  E-mail
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extend his Department uses e-mail to transmit messages and information amongst his staff. [24611]

  Mr. Freeman
  E-mail is being used on various computer systems within the Department, the largest of which is the corporate headquarters office technology system CHOTS currently links 6,700 users at 14 sites by e-mail, including the Secretary of State for Defence's office, and 3,000 Ministry of Defence users in the main building alone. A significant proportion of MOD Departmental business is now conducted on the system.

  CHOTS Computer
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost of his Department's corporate head office technology systems computer; what was its original estimated cost at today's prices; when the computer system first began operation; when it will be fully installed; who manufactures the CHOTS system; how many people it serves; to what extent it is out of date; what communications he has had with his departmental staff concerning CHOTS and what were the results of these consultations; what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the CHOTS; and if he will make a statement. [24616]

  Mr. Freeman
  The latest assessment of total cost at current prices, which includes installation and support of the system, MOD manpower costs and enabling works, amounts to £392 million over an agreed 10-year period.146
  This compares with approved funding agreed in 1991 which uprated to current prices is £394 million.

  Operation of CHOTS began in October 1992 and by the end of April 1995 there were 6,700 users. Implementation was originally planned to complete in 1996 but the present plan contains four sites that will be implemented after 1996 because of internal restructuring within the MOD and the armed forces.

  Hardware and software from a variety of sources is procured and installed by the prime contractor, ICL. CHOTS has been upgraded four times since the original technical design in 1989 but was not able to support MS Windows applications. A recent review involving a wide range of existing and potential CHOTS users established a clear need to operate a range of modern commercial software on the CHOTS workstation. As a result it was agreed that a further development be undertaken to meet this requirement.

  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which computer system is used by his Department's Procurement Executive; if the Procurement Executive is fitted with the corporate headquarters office technology system; how many people at the Procurement Executive use CHOTS; and if he will make a statement. [24617]

  Mr. Freeman
  At present the Procurement Executive utilises a number of computer systems appropriate to its needs. This includes CHOTS for those staff employed in areas in which CHOTS has been introduced. A total of approximately 1560 PE staff currently have access to CHOTS.

  Bosnia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 401, how many British troops will be located in Bosnia after the withdrawal of British troops from Gorazde in September 1995; and how many British troops are currently stationed in Bosnia. [24608]

  Mr. Soames
  We intend to maintain a major contribution to UNPROFOR for as long as the force can continue to carry out its mandate at an acceptable level of risk, though it is too early to say how many British troops will be in Bosnia after September 1995. There are currently some 3,4000 British troops in the former Yugoslavia.

  Departmental Paperwork
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence through what mechanisms his Department monitors the quantity of its internal paperwork. [24610]

  Mr. Freeman
  My Department has no formal mechanism to monitor the quantity of its internal paperwork, nor would it be easy to develop such a mechanism. None the less, the Department is keen to ensure that staff are encouraged to generate no more paperwork than is absolutely necessary to achieve departmental objectives.

  As part of the Department's campaign to improve working practices, described in the essay on the "New Working Culture" on page 94 of SDE 1995, new guidelines are to be issued to staff on preparing and circulating written work. In due course, one measure of

  147
  the effectiveness of this campaign should be a reduction in the amount of paper consumed.

  Tri-service Chaplaincy School
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the proposed location of the tri-service chaplaincy school. [24912]

  Mr. Soames
  As part of "Front Line First" we announced our intention to establish a single tri-service chaplaincy school. Further work on this issue has led us to conclude that, subject to consultation, the school should be located at Amport house from 1 April 1996. A consultative document covering this proposal is being issued today. As part of the further work we are examining the future of Eltham palace and Queen Elizabeth barracks Guildford and, if no alternative defence uses are found for either site, we will seek to dispose of our interest in them.

  Postal and Courier Service
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has begun the review of the Defence Postal and Courier Services agency. [24913]

  Mr. Soames
  A review of the agency status of Defence Postal and Courier Services is under way. As a Defence agency, the performance of the Defence Postal and Courier Services will be subjected to the prior options review set out in the 1993 "Next Steps Review", CM 2430.

  Comments and contributions from those with an interest in Defence Postal and Courier Services and its work will be welcomed and should be sent by 27 June to:

  DPCS Review Team,

  Log Sp Pol 2,

  HQ, QMG,

  Andover,

  Hants,

  SP11 8HT.

  Hydrographic Office
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Hydrographic Office Defence agency's triennial review was completed; and what were its conclusions. [24914]

  Mr. Soames
  The Hydrographic Office's triennial review has now been completed and has confirmed that the Hydrographic Office should continue as a Defence agency. In addition, an evaluation study was carried out regarding the agency's performance over the first three years, which has concluded that;

  (a) Both commercial and Government customers found that the Hydrographic Office's products were second to none, and its response time had considerably improved, whilst continuing to provide good value for money;

  (b) Target setting procedures had been refined and developed which has resulted in robust and realistic targets, most of which have been met;

  (c) Agency management had made full use of delegated powers and is actively working to extend them, particularly in the personnel field where it has instigated a pay and grading review.

  148
  An executive summary of the evaluation study is being placed in the Library of the House.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what recent representations he has received concerning the distribution of national lottery funds to Scottish voluntary organisations for the funding of sports and sports facilities for disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [23343]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I have received no such representations.

  Commonwealth Games
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many technical officials in England received grant aid towards travel expenses in respect of the Victoria, Canada, Commonwealth games in 1994. [23703]

  Mr. Sproat
  Twenty technical officials received grant aid towards travel expenses.

  Welsh Fourth Channel
  Mr. Garel-Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether he has now received the report of the inquiry into applications for funding under the business sponsorship incentive scheme in connection with payments made by the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority; and if he will make a statement. [24917]

  Mr. Dorrell
  I announced on 27 February Official Report, column 680, that my Department had commissioned a report from a senior Treasury official, Mr. John Beastall, to review the circumstances of the applications for matching funding under the business sponsorship incentive scheme made by Pengwyn Pine and certain other Welsh arts bodies. I have now received and considered Mr. Beastall's report. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The report takes account of reports received by the Department of National Heritage from the Association for Business Sponsorship of the Arts, which runs the BSIS on the Department's behalf, and from the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority—S4C. It draws on an examination of the relevant records and a series of interviews with staff of S4C and the companies and organizations involved in the applications conducted, at S4C's request, by Grant Thornton, S4C's auditors. Mr. Beastall has interviewed certain S4C and ABSA staff himself.

  The report's main conclusions are:
  In 1993 and 1994 S4C made sponsorship payments via intermediary companies to Welsh arts organizations totaling £53,500 in respect of which BSIS matching funding was claimed. These claims were an abuse of the BSIS because of S4C's position as publicly-funded body.
  All the intermediary companies were genuinely trading and wholly independent of S4C. Confirmation has been obtained that the relevant arts organizations received the S4C money in full. There is no evidence that any of the intermediary companies, their directors or S4C staff received any financial gain from the transactions. A thorough investigation has revealed no other instances of abuse of the BSIS through sponsorship funds originating from S4C.

  149
  The recipient arts bodies, to the extent that they were aware of the ultimate source of the sponsorship funds, must share responsibility for the improper claims because they completed the BSIS application forms without disclosing the true source of the sponsorship funds and because their applications were not consistent with the BSIS objective of encouraging extra sponsorship from businesses. The intermediary companies must similarly share some responsibility.
  In two cases, where S4C staff were the prime movers in the setting up of artificial arrangements designed to secure additional public funding for recipient bodies which would not otherwise have been obtainable and which was clearly contrary to the rules and objectives of the BSIS, the main responsibility lies with S4C. S4C staff should in any event have consulted ABSA in all the cases about whether the proposed arrangements were acceptable.
  In the Pengwyn Pine case, ABSA should have checked with S4C whether the claims made by the company about likely future contracts from S4C were valid.
  In order to ensure that there is no loss to public funds, S4C have agreed to pay to ABSA from their non-public sector funds a sum equivalent to the BSIS grants which were wrongly made, to the extent that these are not recoverable by ABSA. S4C should consider whether they can appropriately recover the relevant sum from the arts organizations concerned.
  Disciplinary action has been taken against one member of S4C's staff. S4C is considering whether there is a case for disciplinary action against any other staff involved.
  ABSA should have notified S4C in writing that S4C's sponsorship payments were no longer eligible for BSIS matching after S4C's change in status to a statutory corporation from 1 January 1993.
  The new BSIS rule requiring full disclosure if a sponsor is acting as an indirect source of sponsorship from a third party should be amended so that applicants must state that they are not deriving their sponsorship funds from a third party.
  In future ABSA should make rigorous checks in any case where there is doubt whether the sponsoring company is making the payment from its own funds. ABSA should also make it clear that in future any arts body or sponsoring company knowingly involved in arrangements designed to secure BSIS funds contrary to the rules or objectives of the BSIS will be disqualified from benefitting from the BSIS either permanently or for a substantial period.
  The arrangement between ABSA and the trade association Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru Cyf—TAC—whereby TAC receives applications from arts organizations and proposes to member companies that they should sponsor particular arts events, should have been referred to ABSA headquarters before it was agreed. It is accepted by ABSA that this arrangement with TAC should now cease. Any future arrangement for BSIS matching of sponsorship by TAC members should require that sponsorship payments made by a company derive solely from that company's own funds and should take appropriate account of previous sponsorships.
  In future ABSA should obtain an account or auditor's certificate that the BSIS grant has been spent as intended in all major cases and should establish a procedure for checking a sample of smaller cases. ABSA already have such arrangements in hand.
  All future sponsorship payments made by S4C will be clearly identified as such. All sponsorship proposals will be approved by the authority on the recommendation of the chief executive.

  S4C has agreed that when it makes sponsorship payments in future:

  (a) the payments should be made direct to the final recipient, not via any third party;

  (b) the recipient should be explicitly told in writing that the sponsorship payment is not eligible for BSIS matching;

  (c) S4C should inform ABSA in confidence of any arts sponsorship payments it makes.

  S4C should require a subsequent account or auditor's certificate that sponsorship funding has been spent appropriately. This procedure is now in effect.
  150
  S4C's relationship with TAC should be clearly at arm's length. This does not preclude the continuation of the arrangement whereby S4C, on TAC's behalf, deducts a percentage of programme fees due to TAC members and transmits it to TAC for the purpose of funding such activities as training and sponsorship. S4C has agreed that any future contributions by S4C towards TAC's administrative costs should be covered by a contract specifying the services to S4C for which the payment is made.
  It has been S4C's policy that fees paid to TAC members should not be higher than the market rate. There needs to be a continuing effective check that this remains the case.
  The role of S4C staff who are members of the ABSA Wales Committee should be defined and agreed between S4C and ABSA.
  S4C has introduced arrangements to prevent possible conflicts of interest arising in cases where members of the Authority or S4C staff are involved in the work of other companies or organisations.
  The chief executive as accounting officer is responsible for ensuring that appropriate standards of financial propriety are maintained within S4C and has already taken action to this end. However to assist him in this a senior member of management below chief executive level should have the clear responsibility of promoting appropriate standards of financial propriety throughout the organization and of acting as the acknowledged source of advice when any issues of propriety arise.
  DNH should check whether there is any risk of the improper use of public funds in any other cases where the department provides funds on a matching basis.

  I am grateful to Mr. Beastall for carrying out this thorough review and for making practical recommendations to ensure the proper use of public money. In a number of instances, the bodies concerned have already taken the necessary steps to implement these conclusions. My officials will monitor carefully the action taken by the bodies concerned in response to the report's recommendations.

  Public Library Review
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if he will publish the ASLIB consultancy study commissioned as part of the public library review. [24915]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The ASLIB consultancy was commissioned by my predecessor to produce a report as part of a major review of the public library service in England and Wales. I am today authorizing the publication of the report and seeking public reactions to its contents, and depositing copies in the Libraries of the House.

  This is a time of major change for the public library service. The review aims to provide fundamental examination of its future, and ASLIB has produced a very full report as part of that process. In doing so, it has examined the public library service currently provided by local authorities in England and Wales and the context within which they operate; and it has consulted widely.

  Public libraries are important to all sectors of the community. Each year more than 24 million adults in England and Wales use them. The ASLIB report draws attention to those services which the public values particularly highly, and demonstrates that libraries play a crucial role in the economy of the United Kingdom.

  The report addresses a number of recommendations to the Government. We shall of course consider them carefully; but I can make it clear now that:

  151
  I have no intention of introducing charges for the present free core of the public library service;
  I will be taking forward the proposals that Government should produce guidance notes for local authorities to define more clearly the range of core services which libraries should provide. In doing so, however, I am conscious of the desirability of leaving decisions about how best to provide such services for local authorities to decide in the light of local circumstances.
  I am not inclined to establish a new independent library inspectorate; and
  I do not intend to change the present legislation governing public library services.

  Most of the recommendations in the report are addressed to local authorities, and I am seeking their views. However, I can make it clear now that I support in principle an approach under which local authorities:
  state explicitly what kind of library service they want to buy, however that service is delivered; and
  explore innovative ways of providing that service, including new technology and diverse sources of finance.

  The separate study that I have commissioned of the scope for contracting out public library services will make a valuable contribution to this debate.

  Following consultation with local authorities and other interests, I expect to make a further statement on the outcome of the review later this year.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many mobile telephones being used by his Department have been cloned during the last 12 months. [23431]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: My Department has never been a victim of mobile telephone cloning.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage 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. [23445]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Leicester East (Mr. Vaz) on 20 May 1994, Official Report columns 601–2. In 1994–95 the costs were £12,600 running costs and £6,800 capital.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage which non-departmental public bodies within the responsibility of his Department are subject to scrutiny by(a) the 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. [23960]

  Mr. Dorrell
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: My Department's executive and advisory non-departmental public bodies are listed in "Public Bodies 1994". On 4 April 1995, the Advisory Council on Libraries took over from the Library and Information Services Council (England) the statutory responsibilities established under the Public Libraries and Museums Act 1964. The
  152
  functions and responsibilities of each body are specified in its founding legislation or charter. The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Bodies subject to the jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration are listed in schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 as amended. This includes:

  Arts Council of England

  British Film Institute

  British Library Board

  Crafts Council

  English Tourist Board

  Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission (English Heritage)

  Museums and Galleries Commission

  Trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund

  Register of Public Lending Right

  Sports Council

  (b) All of my Department's executive NDPBs are subject to scrutiny by the Comptroller and Auditor General with the exception of the National Film development fund. The funding of most of the Department's advisory NDPBs forms part of DNH's expenditure and DNH's accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The accounts of the Theatres Trust are audited by a commercial firm.

  (c) None.

  (d) My Department monitors the performance of its NDPBs as part of the corporate planning process, through which targets and performance indicators are set. The principles of the citizens charter apply to all the Department's NDPBs. There are no surcharging arrangements with regard to members of the Department's NDPBs.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electricity Generation Inquiries
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the applications by power generating companies under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 that have been referred to a public inquiry(a) directly by his Department or (b) as a result of a decision by a local authority; and if he will list the length of time between the referral and the completion of the public inquiry in each case. [24297]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested is as follows:

  Public inquiries under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989

  Station

  Announcement made

  Inspector's report

  (a)

  Didcot B

  6 September 1991

  8 June 1992

  (b)

  Hinkley Point C

  21 March 1988

  4 June 1990

  Ryedale

  13 September 1991

  18 June 1992

  Staythorpe C

  29 October 1991

  19 March 1992

  Belvedere

  30 June 1992

  3 November 1993

  Note:

  Pursuant to the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1990, SI 1990 No. 528 a period of not less than six weeks from the announcement of an inquiry being made to it opening must be given in order to allow for the serving of statements of case.

  Energy Use Forecasts
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the extent to which 8 per cent. reduction in electricity prices, announced as part of the nuclear review, affects the forecasts for energy use and CO2 emissions contained in Energy Paper 65. [24217]

  Mr. Eggar
  Energy Paper 65 assumed that the nuclear component of the fossil fuel levy would cease in 1998. It is expected that the early removal of the levy will have a negligible impact on the long-run energy and CO2 projections contained in Energy Paper 65. There will, however, be a small short-run impact on energy and CO2 levels. In view of this, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced on 11 May 1995, Official Report, columns 564–65, that he would make available an additional £25 million a year to the Energy Saving Trust to promote energy efficiency measures, from 1996 until the gas and electricity markets are fully liberalised.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the investment of the fossil fuel levy in Sizewell B by Nuclear Electric; [24570]

  (2) what was the application of premium income received by Nuclear Electric under the fossil fuel obligation contract with regional electricity companies, reimbursed through the fossil fuel levy, for each year from 1990–91 to 1994–95; and what estimates have been made for the use of this income up to the end of 1996. [24572]

  Mr. Eggar
  Payments to Nuclear Electric from the fossil fuel levy are not hypothecated to any particular purpose. It follows that the information requested is unavailable.

  The economics of the Sizewell B project were examined exhaustively during the planning inquiry, which gave planning consent for its construction, and again in 1990 by the Government when they confirmed the decision to continue construction.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 7 December 1994,Official Report, columns 257–59, if he will list those projects in the civil nuclear power industry which have received European regional development funding over the last 10 years indicating, in each case, (a) the level of funding and (b) when it was received. [24673]

  Mr. Eggar
  There were no such projects.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the basis for the assumption made in the footnote to the table at paragraph 5.22 and in paragraph 5.23 of the nuclear review White Paper, Cm 2860, that the lifetime cost for electricity from a Sizewell C pressurized water reactor would fall in the range of 3.5p to 5.75p per kilowatt hour. [24400]

  Mr. Eggar
  The judgment that lifetime generation costs of Sizewell C would fall within a range of 3.5p to 5.75p per kilowatt hour, expressed in 1990 price,s was based on an assessment of evidence to the nuclear review. The range takes account of uncertainties in such key variables as capital cost, station load factor and the required rate of return for a private sector nuclear generation project. These uncertainties are discussed in 154
  chapter 4 of the White Paper. The range quoted in paragraph 5.23 covers the bulk of the range of cost estimates given in evidence to the review as reported in chapter 4.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to paragraphs 7.30 and 7.31 of the nuclear review White Paper, Cm 2860, if he will make a statement on the ways in which those existing nuclear plant sites which jointly contain Magnox reactors and advanced gas cooled or pressurized water reactors which currently share common safety, waste management, railhead or other facilities will have these roles and assets divided between the Magnox public company and the private GB Co. operating on the same sites after privatisation. [24661]

  Mr. Eggar
  Arrangements will be put in place to ensure the continued safe and efficient operation of all the nuclear stations currently operated by Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric when the AGR and PWR stations are privatised and the Magnox stations placed in a new public sector company. Safety will be the paramount consideration and the arrangements will be subject to the requirements of the nuclear installations inspectorate.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what evaluation was made in the nuclear review on non-proliferation concerns addressed at paragraphs 10.43 and 10.44 of the nuclear review White Paper, of doubts raised by submissions, including that by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), on whether sufficient resources had been allocated to ensure the proper implementation of the nuclear safeguards measures to which reference is made on page 74 of Cm 2860. [24420]

  Mr. Eggar
  All submissions to the nuclear review were given careful and detailed consideration. We are satisfied that appropriate resources have been allocated to ensure the proper implementation of nuclear safeguards measures in the UK.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those local authorities and environmental organisations consulted by KPMG Peat Marwick in its evaluation of nuclear liabilities as mentioned at paragraph 8.12 of the nuclear review White Paper, Cm 2860; what criteria were adopted in choosing these bodies for consultation. [24421]

  Mr. Eggar
  The liabilities management study was carried out as part of the nuclear review. All the documents submitted as part of the nuclear review process were made available to KPMG, and were taken into account by KPMG, in so far as they were relevant to its terms of reference. It was for KPMG to decide what level of further consultation was necessary, and with whom, to enable it to complete its study. I understand that, in the event, KPMG followed up the submissions from Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace by holding direct meeting with them, but that there were no direct meetings with local authorities.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total cost at 1995 prices of construction of(a) the Sizewell pressurised water reactor and (b) each of the advanced gas-cooled reactors in Britain. [23947]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the note on tangible fixed assets on page 67 of the report and accounts of nuclear electric 1993–94. Copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of
  155
  Trade what is his estimate of the financial value of the liabilities to be transferred to the privatised nuclear holding company and its subsidiaries. [24290]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: The Government's aim is to privatise as much of the nuclear liabilities of Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric as possible. The liabilities associated with their AGR and PWR stations will be transferred to the private sector when these stations are privatized under the holding company structure. The Magnox stations and associated liabilities will be retained in the public sector, initially in a stand alone company. The value of the liabilities in each case will be published in the accounts of the various companies in due course.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if article 14 of the 1978 tripartite safeguards agreement between the United Kingdom, Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Cmnd 6730, permitting the withdrawal of civil nuclear materials for national security reasons, will apply to the safeguards arrangements set out at paragraph 10.44 at page 74 of the nuclear review White Paper, Cm 2860. [24312]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: Yes.

  Car Seat Covers
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will takes steps to include loose car seat covers and car seats in the definition of furniture in the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988 as is amended or introduce legislation to set safety standards for car seats and loose car seat covers. [24434]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have no present plans to do so. So far, there is no evidence to suggest that the flammability of current loose car seat covers or car seats represents a significant risk to life and would warrant inclusion within the scope of, for example, the Furniture and Furnishings (Fire) (Safety) Regulations 1988, as amended.

  Director General of Fair Trading
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the appointment of Sir Bryan Carsberg's successor as Director General of Fair Trading will be announced. [24439]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Good progress has been made towards making an appointment and I expect an announcement to be made within the next few weeks.

  Monopolies and Mergers Commission
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what decisions the Office of Fair Trading has taken concerning the provision of misleading information to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission investigation into the supply of ice cream; [24438]

  (2) if any criminal proceedings are either under consideration or pending under section 93B of the Fair Trading Act 1973 as a result of misleading information being provided to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission over the past three years; [24436]

  (3) how many reports from the Monopolies and Mergers Commission in the past three years are considered unsafe and have been or are being reconsidered by the Office of Fair Trading as a result of
  156
  powers given to the Director General of Fair Trading by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. [24437]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  No reports received from the MMC in the past three years have been considered unsafe. However, the Office of Fair Trading is currently pursuing inquiries concerning allegations that certain evidence presented to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission during its investigation into the supply in the UK of ice cream for immediate consumption was misleading. No decisions have yet been taken concerning any further action which might arise under section 93B of the Fair Trading Act. I am not aware of any other inquiries in connection with section 93B of the Act.

  Energy Research and Development
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the expenditure from public funds on research and development relating to the production of energy in each of the last five years; and what expenditure he expects to be devoted to these matters during each of the next three years. [24201]

  Mr. Eggar
  Details of expenditure in the last five years by DTI and the former Department of Energy on research and development relating to the production of energy are contained in Departmental annual reports and expenditure plans, Cm Nos. 1505, 1905, 2204, 2504. The latest departmental report "Trade and Industry 1995: The Government's Expenditure Plans 1995–96 to 1997–98," Cm 2804, also gives information about the Government's plans for such expenditure in future years.

  Information about expenditure on research and development by public corporations is contained in their annual reports and accounts.

  These publications are available in the Library of the House.

  VSEL
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to announce his decision on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report into the future ownership of VSEL. [24509]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will publish the MMC reports on the proposed acquisition of VSEL, together with any decision which it falls to him to take, as soon as is reasonably practicable.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will instruct his officials in the overseas trade division to suspend their trade promotion visits to Nigeria. [24184]

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: The Government recognize the difficulties of conducting business with Nigeria in the present political and economic climate. Nigeria nevertheless remain the United Kingdom's second largest export market in Africa. UK exports in 1994, although significantly down on the previous year, still amounted to £457.9 million. It would not be appropriate to withdraw the support the Department of Trade and Industry gives to UK companies continuing to do business in Nigeria.

  Companies House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the contract to advise on the contracting out of functions in Companies House was(a) competitively tendered for and (b) publicly advertised; and if he will make a statement. [23977]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: I can confirm that the appointment of consultants to advise on the contracting out of Companies House, London, and the satellite offices was as a result of a competitive tender following an advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current estimate of the dates on which he anticipates letting out the contractorisation contracts within Companies House at(a) Edinburgh, (b) London and (c) Cardiff. [23981]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: The London contract is likely to be awarded by the end of January 1996 and the Edinburgh and Cardiff contracts by the end of the current financial year.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the value of the contract awarded to PA Consulting group to advise on the contracting out of functions at Companies House exceeds £250,000 per annum; on what date PA started the contract; and how long it is estimated to last. [23976]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: While the precise value of the contract with PA Consulting group to provide advice on contracting out Companies House, London, is commercially confidential, I can confirm it is less than £250,000. PA started work in February this year. The target is to have a contractor in place in Companies House, London, by end January 1996.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what guidelines he has given to PA Consulting group debarring the letting of contracts for the contractorisation of Companies House, Edinburgh, London and Cardiff to the same contractor. [23978]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: No such guidelines have been issued.

  PA Consulting
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what consultation he had with the special compliance office of the Inland Revenue concerning its allegations of tax irregularities at PA Consulting prior to the appointment of that company to oversee the contracting out of Companies House functions at Edinburgh, London and Cardiff. [23868]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: There were no such consultations. Tax affairs of individual companies are confidential.

EMPLOYMENT

  Health and Safety
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many applications to industrial tribunals there have been under the Safety Representatives and Safety Committee Regulations 1977 for each year since 1978. [23373]
  158
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The number of applications to the industrial tribunals under these regulations was as follows:

  Year

  Number of applications

  1994–95

  14

  1993–94

  11

  1992–93

  2

  1991–92

  16

  1990–91

  11

  1989–90

  7

  1988–89

  10

  1987–88

  4

  1986–87

  5

  Prior to these dates, applications under the above regulations were not separately identified, but were aggregated with appeals dealt with under the Health and Safety Improvement and Prohibition Notice Appeals Regulations. However, detailed records of applications under these regulations are no longer available for the period prior to January 1984.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) if he will list the information technology that will be required to implement the jobseeker's allowance; what are its costs; and if it will be installed and ready to use by April 1996; [23933]

  (2) what contingency plans have been developed in case the information technology that will be required to implement the jobseeker's allowance is not installed and ready to use by April 1996; if such plans could process annually (a) fewer than 100,000, (b) between 100,000 and 250,000, (c) between 250,000 and 500,000, (d) between 500,000 and 1 million, (e) between 1 million and 2 million and (f) more than 2 million; and what are its costs. [23934]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The new computer systems will support the implementation of the jobseeker's allowance. The labour market system will replace current computer systems in Employment Service jobcentres used to support vacancy filling and advisory work, at an implementation cost of around £70 million.

  The JSA payments system is being developed to pay JSA, by girocheque or automated credit transfer, at an implementation cost of around £40 million to March 1997.

  In addition, the stand-alone computer system currently used in ES sector adjudication offices, adjudication officer automation, will continue to be used to support adjudication and appeals casework.

  We are keeping progress on the development and installation of information technology systems and equipment under close review. If we conclude that the arrangements being made cannot be put in place or only at an unacceptable level of risk in April 1996, alternatives will be considered.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will undertake that no job seeker will lose any money due to him or her if the information
  159
  technology that will be required to implement the jobseeker's allowance is not installed and ready to use by April 1996. [23945]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Yes. The aims of the Jobseekers Bill are to help people into jobs, improve our services to people while they are unemployed and achieve better value for the taxpayer. The Government's priority is to introduce the jobseeker's allowance through the network of 1,200 jobcentres for unemployed people throughout the country. This is a large and complex undertaking. It involves development of two substantial new computer systems and very large-scale training programmes. We have kept the project under close review. Substantial progress has been made but we have now concluded that, in order to deliver an excellent service to unemployed people from day one, JSA should be introduced in October 1996.

  The transitional arrangements for JSA will be such that the duration of an unemployed claimant's entitlement to unemployment benefit will, from April 1996, be the same as it would have been had JSA been introduced on that date.

  Plans for the introduction of the back-to-work Bonus are unaffected. The bonus will be introduced as planned in October 1996.

  Asbestos
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what inquiry the Health and Safety Executive has conducted into the asbestos removal industry; what its conclusions were; and what plans there are for a further inquiry. [23718]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983, which require contractors to obtain a licence from the Health and Safety Executive to carry out work removing asbestos, have been subject to two reviews. The reviews found that the regulations have been effective in improving the standards of performance of asbestos removal contractors, and that the regulations are working well in practice. No further review is currently considered necessary. HSE's field inspection programmes for 1994–95 and 1995–96 include increased visit targets for asbestos contractors' sites.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what has been the change since 1992 in personnel involved in investigating fraud and abuse of the unemployment benefit system; and if he will make a statement on the results that have been achieved including a comparison between the cost and the amount saved. [24450]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. David Atkinson, dated 16 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the numbers of, and results achieved by, Employment Service (ES) personnel involved in the investigation of fraud and abuse of the unemployment benefit system.
  The table below contains the information you requested:

  160

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total number of staff (investigators)

  1,343 (780)

  1,343 (780)

  1,343 (780)

  Gross savings1

  £71.15 million

  £80.12 million

  £92.1 million

  Cost of fraud operation

  £26.44 million

  £26.84 million

  £27.5 million

  Net savings

  £44.71 million

  £53.28 million

  £64.6 million

  Investment return2

  £2.69

  £2.99

  £3.35

  Number of sign-offs3

  61,129

  67,426

  78,231

  1 This figure is calculated by multiplying the weekly amount of benefit saved by 22. The 22 week figure was identified by the Department of Social Security research and represents the average number of weeks claimants would have remained on the register if they had not been investigated by fraud staff.

  2 £s of benefit saved for every £ of cost.

  3 Number of clients withdrawing their claims to benefit after investigation by ES inspectors.

  The number of claims withdrawn following investigation by ES inspectors has risen impressively over the past three years, indicating effective targeting of fraudulent activity and increasingly efficient use of resources.
  The year on year increase in savings has been achieved without any significant increase in resource.
  I hope this is helpful

  Job Vacancy Advertisements
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of state for Employment what instructions his Department gives to jobcentres on the circumstances in which they can include minimum or maximum age restrictions on advertised job vacancies. [23732]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Jobcentres are instructed to challenge age restrictions placed on job vacancies and to persuade employers to consider all job seekers on their merits. The only exception to this is where age limits are essential to the performance of the job, for example the need for the applicant to hold a driving licence or to qualify for insurance cover.

  Where employers insist on imposing age limits, they are reluctantly accepted and included on the displayed vacancy details. However, jobcentre staff are then encouraged to approach and employer on behalf of an otherwise suitable jobseeker who falls outside the stated age limit.

  This approach is outlined in the booklet "Too old … Who Says?, which gives job search advice to older workers. The Booklet was recently published as part of the campaign to combat age discrimination in the workplace. Copies are available to the public at jobcentres."

  Wages Councils
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment pursuant to his answer of 5 May,Official Report, column 322, if he will identify the industrial sectors in which wages councils mainly operated. [24175]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: Wages Councils mainly operated within the hotel and catering, retailing and clothing manufacture sectors.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information has been gathered through
  161
  surveys and on the basis of notified redundancies on how many jobs have been lost and created, together with their pay rates, in the regions of the United Kingdom in the last quarter. [21797]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The labour force survey is the Department's main source of information on the number of redundancies. The latest regional figures from the LFS on redundancies and the net change of numbers in employment are given in the following table. There is no information available on the pay rates of jobs lost and created. Figures for Northern Ireland are only available for the spring quarter of each year.

  Not seasonally adjusted (Thousands)

  Region

  Redundancies1 Autumn 1994

  Employment change summer 1994–autumn 1994

  Employment change autumn 1994–winter 1994–95

  Great Britain

  190

  18

  -135

  North

  13

  0

  -23

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  16

  24

  -13

  East Midlands

  20

  16

  16

  East Anglia

  2—

  -3

  0

  South East

  52

  33

  -57

  South West

  14

  0

  -25

  West Midlands

  17

  -20

  4

  North West

  23

  -6

  -18

  Wales

  2—

  -9

  -15

  Scotland

  17

  -16

  -5

  1 Number of redundancies that took place in the three months prior to interview.

  2 Less than 10,000 in cell; estimate not shown.

HEALTH

  Casualty Units
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to meet health authorities to discuss casualty units. [22862]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no such plans.

  Social Deprivation
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the link between social deprivation and ill health. [22863]

  Mr. Sackville
  Variations in health status between different socio-economic groups have been documented in Britain since the 1860s and are found across the developed world.

  Dermatology Services, London
  Mr. Fraser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her strategy for dermatology services in London. [22864]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is a matter for local purchasers to determine the most appropriate arrangements for providing dermatology services.

  Smoking
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to restrict smoking. [22865]
  162
  Mr. Sackville
  On 7 February 1994 the Government published "Smoke Free for Health", an action plan to achieve "The Health of the Nation" targets on smoking, copies of which are available in the Library. The action plan sets out the full range of measures being taken to reduce smoking.

  Sandwell Health Services Authority
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement regarding the conduct of Sandwell family health services authority and Sandwell health plan. [22866]

  Mr. Malone
  The setting up of Sandwell health plan by Sandwell family health services authority has been the subject of an investigation by the Audit Commission. Its report under section 15(3) of the local Government Finance Act 1982 and the subsequent action proposed by Sandwell family health services authority were discussed at a public meeting of that authority on 30 March 1995.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Mudie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses she estimates will receive at least a 3 per cent. pay award. [22867]

  Mr. Malone
  Across the United Kingdom, 321 national health service trusts and directly managed units have made formal offers or made clear to staff their intentions for local pay increases. Of these, some 75 per cent. have been for proposed increases of around 3 per cent. We have been told by the majority of the remaining 164 trusts that they will have made offers by the end of this month.

  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what considerations led to the pay offer made to(a) doctors and (b) nurses; and if she will make a statement. [22874]

  Mr. Malone
  Pay for doctors and nurses is based on the recommendations made by the independent pay review bodies which were accepted in full by the Government.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations she has received this year about the pay of nurses and other NHS employees; and if she will make a statement. [22875]

  Mr. Malone
  A number of representations have been received this year. Correspondence and some petitions have been received and verbal representations have been made.

  Patient Care
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of NHS staff currently provides direct care to patients; and what was the position 10 years ago. [22868]

  Mr. Malone
  The proportion of direct care staff in hospital and community health services has increased from 61.3 per cent. in 1983 to 65.7 per cent. in 1993.

  Conflicts of Interest
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she has taken to prevent potential conflicts of interest between those who hold senior posts in NHS trusts and in private sector health service consultancies. [22869]
  163
  Mr. Malone
  The codes of conduct and accountability, which were issued to all national health service board members in April last year, introduced stringent measures to prevent conflicts of interest arising at board level. All NHS boards now maintain a register of members' relevant private interests and these are available for inspection by the public.

  District Health Authority Funding
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to ensure that district health authorities have equality of funding. [22870]

  Mr. Sackville
  We remain committed to the principle of weighted capitation as being the fairest way of achieving equality of funding for health authorities.

  Emergency Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the recent change in emergency and urgent hospital admissions. [22871]

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of non-elective admissions has remained constant as a proportion of the total number of admissions for several years.

  Consultant Oncologists
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action her Department is taking in respect of the number of consultant oncologists in the NHS. [22872]

  Mr. Malone
  Establishment of consultant posts is the responsibility of individual employers, who have regard to the needs of the local population and available resources. The specialist work force advisory group advises the Department on the number of higher specialist trainees needed in each specialty to provide an appropriate supply of suitably qualified candidates for consultant posts.

  The number of medical staff, including consultants, in oncology is shown in the table.

  Hospital medical staff in medical oncology and clinical oncology (radiotherapy) by grade

  England—30 September 1993

  Whole time equivalent

  Grade

  Medical oncology

  Clinical oncology

  Total

  Consultant

  40

  200

  240

  Senior Registrar

  20

  50

  70

  Registrar

  10

  70

  80

  Senior House Officer

  30

  100

  130

  House Officer

  10

  10

  20

  Other grades

  10

  20

  30

  Totals

  120

  450

  570

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Heart Surgery, Waiting Lists
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are dying each year on the waiting list for heart surgery. [22873]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply the then Minister for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), gave the 164
  hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) on 19 May 1994, Official Report, column 557.

  Community Care
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when she last met organisations representing carers to discuss the effect of the community care changes. [22876]

  Mr. Bowis
  I meet frequently with organizations representing carers to discuss a range of matters including community care.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the future time scale for implementing the supervised discharge provisions of the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill. [22879]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Bill which received its first reading on 11 May, would come into force on 1 April 1996. This is intended to allow sufficient time, following Royal Assent, for the necessary regulations to be made and laid and guidance issued to those who will be responsible for implementing the new provisions.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what services are provided under the NHS for the treatment of infertility; and if she will make a statement. [22877]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the services available under the national health service for the treatment of infertility is contained in "The Effective Health Care Bulletin" on "The Management of Subfertility", August 1992, published for the NHS management executive by a consortium of Leeds and York universities and the research unit of the Royal College of Physicians. A copy is available in the Library.

  Local health authorities are responsible for the provision of local health services, including the provision of infertility services. Decisions about the resources to be made available for these services must be left to individual health authorities as they are in the best position to determine priorities in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what advice New River health authority has sought from her Department in respect of the most efficacious provision of infertility treatment and diagnosis; [23807]

  (2) what contracts her Department has had with New River health authority in respect of infertility treatment and investigation in the United Kingdom. [23808]

  Mr. Sackville
  The provision of infertility diagnosis and treatment locally is a matter for New River health authority. Guidance on infertility services has been issued by the Department and as far as I am aware New River health authority has not sought any additional advice from the Department. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mr. David Kleeman, chairman of the authority, for details of local arrangements for fertility services.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what comparative studies her Department has conducted of one type of infertility treatment against another in the United Kingdom; [23806]
  165
  (2) what comparative studies of one infertility treatment against another in the United Kingdom have been assessed by her Department. [23805]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on 18 April,Official Report, column 114.

  Health Care, London
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for the future of London's health care following the recommendations of the second "King's Fund Monitor". [22880]

  Mr. Malone
  The Government's plans for London's health care are as set out in "Making London Better", published in February 1993, copies of which are available in the Library, and in a number of statements since that date. These include action to develop higher quality, more accessible primary and community health care for Londoners; action to provide a more balanced hospital service to meet the needs of London's resident, working and visiting population; and action to enhance and foster London's role as a centre of high-quality education and research.

  On 10 May, a seven-point pledge was given to the House that there would be no closure until alternative and better services are up and running; that there will be modern emergency services, including an improved London ambulance service; that local health authorities will continue to be held to account for providing comprehensive and effective services in each area, including a proper supply of beds to meet demand; waiting times will improve further; patients charter standards must be met; efforts will continue to recruit and retain the very best doctors and nurses; staff and the public will be involved in the changes so they can see and contribute to objectives; and support will be given to innovation and development in teaching and research.

  Primary Care, Ealing
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is to spent on primary health care in the borough of Ealing; what were the figures three and five years ago; and if she will make a statement. [22010]

  Mr. Malone
  The main elements of primary health care are the demand-led family health services. Expenditure on these services within the borough of Ealing is not separately identifiable from information available centrally. A summary of the total FHS expenditure by the Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow family health services authority, whose area of responsibility includes the borough of Ealing, is set out in the following table. Expenditure on the final element of primary health care, the community health services funded by health authorities, is not separately identifiable in data available centrally.

  Gross expenditure on family health services within the Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow family health services authority

  £ million

  1990–91

  1992–93

  1994–95 (provisional)

  Total gross expenditure

  78.3

  96.6

  108

  Notes:

  1. Gross expenditure includes prescription and dental charge income collected from patients.
  166
  2. Figures include payments made by the Dental Practice Board to dentists in contract with the Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow FHSA. Figures exclude GP fundholders' management costs and budgets for purchasing secondary care services, and the FHSA's administrative costs.

  3. Figures for 1990–91 and 1992–93 are based on receipts and payments returns submitted by the FHSA with its annual accounts. The provisional figures for 1994–95 are based on in-year monitoring data.

  Access Committee for England
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for the future funding of the Access Committee for England. [23590]

  Mr. Bowis
  Funding in the current financial year is £105,000. Decisions on further funding will be taken at the appropriate time and will be based on current core grant tapering policy.

  Doncaster Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to disband Doncaster Healthcare NHS trust. [23864]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Burnley Health Care NHS Trust
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if Burnley Health Care NHS trust acted in accordance with the NHS code of openness in respect of the timescale of release of details of the incident at Burnley general hospital in which ophthalmic patients each lost an eye. [23862]

  Mr. Malone
  The code of practice on openness in the national health service, which takes effect on 1 June, will increase public access to information held by the NHS. Burnley Health Care NHS trust, in recognising the sensitivity of the incident, issued a press release as soon as treatment of all the affected patients had been completed and the full facts were known. Its action was entirely in keeping with the spirit of the code of practice.

  London Initiative Zone
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what capital schemes in the London borough of Newham have been allocated funding through the LIZ initiative; and what sums have been allocated to each of these and on what dates. [23924]

  Mr. Malone
  The London initiative zone capital schemes and sums allocated are as shown in the table.

  LIZ Primary Care Capital Funded Projects in Newham

  Project name

  Capital allocation £000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Newham

  Essex Lodge (Primary Care Centre)

  25

  65

  0

  Shrewsbury Road

  285

  483

  0

  Improvement Grants to GP premises (various)

  279

  259

  0

  Star Lane (Primary Care Centre)

  470

  500

  80

  Stratford Corridor (Primary Care Centre)

  310

  0

  300

  Cyprus Dock (Resource Centre)

  192

  133

  675

  Freemasons Road

  —

  —

  40

  326 Stratford High Street

  —

  —

  80

  167

  LIZ Primary Care Capital Funded Projects in Newham

  Project name

  Capital allocation £000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  140 Claremont Road

  —

  —

  40

  50 Upper Road

  —

  —

  150

  497 Barking Road

  —

  —

  130

  751 Barking Road

  —

  —

  50

  85 Stopford Road

  —

  —

  10

  125/127 Prince Regents Lane

  —

  —

  250

  39/50c Romford Road

  —

  —

  250

  17 Turley Close

  —

  —

  300

  533 Barking Road

  —

  8

  0

  1 Kennard Street

  —

  89

  0

  Newham GP Forum

  —

  71

  0

  Security improvements to GP surgeries

  —

  1

  0

  Total Expenditure

  1,561

  1,649

  2,355

  NHS Estates
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has for the privatisation of NHS Estates; and if she will make a statement. [23681]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) on 1 December 1994,Official Report, column 825.

  NHS Domestic Cleaning Standards
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to advise NHS trusts to control domestic cleaning standards by introducing the Asda and Tesco control systems. [23935]

  Mr. Sackville
  National health service trust management determine locally the domestic cleaning standards for each of their units and then monitor to ensure those standards are met. We have recently introduced a patients charter standard which emphasises the need for a clean and safe environment in hospitals.

  Star Lane Medical Centre
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in which year funding was allocated from North Thames regional health authority for the proposed Star Lane medical centre, London E16; and where that funding currently resides. [23943]

  Mr. Malone
  Funds have been set aside for the proposed Star Lane medical centre in 1993–94 and 1994–95. Funds of £500,000 for 1994–95 have been carried over to the 1995–96 financial year and work will begin on the centre in July 1995.

  GP Suicides
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many suicides by general practitioners took place in each of the last five years for which figures are available in each family health services authority area; and if she will make a statement. [23678]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is not available centrally.

  Gorton Medical Centre
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action she intends to take to remedy the situation created by the decision of the High Court that the Manchester family health services authority applied more than £250,000 unlawfully; and if she will as a consequence increase the funding allocation to make possible the building work necessary to Gorton medical centre. [23694]

  Mr. Malone
  I am considering the implications of the judgement as a matter of urgency. Separately, I understand that Manchester family health services authority will shortly contact the doctors at the Gorton medical centre to advise what financial assistance can be provided to them to improve their premises.

  Child Labour
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what powers she proposes for local authorities to cope with the problem of child labour. [24031]

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities have sufficient powers under existing legislation to deal with any instances of illegal employment of children that may occur.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what initiatives arising from the UN Year of the Child and the UN Year of the Family have been instituted to deal with the issue of child labour. [24032]

  Mr. Bowis
  I am aware of no initiatives in the United Kingdom on child labour arising from either of these years.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources are available to reduce the use of child labour; and what resources were made available in each of the last five years. [24034]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is for local authorities to devote resources to this activity as they think necessary.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by her Department of the numbers of children currently illegally working; what assessment her Department has made of the extent of child labour for each of the last five years; and what comparable information she has about other European countries. [24030]

  Mr. Bowis
  I am not aware of any significant evidence that the illegal employment of children is a widespread problem. We have no information about the situation in other European countries.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussion on child labour took place at the recent UN conference on poverty in Copenhagen; and what contribution the Government made in this regard. [24033]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The world summit for the social development identified family poverty as a main cause of child labour. The Government demonstrated their commitment to international action in this area by endorsing recommendations to ensure the protection of working children and to promote the elimination of child labour.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is her estimate of the net annual financial saving, or
  169
  cost, of her Department's submission for the proposed White Paper on the rural economy. [24329]

  Mr. Sackville
  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.

  Census Questions
  Ms Gordon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps she is taking to ensure that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys includes questions in the next census to record the number of hours which women and men spend doing unpaid household, caring and voluntary work and to record household income. [24394]

  Mr. Sackville
  The census offices in Great Britain—Office of Population Censuses and Surveys and the General Register Office for Scotland—have started to consult users about information needs for the next census which is being planned for 2001. Some support has already been expressed both for a question on income, and for a question on unpaid work such as housework, voluntary work, and caring for others.

  Users have requested more new and revised questions than can be accommodated on the form without placing an undue burden on the public and a preliminary assessment is being made on whether the census is the most appropriate means of collecting the required information. Questions for which there is likely to be a good case will be tested for acceptability to the public, and for the ability of the public to respond with data of a quality adequate to meet users' needs, in a programme which will run over the next three years.

  Formal business cases for including particular questions will be considered in early 1998. The Government's proposals will be published later that year, and the final selection of questions will be approved by Parliament.

  Exeter and North Devon Health Authority
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the full legal costs incurred by the Exeter and North Devon health authority and its predecessor authorities(a) in its dispute with Mrs. Carol Rudd and (b) in the cases of (i) Mrs. Mikibbin, (ii) Mrs. Gerlach and (iii) Mrs. Filer Cooper; what reports she has called for into these cases; to what extent the payment of costs complied with her Department's guidelines; and if she will make a statement. [24706]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for the Exeter and North Devon health authority. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. R.A. Day, chairman of the health authority, for details.

  Hospital Matrons
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trust and non-trust hospitals use the title matron; and if she will make a statement. [23166]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally. The exact titles and responsibilities of senior nurses are for local decision. The title "Matron" may be used if appropriate.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which European Union countries currently have artificial fluoridated public water supplies; and which European Union countries have abandoned artificial fluoridated public water supplies in the last 20 years. [23733]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is shown in the table.

  Water fluoridation in Europe

  Current status

  If discontinued in last 20 years

  Austria

  Natural only

  —

  Belgium

  Natural only

  —

  Denmark

  Natural only

  —

  Finland

  Natural only

  Kuopio fluoridated 1959 to 1992

  France

  Natural only

  —

  Germany

  Natural only

  Schemes in GDR ceased on reunification

  Greece

  Actively pursuing

  —

  Ireland

  Mandatory, approx 70 per cent. coverage

  —

  Italy

  Actively pursuing

  —

  Netherlands

  Natural only

  Artificial fluoridation 1953 to 1973

  Spain

  Approx. 2 million people receive artificial fluoridated supplies, actively pursuing extending coverage

  —

  Sweden

  Natural only

  —

  United Kingdom

  Approximately 10 per cent. coverage, actively pursuing extending coverage to approx. 25 per cent.

  —

  Luxembourg

  No data

  No data

  Portugal

  No data

  No data

  Source:

  British Fluoridation Society—12 May 1995.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether water companies that add fluoride to the public water supplies are indemnified by her Department for legal claims of negative health effects. [23734]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health, subject to Treasury approval, offers water undertakers wide indemnities against civil liabilities, including costs and expenses in connection with any proceedings, in connection with the fluoridation of the water supply, provided that the actions of the water undertaker are within the terms of the agreement with the health authority.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the extent of medical research on the long-term benefits of artificial fluoridated water supplies for(a) children and (b) adults, based on detailed studies of the dental records of communities with added artificial fluoridated public water supplies and communities without added artificial fluoridated public water supplies but with similar economic and social backgrounds. [23736]

  Mr. Malone
  Our assessment is that it has been shown conclusively that water fluoridated at one part per million can result in a 50 per cent. reduction in tooth decay in children and also helps adults to keep their teeth longer.
  171
  A number of studies have been carried out into the long term benefits of artificially fluoridated water supplies for both children and adults in comparable fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas of similar social and economic backgrounds. Summaries of such studies and their findings are set out in the recent book "One in a Million: Water Fluoridation and Dental Public Health", published jointly by the Public Health Alliance and the British Fluoridation Society, pages 8 to 18, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what instructions her Department gives to the manufacturers of dental products containing fluoride concerning(a) the need for adults and children to be informed of the potential harm of such products if consumed in excess and (b) the suitability of such products for young children. [23738]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health is responsible for regulating those dental products containing fluoride and regarded as medicinal. Medicinal products are granted licences on the basis of quality, safety and efficacy. The dangers of excess consumption and the products' suitability for young children are addressed in the licence.

  Dental products containing fluoride include toothpaste, gels, mouthwashes, tablets and drops. Some of these products are medicines and come under the responsibilities of the Department of Health, while others are cosmetics and are regulated by the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which health authority areas in England and Wales currently have fluoridated public water supplies; and on what dates the fluoridation of public water supplies commenced in each such area. [23739]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is set out in the book "One in a Million: Water Fluoridation and Dental Public Health", published jointly by the Public Health Alliance and the British Fluoridation Society, pages 33 to 52, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Hip Fractures
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the incidence per capita of hip fractures for people aged 60 years or above for each health authority in England and Wales. [23735]

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1993–94, the number of finished consultant episodes of hospital care for fracture of femur suffered by those aged 60 and above, per capita in England, was 0.0052, about one in 200. A breakdown at health authority level is not available.

  NHS Organ Donor Register
  Mr. Churchill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent so far this year in the campaign to promote the national organ donor register; what has been the response; how many and what proportion of responses are currently awaiting processing; what steps she proposes to take to expedite processing; and what plans she has to carry forward this campaign. [24717]

  Mr. Sackville
  Some £1.53 million was spent in 1994–95 on publicity material and activities to promote the national health service organ donor register which was launched in October 1994. Over 1,300,0001 applications to join the register have been received so far, of which
  172
  nearly 270,000 were received and processed in April. On 12 May, some 86,000 postal applications, 6.5 per cent. of the total applications received, were waiting to be processed. Temporary staff were recruited from April mainly to help process the surge of applications following the March publicity campaign. The register will continue to be promoted in 1995–96.
  1Includes about 400,000 transferred from the lifeline Wales register.

  Selenium
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment her Department has made of the effects of selenium deficiency; what those effects are; and what action she recommends to avoid selenium deficiency; [24166]

  (2) if she will make a statement setting out her policy for combating dietary deficiency in selenium. [24169]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health considered selenium deficiency as part of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy's review of dietary reference values for food energy and nutrients for the United Kingdom. A copy of this report is available in the Library. There is no deficiency disease known to result solely from selenium deficiency, although a specific cardiomyopathy may occur with low selenium intakes which responds to selenium. There is no evidence that selenium deficiency is a problem in the UK. No action is recommended specifically to avoid selenium deficiency.

  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations her Department has received regarding research suggesting that selenium deficiency may speed or trigger the growth and spread of the AIDS virus; what action she proposes to take; and if she will make a statement. [24168]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health has received no such representations. The Department is aware of a number of recent publications in the scientific literature on this topic and continues to monitor the situation. There is currently no clear evidence that selenium supplements produce an improvement in haematological or immunological parameters of disease progression in HIV-AIDS patients.

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 21 April,Official Report, column 309 (1) what is her latest estimate of the total amount of prescription units of the drug temazepam produced and imported into the United Kingdom in the 1994 calendar year; what is the latest estimate of the total amount of prescription units of the drug temazepam required to meet known legitimate use; and if she will make a statement; [22070]

  (2) what is her latest estimate of the amount of temazepam required for prescription under the national health service, in kilograms and prescription units, in the 1994 calendar year; and if she will make a statement. [22044]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: Information on the amount of temazepam manufactured and imported in 1994 is not yet available. Information on total quantities dispensed in family health services authorities in England in 1994 is shown in the table.
  173

  Temazepam dispensed in the family health services authorities in England 1994 (provisional figures)

  Thousands

  Prescription items

  Kilograms

  Tablets

  3,392

  1,595.6

  Capsules

  2,837

  1,577.3

  Oral preparations

  116

  58.3

  Total

  6,345

  3,231.2

  Note:

  The data are from the prescription cost analysis system and include all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  Table A: Summary of annual returns for temazepam from Schedule 4 authority holders in the UK for the period 1989 to 1993 (kilograms)

  Percentage change from previous year

  Year

  Quantity manufactured

  Manufacturers stocks at 31 December

  Total imports

  Total exports

  Quantity manufactured

  Imports

  1989

  2,238.00

  2,284.311

  3,672.010

  752.955

  —

  —

  1990

  2,912.70

  2,226.262

  2,787.380

  170.598

  30.15

  -24.09

  1991

  2,918.00

  3,005.970

  3,442.124

  712.890

  0.18

  23.49

  1992

  3,271.90

  3,978.215

  4,486.190

  1,018.726

  12.13

  30.33

  1993

  970.20

  923.039

  4,505.314

  1,815.770

  -70.35

  0.43

  Table B: Temazepam dispensed in the family health services authorities in England for the period 1989 to 1994

  Percentage change from previous year

  Year

  Prescriptions1 (000s)

  Kilograms of temazepam

  Prescription items

  Kilograms of temazepam

  1989

  25,946

  3,347

  —

  —

  1990

  25,985

  3,297

  0.7

  -1.5

  1991

  36,427

  3,449

  —

  —

  1992

  36,914

  3,625

  7.6

  5.1

  1993

  36,651

  3,434

  -3.8

  -5.2

  1994 (provisional)

  36,345

  3,231

  -4.6

  -5.9

  Source:

  The data are from prescription cost analysis system.

  Notes:

  1 The data up to 1990 are not consistent with data from 1991 onward, so it is not possible to give meaningful figure for percentage changes between 1990 and 1994. Figures for 1989 and 1990 are based on fees and on a sample of one in 200 prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists and appliance contractors only. Figures for 1991 to 1994 are based on items and cover all prescriptions dispensed by community pharmacists, appliance contractors, dispensing doctors and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered.

  2 Fees.

  3 Items.

  NHS Hospitals
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospitals there were in England(a) by region and (b) in total in each year since 1979. [17068]

  Mr. Malone
  [pursuant to the reply, 30 March 1995, c. 716]: The number of national health service hospitals as defined by section 128 of the NHS Act 1977 is not

  Table A: Number of hospitals with available overnight beds by regional health authority in England, 1979 to 1990–91

  RHA

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Northern

  135

  131

  129

  129

  128

  127

  124

  124

  112

  109

  105

  105

  Yorkshire

  164

  159

  157

  155

  155

  149

  147

  144

  133

  124

  120

  128

  Trent

  199

  194

  188

  185

  185

  187

  170

  170

  173

  166

  150

  143

  East Anglian

  93

  94

  90

  88

  90

  85

  80

  79

  78

  78

  76

  75

  North West Thames

  118

  112

  109

  102

  101

  99

  99

  100

  95

  102

  88

  88

  North East Thames

  121

  114

  114

  122

  121

  114

  114

  114

  117

  120

  117

  122

  174
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 21 April,Official Report, column 309, what is her latest estimate of the trend of temazepam production and amount of imports and the amount required for prescriptions by the national health care service over the last five years; if she will give these figures in kilograms, prescription units and the percentage change from year to year and from 1990 to 1994; and if she will make a statement. [22069]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: Information on the total quantity of temazepam manufactured, held in stock, imported and exported in the United Kingdom during the last five years is shown in table A. Information on total quantities dispensed in family health services authorities in England is given in table B.

  available centrally. The information on the number of NHS hospitals in 1994 in the previous reply was estimated from energy consumption returns submitted to NHS Estates by NHS trusts and directly managed units. This number should be treated with caution. Comparable information for previous years is not available centrally. Returns based on a count of hospitals providing residential facilities is available from 1979 until 1991 as follows.
  175

  Table A: Number of hospitals with available overnight beds by regional health authority in England, 1979 to 1990–91

  RHA

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  South East Thames

  145

  141

  135

  137

  138

  137

  130

  129

  123

  118

  122

  117

  South West Thames

  124

  119

  112

  113

  115

  112

  106

  99

  115

  115

  107

  108

  Wessex

  147

  146

  146

  148

  154

  163

  178

  187

  138

  137

  134

  130

  Oxford

  92

  88

  88

  88

  88

  88

  84

  89

  83

  83

  79

  77

  South Western

  223

  221

  226

  224

  223

  221

  221

  227

  202

  203

  192

  200

  West Midlands

  202

  201

  200

  201

  203

  196

  204

  203

  187

  182

  174

  165

  Mersey

  87

  83

  79

  79

  74

  68

  65

  66

  64

  62

  59

  55

  North Western

  130

  129

  128

  126

  128

  125

  123

  124

  114

  105

  104

  100

  Special Health Authorities

  27

  26

  26

  20

  20

  20

  17

  17

  18

  18

  17

  16

  Notes:

  1. 1987–88 numbers for South West Thames were estimated as complete numbers were not available.

  2. Numbers may include a small number of community units for patients with learning disabilities.

  3. From 1987–88 collection of data changed from years ended 31 December to years ended 31 March.

  4. Numbers are based on a count of hospitals which provided residential facilities.

  5. The table has been estimated from available data which was not used to compile the total figures given in table B. Where possible, account has been taken of changes in the way data was collected over the period, and of boundary charges.

  Table B: Total number of hospitals in England

  Year

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  Total hospitals

  2,023

  1,984

  1,926

  1,917

  1,923

  1,891

  1,862

  1,870

  1,737

  1,722

  1,646

  1,624

  These figures are taken from the annual published health and personal social services statistics and were not collected after 1990–91. The analysis from which these figures were compiled is no longer available.

  Folic Acid
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the fortification of cereal grain flour with folic acid will take place. [23543]

  Mrs. Browning
  I have been asked to reply.

  Currently manufacturers may voluntarily fortify flour with folic acid.

  The issue of fortification of foods is currently being considered by the committee on medical aspects of food policy.

ENVIRONMENT

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to give small firms in the construction industry protection against unfair terms of contract imposed by larger companies. [23410]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department will shortly be issuing a second consultation document taking forward recommendations made in Sir Michael Latham's report "Construction the Team" which will deal with contractual issues in the construction industry.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce a long-term strategy for the construction industry and on maintaining relations between the Government and the industry. [23415]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department has a coherent strategy to assist the construction industry and its suppliers by promoting a programme of research, innovation and development; assisting the industry in markets abroad; encouraging the development of technical and professional training; and reviewing the contractual arrangements which operate within the industry. To 176
  facilitate this, the Government have joined with the industry on a new forum, the Construction Industry Board, which has been set up to promote dialogue between the various parts of the industry and its clients.

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to introduce a Bill on construction contracts. [23409]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Government will consider legislation in the light of the responses to the consultation exercise now being undertaken.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the level of funds allocated to local authorities for closed circuit television systems in England and Wales. [23642]

  Mr. Curry
  Support for CCTV schemes may be given through programmes such as the urban programme, the urban crime fund, city challenge, safer cities and under the single regeneration budget. The Home Office CCTV challenge competition also injected £5 million into local schemes.

  House Condition Survey
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he proposes to publish the energy supplement to the already published results of the 1991 English house condition survey. [23672]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Later this year. However, some key findings from the 1991 survey have been included in a guided "Energy Efficiency in Council Housing: Condition of the Stock" which is being sent to all local housing authorities by 19 May. I am arranging for copies of this guide to be placed in the Library.

  Access Committee for England
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has for the future funding of the Access Committee for England. [23588]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis).

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which former county boroughs in existence immediately prior to the 1974 local government reorganisation will have their area divided between two or more unitary authorities as a result of proposals from the Local Government Commission. [23683]

  Mr. Curry
  The area which, between 1968 and 1974, comprised the county borough of Teesside will, from 1 April 1996, constitute parts of the unitary authorities of Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton-on-Tees.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 30 March to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike)Official Report, columns 731–33, what local government structure existed in the Stockton and Langbaurgh areas immediately prior to the local government reorganisation of 1974. [23685]

  Mr. Curry
  The present district of Stockton-on-Tees is made up of parts of the county borough of Teesside—the Billingham East, Billingham West, Grangefield, Hartburn, Mile House, North End, Norton, Stockton South, Thornaby East and Thornaby West wards—the administrative county of Durham, part of the rural district of Stockton and the administrative county of Yorkshire, North Riding, part of the rural district of Stokesley.

  The present district of Langbaurgh-on-Tees is made up of parts of the county borough of Teesside—the Coatham, Eston Grange, Kirkleatham, Ormesby, Redcar and South Bank wards—and the administrative county of Yorkshire, North Riding—the urban districts of Guisborough, Loftus, Saltburn and Marske-by-the-Sea and Skelton and Brotton.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date and from whom he received a copy of the opinion of the Audit Commission on the Local Government Commission's review of the Cleveland and Durham area and if that opinion included the relevant appendices. [23687]

  Mr. Curry
  A copy of the opinion provided by the Audit Commission to the Local Government Commission in respect of the report containing the latter's draft recommendations for Cleveland and Durham was sent to my Department by the Local Government Commission in November 1993. It included three appendices.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 30 March to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike),Official Report, columns 731–33, when Middlesbrough ceased to be a county borough council; and what local government structure existed in that area between that date and the subsequent local government reorganisation of 1974. [23684]

  Mr. Curry
  The area of the county borough of Middlesbrough became part of the county borough of 178
  Teesside on 1 April 1968, and remained so until 1 April 1974.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps were taken to ensure that hon. Members were made fully aware, prior to the debate on the Cleveland Structural Change Order, of the view of the Audit Commission on the Local Government Commission's estimates of transitional costs which would result from the proposals for local government change in the Cleveland area. [23686]

  Mr. Curry
  The Local Government Commission has made available for public inspection all written opinions and other representations it received in response to its draft recommendations for Cleveland and Durham. It also summarised them in its final report for the area. There was no Audit Commission opinion submitted in relation to the estimates of transitional costs set out in that final report.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if, when he tabled the Cleveland Structural Change Order before the House, he was aware of the view of the Audit Commission on the Local Government Commission's estimates of transitional costs which would be incurred as a result of the order and the views of both the Local Government Commission itself and its financial advisers Ernst and Young on the relative costs of a unitary structure of the kind proposed in the order and the present two-tier local government structure. [23688]

  Mr. Curry
  When we took our decisions on local government structure in Cleveland, we had before us the estimates of costs and savings contained in the Local Government Commission's report on its draft recommendations for Cleveland and Durham, and the written opinion of the Audit Commission on those estimates. We also had the revised estimates contained in the Local Government Commission's final report for Cleveland and Durham, and the financial appraisal—based on the financial model developed by the Local Government Commission with Ernst and Young—on which those revised estimates were based.

  Giant Hogweed
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he plans to require the owners of land to which the public may have access to eradicate heracleum mantegazzianum; if he will give local authorities a duty to control heracleum mantegazzianum; and if he will make a statement about the dangers associated with this plant. [24081]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act for any person to plant, or otherwise cause to grow in the wild, the giant hogweed.

  The control of giant hogweed is a matter for individual local authorities to consider if they believe there is a localised threat to public health.

  I understand that contact with giant hogweed can cause a dermatological reaction which, if exposed to strong sunlight, may result in blistering and swelling, however individuals handling the plant only on an occasional basis may experience no reaction at all, or only transient irritation.

  Ozone Levels
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about ozone levels affecting Tyneside on 4 May. [24021]

  Mr. Atkins
  The reported "poor" ozone levels recorded at Newcastle on 4 May between 2 and 3 am were not real levels but due to a technical fault in the analyser, which is currently being corrected by our contractor.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that British cities do not exceed World Health Organisation guidelines for low-level ozone concentrations. [24022]

  Mr. Atkins
  Ozone is a transboundary pollutant, and reductions of ozone concentrations to WHO guideline levels in Europe will not be possible by any one country acting in isolation. The Government believes that harmonised action at an international level is necessary to ensure cost-effective reductions in ozone levels. The Government are pressing for such action in the appropriate international fora.

  Contaminated Land, Liverpool
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to deal with the problem of contaminated land on the site of the former synthetic resins plant in the Liverpool, Garston constituency. [24274]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  An investigation of the contamination on the site has recently been funded by English Partnerships. Liverpool city council have subsequently initiated further survey work to examine leeching of contamination into adjoining residential properties at Bradford road. On the basis of these surveys, the city council will consider what remedial work is necessary and how such work should be funded.

  Business Rates
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will set out the amounts allowed in reduction of business rates by local authorities in England for the last financial year. [24163]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Figures for 1994–95 are not yet available. In 1993–94, English local authorities granted £1.9 million in hardship relief from non-domestic rates. In addition, £35 million was granted in discretionary relief to charities and other non-profit-making bodies.

  Sheffield Airport
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the plans for the development of Sheffield airport by Glenlivet. [24408]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has received detailed information from the Sheffield development corporation about the plans for the development of Sheffield airport by Glenlivet. This is currently under consideration.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice and evaluation were available to him between 1989 and the present of the possibility that companies in the Budge group or successor companies to the contract could gain the benefit and profit of opencasting at Tinsley, Sheffield, without fulfilling 180
  commitments to provide infrastructure for an airport on the site. [24410]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My predecessors were aware that there was no contractual linkage between the opencasting operation and the provision of infrastructure for and construction of the airport.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he became aware that the guarantee given by A. F. Budge Mining for the construction of Sheffield airport would not be honoured. [24412]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The guarantee, or surety, for the construction of Sheffield Airport, was held by A. F. Budge Ltd., rather than A. F. Budge (Mining). My Department became aware that A. F. Budge Ltd. would not be in a position to support the airport development when the administrative receivers were appointed to it in December 1992.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what conditions requiring work towards the construction of an airport at Tinsley, Sheffield, were contained in the original planning application for opencasting awarded to British Coal Opencast; and what conditions in relation to such work were contained in the agreement between British Coal Opencast and A F Budge (Mining) Ltd. [24414]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The planning permission awarded to British Coal for Opencasting at Tinsley contained the following conditions relating to the construction of an airport.

  i. the construction of a road linking the site to the existing road network

  ii. the site to be reclaimed

  iii. specific parts of the site to be compacted and made suitable for use as an airport

  iv. drainage outfall to be provided for the site.

  My Department was not party to the terms of agreement between British Coal and A F Budge (Mining) for the opencast mining of the site.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will have to give approval before any proposals to develop an airport at Tinsley, Sheffield, are agreed to. [24416]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Yes.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what information he has obtained of past or present connections or involvement between Glenlivet and any of its directors and RJB Mining or A F Budge Ltd, or any of their subsidiaries or any of the directors; [24418]

  (2) what information he has received on the involvement by RJB Mining or any of its directors in the scheme to develop an airport at Tinsley, Sheffield, proposed by Glenlivet. [24419]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The only information I have about connections between the directors and the companies mentioned is that a former director of three subsidiary companies of A F Budge Ltd. is currently advising Glenlivet on the aviation elements of its airport proposals.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much public money to date has been spent on the infrastructure for the Sheffield airport site at Tinsley; and how much more is committed in the future. [24409]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Sheffield development corporation has spent £95,000 on the design of
  181
  infrastructure for the Tinsley site for airport and other development.

  In addition, British Coal has spent £1.9 million providing access to the site and has committed £25,000 to provide site drainage. British Coal will also be providing a drainage outfall for the site which is expected to cost in the region of £500,000.

  There are plans for a further £5 million of expenditure on roads and drainage funded by Industrial Development Act grants, European funding and the Sheffield development corporation.

  All of the infrastructure provided at Tinsley park will benefit commercial development in addition to a proposed airport.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he became aware that the guarantee to construct Sheffield airport and the right to opencast the site of Tinsley were invested in separate companies and were not mutually enforceable; when he was officially notified of the separation; and when he gave approval to such a separation. [24413]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department was notified in December 1991 of the proposed company restructuring which would separate the mining and airport construction interests within the A F Budge group. No approval was required from my Department.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial checks he intends to make of the financial viability of the scheme to develop an airport at Tinsley, Sheffield, proposed by Glenlivet. [24415]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Checks on the financial viability of the Glenlivet scheme for the development of Sheffield airport will be carried out by the Sheffield development corporation.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information he has about the funding arrangement for the development of an airport at Tinsley, Sheffield, by Glenlivet. [24417]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We will wish to be assured that adequate funding will be available to secure the project.

  Opencasting, Tinsley
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he became aware of the transfer of the opencast contract at Tinsley, Sheffield to RJB Mining; when he was officially informed of it; and when he approved it. [24411]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department became aware of the proposed transfer of the opencast contract at Tinsley to RJB Mining in December 1991 when informed by Sheffield development corporation. As set out in my answer to the hon. Member on 9 May,Official Report, column 421, no approval was required.

  Security Facilities Executive
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what targets he has set for the Security Facilities Agency for 1995–96. [24707]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  For 1995–96, the agency has been set the following targets. They require the agency to make further improvements in its performance particularly in the quality of the service it delivers, with the exceptions 182
  of the targets for surplus and sales turnover, where a marginal reduction on the previous year acknowledges the reducing need for expenditure on security.

  Category

  Measure

  Target

  Financial

  Cost recovery in accruals terms

  100 per cent. Cost recovery including 6 per cent. cost of capital

  Outturn on the vote

  A surplus of £1 million

  Outturn on net running costs

  Break even

  Sales

  Sales turnover

  Turnover of £40 million

  Efficiency

  Unit costs

  2 per cent. reduction in real terms

  Quality of service1

  Customer surveys

  90 per cent. satisfaction rating

  Management

  Achieve and maintain ISO9000 standard on quality management systems

  Environmental

  Management

  Achieve BS7750 standard on environmental management systems

  Vehicle fuel efficiency

  Annual average of 25 mpg for GCS and IDS fleets

  1 The quality of service target in addition to requiring an overall 90 per cent. satisfaction rating in customer surveys, comprises also a number of separate targets applying to different ways to each part of the agency's business, viz:

  Notes:

  1. Government car service—90 per cent. customer satisfaction targets for driver appearance, punctuality, driving standards, vehicle presentation; at least 70 per cent. of pool service calls to be met by in-house drivers; all customers to be visited at least once a year to review delivery and needs.

  2. Inter-dispatch service—To implement service enhancements resulting from the service's market test, and implement new performance measuring systems; both by June 1995.

  3. Special Services Group-security furniture—To keep within 90 per cent. of approved project timetables and estimates; deliver 98 per cent. of SFS standard items within 15 days.

  4. Custody service—To achieve a monthly target of 99.5 per cent productive hours as percentage of total hours; a nil target for entry violations; have at least yearly liaison visits to customers; improve image with new uniforms and conduct code.

  Wind Farms
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many wind farms are currently operating in each county in England. [24510]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is as follows:

  County

  Number of wind farms

  Cornwall

  6

  Cumbria

  3

  Lancashire

  2

  Norfolk

  1

  Northumberland

  1

  South Yorkshire

  1

  North Yorkshire

  1

  West Yorkshire

  1

  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many planning decisions for wind
  183
  farms were overturned after an appeal by his Department in each of the last 10 years; [24511]

  (2) how many planning applications for wind farms were (a) granted or (b) rejected in each county in England in each of the last 10 years. [24512]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not kept centrally and would be obtainable only at a disproportionate cost.

  Middlesbrough Football Club
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assistance was given to Middlesbrough football club by the Teesside development corporation in respect of its new stadium. [24675]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Teesside development corporation has provided no direct assistance to the football club in regard to its new stadium. The corporation is actively promoting access improvements, site preparation and reclamation of the overall Middlehaven site, part of which is occupied by the football club, in order to encourage the economic regeneration of the former dock area.

  North Sea Conference
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he will be making concerning protection of the marine environment at the North sea, ministerial conference on 8 and 9 June. [24524]

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what will be his policy objectives for the fourth North sea conference on 8 and 9 June. [24808]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have placed in the Library a statement of the policy objectives of the United Kingdom for the fourth international conference on the protection of the North sea. The topics which we expect to be discussed, and the main points that the United Kingdom would wish to achieve, are:

  (a) protection of species and habitats: action on the protection of wildlife outside territorial waters, which, with the protection inside territorial waters already offered by the EC birds and habitats directives, will constitute a comprehensive strategy for this purpose;

  (b) fisheries: getting the European Commission to propose measures to control over-fishing, especially in industrial fisheries, and to carry out more research into the effects of industrial fisheries and how to regulate them;

  (c) prevention of pollution by hazardous substances: a practical approach built on the concept of sustainable development and the precautionary principle, which aims for goals that are capable of being achieved; and agreement on the urgent need for internationally coordinated research to improve our knowledge of the possible effects of some chemicals on reproductive systems;

  (d) further eduction of nutrient inputs to the North sea: bearing in mind that the United Kingdom does not contribute to problems in, eg, the German bight and the Kateggat, strategies that are aimed at solving the problems actually faced by different countries; these should address, where appropriate, the problems of agricultural run-off, particularly where this results from unsustainable agriculture supported by feed from industrial fishing;

  (e) the prevention of pollution from shipping: the need to complete the international framework—for example, ratifying conventions already agreed and completing a
  184
  hazardous and noxious substance convention—and effective enforcement by flag, coastal and port sates;

  (f) the prevention of pollution from offshore installations: commitment to agreeing, if possible by 1996, a harmonised mandatory control scheme for chemicals used and discharged offshore; there is not need for further action on the abandonment of oil rigs, since we have a recent international convention which provides for case-by-case decisions;

  (g) radioactive substances; the need for commitment by the North sea states who are not members of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency to the safety fundamentals for radioactive waste recently adopted by the board, and support for the IAEA process aimed at a global convention on radioactive waste management;

  (h) future co-operation: acceptance of Norway's generous offer to host a fifth North sea conference in 2000–2002, and to link this much more closely with the work of the convention for the protection of marine environment of the north-east Atlantic, the OSPAR convention.

  Crime
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of the single regeneration budget since 1994 has gone into projects aimed at tackling crime. [22836]

  Sir Paul Bersford
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: The single regeneration budget encompasses 20 programmes from four Departments and tackling crime is a key objective of many of the funded projects. For example, city challenge partnerships, estate action schemes and task forces all tackle crime, or the causes of crime, as part of their regeneration strategies. Because the SRB takes an integrated approach to regeneration, it is not possible to sensibly apportion costs to individual scheme objectives, such as crime prevention, but the estimated total expenditure on SRB programmes in 1994–95 was £1.45 billions. It is expected that substantial funding will be directed to projects aimed at tackling crime through the SRB challenge fund.

  The safer cities programme, which is directly aimed at reducing crime and the fear of crime, spent £2 million in 1994–95.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Authorities
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if an independent member of a police authority has to resign immediately if elected to a new shadow unitary authority; and whether that person may continue to serve on the police authority until the vesting date. [24732]

  Mr. Maclean
  The interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts. Nevertheless, in our view a new shadow authority becomes a council for a district only when it assumes full powers on re-organisation date. If this view is shared by the courts, then an independent member of a police authority who is elected to a new shadow authority may continue to serve on the police authority until the date on which full powers are assumed by the new authority.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a breakdown of the number of applications for asylum since 1 January by location of application. [23799]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  During the period 1 January 1995 to 30 April 1995, 12,720 applications were made for asylum in the United Kingdom. Of these, 3,910 were port applications and 8,810 were applications made after entry into the United Kingdom.

  Decisions(1) on applications(1) received for asylum in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1 January 1994 to 30 April 1995

  Number of principal applicants

  Total decisions2

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  Total refused

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration

  Refused on safe third country grounds3

  Refused under para. 340 of Immigration Rules4

  1994

  January

  1,245

  45

  245

  955

  740

  100

  120

  February

  1,430

  80

  245

  1,110

  925

  60

  130

  March

  1,685

  55

  240

  1,390

  1,195

  85

  110

  April

  1,300

  35

  230

  1,040

  785

  125

  130

  May

  1,915

  110

  370

  1,435

  1,100

  85

  250

  June

  1,780

  60

  350

  1,365

  1,125

  35

  205

  July

  1,835

  85

  245

  1,505

  1,185

  35

  285

  August

  1,985

  75

  265

  1,645

  1,115

  50

  485

  September

  1,950

  55

  355

  1,540

  1,045

  55

  440

  October

  2,170

  90

  415

  1,660

  1,220

  75

  365

  November

  2,185

  70

  425

  1,690

  1,315

  85

  290

  December

  1,500

  65

  275

  1,160

  905

  85

  175

  Total

  20,990

  825

  3,660

  16,500

  12,655

  865

  2,985

  1995

  January

  2,450

  130

  435

  1,885

  1,435

  145

  305

  February

  2,385

  155

  570

  1,665

  1,275

  100

  290

  March

  2,515

  135

  525

  1,855

  1,525

  120

  210

  April

  1,965

  65

  470

  1,430

  1,195

  75

  160

  Total

  9,315

  480

  2,000

  6,830

  5,425

  440

  965

  Notes:

  1 Figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 Refusals on the grounds that the applicant had arrived from safe third country.

  4 Refusals under para 340 (para 180F prior to 1 October 1994 and para 101 prior to 26 July 1993) of the Immigration Rules for failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period.

  Source:

  S3 Division

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a breakdown of the number of asylum seekers currently detained under Immigration Act powers by(a) nationality, (b) gender, (c) length of detention, (d) place of detention and (e) immigration status at the time of application. [23801]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  As at 10 May 1995, a total of 646 persons who had at some stage sought asylum were detained. This figure includes people awaiting the setting of directions for removal following refusal of the application, as well as those whose applications were under consideration or subject to appeal. Of this figures, 152 had been in detention less than one month, 166 between one and two months, 225 between two and six
  186
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum have been determined in each month since 1 January 1994; for each month, in how many cases the applicant was granted asylum; in how many cases the applicant was granted exceptional leave to remain; in how many cases the applicant was refused under paragraph 340 of the immigration rules; and in how many cases the application was refused under paragraph 345 of the immigration rules. [23800]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information on decisions made on asylum applications, by month, since January 1994 is given in the table.

  months, and 103 had been in detention longer than six months.

  Information on the gender, immigration status, nationality and location of those detained, as at 10 May 1995, is provided in tables 1 to 3.

  Table 1: Number of people detained on 10 May 1995 who had sought asylum, by immigration status and gender

  Immigration Status

  Male

  Female

  Total

  Port case

  294

  29

  323

  Illegal entrant case

  253

  16

  269

  Deportation case

  49

  5

  54

  Total

  596

  50

  646

  187

  Table 2: Number of people detained on 10 May 1995 who had sought asylum, by nationality

  Country

  Number

  Albania

  8

  Algeria

  65

  Angola

  6

  Bangladesh

  19

  Cameroon

  1

  China

  76

  Colombia

  8

  Cyprus

  7

  Czech Republic

  1

  Dominica

  1

  Ecuador

  3

  Egypt

  2

  Eritrea

  1

  Ethiopia

  1

  Gambia

  5

  Georgia

  5

  Ghana

  65

  India

  84

  Iran

  8

  Ivory Coast

  4

  Jamaica

  5

  Kenya

  3

  Lebanon

  3

  Liberia

  3

  Libya

  4

  Mauritius

  2

  Morocco

  9

  Nigeria

  108

  Pakistan

  29

  Phillippines

  1

  Poland

  3

  Romania

  7

  Russia

  5

  Sierra Leone

  5

  Sri Lanka

  20

  South Africa

  1

  Sudan

  5

  Tanzania

  1

  Trinidad and Tobago

  2

  Tunisia

  1

  Turkey

  30

  Uganda

  3

  Former Yugoslavia

  11

  Zaire

  10

  Zambia

  1

  Nationality not known

  4

  Total

  646

  Table 3: Number of persons detained who have claimed asylum as at 10 May 1995, by place of detention

  Place of detention

  Number detained

  Prisons

  HMP Haslar

  93

  HMP Rochester

  36

  HMP Winson Green

  32

  HMP Greenock

  14

  HMP Manchester

  12

  HMP Wormwood Scrubs

  7

  HMP Exeter

  5

  HMP Wandsworth

  5

  HMP Horfield, Bristol

  4

  HMP Belmarsh

  3

  HMP Brinsford

  3

  HMP Brixton

  3

  Other HMP Prisons

  23

  188

  Table 3: Number of persons detained who have claimed asylum as at 10 May 1995 by places of detention

  Place of detention

  Number detained

  Other places of detention

  Campsfield House

  145

  Harmondsworth

  80

  Police Cells

  42

  Gatwick Detention Centre

  38

  Dover Harbour Board

  18

  Queens Building

  14

  Newhaven

  12

  Stansted

  8

  Manchester Airport Detention Suite

  4

  Other1

  45

  Total

  646

  1 Includes Immigration Service detention centres, police cells and HM prisons

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been removed to the Netherlands on safe third country grounds since 26 July 1993, and how many of those removed have been returned to the United Kingdom by the Dutch authorities. [23802]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Seventy-one persons who had been refused asylum in the United Kingdom on safe third country grounds have been removed to the Netherlands since 26 July 1993. Of these, 11 have been returned to the United Kingdom.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish a breakdown by nationality of the number of asylum seekers removed from the United Kingdom on safe third country grounds since 1 January. [23803]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A list of nationalities removed from the United Kingdom on safe third country grounds is given in the table.

  Table 1: Number of persons who had sought asylum who have been removed from the United Kingdom on safe third country grounds, by nationality, between 1 January—to 10 May 1995

  Number

  Algeria

  18

  Romania

  11

  China

  9

  Poland

  8

  Nigeria

  6

  Ghana

  5

  Afghanistan

  4

  Iran

  4

  Sri Lanka

  4

  Zaire

  4

  Lebanon

  3

  Pakistan

  3

  Somalia

  3

  Turkey

  3

  Bangladesh

  2

  Cameroon

  2

  Iraq

  2

  Ivory Coast

  2

  South Africa

  2

  Yugoslavia

  2

  Albania

  1

  Colombia

  1

  189

  Table 1: Number of persons who had sought asylum who have been removed from the United Kingdom on safe third country grounds, by nationality, between 1 January—to 10 May 1995

  Number

  Ecuador

  1

  Eritrea

  1

  Ethiopia

  1

  Israel

  1

  Kenya

  1

  Liberia

  1

  Morocco

  1

  Russia

  1

  Rwanda

  1

  Uganda

  1

  Total

  109

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers have been removed to other countries in the last two years; to which countries they have been returned; and how many of those so removed have been returned to the United Kingdom by the authorities of those countries. [23804]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  A total of 824 persons who had been refused asylum were removed on safe third country grounds in 1993 and 1994. Information on the number of persons returned to specific countries and the number returned to the United Kingdom from these countries is not available for 1993 and 1994.

  Wheel Clamping
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with West Midlands police during his review of the practice of wheel clamping on private land. [24513]

  Mr. Maclean
  The police service, via the Association of Chief Police Officers, has provided an assessment of the current extent of the problems associated with wheel clamping on private land and the practicality of the various proposals to overcome those problems. I understand that the West Midlands police have contributed to providing that ACPO view.

  Passports
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a computer system on which all lost or stolen passports can be recorded. [24615]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The United Kingdom computerised passport issuing system has been in operation since 1988 and has the facility to record machine-readable passports that have been reported lost or stolen.

  Probation Areas, Wales
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he plans to make to the boundaries of the probation areas of Mid-Glamorgan and Gwent following the creation of the new unitary authority of Caerphilly. [24871]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I propose to make a combined probation areas order under the Probation Services Act 1993 altering the boundary between the probation areas 190
  of Gwent and Mid-Glamorgan, subject to consultation with the justices concerned and other interested parties. The order would involve combining the petty sessions divisions within the unitary authority Caerphilly with those in the existing probation area of Gwent, and withdrawing the corresponding divisions from the Mid-Glamorgan probation area, with effect from 1 April 1996. Subject to the views of consultees, I believe that this outcome would promote the effective and efficient provision of probation services in South Wales and their co-ordination with other criminal justice services.

  Review Group on Appropriate Adults
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the findings of the review group on appropriate adults; and if he will make a statement. [24872]

  Mr. Maclean
  The review group reported its findings on 1 May and I have placed a copy of its report in the Library. Copies will also be sent to interested organisations for its comments. The Government will consider the recommendations made by the review group in the light of any further comments received on its findings.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the total legal costs of defending the Government's tariff scheme for criminal injuries compensation in the courts up to and including the House of Lords. [23617]

  Mr. Maclean
  The full costs are unlikely to be known for some time. The accounts settled to date have amounted to some £42,000.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers, (b) firefighters, (c) nurses and (d) shopworkers in each parliamentary constituency were awarded compensation for criminal injuries under the tariff scheme; and in each category how many were (i) women and (ii) received less money under the tariff scheme than they would have done under the old scheme. [23527]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: This information is not recorded centrally and could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Football Restriction Orders
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many restriction orders made under section 15 of the Football Spectators Act 1989 were enforced with regard to the Arsenal versus Real Zaragoza football match in Paris on 10 May. [24395]

  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  MI5
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what consideration he is giving to whether MI5 should take a lead role in work against drug trafficking or organised crime; [21735]

  (2) what consideration he is giving to legislation to change the functions of MI5; and if he will make a statement. [21736]
  191
  Mr. Howard
  The functions of the Security Service are set out in section 1 of the Security Service Act 1989. The Government has no plans to amend that legislation. If, however, resources were available to the Security Service and if, within their statutory functions, a useful role were identified for them in support of the police and other law enforcement agencies in their work to counter serious crime, I would be ready to consider such proposals.

  Race and Community Relations
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many trainers from Bramshill have undergone training in race and community relations by the HOSSU. [24344]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: At present two trainers at the Police Staff College are graduates of courses provided by the Home Office specialist support unit.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what reports he has received from the Association of Chief Police Officers regarding the effectiveness of the training in race and community relations carried out by the HOSSU; [24347]

  (2) what representations he has received from the Association of Chief Police Officers regarding the training in race and community relations provided by the HOSSU. [24345]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: None. However, the work of the Home Office Specialist Support Unit is overseen by a Management Board on which ACPO is represented.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the ID codes for negroid types, including mulatto, octoroon, and quadroon have been removed from the pocket books issued to(a) Metropolitan police officers and (b) other forces; and if he will make a statement. [24342]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: The provision of pocket books for police officers is a matter for chief officers. I understand that the pocket book issued to officers in the Metropolitan police service was updated in 1993 without these classifications. Some of the old books may remain in circulation but steps are being taken to replace them. I am not aware that the same classifications have been used in other forces.

  Race and Community Relations
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who has been awarded the contract for the training of the police officers in race and community relations for 1995–96. [24351]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: Equalities Associates' contract to provide the Home Office specialist support unit for police community and race relations training was renewed, for a period of three years, in July last year.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) senior officers,
  192
  (b) trainers and (c) others in the Metropolitan police have been sent on the courses in race and community relations provided by the Home Office specialist support unit in each of the last six years; and how many still remain (i) in training at Hendon and (ii) in divisions in the Metropolitan police area. [24346]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that 13 senior officers have attended the HOSSU Training for managers course since its introduction in 1992. Seventy-three trainers have attended the six week race and community relations course since 1989. Of the 73 officers who have undergone the training, 15 are currently trainers at the Metropolitan police training school in Hendon. At least 37 trainers continue to have a training responsibility at a division or unit. No other officers have attended this six week course.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made of the standard of training provided by Equalities Associates Ltd; [24349]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the results of the latest HMI report on the work of the Home Office specialist support unit for the training of police officers in race relations; and if he will place a copy of the report in the Library. [24350]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answers 15 May 1995]: The work of the specialist support unit was inspected in 1991 by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, supported by HMI (Schools) and an independent assessor.

  It was found that the provider of the unit, Equalities Associates, was meeting its contractual objectives, and recommendations aimed at further enhancing the effectiveness of the unit's contribution to police service training in community and race relations have been implemented.

  I have placed in the Library those parts of the assessment conducted by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made as to whether the police trainers who have undergone training in race and community relations are competent to train their fellow officers in these issues; and if he will make a statement. [24353]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: All police trainers are assessed on their competence to deliver training programmes, including those concerning community and race relations.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the amount by which the Home Office specialist support unit for the training of police officers in race and community relations, has been reduced for the year 1995–96; and what are the reasons for this budget reduction; [24348]

  (2) if (a) the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and (b) other chief constables for England, Wales and Scotland were consulted before the decision to reduce the budget of the HOSSU was taken; and what was (i) his and (ii) their response. [24446]
  193
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answers 15 May 1995]: The funding of the unit this financial year is £39,000 less than in 1994–95. This reduction reflects public expenditure pressures and the terms of the new contract negotiated with the unit in July 1994.

  Issues of funding are discussed by the unit's management board, on which the Metropolitan police and the Association of Chief Police Officers are represented.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made whether all senior police officers have been sufficiently trained in race and community relations. [24352]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: All police officers, by the time they have attained a senior rank, will have received training in community and race relations matters. In addition to formal courses the Home Office provides an annual one-week seminar on this subject for senior officers; and steps are being taken with the Home Office specialist support unit to provide further support to senior officers in those forces serving major ethnic minority communities.

  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police trainers who have undergone training in race and community relations are still working as trainers in the police force. [24343]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: It is for chief officers to allocate individual officers to appropriate duties. This information is not held centrally.

  Motor Vehicle Theft
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 1 May,Official Report, column 96, what was the recorded number of notifiable offences of theft of motor vehicles in 1994. [24266]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: The number of notifiable offences of theft or unauthorised taking of a motor vehicle, including aggravated vehicle taking, recorded by the police in England and Wales in 1994 was 534.7000.

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary1

  Expenditure per pupil £

  Expenditure per pupil at 1992–93 prices £

  Expenditure per pupil £

  Expenditure per pupil at 1992–93 prices £

  1979–80

  388

  924

  597

  1,442

  1980–81

  493

  993

  749

  1,508

  1981–82

  561

  1,030

  855

  1,570

  1982–83

  599

  1,027

  922

  1,580

  1983–84

  630

  1,032

  977

  1,600

  1984–85

  665

  1,037

  1,064

  1,659

  1985–86

  715

  1,057

  1,144

  1,691

  1986–87

  807

  1,158

  1,305

  1,873

  1987–88

  882

  1,202

  1,427

  1,944

  1988–89

  973

  1,243

  1,571

  2,006

  1989–90

  1,079

  1,288

  1,725

  2,059

  Long-handled Batons
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) injured and (b) killed by the new long-handled batons since their introduction; and what is their ethnicity according to police codes. [24341]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: This information is not centrally available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Autism
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provision is currently made within Northern Ireland for children with autism. [23601]

  Mr. Ancram
  It is the responsibility of the five education and library boards in Northern Ireland to make special educational provision for children with special educational needs, and this includes autistic children. Placements may be made in special schools, in special units attached to mainstream schools or in mainstream schools themselves. One board has established an advisory and support service for autistic children and their families.

  The Department of Health and Social Services will be providing grant-aid of £25,000 in 1995–96 to autism via the TEACCH programme, a multi-disciplinary project involving professionals from the fields of education and health and social services, now available at all schools for children with severe learning difficulties.

  Schools Expenditure
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the expenditure per(a) primary school and (b) primary school pupil in real and constant price terms in each year since 1979. [23382]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested in respect of primary and secondary school pupils is set out in the table for years 1979–80 to 1992–93, which is the latest year for which details are available:
  195

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary1

  Expenditure per pupil £

  Expenditure pupil at 1992–93 prices £

  Expenditure per pupil £

  Expenditure pupil at 1992–93 prices £

  1990–91

  1,186

  1,311

  1,859

  2,054

  1991–92

  1,285

  1,336

  2,053

  2,135

  1992–93

  1,408

  1,408

  2,195

  2,195

  Notes:

  1 Includes preparatory pupils at grammar schools.

  1. In the 1992–93 financial year there were 189,995 full-time equivalent pupils at primary schools, 3,659 at preparatory departments in grammar schools and 144,773 at secondary schools.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the expenditure per(a) primary school and (b) secondary school pupil in real and constant price terms in each year since 1979 excluding staff costs. [23384]

  Year

  Primary

  Secondary1

  Expenditure per pupil £

  Expenditure per pupil at 1992–93 prices £

  Expenditure pupil per pupil £

  Expenditure per at 1992–93 Prices £

  1979–80

  65

  155

  107

  255

  1980–81

  76

  153

  128

  258

  1981–82

  88

  162

  145

  266

  1982–83

  92

  158

  156

  267

  1983–84

  93

  152

  159

  260

  1984–85

  98

  153

  193

  301

  1985–86

  104

  154

  193

  285

  1986–87

  139

  199

  244

  350

  1987–88

  122

  166

  237

  323

  1988–89

  130

  166

  257

  328

  1989–90

  161

  192

  296

  353

  1990–91

  168

  186

  317

  350

  1991–92

  188

  195

  326

  339

  1992–93

  217

  217

  341

  341

  Notes:

  1 Includes preparatory pupils at grammar schools.

  1. In the 1992–93 financial year there were 189,995 full-time equivalent pupils at primary schools, 3,659 at preparatory departments in grammar schools and 144,773 at secondary schools.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the capital expenditure in real and constant price terms on(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in each year since 1979. [23383]

  Mr. Ancram
  Capital expenditure by education and library boards for each of the financial years from 1979–80 to 1992–93 is analysed by school sector in the statements and summary of the educational and library boards; accounts, Command 8143, 8508, 8816, 9225,

  Year

  Voluntary and grant-maintained integrated primary schools (including Nursery)

  Voluntary and grant-maintained integrated secondary schools

  Grants £ million

  1992–93 Prices £ million

  Grants £ million

  1992–93 Prices £ million

  1984–85

  1.983

  3.092

  4.072

  6.350

  1985–86

  2.457

  3.632

  3.809

  5.631

  1986–87

  3.064

  4.397

  4.860

  6.975

  1987–88

  2.294

  3.126

  8.268

  11.266

  1988–89

  3.497

  4.466

  11.148

  14.237

  1989–90

  4.389

  5.239

  14.229

  16.985

  196
  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is set out in the table for years 1979–80 to 1992–93 which is the latest year for which details are available:

  9487, 9820, 255, 388, 690, 1105, 1531, 1977, 2249 and 2603, copies of which are available in the Library. The figures for 1993–94 will be published in July 1995.

  Capital grants paid by the Department of Education in respect of approved capital expenditure incurred by voluntary schools and grant-maintained integrated schools since 1984–85 are set out. Information in the form requested for the years 1979–80 to 1983–84 is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  197

  Year

  Voluntary and grant-maintained integrated primary schools (including Nursery)

  Voluntary and grant-maintained integrated secondary schools

  Grants £ million

  1992–93 Prices £ million

  Grants £ million

  1992–93 Prices £ million

  1990–91

  6.390

  7.062

  19.717

  21.790

  1991–92

  6.060

  6.301

  25.615

  26.635

  1992–93

  6.850

  6.850

  23.232

  23.232

  Higher Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has to increase the inflow of students from outside Northern Ireland into higher education in Northern Ireland. [23392]

  Mr. Ancram
  None. Universities in Northern Ireland are autonomous and independent bodies and, as such, it is for them to set entry requirements and select students.

  Age participation index1

  Percentage

  1985–86

  1986–87

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–95

  1993–942

  19.2

  20.1

  21.0

  22.9

  25.6

  27.7

  29.2

  33.4

  36.4

  Notes:

  1 Does not include agricultural college or nursing college students or students attending institutions outside the United Kingdom.

  2 1993–94 figure is provisional.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proportion of the appropriate age group has attained university entrance standards in each year since 1979. [23385]

  Mr. Ancram
  Entrance requirements to university vary enormously. As a general guide 2 A-levels or equivalent is often used as the standard entrance requirement. Figures on this basis are available only for 1991–92 and 1992–93,

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Primary

  23.8

  23.6

  23.5

  23.3

  23.4

  23.3

  23.4

  23.4

  Secondary

  15.3

  15.4

  15.4

  15.4

  15.3

  15.2

  15.0

  14.9

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Primary

  23.5

  23.2

  23.2

  22.8

  22.6

  22.2

  21.6

  Secondary

  14.8

  14.8

  14.7

  14.7

  15.1

  15.2

  15.1

  Drugs White Paper
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he intends to publish a White Paper for Northern Ireland similar to the recent "Tackling Drugs Together" publication concerning England. [24674]

  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland Committee on Drug Misuse, which advises the Department of Health and
  198
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the appropriate age group has progressed to higher education in each year since 1979. [23391]

  Mr. Ancram
  The percentage of young people entering higher education is given by the age participation index—the number of full-time undergraduate new entrants aged under 21 expressed as a percentage of the 18-year-old population. The API is available only from 1985–86 onwards and the information is as follows:

  when 38.1 per cent. and 39.9 per cent. respectively of young people aged 21 or under had achieved this standard.

  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the pupil-teacher ratio in(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools in Northern Ireland in each year since 1979. [23602]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Social Services on issues relating to drug and solvent misuse, issued for consultation in March 1995 a draft policy statement on drug misuse. Following the consultation period, which ends on 31 May, the committee will submit a final draft to the Government for consideration as the basis of a policy framework for tackling drug misuse in Northern Ireland. The draft policy statement is designed to be consistent with the "Tackling Drugs Together" White Paper.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Trade Balance (Beer)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the United Kingdom's trade balance for beer for the years(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c)(d) 1994. [23270]

  Mr. Jack
  Official statistics for the United Kingdom's trade balance in beer made from malt, including ale, stout and porter, are shown in the table:

  Imports

  Exports

  Value (£000s) trade gap

  1980

  35,440

  19,000

  -16,440

  1985

  84,471

  42,490

  -41,981

  1990

  169,493

  80,854

  -88,639

  1994

  254,592

  173,449

  -81,143

  Notes:

  1. Because of differences in the valuation principles for imports and exports, the crude trade gap between them overstated the contribution of beer the deficit on visible trade in the balance of payment statistics.

  2. The above figures exclude trade by private persons.

  3. Data are provisional.

  Live Animal Exports
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what checks have been made on the length of time calves are waiting in transporters at Baginton airport prior to being flown to Europe and on the implications for the maximum journey time limit without food and water. [23361]

  Mrs. Browning
  Arrangements have been made to check consignments of calves awaiting flights from Coventry airport to ensure that their welfare needs are being met. In circumstances where there is the possibility that the 15-hour rule could be breached because of delayed flights, officials have powers to intervene to prevent the journey continuing, and to order the calves to be returned to their premises of origin so as to arrive within 15 hours of the time their journey started.

  Meat Hygiene Service
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will hold an annual meeting with representatives of the meat and livestock industries to review the performance of the Meat Hygiene Service. [24791]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  Yes. I intend to meet the members of the Meat Hygiene Service's industry forum to discuss the agency's performance as recorded in its annual report. The first annual report is likely to be available in mid-1996.

  Intervention Stores
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much(a) beef, (b) butter, (c) wine and (d) cheese is presently held in intervention stores in (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) the EC; how many days' supply this represents and what were the equivalent figures for the previous 12 months. [24287]

  Mr. Jack
  Tables showing levels of all produce held in intervention within the EU are placed in the House 200
  Library at regular intervals, most recently on 15 May. The information currently held in the House Library goes back to January 1985.

  Food Surpluses
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish a breakdown by type of foodstuff of the volumes and tonnage of surplus foodstuffs made available for(a) free distribution within member countries of the European Union and (b) overseas aid purposes in the most recent year for which figures are available and in each of the previous three years. [242298]

  Mr. Jack
  Details of the quantities of surplus food made available under Council regulation (EEC) 1035/72, on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables, and Council regulation (EEC) 3730/87, on the supply of food from intervention stocks for distribution to the needy, for the most recent four years for which figures are available are given in the table.

  There is also provision under Commission regulation (EEC) 1501/83 for the disposal of fishery products which have been withdrawn from the market, including by distribution to the public. This option has not been used in the UK, where the usual method of disposal is for use as animal feed. Information is not available on methods of disposal in other member states.

  Produce made available under Council Regulation (EEC) 1035/72.

  (tonnes)

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Cauliflowers (1 May-30 April)

  1,095

  368

  852

  1,799

  Apricots (1 June-31 May)

  88

  8

  5

  24

  Nectarines (1 June-31 May)

  716

  298

  124

  364

  Peaches (1 June-31 May)

  4,438

  822

  438

  1,155

  Lemons (1 June-31 May)

  4,716

  285

  291

  618

  Tomatoes (11 June-10 June)

  50

  217

  205

  382

  Pears (1 July-30 June)

  51

  319

  66

  768

  Apples (1 August-31 July)

  6,090

  3,656

  293

  4,486

  Clementines/Mandarins (16 November-15 November)

  105

  384

  59

  274

  Oranges (1 December-30 November)

  9,766

  2,605

  7,467

  31,248

  Produce made available under Council Regulation (EEC) No3730/87

  (tonnes)

  11991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Common Wheat

  12,330

  11,530

  14,970

  14,950

  Durum Wheat

  42,200

  42,300

  49,850

  55,350

  Rice

  9,500

  10,500

  4,700

  4,700

  Olive Oil

  2,700

  4,700

  7,000

  9,000

  Milk Powder

  4,525

  4,425

  7,325

  8.800

  201

  Produce made available under Council Regulation (EEC) No 3730/87

  (tonnes)

  11991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Butter

  15,125

  13,140

  9,455

  10,520

  Beef/Veal

  30,318

  34,915

  33,415

  34,950

  Cheese

  0

  500

  2,000

  2,300

  1 1 October to 30 September.

  In most cases, surplus foodstuffs are not suitable for use as food aid. Nevertheless, in 1992, 62,000 tonnes of wheat was released from intervention for famine relief in Somalia.

  In addition, since 1992 the EU food aid programme has provided 2.4 million tonnes of food for Africa, while the total value of humanitarian aid from the EU to Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia has now reached £251 million and £524 million respectively. In addition to contributing to these food aid packages, Britain has provided direct bilateral aid, including 450,000 tonnes of food to Africa since 1992 and £88 million worth of aid to the former Yugoslavia.

  Selenium
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what recent studies have been undertaken by his Department on the consumption levels of selenium; what were the findings of those studies; to what extent the survey indicates that selenium consumption levels are meeting the recommended daily amount; if he intends to publish the results of the surveys; and if he will make a statement; [24164]

  (2) what is the current recommended daily amount of selenium which should be consumed for (a) adult men and (b) adult women; what steps have been taken to calculate the current actual average daily consumption of selenium by such adult men and women; and how he accounts for differences between the figures for recommended and actual consumption; [24165]

  (3) what is meant by the terms reference nutrient intake and lower reference nutrient intake; what are the amounts of those references in relation to selenium; and how those amounts compare with the actual amounts of selenium currently consumed by the adult population. [24167]

  Mrs. Browning
  The selenium content of foods was measured as part of the Ministry's total diet study in 1985 and 1991, and as a separate research project in 1994. The estimations of average intake based on these results are either 30–40µg/day or 50–60µg/day, depending on the method of analysis used. The most sensitive method leads to the higher estimate, but further research is planned to resolve this analytical uncertainty. The reports of these analytical studies have been published in the scientific press, or have been announced in the MAFF/DH Food Safety Information Bulletin and are available on request to the MAFF library.

  There is no recommended daily intake for selenium. The Department of Health's committee on medical aspects of food policy reported on dietary reference values1 in 1991, and gave a reference nutrient intake of 75µg/day for men and 60/µgday for women, and a lower reference nutrient intake of 40µg/day for both men and women. The RNI is the amount of a nutrient that is estimated to be enough, or more than enough, for about 97 per cent. of a population to fulfil the functional
  202
  criterion against which the RNI was set, which in this case is to maintain maximum glutathione peroxidase activity. The LRNI is the amount of a nutrient which is estimated to be sufficient for those in the population who have low needs. Populations with average selenium intakes above 20µg/day are not at risk of clinical adverse effects.
  1 Report on the Panel on Dietary Reference Values of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy, Department of Health, HMSO, 1991.

  Surplus Wine
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to distribute the EC wine lake. [24498]

  Mr. Jack
  Responsibility for management of the EU wine regime rests with the European Commission. Surplus wine is distilled into alcohol. The United Kingdom Government support the Commission in its efforts to dispose of wine alcohol stocks at the best price available; sales are mainly to third countries for use in the fuel sector. The UK also supports the European Commission's aim to reform the EU wine regime so as to bring production into line with demand.

  Ochratoxin A
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects his Department's research into the possible toxic effects of ochratoxin A in coffee and other foods to be completed and published. [23793]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: I refer the hon. member to my answer of 28 February 1995, Official Report, col. 481, for information on the MAFF-funded research and surveillance concerning the contamination of coffee by Ochratoxin A. In addition the results of surveys of other foodstuffs have been published in the "Food Safety Information Bulletin", September 1994 and January 1995 and in Food Surveillance Paper number 36, "Mycotoxins: Third Report." Copies are available in the Library. We are planning further work to increase our knowledge of UK dietary exposure to Ochratoxin A. This work is scheduled to be completed in 1998 and the results of any surveillance will be published in the usual manner in the bulletin.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [23469]

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

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [23456]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: The Ministry and its associated executive agencies have a large number of field officers providing service to food, farming and fishing interests. They are often working in isolated areas away from fixed telephones. In order that the service they
  203
  provide can be fast and efficient, these officers need to be able to make contact whatever their situation. Senior officers travel more frequently nowadays and they, too, make use of mobile telephones in order to keep in touch and respond quickly.

  Local management evaluate the business need and financial justification in order to decide who should be issued with mobile telephones. Financial, technical and procurement advice is available centrally.

  The Ministry's estimated costs for service rental, excluding VAT, are broken down into each financial year as follows:

  Financial year

  Service Rental (£)

  1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991

  8,640

  1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992

  45,630

  1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993

  96,120

  1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994

  222,480

  1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995

  379,620

  The costs for call charges are available centrally for financial year 1994–95 only:

  Financial Year

  Call Charges (£)

  1 April 1994–31 March 1995

  206,066

  The Ministry and its associated executive agencies currently have approximately 1,400 mobile phones.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what steps his department has taken to prevent the cloning of telephones being used by his Department; and if his Department has discussed this matter with any official agencies. [23452]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: We are aware of the risks of analogue mobile phones being cloned. For this reason, the Department has issued an advice note to all telecommunications managers which gives advice on the more secure nature of digital mobile phones over analogue. To minimise the potential cost of cloning, one of MAFF's largest agencies has instituted a blanket bar on the majority of their mobile phones on international and premium rate services which will prevent unauthorised calls to expensive numbers.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the executive non-departmental public bodies sponsored by his Department which are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provision for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [20651]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 25 April 1995]: The Milk Development Council is currently being set up. The information required on other executive NDPBs is as follows:
  Subject to:

  (a)Investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner

  —Agricultural Wages Council

  (b) Scrutiny by the Audit Commission

  —None

  204

  (c) Scrutiny by the National Audit Office

  —Wine Standards Board of the Vintners' Company

  —Agricultural Wages Committees

  —Agricultural Wages Board

  —Regional Flood Defence Committees

  —Food From Britain

  —Sea Fish Industry Authority

  —Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  —Horticulture Research International and access rights to the following bodies are under review

  —Home-Grown Cereals Authority—review of existing arrangements

  —Meat and Livestock Commission—review of existing arrangements

  —Horticultural Development Council

  —Apple and Pear Research Council

  (d) Statutory Provisions for Open Government

  —There are no statutory provisions for Open Government

  (e) Performance Indicators

  —Wine Standards Board of the Vintners' Company

  —Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  —Food From Britain

  —Sea Fish Industry Authority

  —Meat and Livestock Commission

  —Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  —Horticulture Research International

  Discussions are in progress with

  —Horticultural Development Council

  —Apple and Pear Research Council

  (f) Provisions under the Citizens' Charter

  The following NDPBS have produced or are producing service statements

  —Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  —Meat and Livestock Commission

  —Sea Fish Industry Authority

  —Horticulture Research International

  —Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  —Wine Standards Boards of the Vintners' Company

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Retirement Pension
  Mr. Dewar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what state earnings-related pension would be received in the years 2010 and 2040 by(a) a man and (b) a woman both with a full national insurance contribution record and earning throughout (i) national average earnings, (ii) one and a half times average earnings, (iii) and half average earnings, using the assumptions used by the Government actuary in Cm. 2714, "Report on the Financial Provisions of the Pension Bill on the National Insurance Fund," before the changes to SERPs introduced in 1988, under the present scheme and on the assumption that the changes in the Pensions Bill, as introduced in the House of Lords, are implemented in full. [22449]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The information is in the table.

  1995–96 prices £s per week

  Pre-1988 changes

  Present

  Proposed

  Male: retiring in 2010–11

  Average earnings

  87.90

  75.30

  71.60

  1.5 average earnings

  128.40

  102.90

  99.30

  0.5 average earnings

  36.90

  31.60

  27.90

  205

  1995–96 prices £s per week

  Pre-1988 changes

  Present

  Proposed

  Female: retiring in 2010–11

  Average earnings

  87.90

  75.30

  71.60

  1.5 average earnings

  128.40

  102.90

  99.30

  0.5 average earnings

  36.90

  31.60

  27.90

  Male: retiring in 2040–41

  Average earnings

  144.60

  102.70

  97.50

  1.5 average earnings

  173.60

  112.10

  107.00

  0.5 average earnings

  65.30

  52.20

  47.00

  Female: retiring in 2040–41

  Average earnings

  143.70

  101.20

  97.50

  1.5 average earnings

  160.10

  107.10

  107.00

  0.5 average earnings

  65.30

  52.20

  47.00

  Notes:

  1. Pensioners are assumed to retire in the tax years 2010–11 and 2040–41. Under the proposed scheme State pension age for women in 2010–11 will be between 60 years and 1 month and 60 years and 6 months, and in 2040–41 it will be 65. In all other schemes it will be 60.

  2. Future real earnings growth is assumed to be 1.5 per cent. perannum.

  3. The pre-1988 amounts are based on the best 20 years of revalued earnings.

  4. The earnings figures used are national, all adult full-time average earnings.

  Benefits Agency Framework Document
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 29 March,Official Report, column 687, when the revised Benefits Agency framework document is to be published. [24837]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The revised Benefits Agency framework document has been published today, and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mortgage Interest
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many claimants of income support for mortgage interest currently receive assistance with loans taken out to facilitate improvements to a property which are reasonable in the circumstances, as set out in paragraph 8, schedule 3 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987; [24677]

  (2) how many claimants of income support for mortgage interest currently receive assistance under the deserted partner rule as set out in paragraph 7, schedule 3 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987; [24676]

  (3) how many claimants of income support for mortgage interest currently receive assistance (a) to pay the interest on arrears which have accrued during the first 16 weeks of a claim when only 50 per cent. of the eligible interest is payable, (b) to pay the interest on arrears where a mortgage has a deferred interest payment arrangement for at least a two-year period, (c) where other arrears of mortgage payments have accrued and a standard amount of £2.35 per week is deducted from the claimant's entitlement to income support and (d) the total expenditure in each of these areas. [24678]
  206
  Mr. Roger Evans
  A total of 135,000 income support claimants have an amount deducted from their benefit and paid to their lender to help with the clearing of mortgage interest arrears. This does not involve any additional expenditure on income support. The other information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly Enquiry, May 1994.

  Note:

  The figure has been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Fraud
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many officials in his Department have been(a) suspended, (b) disciplined, (c) dismissed and (d) prosecuted for each of the last 30 years for irregularities in connection with benefit fraud from which they or their associates have gained; [24612]

  (2) how many officials working on the departmental central index have been (a) suspended, (b) disciplined, (c) dismissed and (d) prosecuted for each of the last 30 years for irregularities in connection with benefit fraud from which they or their associates have gained. [24613]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This information is not available in the form requested and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Benefit fraud by staff is treated very seriously, resulting in dismissal and prosecution when proven. A total of 34 staff have been prosecuted for matters relating to benefit fraud since 1 April 1994; it is not possible to say how many of these had access to the departmental central index. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 8 March,Official Report, columns 693ߝ94.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those local authorities who use(a) auditors and (b) specialist trained fraud investigators to investigate housing benefit fraud; and if he will detail each authority and the total number of staff who have been employed for each of the last 10 years. [24614]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is not available.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of(a) new family credit claims and (b) renewal family credit claims are being processed within one week, four weeks, six weeks, eight weeks and longer than eight weeks. [23623]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of family credit 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. Keith Bradley, dated 15 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the clearance times of new and renewal claims to Family Credit.
  The table below details the information you have requested. Such figures are produced on a monthly basis and I have therefore provided information for the month ending 30 April 1995 which is the latest full month available. For the purposes of this question, one week has been calculated as 5 working days.

  207

  Percentage

  1 week (1–5 days

  4 weeks (6–20 days)

  6 weeks (21–30 days)

  8 weeks (31–40 days)

  Over 8 weeks (41+ days)

  New claims

  46.65

  40.34

  8.08

  3.01

  1.92

  Renewal claims

  45.92

  44.6

  646

  1.88

  1.14

  The Family Credit Unit is currently operating a pilot section, introduced during April 1995, which is processing new claims from customers who have not previously claimed Family Credit. The pilot section accepts new (first-time) claims from one of the ten operational areas that process claims within the Family Credit Unit. These claims can be from customers who have recently started work but have not used the Fast Track service available through the Employment Service, had a change of hours and earnings, or have simply not previously claimed Family Credit.
  A claim form is submitted and any additional information required is, wherever possible, taken over the telephone which allows the claims to be processed more quickly. A verification exercise is then conducted on a sample of the claims where telephone evidence has been accepted. Figures for the month ending 30 April showed that 97.5% of customers using this system had their claim decided in 5 working days.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

SCOTLAND

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total compensation paid to farmers for loss of earnings and clean-up of radioactive contamination of Scottish farms arising from the fallout from the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. [22025]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The sheep compensation scheme was introduced in July 1986 to compensate farmers whose enterprises had been disrupted as a result of statutory movement and slaughter restrictions following the Chernobyl accident. The total paid out under the scheme in Scotland up to the end of March 1995 was £2,491,842.

  Drumkinnon Bay
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what direct representations the Minister with responsibility for industry and local government received in writing or in person from Drumkinnon Development Company Ltd. or any associated companies regarding the latter's negotiations with Dumbarton district council and its subsequent sale of land to Dumbartonshire Enterprise. [23057]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Neither I nor my predecessor received any representation from Drumkinnon Development Company Ltd. or any associated company on the matter to which the question refers, although the Scottish Office Environment Department was approached by agents of the Drumkinnon Development Company Ltd. in support of a request from Dumbarton district council that the decision on the planning appeal should be deferred for an additional month to allow the discussions between the district council and the Drumkinnon Development Company Ltd. to be completed.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date the Minister with responsibility for industry 208
  and local government was informed of Dumbartonshire Enterprise's interest in the acquisition of Drumkinnon bay from the Drumkinnon Development Company. [23059]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I first learned of Dumbartonshire Enterprise's interest in the acquisition on 8 March 1995.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) on what date the Drumkinnon Development Company approached Dumbartonshire Enterprise to negotiate the purchase by the latter of Drumkinnon bay, Balloch; [23060]

  (2) what information the Drumkinnon Development Company provided to Dumbartonshire Enterprise regarding the original price paid by the former for the land eventually acquired by the latter at Drumkinnon bay; [23054]

  (3) what is the name of the company employed by Dumbartonshire Enterprise which assessed the value of the Drumkinnon bay site at £2.743 million; and what was the date of this assessment; [23061]

  (4) when the Scottish Enterprise Board agreed in principle to allow Dumbartonshire Enterprise to acquire Drumkinnon bay from the developers. [23063]

  Mr. Kynoch
  This is an operational matter for Scottish Enterprise. I have asked its chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date he became aware of Dumbartonshire Enterprise's interest in acquiring Drumkinnon bay from the developers. [23062]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend became aware of Dumbartonshire Enterprise's interest in the acquisition on 8 March 1995.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Sctoland what ministerial discussions took place either with Scottish Enterprise or Dumbartonshire Enterprise regarding the acquisition of Drumkinnon bay by the latter; and on what date ministerial consent was given. [23056]

  Mr. Kynoch
  No such discussions took place. Ministerial consent was not required in this case and no request for such consent was made.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the involvement of Dumbartonshire Enterprise or Scottish Enterprise in written or oral communication with the Minister with responsibility for industry and local government on the subject of the development at Drumkinnon bay. [23058]

  Mr. Kynoch
  There has been no written or oral communication between me or my predecessor and Dumbartonshire Enterprise or Scottish Enterprise on the subject of the development at Drumkinnon bay.

  Scottish Enterprise
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) formal or (b) informal reporting mechanisms operate to ensure that Scottish Enterprise is made aware of developments being undertaken by local enterprise councils which involve projects greater than £250,000; and how and to whom these are communicated by Highlands and Islands Enterprise or Scottish Enterprise to the Industry Department. [23064]

  Mr. Kynoch
  A local enterprise company is required by its operating contract to refer to Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise proposals which wouldinvolve expenditure in excess of specified delegated
  209
  limits. The amounts of these limits vary according to the nature and purpose of the proposed expenditure, but expenditure exceeding £250,000 in any of the categories would require to be referred to Scottish Enterprise or Highlands and Islands Enterprise as appropriate.

  Similarly, Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise are required to refer to the Secretary of State proposals which would involve expenditure in excess of certain limits, although these limits are generally higher than those which apply to local enterprise companies. Again, the amounts of the limits vary according to the nature and purpose of the proposed expenditure, but are for the most part set at amounts above £250,000. Cases involving property acquisition have to be referred to my right hon. Friend if the expenditure involved exceeds £5 million.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the project capital threshold expended by either Dumbartonshire Enterprise or Scottish Enterprise above which the Minister with responsibility for industry and local government is consulted.

  Mr. Kynoch
  The delegated authorities which apply to the Scottish Enterprise network vary according to the nature and purpose of the proposed expenditure. Cases involving property acquisition have to be referred to my right hon. Friend if the expenditure involved exceeds £5 million.

  Forestry Commission
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total revenue derived from Forestry Commission woodland disposals for each year since 1981 in(a) England, (b) Wales and (c) Scotland. [23402]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The information is as follows:

  £000s

  Year ended 31 March

  England

  Wales

  Scotland

  19821

  8.9

  2.2

  13.6

  19831

  8.9

  2.2

  13.6

  19841

  8.9

  2.2

  13.6

  1985

  9.2

  2.4

  3.7

  1986

  4.3

  2.2

  3.1

  1987

  4.1

  1.6

  2.6

  1988

  4.4

  0.9

  1.5

  1989

  1.9

  1.5

  1.6

  1990

  2.8

  1.8

  2.4

  1991

  2.8

  2.0

  2.3

  1992

  2.2

  2.2

  4.8

  1993

  1.6

  1.2

  2.3

  1994

  2.0

  1.7

  9.7

  19952

  2.2

  2.3

  3.6

  1 Annual records are not available for this period.

  2 Provisional.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the estimated targets in terms of(a) hectarage and (b) revenue for the disposal of Forestry Commission woodlands after 2000 in (i) England, (ii) Wales and (iii) Scotland. [23404]

  Sir Hector Monro
  No decisions have been taken on the Forestry Commission's disposals programme beyond the year 2000.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by county in respect of England and Wales and region in respect of Scotland the name 210
  and hectarage of Forestry Commission woodlands that are currently for sale. [23401]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The following Forestry Commission woodlands are currently for sale on the open market:

  County/Region

  Name of Property

  Area (hectares)

  England

  Cambridgeshire

  Langley High Wood

  49

  Cornwall

  Hay Wood

  54

  Port Elliot, Pathada, Perdredda

  95

  Treworgey Wood

  17

  Cumbria

  Black Knors

  25

  Derbyshire

  Moorhall Wood

  8

  Devon

  Bedpark

  8

  Hawkmoor

  22

  Durham

  Campville

  30

  Stanley Wood Cottages

  31

  Essex

  Audley End Estate

  57

  Humberside

  Greenwickdale Wood

  37

  Isle of Wight

  Grammars Common

  17

  Timber Copse

  8

  Leicestershire

  Bolt Wood

  27

  Lincolnshire

  Hum Wood

  9

  Shropshire

  Coed Detton

  14

  Somerset

  Higher Bitcombe

  30

  South Yorkshire

  Greensprings Wood

  12

  Old Park Wood

  41

  Owston and Duck Holt Woods

  66

  Scotland

  Borders

  Edgarhope

  143

  Spottiswoode

  191

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Glaik

  62

  Grampian

  Aquharney

  128

  Auchinroath

  62

  Glenbuchat

  539

  Greenness

  115

  Longhill (part)

  120

  New Pitsligo

  42

  Highland

  Abriachan

  865

  Achandounie Woods

  39

  Achrugan

  59

  Ardelve

  26

  Duisky

  89

  Garvan, North

  112

  Garvan, South

  183

  Loch Ashie

  437

  Lundavra

  148

  New Kelso

  43

  Strathclyde

  Daljarrock

  51

  Docherneil

  83

  Glenmard

  56

  Tayside

  Camusericht

  295

  Dalguise (part)

  7

  Upper Glenprosen

  230

  Wales

  Clwyd

  Coed Melyn Y Moch

  12

  Fron Plantation

  5

  Gwernto

  15

  Nurse Gwern Y Coed

  5

  Tan Y Fron Woodland

  3

  Trevor Hall Wood

  22

  Dyfed

  Allt Cil y Llyn Fawr

  3

  Cilflower Wood

  5

  Cynheidre Uchaf

  24

  Glan Teifi Wood

  2

  Llwyn Y Gwair

  13

  Pant Eynon and Allt y Forlan

  29

  Pencwmfawr

  9

  Penhill Wood

  4

  211

  County/Region

  Name of Property

  Area (hectares)

  Rhos Rhiwlas Isaf

  5

  Ty'r Shyme

  6

  Gwent

  Coed Chambers

  6

  Gwynedd

  Aberdunant (part)

  16

  Coed Ty Uchaf

  14

  Rhiwbach and Tyddyn Bach

  106

  Mid Glamorgan

  Bryncarnau

  23

  Powys

  Gilfach

  9

  West Glamorgan

  Bryn Wicket

  33

  Graig Ynysgollen

  10

  Nant Y Stalwyn

  44

  NHS Appointments
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) name, (b) place of residence, (c) date of appointment and (d) honorarium of the chairman, vice-chairman and members of (i) Argyll and Clyde health board, (ii) the Royal Alexandra hospital trust and (iii) Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS trust. [24105]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is as follows:

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board

  Residence

  Date of appointment

  Remuneration £

  Chairman

  Mr. Malcolm Jones

  Helensburgh

  1 January 1995

  17,700

  Non-Executive Members

  Mrs. Elizabeth Lander (Vice-Chairman)

  Kilmacolm

  1 April 1995

  5,000

  Mrs. Sheenah Nelson

  Balloch

  1 April 1993

  5,000

  Mr. Ian Macdonald

  Paisley

  7 March 1994

  5,000

  Mr. Robert

  Rothesay Anderson

  1 April 1995

  5,000

  Miss Moira Leitch

  Islay

  1 April 1995

  5,000

  Mr. John Mullin

  Paisley

  1 April 1995

  5,000

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  Residence

  Date of appointment

  Remuneration £

  Chairman

  Mr. Tom Gibson

  Paisley

  1 January 1993

  17,145

  Non-Executive Directors

  Mrs. Audrey Burns

  Houston

  1 January 1993

  5,000

  Mrs. Marion Ford

  Paisley

  1 January 1993

  5,000

  Mr. Alec MacDonald Gaunt

  Paisley

  1 January 1993

  5,000

  Mr. George Murray

  Paisley

  1 January 1993

  5,000

  212

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  Residence

  Date of appointment

  Remuneration £

  Mr. Allan Durward

  Bridge of Weir

  1 January 1993

  5,000

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  Residence

  Date of appointment

  Remuneration £

  Chairman

  Dr. John Moffat

  Greenock

  6 December 1993

  19,285

  Non-Executive Directors

  Mr. David McNiven (Vice-Chairman)

  Brookfield

  6 December 1993

  5,000

  Mr. Basil Baird

  Eaglesham

  6 December 1993

  5,000

  Mrs. Jean Goldie

  Elderslie

  6 December 1993

  5,000

  Mrs. Margaret Foggie

  Greenock

  6 December 1993

  5,000

  Mr. John Hornibrook

  Kilmacolm

  6 December 1993

  5,000

  Cable Installers
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to require cable 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; and if he will make a statement. [23298]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and associated regulations and codes of practice already require undertakers, such as cable operators, executing road works to comply with prescribed material specifications and standards of workmanship when reinstating a road or footway and to guarantee the performance of the reinstatement for a minimum period of two years. If an undertaker fails to comply with his duties under the Act regarding reinstatements then he commits an offence. Provision is made for road works authorities to inspect reinstatements and to require corrective work where a reinstatement is defective. Ultimately, the road works authority may carry out the work themselves and recover costs from the undertaker.

  Particular attention is drawn by the codes of practice to the need to excavate carefully where trees, shrubs and other planted areas are involved. The National Joint Utilities Group has also recently published, in collaboration with the Cable Communications Association and arboriculturists, "Guidelines for the Planning, Installation and Maintenance of Utility Services in Proximity to Trees". A copy of the paper is available in the Library. The Government do not consider that it is necessary to legislate for the replacement of trees in the way suggested.

  Police Deaths (Convictions)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name those persons convicted of murdering police officers since 1960(a) who are still serving prison sentences and (b) who have been released under licence; and if he will make a statement. [23299]
  213
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned friend the Minister of State will write to the hon. Member.

  NHS Trusts
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will include in the new code of openness in the national health service a requirement for NHS trusts to hold their meetings in public and for health authorities to cease the practice of routinely closing their meetings to the public for items on their agendas which are not confidential. [23300]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble Friend the Minster of State will be publishing the code of practice on openness in the NHS in Scotland later this month. It will require health boards and NHS trusts to be as open as possible about their activities and plans.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the capital allocation for each NHS trust in Scotland for 1995–96, 1996–97 and any subsequent year for which allocations have been made. [24055]

  Lord James Douglas Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: The capital provision included in the current external financing limit for 1995–96 is as in the table.

  Further provisions will be made throughout 1995–96 as business cases are approved for projects above trust's delegated limits.

  Capital provision on a trust-by-trust basis for 1996–97 and subsequent years has yet to be determined.

  Name of NHS trust

  1995–96 Capital provision 000s

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  3,669

  Angus

  896

  Argyll and Bute

  1,749

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare

  2,044

  Borders General Hospital

  816

  Borders Community Health Services

  511

  Caithness and Sutherland

  589

  Central Scotland Healthcare

  3,185

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals

  2,835

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health

  1,918

  Dundee Healthcare

  1,280

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  4,362

  East and Midlothian

  1,306

  Edinburgh Sick Childrens

  1,206

  Edinburgh Healthcare

  2,672

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  949

  Fife Healthcare

  2,198

  Grampian Healthcare

  5,023

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services

  8,792

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School

  656

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University

  4,273

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals

  2,310

  Highland Communities

  2,024

  Inverclyde Royal

  1,121

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals

  1,327

  Law Hospital

  2,662

  Lanarkshire Healthcare

  4,373

  Lomond Healthcare

  1,251

  Monklands and Bellshill

  3,494

  Moray Health Services

  4,073

  North Ayrshire and Arran

  6,206

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare

  2,004

  Queen Margaret

  1,301

  Raigmore Hospital

  3,644

  214

  Name of NHS trust

  1995–96 Capital provision 000s

  Renfrewshire Healthcare

  1,358

  Royal Alexander Hospital

  1,277

  Scottish Ambulance Service

  8,311

  South Ayrshire Hospitals

  3,614

  Southern General

  4,447

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  2,100

  Stobhill

  1,646

  The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  8,371

  Victoria Infirmary

  1,443

  West Lothian

  1,941

  West Glasgow Hospitals University

  5,471

  Western General Hospitals, Edinburgh

  3,551

  Yorkhill

  2,571

  132,820

  Medical Negligence
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of alleged medical negligence by(a) NHS consultants and (b) general practitioners were awaiting settlement or court hearing at 30 March in each of the last six years. [23301]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of the number of cases of alleged medical negligence by NHS consultants awaiting either settlement or court hearing is available from 30 March 1991 only. The information available is set out in the table:

  year

  Number of claims awaiting settlement at 30 March

  1991

  194

  1992

  214

  1993

  222

  1994

  178

  1995

  93

  Information on general medical practitioners is not collected centrally. They are independent contractors and as such insure themselves.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average time taken for an alleged medical negligence case to be settled; and if he will make a statement on how this average time has changed over the past six years. [22302]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The length of time taken to settle claims on medical negligence will vary depending on the nature of the case. If agreement is reached before the case goes to court, it can be settled within six to nine months of the claim being lodged. Where the claim is determined by the courts, the average time taken to reach a conclusion is around five years. Both averages have remained relatively static since 1990, when information on settlements was first collected centrally.

  Child Protection
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce safeguards to protect parents with care and their children from violent or abusive absent parents who wish to claim parental rights
  215
  and responsibilities. [24603]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As I indicated on 1 May 1995 on the Floor of the House,Official Report, column 84, during the Report stage of the Children (Scotland) Bill, the Government will consider whether through rules of court a parent's address might be kept confidential during the lead-up to a court hearing an application for parental rights and responsibilities by the other parent. That apart, we consider the law contains adequate safeguards for a parent and children against the other parent who is violent or abusive.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to reform section 12(7) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 to ensure that striking a child so as to cause or risk causing, injury will not be lawful whether or not the action was undertaken in terms of a parental right to chastise. [24605]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to reform section 12(7) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 in the way suggested. As was made clear in the Report Stage debate on the Children (Scotland) Bill on 1 May,Official Report columns 49–75, the law as it stands—both statutory and common law—already offers sufficient protection to children from assault.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure that registration of an agreement between a mother and a father on parental rights and responsibilities will have safeguards against duress or coercion. [24604]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The arrangements set out in clauses 4 and 11 of the Children (Scotland) Bill

  (£ thousands)

  Health Boards

  Administration and clerical

  Actual total salaries

  Percentage

  Administration and clerical

  Current prices total salaries

  Percentage

  1988–89

  Argyll and Clyde

  9,430

  98,003

  9.62

  12,411

  128,989

  9.62

  Ayr and Arran

  6,666

  73,464

  9.07

  8,775

  96,691

  9.07

  Borders

  1,911

  23,088

  8.28

  2,515

  30,388

  8.28

  Dumfries and Galloway

  2,897

  37,610

  7.70

  3,813

  49,502

  7.70

  Fife

  5,746

  69,553

  8.26

  7,564

  91,544

  8.26

  Forth Valley

  5,133

  66,813

  7.68

  6,755

  87,937

  7.68

  Grampian

  11,263

  125,244

  8.99

  14,824

  164,843

  8.99

  Greater Glasgow

  27,357

  343,939

  7.95

  36,006

  452,682

  7.95

  Highland

  4,345

  52,637

  8.25

  5,719

  69,280

  8.25

  Lanarkshire

  8,205

  111,788

  7.34

  10,799

  147,131

  7.34

  Lothian

  18,674

  217,879

  8.57

  24,578

  286,765

  8.57

  Orkney

  266

  3,905

  6.82

  350

  5,140

  6.82

  Shetland

  362

  4,791

  7.56

  477

  6,306

  7.56

  Tayside

  11,032

  129,398

  8.53

  14,519

  170,309

  8.53

  Western Isles

  557

  6,994

  7.96

  733

  9,205

  7.96

  Scotland total

  113,844

  1,365,106

  8.34

  149,838

  1,796,712

  8.34

  1989–90

  Argyll and Clyde

  10,588

  104,651

  10.12

  13,027

  128,746

  10.12

  Ayr and Arran

  7,655

  79,776

  9.60

  9,418

  98,144

  9.60

  Borders

  2,217

  25,289

  8.77

  2,727

  31,111

  8.77

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,275

  39,904

  8.21

  4,029

  49,091

  8.21

  Fife

  6,674

  74,324

  8.98

  8,211

  91,437

  8.98

  Forth Valley

  5,905

  71,428

  8.27

  7,264

  87,874

  8.27

  Grampian

  12,837

  134,462

  9.55

  15,793

  165,420

  9.55

  Greater Glasgow

  31,142

  359,709

  8.66

  38,312

  442,529

  8.66

  Highland

  5,005

  56,668

  8.83

  6,157

  69,715

  8.83

  Lanarkshire

  9,325

  119,097

  7.83

  11,472

  146,518

  7.83

  Lothian

  21,668

  228,805

  9.47

  26,657

  281,484

  9.47

  216
  provide adequate protection for the mother and child. This was made clear on 23 February when, in Committee, amendments Nos. 238 and 239 were considered. Consequently, my right hon. Friend has no plans to change the arrangements which the Bill will bring into play.

  NHS Pay
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each NHS trust in Scotland what decision has been taken on the claim by nurses for an increase in wages for the current year; and if he will make a statement. [24054]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: To date, 43 out of the 47 NHS trusts in Scotland have either made offers to nursing staff at local level or have indicated their intention to do so in the near future.

  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total wage and salary costs in each year since 1988 in(a) actual terms and (b) at current prices, of health service employees, including management and clerical grades, in respect of each health board area and NHS trust in Scotland; and what percentage each sum represented of the total wage and salary costs of the respective health board or NHS trust. [20606]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 May 1995]: The information is set out in the table. Figures for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  The figures for administrative and clerical staff costs include amounts for those senior nurses and clinicians who have transferred to the general/senior managers' pay scales, particularly in latter years.
  217

  (£ thousands)

  Health Boards

  Administration and clerical

  Actual total salaries

  Percentage

  Administration and clerical

  Current prices total salaries

  Percentage

  Orkney

  298

  4,237

  7.03

  367

  5,212

  7.03

  Shetland

  471

  5,184

  9.08

  579

  6,378

  9.08

  Tayside

  12,311

  137,560

  8.95

  15,145

  169,232

  8.95

  Western Isles

  684

  7,351

  9.30

  841

  9,043

  9.30

  Scotland total

  130,055

  1,448,445

  8.98

  159,999

  1,781,934

  8.98

  1990–91

  Argyll and Clyde

  12,064

  112,112

  10.76

  13,741

  127,693

  10.76

  Ayr and Arran

  8,848

  87,469

  10.12

  10,078

  99,626

  10.12

  Borders

  2,575

  27,095

  9.51

  2,933

  30,861

  9.51

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,919

  43,840

  8.94

  4,464

  49,933

  8.94

  Fife

  8,047

  81,784

  9.84

  9,166

  93,150

  9.84

  Forth Valley

  7,016

  77,780

  9.02

  7,992

  88,590

  9.02

  Grampian

  14,963

  144,566

  10.35

  17,043

  164,658

  10.35

  Greater Glasgow

  36,734

  378,673

  9.70

  41,839

  431,300

  9.70

  Highland

  6,086

  62,266

  9.77

  6,932

  70,920

  9.77

  Lanarkshire

  11,246

  128,742

  8.74

  12,809

  146,634

  8.74

  Lothian

  24,765

  241,386

  10.26

  28,207

  274,934

  10.26

  Orkney

  402

  4,775

  8.42

  458

  5,438

  8.42

  Shetland

  653

  5,775

  11.30

  743

  6,577

  11.30

  Tayside

  14,422

  149,398

  9.65

  16,425

  170,161

  9.65

  Western Isles

  806

  8,221

  9.79

  917

  9,363

  9.79

  Scotland total

  152,546

  1,553,882

  9.82

  173,747

  1,769,838

  9.82

  1991– 92

  Argyll and Clyde

  14,178

  125,534

  11.29

  15,194

  134,527

  11.29

  Ayr and Arran

  10,117

  96,968

  10.43

  10,843

  103,915

  10.43

  Borders

  2,105

  27,939

  7.54

  2,256

  29,940

  7.54

  Dumfries and Galloway

  4,277

  46,844

  9.13

  4,583

  50,200

  9.13

  Fife

  9,508

  91,140

  10.43

  10,189

  97,670

  10.43

  Forth Valley

  8,381

  86,562

  9.68

  8,981

  92,763

  9.68

  Grampian

  17,061

  160,303

  10.64

  18,283

  171,787

  10.64

  Greater Glasgow

  41,749

  407,459

  10.25

  44,740

  436,649

  10.25

  Highland

  7,263

  70,321

  10.33

  7,783

  75,359

  10.33

  Lanarkshire

  13,350

  139,726

  9.55

  14,306

  149,736

  9.55

  Lothian

  28,451

  264,872

  10.74

  30,489

  283,847

  10.74

  Orkney

  480

  5,519

  8.70

  514

  5,914

  8.70

  Shetland

  770

  6,560

  11.73

  825

  7,030

  11.73

  Tayside

  17,108

  165,259

  10.35

  18,334

  177,098

  10.35

  Western Isles

  919

  9,370

  9.81

  985

  10,041

  9.81

  Scotland total

  175,717

  1,704,376

  10.31

  188,305

  1,826,476

  10.31

  Health Boards

  Administration and clerical (£000's)

  Actual total salaries (£000 's)

  Percentage

  Administration and clerical (£000's)

  Current Prices Total Salaries (£000's)

  Percentage

  1992–93

  Argyll and Clyde

  15,744

  134,343

  11.72

  16,224

  138,454

  11.72

  Ayr and Arran

  9,603

  80,727

  11.90

  9,897

  83,198

  11.90

  Borders

  2,518

  31,628

  7.96

  2,596

  32,596

  7.96

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5,292

  52,800

  10.02

  5,454

  54,416

  10.02

  Fife

  10,462

  97,794

  10.70

  10,783

  100,786

  10.70

  Forth Valley

  9,724

  94,683

  10.27

  10,021

  97,580

  10.27

  Grampian

  14,364

  110,568

  12.99

  14,803

  113,951

  12.99

  Greater Glasgow

  47,473

  436,265

  10.88

  48,925

  449,614

  10.88

  Highland

  8,264

  75,378

  10.96

  8,517

  77,684

  10.96

  Lanarkshire

  14,240

  146,730

  9.70

  14,676

  151,220

  9.70

  Lothian

  32,352

  286,483

  11.29

  33,342

  295,249

  11.29

  Orkney

  553

  6,126

  9.03

  570

  6,313

  9.03

  Shetland

  868

  6,643

  13.07

  895

  6,846

  13.07

  Tayside

  19,415

  174,964

  11.10

  20,009

  180,318

  11.10

  Western Isles

  1,107

  10,512

  10.53

  1,141

  10,833

  10.53

  Sub total

  191,979

  1,745,644

  11.00

  197,853

  1.799,058

  11.00

  218 219

  Health Boards

  Administration and clerical (£000's)

  Actual total salaries (£000's)

  Percentage

  Administration and clerical (£000's)

  Current Prices Total Salaries (£000's)

  Percentage

  NHS Trusts

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  6,050

  61,300

  9.87

  6,235

  63,176

  9.87

  South Ayrshire Hospitals

  2,681

  25,619

  10.46

  2,763

  26,403

  10.46

  Sub total

  8,731

  86,919

  10.04

  8,998

  89,579

  10.04

  Scotland total

  200,710

  1,832,563

  10.95

  206,852

  1,888,636

  10.95

  Health Boards

  Administration and clerical (£000s)

  Actual total salaries (£000s)

  Percentage

  Administration and clerical (£000s)

  Current prices total salaries (£000s)

  Percentage

  1993–94

  Argyll and Clyde

  14,377

  110,631

  13.00

  14,377

  110,631

  13.00

  Ayr and Arran

  1,627

  4,185

  38.88

  1,627

  4,185

  38.88

  Borders

  2,801

  33,605

  8.34

  2,801

  33,605

  8.34

  Dumfries and Galloway

  5,608

  51,679

  10.85

  5,608

  51,679

  10.85

  Fife

  11,494

  96,969

  11.85

  11,494

  96,969

  11.85

  Forth Valley

  7,414

  59,633

  12.43

  7,414

  59,633

  12.43

  Grampian

  4,725

  12,449

  37.96

  4,726

  12,449

  37.96

  Greater Glasgow

  37,480

  316,086

  11.86

  37,480

  316,086

  11.86

  Highland

  5,535

  39,066

  14.17

  5,535

  316,086

  14.17

  Lanarkshire

  28,033

  163,861

  17.11

  28,033

  163,861

  17.11

  Lothian

  31,685

  239,760

  13.22

  31,685

  239,760

  13.22

  Orkney

  671

  6,619

  10.14

  671

  6,619

  10.14

  Shetland

  1,012

  6,896

  10.14

  1,012

  6,619

  14.67

  Tayside

  14,716

  114,533

  12.85

  14,716

  114,533

  12.85

  Western Isles

  1,392

  11,808

  11.79

  1,392

  11,808

  11.79

  Sub Total

  168,571

  1,267,781

  13.30

  168,571

  1,267,781

  13.30

  NHS Trusts

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  7,328

  69,913

  10.48

  7,328

  69,913

  10.48

  South Ayrshire Hospitals

  3,176

  25,985

  12.22

  3,176

  25,985

  12.22

  Ayrshire and Arran Community

  Healthcare

  3,831

  34,782

  11.01

  3,831

  34,782

  11.01

  Caithness and Sutherland

  1,088

  8,553

  12.72

  1,088

  8,553

  12.72

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  7,012

  65,375

  10.73

  7,012

  65,375

  10.73

  Grampian Healthcare

  10,322

  81,497

  12.67

  10,322

  81,497

  12.67

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals

  3,271

  31,526

  10.38

  3,271

  31,526

  10.38

  Moray Health Services

  1,697

  14,773

  11.49

  1,697

  14,773

  11.49

  North Ayrshire and Arran

  5,119

  44,293

  11.56

  5,119

  44,293

  11.56

  Raigmore Hospital

  2,735

  25,819

  10.59

  2,735

  25,819

  10.59

  Royal Scottish National Hospital

  654

  13,203

  4.95

  654

  13,203

  4.95

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  2,404

  25,700

  9.35

  2,404

  25,700

  9.35

  Southern General, Glasgow

  4,740

  46,108

  10.28

  4,740

  46,108

  10.28

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  2,195

  23,939

  9.17

  2,195

  23,939

  9.17

  Victoria Infirmary

  4,071

  36,244

  11.23

  4,071

  36,244

  11.23

  West Lothian

  4,560

  40,801

  11.18

  4,560

  40,801

  11.18

  Yorkhill

  3,477

  35,376

  9.83

  3,477

  35,376

  9.83

  Sub total

  67,680

  623,887

  10.85

  67,680

  623,887

  10.85

  Scotland total

  236,251

  1,891,668

  12.49

  236,251

  1,891,668

  12.49

  220

  Fishing Industry
  Dr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects European Union PESCA funds to be distributed to fishing communities; how much money he anticipates being paid for(a) the fishing industry and (b) the retraining of fishermen; if he will make it his policy to invite representatives of the fishing communities to take part in the decision and the distribution of such monies, and if he will make a statement. [24178]

  Sir Hector Monro
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]The United Kingdom PESCA programme is still subject to final agreement with the European Commission. It is not yet possible to say when funds will be available. The sum of some 16.5 mecu—£13.8 million at present exchange rates—has been proposed for projects in Scotland over the next five years of which £7.4 million will be available for European regional development fund spending, £2.6 million for European social fund spending, and £3.8 million under the financial instrument of fisheries guidance. The precise allocation will depend on the projects approved for EC support. Decisions on which projects should be supported will be based on discussion in local action groups which may involve representatives of the fishing industry.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many mobile telephones being used by his Department have been cloned during the last 12 months. [23434]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]I am aware of five instances of cloning of mobile telephones being used by the Scottish Office and its agencies during the last 12 months.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [23475]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 May 1995] No representations have been made by the Scottish Office to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the need for legislation to prevent the cloning of mobile telephones.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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 this Department; and how many mobile telephones are currently in use. [23442]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Use of hand-held and car-based mobile telephones is made by travelling officers to facilitate communications while on official business. Mobile telephones were first introduced into The Scottish Office in the financial year 1986–87 but records of costs are only retained for the past three financial years. These indicate total cost of:

  1992–93: £110,000

  1993–94: £128,000

  1994–95: £148,000

  Our records show 380 mobile telephones as being currently in use throughout the Scottish Office and its agencies.
  222
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what costs his Department has incurred during the last 12 months as a result of cloning of mobile telephones being used by his Department, with particular reference to the making of unauthorised calls. [23482]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: No costs have been incurred during the last 12 months as a result of cloning of mobile telephones.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department has taken to prevent the cloning of telephones being used by his Department; and if his Department has discussed this matter with any official agencies. [23462]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: All departmental users are encouraged to ensure the physical security of their mobile telephones but nothing can be done of a technical nature to prevent cloning. There have been no discussions with any official agencies on this subject.

  Civil Defence Facilities
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil defence facilities in Scotland it is envisaged would be used as emergency centres of government in time of war; and if he will make a statement. [23171]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 May 1995]: There is one purpose-built civil defence facility, at Cultybraggan, which would be available to be used as an emergency centre of government during a war.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what future plans he has for the civil defence facility underneath Cultybraggan training camp, near Comrie; and if he will make a statement. [23189]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 May 1995]: While much of the former civil defence infrastructure has been sold or dismantled, the Cultybraggan facility will be retained, since it houses the central node of the emergency communications network. The ECN links together all local authorities, the emergency services, a number of central Government locations, and other sites such as nuclear industry off-site emergency centres. This network is available to local authorities when responding to civil emergencies in peace time and proved to be most useful during the severe weather emergencies of 1993 and 1994.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the final cost of(a) constructing the civil defence facility located underneath Cultybraggan training camp, near Comrie and (b) the unfinished civil defence facility at the grounds of Peel hospital near Galashiels; and if he will make a statement. [23187]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 May 1995]The final cost of the facility at Cultybraggan training camp was £3.6 million. The Scottish Office purchased the site at the former Peel hospital at a cost of £ 100,000. Because of the change in the perceived threat of a major conflict; no start was made on construction work, and the site is currently being offered for sale.

  Hospital Beds
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the total number of hospital beds in(a) medical and (b) surgical specialisms in each health board area as at 1st April 1993, 1994 and 1995; and what are the projected figures for 1996 and 1997. [24053]

  National Health Service hospitals in Scotland: average available staffed surgical and medical beds

  Quarters ending 31 March 1993

  31 March 1994

  31 December 19941

  Surgical (1)

  Medical (2)

  Surgical

  Medical

  Surgical

  Medical

  Scotland

  8,568

  6,260

  8,051

  6,117

  7,856

  5,942

  Argyll and Clyde

  573

  451

  541

  447

  538

  439

  Ayrshire and Arran

  596

  371

  565

  382

  557

  367

  Borders

  143

  95

  137

  95

  131

  92

  Dumfries and Galloway

  210

  107

  187

  136

  186

  146

  Fife

  391

  236

  378

  240

  362

  240

  Forth Valley

  354

  193

  346

  196

  354

  192

  Grampian

  853

  593

  838

  576

  811

  576

  Greater Glasgow

  2,064

  1,661

  1,905

  1,573

  1,864

  1,470

  Highland

  384

  276

  364

  258

  356

  255

  Lanarkshire

  888

  544

  845

  536

  809

  520

  Lothian

  1,222

  1,071

  1,152

  1,012

  1,100

  999

  Orkney

  39

  —

  39

  —

  39

  —

  Shetland

  23

  24

  26

  20

  26

  20

  Tayside

  777

  589

  676

  601

  675

  582

  Western Isles

  50

  50

  52

  46

  51

  44

  1 Provisional

  Notes:

  1. Surgical: general surgery, orthopaedic surgery, ENT surgery, ophthalmology, urology, neurosurgery, cardiothoracic surgery, plastic surgery, orthodontics and paediatric dentistry, oral surgery and medicine, restorative dentistry, spinal paralysis, paediatric surgery, gynaecology.

  2. Medical: general medicine, cardiology, metabolic diseases, neurology, gastroenterology, poisons, dermatology, nephrology, rheumatology, rehabilitation medicine, respiratory medicine, radiotherapy (consultative) paediatric medicine, anaesthetics, haematology.

  3. General practice beds are excluded.

  Departmental Accounting Officer
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many times in the last 10 years, and on which dates, his departmental accounting officer has issued a minute in that role; and what was the issue in each case. [22564]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Where a Minister overrules an accounting officer's advice on an issue of propriety or regularity or one of value for money, the accounting officer should request a written instruction from the Minister to take the action in question.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) on 2 March 1994, Official Report, column 783, when I advised that no such occasion had been identified. No direction has been issued since that date.

  Any such instruction would be reported to the Comptroller and Auditor General who, after making whatever investigations he considers appropriate, would report his findings to the Committee of Public Accounts.

  NHSiS administrative and clerical staff1 2 3 4 7 by health board as at 30 September

  Whole time equivalent

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  19926

  19936

  19946

  Argyll and Clyde

  1,132

  1,191

  1,225

  1,231

  1,370

  1,400

  1,472

  Ayrshire and Arran

  754

  778

  810

  847

  913

  957

  1,019

  Borders

  224

  219

  231

  237

  257

  272

  335

  Dumfries and Galloway

  339

  348

  367

  412

  442

  463

  496

  Fife

  654

  676

  722

  769

  800

  920

  1,022

  Forth Valley

  564

  594

  632

  666

  716

  758

  775

  224
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: The information requested is shown in the table.

  Hospital bed numbers are not projected on a national basis and the availability of beds in any specialty is primarily a matter for health boards and the appropriate health care providers to agree.

  NHS Administration
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many health service employees, including management and clerical grades, in respect of each health board area and NHS trust in Scotland, were engaged in administration on 31 March in each year since 1988; and what percentage they represented of the total number of persons employed by each health board and NHS Trust in each of these years. [20605]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 May 1995]: Information is not available centrally on which staff are engaged in administration as a whole or part of their work. The table shows, therefore, the number of staff employed on senior manager, and administrative and clerical payscales. Increases in numbers can be accounted for in part due to the assimilation of some professional staff into senior manager grades. Data are shown for 30 September, the only date for which a complete census of all NHS staff is available. Information at trust level is not available centrally.
  225

  NHSiS administrative and clerical staff1 2 3 4 7 by health board as at 30 September

  Whole time equivalent

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  19926

  19936

  19946

  Grampian

  1,313

  1,371

  1,413

  1,489

  1,581

  1,636

  1,755

  Greater Glasgow

  3,343

  3,368

  3,421

  3,511

  3,679

  3,800

  3,875

  Highland

  489

  504

  548

  594

  627

  652

  713

  Lanarkshire

  1,009

  1,019

  1,091

  1,097

  1,159

  1,240

  1,322

  Lothian

  2,151

  2,274

  2,340

  2,355

  2,417

  2,635

  2,757

  Orkney

  21

  23

  29

  30

  31

  33

  37

  Shetland

  39

  43

  44

  50

  55

  59

  64

  Tayside5

  1,230

  1,229

  1,347

  1,399

  1,509

  1,478

  1,564

  Western Isles

  50

  54

  56

  65

  79

  88

  91

  Total

  13,311

  13,690

  14,275

  14,751

  15,636

  16,390

  17,296

  Notes:

  1 These data need to be interpreted carefully because of the possible inclusion of supra-area functions in the data of some boards, eg., computer consortia staff may appear on one health board payroll but supply a service across several health boards.

  2 Comprises staff on senior management grades and A and C grades one to 10.

  3 The increase in numbers can be partially accounted for by the assimilation of some professional staff to senior manager grades.

  4 Excludes nurses in training.

  5 Data for Tayside in 1989 is at 31 March for staff other than medical and dental staff.

  6 The data include trust staff within the health board area.

  7 The data exclude staff in the Common Services Agency and state hospital, Carstairs.

  Source:

  National Manpower Statistics from Payroll.

  Medical and Dental Census.

  Information and Statistics Division.

  NHSIS Administration and Clerical Staff1 2 3 7 as a percentage of all staff4: by health board as at 30 September

  Percentage

  County

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  19926

  19936

  19946

  Argyll and Clyde

  14.1

  14.9

  15.6

  15.5

  17.1

  17.3

  18.1

  Ayrshire and Arran

  12.8

  12.9

  13.5

  13.7

  14.8

  15.5

  16.1

  Borders

  12.0

  11.5

  12.4

  12.9

  13.7

  14.2

  16.5

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11.3

  11.7

  12.2

  13.4

  14.2

  14.7

  15.5

  Fife

  11.5

  12.3

  13.0

  13.6

  14.1

  16.0

  18.3

  Forth Valley

  10.3

  11.0

  11.4

  12.1

  12.6

  13.5

  13.9

  Grampian

  13.2

  13.7

  14.3

  14.8

  15.3

  16.0

  17.1

  Greater Glasgow

  12.6

  13.4

  14.5

  15.2

  15.9

  16.5

  17.0

  Highland

  12.3

  12.7

  13.6

  14.4

  15.0

  15.8

  16.6

  Lanarkshire

  11.2

  11.4

  12.4

  13.0

  14.1

  15.0

  16.1

  Lothian

  13.2

  14.2

  15.4

  15.7

  16.2

  17.3

  17.4

  Orkney

  7.3

  7.8

  8.9

  9.0

  8.9

  9.0

  10.1

  Shetland

  10.8

  11.6

  11.6

  12.4

  17.0

  17.5

  17.6

  Tayside

  11.8

  11.9

  13.0

  13.9

  15.0

  15.0

  15.5

  Western Isles

  9.9

  10.7

  10.7

  12.1

  13.8

  13.7

  14.0

  Total

  12.4

  13.0

  13.9

  14.4

  15.2

  15.9

  16.7

  Notes:

  1 These data need to be interpreted carefully because of the possible inclusion of supra-area functions in the data of some boards eg computer consortia staff may appear on one health board payroll but supply a service across several health boards.

  2 Comprises staff on senior management grades and A to C grades one to 10.

  3 The increase in numbers can be partially accounted for by the assimilation of some professional staff to senior manager grades.

  4 Excludes nurses in training.

  5 Data for Tayside in 1989 is at 31 March for staff other than medical and dental staff.

  6 The data include trust staff within the health board area.

  7 The data excludes staff in the Common Services Agency and state hospitals, Carstairs.

  Source:

  National Manpower Statistics from Payroll.

  Medical and Dental Census.

  Information and Statistics Division.

  Cervical Smears
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women underwent surgical treatment and medical care as a result of the maladministration of the cervical smear programme at the Inverclyde royal hospital, Greenock; what types of surgical operations and treatment were involved; and if he will make a statement. [21613]
  226
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 May 1995]: Following the re-reading of 1,954 cervical smear slides at Inverclyde royal hospital, 400 women received a result which indicated assessment by colposcopy. Approximately 2,000 additional cervical smear tests were carried out. Some 346 women were assessed for colposcopy in Inverclyde royal hospital. Some 147 had cervical biopsies with associated

  227
  appropriate treatment of the cervix either in Inverclyde or elsewhere.

  The forms of treatment include colposcopy without biopsy, colposcopically directed selective biopsy, cold coagulation and conization of the cervix.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many women have instituted legal proceedings against the Argyll and Clyde health board and the Inverclyde royal hospital, Greenock, as a result of the maladministration of the cervical smear programme at the aforesaid hospital; of such cases, how many have 228
  (a) been settled out of court, (b) resulted in court cases and (c) are still waiting a court hearing; what financial compensation has been paid; and if he will make a statement. [21614]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 2 May 1995]: Argyll and Clyde health board has received 105 legal claims as a result of the re-reading of cervical smear slides at Inverclyde royal hospital. Two claims have proceeded to a settlement. A further 10 settlements are in the process of negotiation. Once all the claims have been settled, I will be in a position to give an indication of the total amount of settlements made. No claims have resulted in a court case or are at present awaiting a court hearing.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Means-Tested Benefits: Disentitlement
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have attempted any cost-benefit analysis of the effects of disentitling people to means-tested social security benefits.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, changes to the provision of means-tested benefits are considered very carefully. Due regard is given to the effect of any change on individuals or groups, on the social security programme as a whole, on other departmental programmes and on any other areas where it is considered that there may be an impact.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister has said that he gives "due regard". He has not said how much regard he thinks is due. Can he tell us what he knows about the costs which are incurred by disentitling people to means-tested benefits? Perhaps I may take one example among many. Can the Minister tell us how many of the 16 and 17 year-olds who committed indictable offences last year were without visible legal means of support and if not, why not?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, "due regard" means just what it says. We look at all the knock-on consequences that may arise and we try to evaluate them as best we can. As regards the specific question, I do not have the answer which the noble Earl seeks. I do not know whether it is available. I do not believe that crime can be so simply put down to those youngsters who have not obeyed the various regulations that would allow them to get training, education or benefit.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, the noble Lord said that some notice has been taken of the effects on groups and individuals. Can he tell us how many people have been evicted or rendered homeless because of reductions in their housing benefit? Will the Minister publish the findings of that research?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I cannot give an answer about housing benefit and the effect on people losing their homes. A specific Question would have to be put down to get that information. Although the noble Lord seems to think so, I am not a walking encyclopaedia with the answers. I say to the noble Lord that the cost to the taxpayer of the various housing support benefits has increased quite considerably over the past few years, which shows that we are taking account of the problems which people on low incomes have as regards their housing costs.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, something like half the number of families in Britain now are on means-tested benefit. Can the Minister tell us why?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I read the statement about that and I shall look into it. One of the problems is many people are considered to be on benefit because they are entitled, for example, to retirement pension or child benefit and the like. But housing and council tax benefits are means tested and come into play when one counts how many people are on some form of means-tested benefit. The fact is that we are very generous in the extension of those means-tested benefits and the noble Baroness's question makes that clear.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, my noble friend did not in any way imply that there was a simple answer to crime. However, it is well known that if you have no resources or money you tend to drift into crime. The Government should have statistics on this subject and will they please furnish them?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am always interested in noble Lords who want statistics on more and more things. I shall certainly look into whether there are statistics on this subject. What is certainly true is that crime is at an unacceptably high level. We all believe that. We are very sure, as any reading of the newspapers will clearly illustrate, that there are many reasons for crime, including, for example, lax family discipline, children not going to school and receiving discipline there, and the rise in the drug culture.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, as regards the Minister's reply to the original Question which refers to,
"cost-benefit analysis of the effects of disentitling people to means-tested … benefits",
he said that a good deal of scrutiny and research takes place into this matter for individuals and groups. I asked the Minister to publish the results of that kind of research so that we can look at it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that I said that. I said,
"Due regard is given to the effect of any change on individuals or groups",
and any changes which may occur across other departmental budgets. I did not specifically mention that we commissioned research or the like, although the Department of Social Security spends a great deal of money undertaking research on a wide range of issues.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that many of the homeless children sleeping on the streets of London—admittedly, the number has diminished lately—have nevertheless been in care? Is he aware that they have no home; that they cannot get accommodation and, because they cannot do that, they cannot get a job and, because they cannot get a job, they cannot get accommodation? Is he further aware that, later, they are found to need the health service a great deal because they are not fit and very often they become the permanent unemployed? Would it not be better to help them at this stage with housing benefit?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we take into account some of the factors which the noble Baroness mentioned when we look at hardship payments for this specially pressed group of young children coming off local authority care. My noble friend has rightly pointed out that that is a problem area. Perhaps it is a reflection on local authority care as much as anything else.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister has again invoked the interests of taxpayers, but how can he defend the interests of taxpayers unless he knows what his measures cost as well as what his measures say? The Minister clearly does not know the answers. Could he please try to find them out next time?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall certainly look at that point. However, I must advise the noble Earl that even the might of the computer cannot deal with some questions. Indeed, some of the behavioural aspects of the problems that he has raised are among the questions on which it is most difficult to get proper, scientific statistical analysis—I emphasise the word "scientific".

Taxation: Government Policy
2.44 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth Viscount Hanworth asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that any reduction in direct taxation is necessarily accompanied by an increase in indirect taxation; and, if so, whether they are satisfied that this has been clearly explained to the public.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the Government's clear policy is to reduce the share of national income taken by the public sector, and that means reducing the level of all taxes when it is prudent to do so. However, we have also sought to shift the burden of taxation, over time, from income to spending. This allows people to keep as much of their own money as possible, to spend or save as they choose.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer which was nothing like I had expected. I shall leave the matter as it stands.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, as the Minister did not even attempt to reply to the Question, may I try? In fact, what the Government have done is to increase both direct and indirect taxes, so the one does not necessarily accompany the other. Because the Minister did not answer the Question, may I ask him whether he is now saying that the Government will not be increasing indirect taxes at the next Budget in order to cut direct taxes? Is he giving us that assurance?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that my original Answer did not answer the Question. I thought that it did. The noble Lord knows more than most Members of your Lordships' House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to decide every year on what he needs to raise to
408
pay for the Government's spending and at the same time has to take into account the need to keep down borrowing. He then decides on the balance of taxation and on whether he has to put up taxes—as we have had to do—in order to retain sound public finances. That is now paying dividends in the growth of our economy.
If the Chancellor is to reduce taxation he has to decide where to do so. I should, of course, point out to the House that the rules of the European Union inhibit one's scope for action on value added tax. However, we are at heart a tax-cutting party and the sooner that we can get back to doing that, the better pleased we shall all be.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the philosophy of the Conservative Party and the Conservative Government is to tax spending rather more than income, and that that has happened over the past few years because the amount taken by direct taxation is now a much lower percentage of one's income, bearing in mind the fact that VAT does not extend to the essentials of life such as food and transport? Does my noble friend also agree that despite some taxes being increased, the standard of living of the average family in this country has increased by 40 per cent. in real terms over the period of our government?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is right that real income per head has increased by nearly £50 per week since 1979. My noble friend is also right that a balance has to be struck between direct and indirect taxes. It is well worth pointing out that the United Kingdom's standard rate of value added tax is lower than that of most of our fellow members of the European Union, and our effective rate of VAT is lower than the European Union average.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, is not the real truth that the British people are more heavily taxed now than in 1979 despite the fact that we have had a government who claim to be a tax-cutting government? Is not that the truth and is not whatever else one says about the balance between direct and indirect taxation a smokescreen to hide the truth from the people?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the figures are difficult to quantify because the standards of living and the incomes of the great majority of our people have increased considerably since 1979 and, of course, they have paid more in taxes. Indeed, the top 10 per cent. pay a greater share of income tax now than they did in 1979. I should have thought that the party opposite would welcome that.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, is it not the case that it is rather indecent for a party which is constantly demanding increases in expenditure to complain about increases in taxation?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: When?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I had refrained from making that point, but my noble and learned friend has made it for me—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: When?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I hear the question "When?". I suggest that those of your Lordships who attend deliberations on the Pensions Bill will from time to time hear a cry for more expenditure. Indeed, the same cry has been heard on all other Bills on which I have served. I think that we all know that the party opposite is keen to increase expenditure on certain areas although it is pretty reticent about putting a figure on that at the moment because it realises that the British people are with the Conservatives—
Lord Richard: Look behind you!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish:—as far as tax cutting is concerned. Come the next election, noble Lords opposite may find that once again they have laughed too soon.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if we want a decent society we have to pay for it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course we agree with that. That is why government expenditure in my Department of Social Security is at £90 billion. That does not mean that we should abrogate any responsibility to try to control that expenditure on behalf of the taxpayers whose money it is.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I find it difficult to keep up with all this. Has the Minister found time today to read the Financial Times, which says that there is concern among Tory Back-Benchers that his party has deserted its core electorate and broken promises to be the champions of low taxation? The reason for that is the latest Inland Revenue figures which show that more people are paying taxes than ever before. Does not that concern him? Even if he is not worried about what the British people feel, does he not think that he should pay a little attention to the concerns of his Back-Benchers? I think the reference is to the Back-Benchers in the other place rather than those now sitting stolidly behind him.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, of course I accept that the British people believe in paying as little tax as possible. That is why in the past 16 years we have appealed to them so successfully as a party 'which has tried to keep down taxes. However, they also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, pointed out, want to ensure that we spend taxpayers' money on the kind of things of which they approve, such as some of the social security budget and other government department budgets. There is a balance to be struck. The idea that the party opposite has suddenly become tax cutters by instinct beggars belief. More people have come into taxation because we have a larger working population, and, as I said earlier, many of our people are very much better of now than they were in 1979 and so do pay more taxes.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the Minister at least correct his last factual statement? The reason more people have come into taxation is that the Government have reduced the married man's tax allowance. That is what the Inland Revenue says. It has nothing to do with the points that he makes.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, there is a combination of factors. The point the noble Lord makes may be one of the factors. As he has gone into these territories and thus allowed me to give this answer, perhaps I may say that today over 1 million fewer people pay tax than they would do had we maintained and indexed the tax regime we inherited in 1979.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, the Minister has referred continually to the great majority of people being better off. Does that mean that he does not care about the minority who are no doubt worse off?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said, the great majority of our people are much better off. Most of our people are either better off or much better off. Through the social security system we attempt to cater for those people who, through no fault of their own, are without proper means and without jobs. We run a social security system that costs this country £90 billion. That is generous by anyone's standards.

Apple Growers and EU Directive
2.53 p.m.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether their interpretation of the European Union's apple-grubbing directive has disadvantaged fruit growers; and, if so, what plans they have for compensation.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we believe that the steps which the ministry has taken have benefited growers. I believe the Question refers to one of the scheme's conditions which could have led to bad husbandry. The ministry's legal advice was that the Commission regulation required that condition for effective enforcement. However, MAFF officials pursued the matter vigorously. As a result, the Commission issued an interpretative note which will allow us to solve the problem and will be most helpful to growers in the scheme.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. First, I declare an interest as the president of English Apples and Pears, although I am no longer a fruit grower and have no financial interest in the Question. I should not like the Question to pass without saying publicly what tremendous support the horticultural division has given the industry over the past 18 months. Will the Minister assure the House that those who have suffered severe financial loss which they believe to be due to incorrect advice will receive a sympathetic hearing from the ministry if they present a case?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, as the noble Lord pointed out, the ministry has already demonstrated its willingness to help the industry. It is open to any grower at any time to make representations to the ministry. They will he considered. While I cannot readily see a case for compensation, I underline the point that the ministry has sought at all times to help growers in

411
relation to the apple-grubbing scheme. On a more general level, it works closely with growers and their customers to ensure the future success of English apples.
Lord Renton: My Lords, bearing in mind that the apple-grubbing scheme was not fundamental to the CAP's purposes and policy, was the directive necessary? Could not we avoid having such directives in future?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, it was a regulation rather than a directive. It sought to strike some balance in the European apple market so that demand and supply were better equated. An excess of supply—in bad years there were notorious gluts—means that low prices cause growers to lose considerable amounts of money, and it also costs money to put apples into intervention.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that of all the member states of the European Union only the UK told its growers that their right to take the partial grubbing grant was conditional and that the condition proscribed any future replanting beyond the confines of existing retained orchard areas? It seems that the UK got it wrong. Do the Government now intend to put it right?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, we got nothing wrong. We interpreted the regulation and on that basis carried it into our own legislation. As the noble Lord will he aware, there was considerable pressure from the industry, both here and on the Continent, to bring in such a scheme. It was therefore processed quickly. The UK was not the only nation to ask for interpretative notes after the scheme had been published.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, so that we may study the matter further, will the Minister inform the House whether the regulation was subject to the approval of the Agriculture Council, or was it issued direct by the Commission under previously delegated powers? I ask the question because the replies seem to be a little unsatisfactory and one would like to investigate them further.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, the directive was agreed by the Agriculture Council. The regulation was agreed to by the management committee. So it was done through the normal procedures and subject to the normal checks and balances.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Minister said that he believed that it was right that we should have a regulated market in apples. Is he aware that some of us are put out that we should hear that from a Conservative? Does he agree that there are many other markets which would benefit from regulation?
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I was not suggesting that we wanted a regulated market in apples. The market presently suffers a weakness due to the fact that there is a huge oversupply. There is also an intervention system which continues to encourage that oversupply. We are merely trying to bring the market back into balance. We are not seeking to regulate it, as the noble Lord implied.

Channel 5
2.58 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will delay awarding the Channel 5 licence until cross-media ownership rules are in place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, no, the award of the Channel 5 licence is a matter for the Independent Television Commission.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does the Minister agree that anyone who establishes a dominant position in the media can control much of what people read, see and hear, and can influence a great deal of what they think? Would not one small, sensible step be to delay the granting of the Channel 5 licence until the new cross-media rules can guarantee that no person and no group can exploit its cross-media capacity?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the process for choosing a licence holder for Channel 5 is being conducted under long-standing rules legislated in your Lordships' House in 1990 in the Broadcasting Act.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, surely my noble friend is right. It is dotty that 18 months ago the Government announced that the rules under which the channel allocations were made were inappropriate and out of date but now have such an allocation taking place under those rules. We can read in the newspapers about the new cross-media rules down to the detail of what every Cabinet Minister said. When will the Government grant the House the favour of learning what their new cross-media rules are?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I do not need to warn the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. However, I can tell him that we shall be publishing our rules on cross-media ownership somewhere between soon, shortly and in the near future. The noble Lord can read into that as he wishes.
Perhaps I may return to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. I assumed that he was referring to a bid made in conjunction with News International. That was the fourth bid on the list for the new Channel 5 licence and it was for the lowest amount of money. The ITC is publishing summaries of the applications and is inviting comments by 13th June. Those summaries will be available in ITC offices, selected libraries throughout the country and, of course, the Library of your Lordships' House. The public will be able to give their views on the applicants' proposals, in particular with regard to the nature and balance of the programmes proposed. The ITC intends to announce its decision by 30th November. If a licence is awarded Channel 5 will begin no later than 1st January 1997.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it may be a good joke to talk about shortly, in the near future and so forth. However, are we not entitled to a more serious answer

413
to the Question? A large number of people want to know the answer and therefore is not something a little better than the Minister has given called for?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I can add no more. Our conclusions will be announced in due course.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, has any of the proposed European legislation been taken into consideration in respect of cross-media ownership?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we are aware of the EC Green Paper on pluralism and media concentration in the internal market. The Government will soon be responding to the Commission's questionnaire on pluralism and media concentration. That response will reflect the Government's assessment of the way forward in this country. A copy will be placed in the Library of your Lordships' House.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, do the Government still believe that there is a case for Channel 5?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, yes, we do. The case is proved by the fact that four bids were made for the licence.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, what would the view of the Government have been if News International's bid had been the top bid?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is an entirely hypothetical question. It was the lowest bid. Perhaps I may emphasise that it is for the ITC to decide and not the Government.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, my noble friend gave an answer about timing. Will he advise the House, even in general terms, the differential in timing that he envisages between the award of the Channel 5 licence and the cross-media ownership rules being in place? Are we talking of one year, five years or three months?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend must wait until the Government announce their proposals on cross-media ownership. At this stage I can give him no further clue.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, as we are still waiting for the decision to be made there is time for discussion. Will the Minister inform the Secretary of State for National Heritage that if it is true that he supported a 10 per cent. maximum holding, but that other Ministers supported a 29 per cent. holding, he will receive great sympathy if he continues to fight for the lower level?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I must warn the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, about believing what he reads in the newspapers. We have looked most carefully at cross-media ownership, which is an important issue. Our review aims to protect the pluralism and diversity of the media in this country while allowing companies to exploit new opportunities and to compete internationally.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the House realises that Mr. Murdoch and News International made the lowest bid? However, the Minister should not jump to the conclusion that Mr.
414
Murdoch is making any uncharacteristic mistakes. We do not know the true story of what is happening. However, let us assume that the Government are proved to be wrong, which would not be unprecedented, and that someone takes control to a large extent. In that case, will the Government plead that they do not believe in retrospective legislation?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord posed an interesting question. However, it was entirely speculative and hypothetical and I ant afraid that I cannot possibly answer it.

Jobseekers Bill
3.5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now further considered on Report. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 22A:
Before Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Payment of benefit when awaiting determination.
(". Where a doubt arises as to whether the claimant is available for employment or is to be treated as available for employment under section 6, or actively seeking employment or to be treated as actively seeking employment under section 7 an income-based jobseeker's allowance shall be payable pending a determination by the adjudication officer at an amount determined in accordance with section 4 but reduced by 40 per cent. of the claimant's personal rate which would otherwise be applicable.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is one of natural justice: that one should not be punished before one's case has been heard and a decision made as to whether one is guilty. I hope that because the amendment relates to natural justice, all noble Lords will feel able to support it.
Let us suppose that you are unemployed for more than a year and that you are in receipt of the jobseeker's allowance, which is worth about £5 a day and is all you have to live on. Suddenly, without a warning letter or any chance to discuss the matter, you discover that your benefit has been stopped. You have no income at all. Why? Is it because you have been found guilty of not meeting the conditions of the jobseeker's allowance? No. It is because a junior, relatively untrained employment officer wonders whether you are actively seeking work, has a doubt and refers your case to the adjudication officer for decision.
There is nothing wrong with that. The case reviews and spot checks are entirely welcome. However, your benefit will stop not when you are found guilty by the adjudication officer but from the moment the junior employment officer has a doubt and sends your case for review. We assume that it is an honest doubt but the junior employment officer has a target of referrals to meet and perhaps he has not yet met it. So he sends your file along for review and the moment that he does so your benefit is immediately stopped. You are fined in advance of your case being heard. You are punished

415
before you are found guilty. As a result of a doubt—not a decision—you have nothing to live on. As a result of a doubt your entire income is taken away.
Why do we object to the proposal, and why have we tabled this amendment in order to correct it? First, on the ground of simple, natural justice. So far as I am aware, in no other walk of life are you punished in advance of being found guilty. Even if you are suspected of a major offence at work, you are suspended on full pay. But not if you are unemployed living day to day. In that case, your benefit is taken away while your case is merely being investigated. It is assumed that you are guilty of the offence that has yet to be proved.
The Minister has said repeatedly, including last night, that only if a jobseeker is meeting the conditions of entitlement to the jobseeker's allowance and is available or actively seeking work is he entitled to the benefit. We agree, but until the offence is established, how do we know whether the jobseeker is or is not meeting the conditions of entitlement? The Minister has always argued—and I hope that he does not do so again today—as though a doubt is the same as a decision; that to suspect someone is a good enough reason for finding him guilty and denying him benefit. I am not talking about people who have never received JSA but about those who are currently in receipt of it and whose benefit will be stopped because of a doubt.
When the Minister replies, I beg your Lordships to ask themselves one question. Is a doubt in the mind of a junior employment officer the same, and should therefore be visited with the same penalty, as a decision made by the adjudication officer? If a doubt is different from a decision, why is benefit stopped in advance of being found guilty?
Therefore, our first argument is that, in all fairness, punishment should follow the offence being established. The second argument is that if one does not follow that route the consequences for those on JSA will be devastating. A jobseeker is living on barely £5 per day. He is often hungry and scruffy because that £5 per day must pay for all his food, his clothing, cleaning materials, heat, light and fuel bills. It must cover his costs for travelling to interviews, train fares, tube fares, newspapers to see the job advertisements, postage and phonecards. After all, if he attends two interviews in one day, the tube fare will take £4 of his £5 for that day. That £5 is all that stands between him and utter destitution. And yet, because of a doubt, not a decision, that £5 is taken away while the doubt is investigated.
From whom is it taken? It is not taken from the clever people, the real fiddlers, because they will always be able to manipulate the system. It will be taken away from those, for example, for whom English is a second language or from those suffering from a mild learning difficulty or from those who are inadequate or incompetent. What then, my Lords? That jobseeker cannot buy food and he certainly cannot keep himself clean. He cannot afford to travel to look for work. We shall have put him on the streets and we shall have trapped him on the streets. As a result, he will live off the streets, not by starving quietly but by begging, thieving, shoplifting, prostitution or selling drugs. We
416
shall have outlawed him because if he cannot live on £5 a day within the law he will find a means of living outside the law.
We have taken that £5 away not because he is guilty but because we think he may be guilty. We do not know whether he is, or is not, but he will have been fined all the same. If we are not willing to continue that £5 a day on grounds of justice, should we not do so on grounds of decency towards him and as a form of social insurance for us?
None of us wants fraud or for people to cheat the system. But, for heaven's sake, let us ensure that when we punish someone by taking away his benefit—the £5 per day which stands between him and destitution—that is done because we know that he is guilty of the offence. Surely we should not treat people who are awaiting a decision as though that decision has already been taken.
Finally, perhaps I may quote David Hunt, the former Secretary of State for Employment. He was asked to regard an employer suspected of discrimination at work to be presumed guilty but, quite rightly, he refused because, he said,
"It is fundamentally inconsistent with justice and the rule of law in this area. The idea that a person on proof of certain facts should be presumed guilty unless he can prove himself innocent appears hard to reconcile with natural justice".
David Hunt was right. He was right to protect employers in that way. I ask your Lordships today to similarly protect the unemployed. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the debate on this issue has been somewhat prolonged because there has been quite a deep culture clash between the two sides of the House. We are acting on two quite different sets of theoretical assumptions and we have not yet succeeded in finding a common language in which to discuss them.
To us it appears perfectly simple that when someone is accused of not meeting the conditions necessary for entitlement to benefit he should be innocent until proved guilty. He should not be disentitled to benefit until there has been a hearing before the adjudication officer. For us, that rests on a concept of benefit as an entitlement, a civil right; something which, if you meet the means-tested conditions, you enjoy until it can be proved that there is a good reason for taking it away. It is a right of citizenship.
Clearly the Minister does not see it in that way. A great deal of time has been spent on trying to find out how or why the Minister does not see it in that way. He thinks that it is perfectly justifiable to disentitle people to benefit before the proof of the offence. In fact, I believe that he thinks that the word "offence" is misplaced. If he thinks that to be so, I should be grateful if he will explain why, because that may help our understanding.
He also seems to believe that the accusation of not meeting the conditions amounts to proof. As near as I can follow what the Minister said, that seems to rest on two premises on his side. The first is the premise which he stated clearly last night; namely, that JSA is a conditional benefit. That is clear enough; it is. Secondly,

417
the Minister seems to have reversed the burden of proof. He seems to be arguing now that you should not receive JSA until you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you meet all the conditions necessary for entitlement rather than that you should continue to receive the benefit until he can prove that you do not meet those conditions. That is a major change and I should like to know why it has happened.
It is likely to cause grave hardship. If you take all benefit away from people, possibly wrongly and on a ground which turns out on appeal to be unjustified, at the very best you plunge those people deep into debt and make it more difficult for them to clamber back into earning a lawful living. That is a great pity.
There is a danger here that we may be looking at, in effect, the end of the Beveridge principle of the safety net and at the end of an assumption that people have an entitlement to protection through the benefit system unless a specific offence can be proved against them. We now have an idea that you have to jump through a whole series of hoops before you can enter the benefit system. I do not know why that change has been made and I should be grateful for an explanation. I have heard no reason for it. Not only will it cause grave hardship but it will also generate expense. A few moments ago at Question Time we heard that the Minister does not yet know what those costs will be. Until he knows, at least on grounds of financial caution, perhaps he should go a little easy on disentitlement.
But there is another major issue behind this which was raised 21 years ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman; that is, how far the field of social security is subject to the rule of law. It is a field in which the broad concepts of common law have a slightly more tenuous hold before tribunals than they sometimes do in the courts. It is a field in which the administration of the law depends very heavily on statute and regulation. Therefore, it is one in which it is difficult for the law to exercise sufficient control over the power of the Executive. As that affects people's welfare so deeply, that is a matter for regret.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, giving judgment in the social fund case in 1990, commented that it was impossible to believe that Parliament had done anything so arbitrary, save that Parliament had. That is a comment which can very often be made in the field of social security. It is because we believe in terms of Parliament controlling the Executive, and as we have been told many times that it should, that that should be put under control. We want social security governed more than it is now by the concepts of the rule of law. 'That is my strongest reason for supporting the amendment.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I think that the amendment is a classic example of what your Lordships' House can do. It is about defending people's basic rights. If the Government really want support throughout the country, I feel that the Minister must accept the amendment. That will also give the Government an opportunity to show that they care about the less privileged members of society. I strongly support the amendment in the best traditions of the House.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, before I turn to the amendment now before the House, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to refer back to a debate that we had on the first day of Committee, Thursday, 20th April. When responding to the amendment moved by the noble Earl and supported by the noble Baroness which invited me to defer the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance until April 1997, I explained that we were closely monitoring the progress towards implementation and that we had commissioned an external review of the work being carried out on implementation of JSA. I then added:
"If we conclude, for whatever reason and at whatever date, that the arrangements being made for the introduction of JSA in April 1996 are such that there is an unacceptable risk that things might go wrong, then we shall certainly consider alternatives. One of the alternatives would be to delay the date of introduction".—[Official Report, 20/4/95; col. 590.]
As I have made clear on a number of occasions, the Bill aims to help people into jobs, to improve services to people while they are unemployed and to achieve better value for the taxpayer. The Government's priority is to introduce the allowance successfully through the network of 1,200 jobcentres for unemployed people throughout the country. That is a large and complex undertaking. It involves development of two substantial new computer systems and very large-scale training programmes. As I said, we have kept the project under close review and substantial progress has been made. But we have now concluded that sticking to the planned date would entail risks to the smooth delivery of services to unemployed people.
Therefore, the Government have decided that the jobseeker's allowance should be introduced in October 1996. However, that does not affect our policy. The transitional arrangements for JSA will be such that the duration of an unemployed claimant's entitlement to unemployment benefit will, from April 1996, be the same as it would have been had JSA been introduced on that date. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the plans for the introduction of the back-to-work bonus are unaffected. The bonus will be introduced as planned in October 1996. As I said on 20th April, one of the objectives of the jobseeker's allowance is to improve the service that we offer to jobseekers. We do not intend to put that at risk. I hope that your Lordships do not mind me making clear at the beginning of today the decision that we have come to on that important issue.
I turn now to the amendment before us which concerns an area which we have debated on a number of occasions. In fact the amendment is couched in very similar terms to one which the noble Baroness tabled at the recommitment of Clause 6. I have to disappoint both her and the noble Earl by saying that I have not had a change of heart since then.
Where there is a doubt over whether someone is entitled to JSA—whether he is a jobseeker—then the Employment Service must refer this for decision to an adjudication officer, and payment of benefit cannot be made on the normal basis. If it appears that a claimant has not been available for work in the previous weeks, he should not receive benefit for that period as if he had actually been available. It really seems that the noble

419
Baroness has accepted that principle in her amendment in providing for reduced payments in those circumstances.
However, unlike the noble Baroness, we do not accept that everyone should have immediate and automatic access to benefit while the adjudication decision is reached. Jobseeker's allowance is a benefit which is intended to support claimants who are available for work. That is a central condition and if the claimant has not shown that he is, he cannot expect to receive the allowance just as if nothing had changed.
The great majority of claimants have no difficulty in meeting the basic conditions. In cases where the Employment Service makes a referral for a decision, 80 per cent. are subsequently found to be not meeting the conditions by the adjudication officer. In those circumstances, I do not see a case for moving to automatic payments for all claimants throughout the period of adjudication, as the noble Baroness wishes. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene. I give way.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I am much obliged. I have a question to ask the Minister on a matter to which he referred regarding the first Committee day. At that stage, on 20th April, the Minister told us that work was being done to ensure the implementation of the Bill on 26th April 1996. We now understand that there may be a delay of six months. In the light of the fact that the Government obviously do not have plans for the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance—and, therefore, it could be subject to further delay—could the Minister be persuaded to reconsider introducing such a draconian measure as removing all benefit in the case of someone where there is doubt about his satisfying the conditions before bringing in the jobseeker's allowance, so that we know that the system is working well, given that we are refusing all income to a substantial number of our fellow citizens and giving them no redress in that respect?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the matter in front of us will actually come into place when the jobseeker's allowance itself comes into effect. As I told the House a few minutes ago, that will now be in October 1996. At that stage we hope to introduce all the parts of the jobseeker's allowance that we have been discussing. Indeed, I mentioned the position as regards the transitional arrangements for the duration of unemployment claimant's entitlement to unemployment benefit which will change from April 1996. However, the other parts—namely, the proposals that we have outlined to the House over some days—will come into effect in October 1996.
I was just about to deal with the point raised by the noble Earl. As he elegantly says, I believe that there is a problem as regards language. I do not consider that we are actually looking at whether or not an offence has been created; we are actually looking at whether or not someone is entitled to receive that particular benefit. If someone is actively seeking work or if he is available for work, those are the basic entitlements which enable him to claim jobseeker's allowance. That is a difference of language which I am afraid runs through much of our
420
discussions. However, there are other issues in respect of which we are looking at "offences" and where we are looking to impose a sanction. The way in which we deal with such circumstances is quite different from the way in which we deal with the question of entitlement.
Earl Russell: My Lords, can the Minister explain what he means by the word "entitlement"? If he does so, it might get us a little further in the proceedings.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have gone into the question of entitlement in some detail. Quite clearly, so far as concerns receiving income-based jobseeker's allowance, what income a person has comes into the matter. However, as regards the employment conditions, entitlement depends on availability for work, which we have defined in Clause 6, and on actively seeking work, as set out in Clause 7. Those are the important considerations. Before a person's claim can be validated, he has to show that he is actively seeking work and that he is available for work. I believe that those are two very clear preconditions to someone receiving jobseeker's allowance.
However, our proposals—for those of your Lordships who have followed them—will protect claimants in vulnerable groups by making hardship payments from the outset to those who show hardship. That includes all claimants who have children, and cases where the claimant or partner is sick or disabled, pregnant, or has caring responsibilities. Other claimants will receive hardship payments after two weeks. We believe that that is a reasonable period in the case of childless, healthy claimants. We have been over the issue on a number of occasions before, both in Committee and indeed on recommitment. The arguments on both sides have not changed much. I fear that there is still a gulf between us. Our view remains quite firmly that, until entitlement is established, it would be quite wrong to pay benefit. I realise that the parties opposite do not accept that, but I am afraid that I cannot agree to the amendment. I hope that those concerned will agree to withdraw it. However, if they do not do so, I hope that my noble friends will support me in the Lobby.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, before he sits down, I have a question for the Minister. Is the speech that he has just made perhaps related to a different concept of burden of proof from that which my noble friend put forward? Is it not the case that the Minister has spoken of it appearing that someone is not available for work? Therefore, surely that person would not be able to make a prima facie case. It may be that someone can make a prima facie case that he meets the conditions but the employment officer says that he still has a doubt. It is surely to the second case that my noble friend's amendment is addressed. Where he can make a prima facie case that there is still a doubt which must go to appeal, surely in those circumstances he or she is entitled to retain the benefit or allowance in the interim.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall respond to that point. What we are talking about is the doubt that exists in the mind

421
of the Employment Service officer about a case. He must then refer it to an adjudication officer. As I think we discussed at some length yesterday, the situation is that the Employment Service official who makes the reference has to be sure that there is an arguable case with supporting information to show that the claimant is not available for, actively seeking, or willing to accept work. That is the situation. As I think I mentioned earlier, something like 80 per cent. of the cases are found by the adjudication officer not to meet these conditions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and I thank too those who have come to listen to the debate on a Bill which is often technical. We appreciate that. We have two questions to decide this afternoon. The first—to repeat the question put by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—is: does an accusation of an employment officer equal proof? Is there a difference between accusation and proof? If there is a difference between accusation and proof, the penalty should not start until proof has been established.
The Minister made much of the point that 80 per cent. of referrals by the employment officer go to the adjudication officer and are upheld. That may be the case but the argument would apply even if 95 per cent. were upheld. One is still innocent until proved guilty. However, the Minister conceded that 20 per cent. of those cases are found to be valid at adjudication. That is one in five, 20 per cent. What is more—the Minister did not tell us this —185,000 of the cases that then go to appeal are found to be valid. That is not some trivial number. The chief adjudication officer has said that in 92 per cent. of all cases which go to appeal he is uneasy about the quality of evidence.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for intervening in her excellent speech. Does it not occur to her that the whole of her argument is based on a false premise; namely, that the rules of criminal law, which are riot in issue in this case, should apply to a case where someone is entering an office and asking for money? He must establish something before he obtains that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. It allows me to clarify a point which perhaps I failed to do when I introduced the amendment; namely, that we are not for the most part talking about people who are seeking to establish an entitlement to JSA which they have never had. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, would, I think, be broadly correct if that were the situation. However, we are not talking about that situation. We are talking about someone whose entitlement has already been established and who is already receiving the benefit. Then, because an untrained employment officer thinks there may be a possibility that the claimant is not actively seeking work, that benefit is denied to the claimant, perhaps without any discussion and without a warning letter. The employment officer denies the claimant the benefit while that doubt is being explored.
422
On that basis I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, will accept that he is on our side because here an existing entitlement is being withheld on grounds of a doubt. 'Therefore, the principles of criminal law should surely follow. It was noticeable that the Minister, in reply to my amendment, said all the time, "He appears not to have been available". The Minister chose his words carefully. He said that the claimant who is already in receipt of JSA "appears not to have been available". He did not say that the claimant was not available for work but that he appeared not to be available. What we are saying is that until it is established that the claimant is not available for work, he should have the benefit of the principle of British justice, which is that one is innocent until proven guilty.
That is the first question we have to answer today. Is a doubt the same as a determination? Is an accusation the same as proof? The second question is: on the basis of that doubt is it fair to take away someone's livelihood—someone who is already in receipt of JSA—of just £5 a day and send him into destitution on a doubt? Can we do that? Can we send someone into destitution on a doubt? I was wrong when I said that there were two questions facing us— one, whether an accusation is the same as proof and the other about destitution. There is a third. Your Lordships regularly, as a House, protect the rights of the most marginal and most vulnerable against the Executive when necessary and when that is correct. In my view this is very much a House of Lords question. I hope that your Lordships will take that course today. I ask the opinion of the House.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I wish to ask her a question. In the case of the 80 per cent. who are proved to be ineligible, what are the practicalities of trying to reclaim this money from them when they have been paid during the period until they have been proved to be non-eligible? How is this money to be recovered because it is money belonging to every taxpayer in the country?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite correct. The benefit stops from the moment that an offence has been established and not before. That is surely what we all accept, is it not? We do not punish in advance of the offence being established; we punish at the point that the offence is established. That is what we would achieve today. As I say, if we support this amendment we will be saying that punishment follows the establishment of an offence. If noble Lords do not support the amendment, what this House will be saying is that on a mere doubt we can deny someone a livelihood of £5 a day that stands between him and destitution. I do not think that we should do that on a doubt but only if we are sure of our facts. That is why we have an adjudication system. On the theory we are discussing we do not even need an adjudication system; the doubt of an employment officer would be enough. It is because it

423
is not enough and because we make that distinction that I ask your Lordships to give your views on the amendment.
3.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 22A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Jay, L.

Avebury, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Barnett, L.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Blackstone, B.

Judd, L.

Bridges, L.

Kennet, L.

Brookes, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Lawrence, L.

Carter, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Listowel, E.

Chapple, L.

Lockwood, B.

Chorley, L.

Longford, E.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McCarthy, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Crook, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

David, B.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Desai, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mayhew, L.

Donoughue, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dubs, L.

Monkswell, L.

Eatwell, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Moyne, L.

Ezra, L.

Nelson, E.

Falkender, B.

Nicol, B.

Fitt, L.

Northbourne, L.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gallacher, L.

Palmer, L.

Geraint, L.

Parry, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Peston, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Rea, L.

Grey, E.

Redesdale, L.

Halsbury, E.

Richard, L.

Hamwee, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rochester, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Healey, L.

Russell, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Scanlon, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Seear, B.

Hooson, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Howell, L.

Serota, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hughes, L.

Simon, V.

Hylton, L.

Stallard, L.

433

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Whaddon, L.

Tope, L.

White, B.

Tordoff, L.

Wigoder, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Williams of Crosby, B. [Teller.]

Varley, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Addison, V.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Ailsa, M.

Harmsworth, L.

Aldington, L.

Hives, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hogg, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Hood, V.

Astor, V.

Howe, E.

Balfour, E.

Inglewood, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Blake, L.

Kingsland, L.

Blatch, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Boardman, L.

Knollys, V.

Borthwick, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Lindsay, E. [Teller.]

Burnham, L.

Liverpool, E.

Butterworth, L.

Long, V.

Cadman, L.

Lucas, L.

Carnock, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

McConnell, L.

Chelmer, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lora Chancellor]

Chesham, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cockfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mersey, V.

Coleridge, L.

Middleton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Courtown, E.

Milverton, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cranworth, L.

Morris, L.

Crathorne, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Munster, E.

Davidson, V.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northbrook, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Northesk, E.

Dilhorne, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon Smith, L.

Onslow, E.

Dormer, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Dudley, E.

Orkney, E.

Dundonald, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Elles, B.

Pender, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Ferrers, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Flather, B.

Pym, L.

Foley, L.

Quinton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Radnor, E.

Gage, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Geddes, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Gisborough, L.

Renwick, L.

Goschen, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gray, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gray of Contin, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gridley, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Haig, E.

Sandford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Seccombe, B.

Sharples, B.

434

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Torphichen, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Trumpington, B.

Slim, V.

Ullswater, V.

Stewartby L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Vivian, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Westbury, L.

Strange, B.

Wolfson, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wynford, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Young, B.

Terrington, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.47 p.m.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Availability for employment]:
[Amendment No. 23A not moved.]
Earl Russell: My Lords, Amendment No. 24 deals with training. It attempts to tighten the definition of training by adding the word "suitable" training. It does not require people to make themselves available for absolutely any old form of training: it has to be suitable.
Some of your Lordships may remember Mr. Wackford Squeers in Nicholas Nickleby who used to greet the members of his class with the words: "w-i-n-d-e-r, winder, a casement. Go and clean it!" In Dotheboys Hall that passed under the name of education. I do not wish to suggest that anything as extreme as that has happened in training, but the law has lo provide for contingencies. If training is to have the usefulness we would all like it to have, it must be suitable. There is an actual case of employment training in carpentry where the organisers carried on with the course, although they were not able to afford any wood.
The purpose of training—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend and I are having some difficulty. The noble Earl is speaking to Amendment No. 24 and the word "suitable" which he wishes to insert would come not before "training" but before the words "employed earner's employment". I know how careful the noble Earl is, but I wonder whether he has picked up the wrong piece of paper. I marvel at the way he manages to juggle all the amendments and to speak almost without notes. I am quite envious of him. But in this case, while I understand the point he is making, I believe that he is addressing it to the wrong place.
Amendment No. 24 states:
"Page 5, line 12, after ("any") insert ("suitable").
The subsection would then read,
"For the purposes of this Act, a person is available for employment if he is willing and able to take up immediately any suitable employed earner's employment".
I believe that the noble Earl is speaking about training. I hope that that is helpful.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. As he may have observed, I had not merely picked up the wrong piece of paper, I had not had time to return to my place to pick up any piece of paper. Although I would have begged to move the amendment, my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby has the right piece of paper.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 12, after ("any") insert ("suitable").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise on both our behalves. However, I was locked outside the Chamber at the time.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, surely the right procedure is for the Question to be put and for the noble Baroness to say her piece.
Noble Lords: No.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, was the noble Earl, Lord Russell, moving the amendment, or has it been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I must apologise for whatever confusion my noble friend and I have managed to put the House in. However, I am glad to say that I believe I rose to my feet at the right moment. I am learning slowly.
The purpose of the amendment is to follow up a significant point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, during the Committee stage. Noble Lords will recall that we had considerable discussion about the definition of the words "available for work". In seeking to meet that condition, we were concerned that a claimant might find a job proposed to him that was unsuitable in terms of his capabilities, training, experience and possibly even his age and physical and mental condition.
The introduction of "suitable" before "employment" ensures that when a jobseeker fulfils the conditions of a jobseeker's allowance—and if he fails to fulfil those conditions he may lose benefit for a period of several weeks or even months—the employment officer would be obliged to consider carefully whether the employment was suitable for the claimant.
One of the arguments for the Bill which Ministers advance is that the jobseeker's agreement is a step towards a closer fit between claimants and the jobs which they might be sent to fill. That is a perfectly proper ambition. But as Members of this House, we are concerned that the fairly draconian steps which can be taken vis-à-vis a claimant's entitlement should not fall at the first fence because the employment officer has suggested as a condition that the jobseeker seeks jobs which simply do not suit his or her capabilities, talents and, for that matter, experience.
Noble Lords on this side of the House believed that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, was extremely sound. The amendment lays upon the employment officer some responsibility to reach his side of the agreement so that agreement is genuinely mutual and not another word for a form of coercion. Therefore we picked up the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and embodied them in an amendment. We sought to reach the noble Lord to discuss the matter with him, but for various reasons were unable to do so.
I add one further point. Although the word "suitable" is tiny, it helps to give the Bill some validity in terms of meeting the needs of both sides—the employment officer and the claimant. Concern has been expressed again and again on this side of the

427
House that the agreement might be little more than a set of conditions which have to be satisfied without considering the specific human characteristics of the person before the employment officer. We wish to make it a genuine agreement. We genuinely wish to remove elements of unacceptable coercion. Therefore I strongly commend this small word to the House. Both sides will then have to meet on a reasonable basis without the scales being heavily weighted in one direction or the other. I beg to move.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I remind the House—in particular the supporters of the Government on the Benches behind the Ministers—that the agreement is between three parties rather than two: the Employment Service, the claimant and the person who will employ him. No employer wishes to have an unsuitable person foisted on him. If one is considering satisfactory employment lasting for any length of time, all three parties have to be satisfied that it is suitable, not least the employer.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I support the amendment. When we discussed the recommitted Clause 6, we had a little amusement at the possibility of a Member of the Government Front Bench, perhaps after the next general election, being offered a job as a Labour Party fund-raiser. However, the amendment raises a serious point. There is a widespread view—I confess that I share it—that the Bill is intended to get people off the unemployment statistics and into employment —perhaps any employment—so that they can no longer be classified as unemployed, and, even more important from the Government's point of view, off contributory benefit which they can have as of right.
During discussion of the Bill, the Ministers' responses to a range of amendments have done little to allay that fear. There may well be mismatches which are almost as great as the example of a former government Front Bencher being offered a Labour Party job. The discussions yesterday made it clear that there will be pressure on employment officers and others concerned with the administration of this legislation to get people into employment and off benefit.
Once the legislation gets down to the grass-roots operational level, so to speak, that pressure may well be translated as getting the applicants into any job. Unemployed people have real fears that they could be forced into unsuitable work—and work, moreover, which would make it much more difficult for them later to get back into the type of work for which they have skills or training. The unemployed insurance or bank clerk—there are many more of those than there used to be since financial services are no longer a secure employment area—could well feel that a stint at stacking shelves in a supermarket might mean that he or she will not be able to get a job in financial services again. Future employers would not be impressed by the job record, and openings in their chosen field could well be blocked off. Moreover,
428
people used to desk work or white collar employment may not be physically suitable for work requiring manual effort.
These are genuine fears of people cast out of employment through no fault of their own but simply because of reorganisation, restructuring, introduction of new technology, increased competitiveness, and so on. Those people are the victims of government policy. It is the Government who have encouraged companies to become ever more competitive, to cut back on staff, to introduce job flexibility, and so on. That has introduced widespread insecurity in the employment field, even among people who are in employment.
If what the Minister said is to be given credence, let him accept the amendment and spell out on the face of the Bill that people will not be forced against their will into unsuitable employment or risk losing the very low level of benefit which will be available to them as a jobseeker's allowance. I have pleasure in supporting the amendment. I hope to hear that the Minister agrees to accept it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I regard this as merely a drafting matter. However, the provision has one or two other minor advantages of substance. I hope that I may be forgiven for repeating a thought that entered my mind at an earlier stage of the Bill: that anyone reading this subsection would, unless one reads it exceedingly carefully, think that it was referring to pinching someone else's job.
The introduction of the word "suitable" would, to a great extent, dispose of that concept even if it is regarded as not being frivolous. The expression "employed earner's employment" is taken from the benefits Act and it is right that in order to preserve the continuity of statutory phraseology it should again be used in this Bill. However, we must be careful how we use it so that it does not give a misleading impression.
Apart from clarity in drafting—and from that aspect the amendment has a great deal to commend it—I suggest that from the Government's viewpoint it has the positive advantage that "suitable" is a word of limitation. It benefits not only the person applying for the jobseeker's allowance, but it limits the well-known expression "employed earner's employment". So from the Government's point of view of naturally wishing to control the circumstances in which the jobseeker's allowance is awarded, as well as clarifying the position for the person employed, the word "suitable" should be inserted. It can do no harm. If it provides clarification and, as I suggest, "suitable" is a word of limitation, then the amendment could well be accepted.
4 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Renton is right that the amendment limits the Bill in the way that he suggests. However, it worries me that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, there are three parties. Therefore, who is to

429
decide who is suitable? Is it the potential job applicant? Is it the potential employer or is it the official in the Department of Employment?
Lord Renton: My Lords, although it is not the Committee stage perhaps I am in order in offering my noble friend an immediate answer to the problem which he raised. The word "suitable" in the context in which my noble friend and I suggest it should be used here means "suitable in the light of the other provisions of the Bill". That is plain enough.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the background to the amendment, which covers important matters of real interest to your Lordships, as our debate has shown.
As Clause 6 makes clear, taking its cue from existing case law, jobseekers have to be available for any employment in order to receive JSA. I have said repeatedly why this is so central to the effective functioning of JSA as a labour market allowance. The first priority of jobseekers must be to make every effort to find work as quickly as possible. That is why it is vital that jobseekers are open to as many job opportunities as possible.
Both the Employment Service and jobseekers have a role in ensuring that no opportunities are closed off to the jobseeker. Defining "availability" as the willingness and ability to take up any suitable employment would be detrimental. It is very difficult for an individual to predict in the absence of a specific offer whether a job would be "suitable" or not. Some people might well decide rather arbitrarily and without proper knowledge that particular jobs were "unsuitable" and hence not make themselves available for them. Surely that is wrong. The labour market is wide, flexible and constantly changing. We want to avoid the rigidities of the past and to encourage jobseekers to think broadly about their potential and abilities. But I should say straight away that there is no question of the Employment Service forcing people into unsuitable jobs.
Perhaps I may pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. The Employment Service cannot in any way compel an employer to take someone on. The Employment Service's wish is to place people in employment. If the service acquires the reputation of continuously offering people who are wholly unsuitable, it will degrade its reputation and reduce its efficacy in putting people into work.
I should now like to explain some of the safeguards in the system. There are three features of which I should particularly like to remind your Lordships. I wish to talk briefly about restricted availability.
First, as I have emphasised several times before, and as Clause 6 makes clear, we will be allowing restrictions for certain groups as part of the availability condition. We intend to provide that certain groups will be able to restrict their availability, for example, on grounds of mental or physical condition, religious conviction or because a person is caring for another
430
person. The regulations will allow certain people to restrict their availability to what is in effect a suitable range of work.
Moreover regulations will provide that in any week a claimant who does not wish to make himself available at all times may limit his availability to a minimum of 40 hours. He may agree any pattern of 40 hours across the week provided he retains reasonable prospects of securing work. Jobseekers will also be able to restrict their availability in other ways (for example, in terms of location or type of work) again provided that they retain reasonable prospects of securing employment.
I now wish to talk about refusal of employment; but before coming to my second point, I should perhaps just emphasise to your Lordships; that it would be very difficult to come to a practical and workable definition of what would constitute a person's availability for suitable employment. I wish to focus on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Renton. The question of availability concerns whether jobseekers are able and willing to take up a job, not whether they actually do so. The best way to protect the jobseeker from being obliged to take an inappropriate job is through the rules on the sanctions for refusal of employment. Under JSA, as now, a person will not receive a sanction for refusing an offer of a job if he has good cause for doing so.
If a jobseeker has good reasons for not accepting an offer of a vacancy, those reasons will be put to the adjudication officer who will consider whether the jobseeker had good cause for his refusal. In most instances, if a job was unsuitable the employment officer would simply not refer the claimant to the vacancy at all. I wish to return to a point which I made on a number of previous occasions—that it is in the inherent characteristics of the changes to the system that we propose that a long-term relationship is built up between the jobseeker and the employment officer. They can and will talk to each other and discuss items such as what they are looking for and how the jobsearch will proceed.
However, if the employment officer presented a job which the jobseeker turned down, and then on reflection the employment officer came round to the jobseeker's point of view, the matter would go no further. It is only if the employment officer concludes that the jobseeker has not shown good cause for refusal that the matter is then put to the adjudication officer. He will independently consider whether the jobseeker had good cause for that refusal.
In short, if there were grounds which meant that it was unreasonable for the jobseeker to apply for the job—for example, because of the jobseeker's level of skill, because of any mental or physical condition, because of caring responsibilities—then the adjudication officer may well consider that he had good cause.
Finally, I wish to say a few words about employment on trial. We recognise that people may be nervous about taking jobs which are new or unfamiliar to them. That is the kind of point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, referred. The

431
"employment on trial" rule addresses that fear. It ensures that certain unemployed people will not receive a benefit sanction if they give up their work in certain conditions. At present, employment on trial is open to those who have been unemployed for 26 weeks and who leave a job having tried it for a minimum period. Under JSA, the employment on trial provisions will be extended to those unemployed for 13 weeks or more.
I have deliberately spent a little time on this matter, but I hope that my having set out our approach in this way will reassure the noble Baroness and that she will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply but remain somewhat unpersuaded by it. It seemed to me to be very much the kind of answer which the Civil Service might provide, but I wish to draw to his attention two real anxieties. Employment officers will do their best to meet the spirit of the Bill, if it is enacted. Therefore, the likelihood is that an employment officer will do everything in his power to submit the name of the jobseeker for a range of jobs which he might be able to do but which might well fall short of the definition of "suitable employment". Perhaps I may give two examples from different aspects of the field.
First, the taxpayer in this country has sunk into the education of a number of highly qualified people amounts as high as a quarter of a million pounds. That is what it roughly costs to train a medical doctor. There is range after range of qualifications that have been financed by the taxpayers of this country. Without the word "suitable", a person might be submitted for far lesser jobs, in which his qualifications are not necessary and not useful.
I am also concerned about the failure to protect the employment officer should he decide to wait in order to put forward somebody's name for a job that would be more suitable, given that person's qualifications. In the past couple of years we have seen a rising level of unemployment among skilled and qualified people. By giving the employment officer so little discretion to decide whether somebody is suitable for a job we encourage him to submit the names of people in whom the investment has been very large, rather than waiting to see whether there is more suitable employment for them.
My second anxiety arises from the fact that without the word "suitable" we are in effect weighting the scales too far, in the triangle to which my noble friend referred of employment officer, claimant and employer, in the direction of the employment officer. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, this amendment qualifies the powers of the employment officer. That is the only person whose power is qualified by the addition of the word "suitable". In my view the scales are being tipped too far against the claimant—and many claimants will be sincere and genuine people—unless the claimant has the right to discuss in effect what employment would be suitable, given his particular qualifications.
432
As somebody who, all my life long, has been on the opposite Benches to those of the Conservative Party, I have respected the sense that they have always had of profound fairness. I fear that this aspect of the Bill departs from that principle of fairness. I therefore must seek the opinion of the House.
4.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 124; Not-Con tents, 150.
4.20 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 30, at end insert ("and in particular, a person shall be entitled to refuse to make himself available for employment where the average weekly remuneration would produce an income less than the amount of means-tested benefits to which he is entitled.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 31. This amendment would protect the jobseeker from being required to accept a job that pays below JSA or the old income support rates. Why is that? It is because that rate is a poverty rate and we do not believe that people should be required to make themselves poorer in consequence.
What is the old income support/JSA figure? It is less than £37 a week for someone under 25; it is £46.50 for a single person over 25; and £73 for an unemployed couple without children—in other words, £5 a day for each of them. Most of us cannot survive even on that sum—the existing jobseeker's allowance—without getting into debt, scrounging from friends and family who themselves may be unemployed or needing Social Fund loans. That is a poverty line. It is basic. One cannot live below it. Yet, with the abolition of the wages councils and with compulsory competitive tendering in public services, wages for the low paid are falling. There are now nearly 1.25 million people earning less than £2.50 an hour and a third of a million people earning less than £1.50 an hour, which is well below income support/JSA levels.
Also, more and more jobs are temporary and not, as we would understand it, full-time jobs. They comprise 25 hours, 28 hours or 30 hours. That is too many hours to combine with another job but not enough hours to float that person above income support level and off the poverty line. In consequence, 3 million people at the moment earn less than £57 a week and too little to pay national insurance contributions. About whom are we talking? We are talking about people who work in hairdressing, catering, shops, cleaning and retailing and those who are care assistants and work in old people's homes. Those low-paid people are weak, scattered, not organised in trades unions and are not any more protected by wages councils. They are in no position to defend themselves as wages are pressed down and down.
But, the Minister may argue, are not they at least pricing themselves into work by accepting such low rates of pay? On the contrary, since the abolition of the wages councils, over 18,000 jobs have been lost in the industries that the wages councils protected, while at the same time the pay for those jobs has fallen. Cutting wages does not create more jobs; it merely pays less for the same job.
Who are willing or able to afford to accept such jobs which now pay below income support levels? They are mostly women whose partners are in work and who are therefore above the poverty line. Because her partner is in full-time work, she can afford to take a low-paid job. As a household they are above the poverty line even though her pay as an individual may be below it. So this amendment does not affect them.
But it is a very different situation for someone who is currently on jobseeker's allowance, either as a single person or as one of an unemployed couple, who is required by an employment officer to take a job which brings his or her income down below that poverty line, below income support and below jobseeker's allowance. For an unemployed couple that figure would be £73 a week. Let us suppose that the man in that partnership is offered a job stacking shelves at £2.20 an hour—now a perfectly standard wage for stacking shelves—for 30 hours a week. It is not a part-time job but a semi-full-time job. How much would 30 hours a week at £2.20 an hour bring in? It is £66 a week, which is some £7 a week less than the poverty line JSA figure of £73 a week that the couple needs to live on. That is before he pays national insurance and before any travel to work costs are taken into account. If that person is required to take that job at £66 a week, which pays less than JSA, then JSA or income support is no longer, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, a safety net below which no one needs fall. Instead, it has become a trapdoor through which the lowest paid fall.
Employers will be able to fix wages at whatever level they will. Why stop at £2.20? Why not pay £1.75, £1.50 or £1.25 an hour? They know as employers that they will have the support of the employment officer acting, if one likes, as a sergeant-major, requiring people to take jobs which make them poorer than if they were to remain on benefit. How will they do that? The employment officer will say, "Take this job which pays less than JSA or you will lose JSA altogether." That is not a labour market. That is forced labour, at exploitative pay. What will be the consequence? If the couple have no children and one is required to take that 30-hour £66 a week job, they will be forced to live below the poverty line. They will get into debt, scrounge or go into fraudulent work—the black market or black economy work.
However, if they have children they will receive family credit, which is a top-up in-work benefit for those with children. The result is that over the past four years the cost of the family credit benefit has soared. It has more than doubled. That is not because people have had more children but because employers have cut wages, knowing that the state will take the strain and top them up again. The employer has exported his wage bill to
436
the rest of us as taxpayers. Why should we permit that? He has not done it more widely simply because people without children have been able to refuse jobs that pay less than income support. As a result, income support has effectively operated as a minimum wage below which wages may not fall.
Unless we accept the amendment, income support will not act as a minimum wage in the future. If, in the future, anyone on JSA can be required to take any job, irrespective of whether it pays above or below income support levels, then that floor of decency, that safety net for us as citizens and taxpayers, has gone. Employers can pay what they want and either "you" as a jobseeker or "we" as taxpayers, will subsidise and subscribe to an unlimited wage subsidy for employers.
The result is again a "Morton's fork". If a couple have no children, they are required to live below the poverty line; if they have children, we as taxpayers will subsidise the employer's wage bill to take them above the poverty line. Below the poverty line they are in destitution; above the poverty line, with children, we subsidise the employer. Neither of those alternatives is fair or acceptable. How do we stop it? By saying that no one should be required to take a job that pays below income support levels; that no one should be made poorer in work than on benefit—the level of benefit itself being our poverty line. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I offer my support to both the amendments, which are important. They would put a floor underneath the wage at which people may be required to work, and would put it at the level of income support. Putting people below that level causes considerable hardship. While I appreciate that that is not necessarily regarded in all quarters as conclusive, nevertheless it is not negligible.
For example, I am aware of a case of somebody discussing his job plans with his employment officer, who worked out a budget which covered his actual outgoings—council tax, mortgage and so forth. Repossessions are not cheap, either for the country or for those who suffer them. The claimant then sent in that calculation, with his employment officer's approval, and was deprived of benefit on the ground that he had placed unreasonable restrictions on his availability. That does not seem to me to be a practical way of going on. There must be a floor underneath the wages at which people can be required to work, especially where we do not really have a free market; where the labourer cannot bargain because he is not given the freedom to do so. In particular, people should not be compelled to take jobs which pay commission only. I have known people quite well who are involved in looking for jobs in the part-time, deregulated labour market and they have come across jobs which no one in any civilised country should ever be compelled to take. There are limits.
I understand that that is not recognised as conclusive by all concerned, and we must therefore consider costs. I stress that I am always prepared to consider costs, but we must get them right. We have already heard reference today to the new book by Mr. Frank Field

437
reported in the papers last Saturday which estimated that 50 per cent, of our population were on means-tested benefit. I have had no time since Saturday to check that figure. What Mr. Field says must always be taken seriously and I regret to say that that figure is by no means self-evidently absurd. As far as I can check, about half of Mr. Field's figure results from people on means-tested, in-work benefits who are being subsidised by the state because the wages paid by the employer are too low. I am sure we all agree that there are circumstances in which that can properly be done, but there must be a check on it, otherwise the temptation on the employer to free-load on the state is irresistible.
If 25 per cent. of our population are being paid wages so low that the state has to subsidise them, then the state is taking on a financial burden in the face of which it ought to hesitate. For example, we know that the cost of housing benefit is causing considerable concern to the Chief Secretary, as well it might. He has not recognised the problems, although when he says that there is a problem, he is unquestionably right. Again, the cost of housing benefit is largely the result of wages which are too low to sustain people in the housing market in which they have to be if they are to be able to work at all. To a lesser extent one can say the same of council tax benefit and family credit. But the three of them together give rise to a burden which the state should not multiply unnecessarily. I entirely agree with the Minister that the interests of the taxpayer need considering. I do not think in this regard that they are being considered in a sensible way.
When we were in Committee I drew the Minister's attention to a Written Answer I was expecting about the fall in public revenues during the past financial year. It so happened last week that the Minister signed the Answer himself, so it will already have come to his attention and I thank him for it. He may have noticed that the biggest drop in revenues was in income tax. If I remember rightly, although I do not have the figure by me, it was a drop of 1.2 per cent.
The Minister has reminded us many times in the course of the passage of the Bill that we have more people in employment than we had a year ago. He conceded that we welcome that, as he does. But when we have more people in employment and less revenue in the form of income tax, we need an explanation. The most likely explanation—I should like to know what information there is to sustain or oppose this conjecture—is that it is the result of falling wages. If we pay people less wages, we pay less tax; we damage the state's tax base and put an increasing burden on the diminishing number of people who are still receiving a big enough income to pay large sums of tax.
The state therefore is shooting itself not only in the foot, but in both feet. It may claim that it is creating more jobs. Supposing it is; I am in favour of public spending to create more jobs, but we must be careful how we do it. For some projects of job creation the price can be too high. This is very likely one of them. If the state wants to create jobs, it could find cheaper ways of doing so.
438
Finally, when we discussed the hypothesis of creating jobs, I should like to recall the Minister's attention to the incident of Bottomley's list. This occurred during the debates on wages councils in 1990. Mr. Peter Bottomley asked the Government what the studies were that supported the contention that a floor under wages destroyed jobs. They gave him a Written Answer listing 26 studies. None of them proved the point and four argued directly for the opposite. The Government's case therefore rests on a shaky evidential foundation. To shoot oneself in both feet as a result of bad evidence is not clever.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should like to add to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, on this extremely important amendment. My first point concerns the operation of a free market.
In a free market the price that is eventually set is one that balances supply and demand and therefore reflects the position of those two forces. Let me draw the attention of the House to what the Bill says. It contains what philosophers call "a prisoner's dilemma". The claimant is asked to say what is the lowest wage for which he would be willing to work. That refers to the documents circulated during the Committee stage of another place where the Minister of State indicated the kinds of question that would be asked in a jobsearch review. I understand that it is already part of the existing procedures.
One of those questions is, "What is the lowest amount of wages before stoppages that you will be willing to accept?" No similar question is asked the other way—such as, "What is the highest wage you would be willing to pay to get this job done?" As I understand it, if the claimant refuses to answer the question he may be in breach of the conditions of the jobseeker's agreement. If he does answer it, how does he do so? If he sets the figure too low his family and his relatives may suffer. If he sets it too high he will be regarded as having imposed an unreasonable condition on his availability for work.
That is not a free market but a coerced market in which one side is being asked to tie itself in advance by stating a condition which immediately changes the whole of the terms of a free market bargain and the other side is being required to say nothing at all. Even from the point of view of the philosophy espoused by many who believe in an unrestrained free market, it has to be said that this is a very strange piece of legislation indeed.
There is a second consideration I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention. It is one which has been very effectively advanced by my colleagues. It reflects the difficulty that will be thrown up, if this amendment is not passed, in trying to move to a reconstruction of the welfare state in which we put the emphasis on subsidising, not people to stay unemployed, but jobs to enable them to be employed. The case deployed by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend is that the route to that much more satisfactory kind of welfare state—one already being explored by a number of research centres and brains trusts —would effectively be barred by the sheer scale of the subsidy required from the state

439
unless there is some minimum level which employers need to pay in order to have a job filled. I believe that that is a very sensible route to follow. We need to get away from the culture of dependency to that of self-employment and employment in order to retain one's own self-respect.
If this amendment is not passed, effectively we shall make going in that direction so expensive for the taxpayer that we shall make it virtually impracticable. Therefore, I strongly support my noble friend and the noble Baroness because I believe that the consequences of not passing this amendment are very large indeed. They are consequences which in effect bring us very close to a form of coercive labour.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I shall begin with a few words about the amendments themselves before going on to the substantive argument that lies behind the debate of the past few minutes.
Amendment No. 25 seems somewhat muddled. Its purpose seems to be to prevent people being penalised for not being available for work which would pay them less than their means-tested benefit entitlement. The wording of Amendment No. 31 is even more extraordinary. If I am reading it properly, the type of employment that a claimant may or may not refuse to seek is irrelevant. The expression "whether or not" means that whatever the claimant does or does not do, he is to be treated as actively seeking work. In other words, the amendment would appear to us to have the effect of enabling every JSA claimant to be treated as actively seeking work. I accept that that is not the intention of the noble Baroness. Her intention is similar to that of Amendment No. 25, so that claimants could avoid seeking work which would pay them less than their means-tested benefit entitlement.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not wish to bandy words. I know that the Minister understands the point of these amendments, but as regards Amendment No. 31,1 believe that his remarks and strictures would only be true if it said,
"whether or not he refuses to seek employment [and] where the average weekly remuneration".
That is clearly not the case. The amendment states,
"whether or not he refuses to seek employment",
which is then modified or constrained by the rest of the sentence,
"where the average weekly remuneration would produce an income less than the amount of means-tested benefits to which he is entitled".
The phrase,
"whether or not he refuses to seek employment"
is understood in the context of the "average weekly remuneration". It would not be so understood if there were either a comma or an "and" there.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I am not sure that I agree with the construction of the words on the page, but I do not want to make a point about that because it is important that we address the substantive argument which is why we are here this afternoon.
440
We are still very unclear exactly of the compass of these amendments. What exactly do they mean? Do they mean and refer to the amount of income-based JSA that the claimant receives while he is unemployed? That would have unfortunate consequences. I should remind the House that income-based JSA will include amounts to cover claimants' mortgage interest payments, just as income support does now. We have all heard of cases where claimants' benefit entitlement is hundreds of pounds a week because of this rule. Is the noble Baroness suggesting that claimants in this position should be able to refuse work which does not provide them with that sort of money? That really would enable them to remain on benefit forever. That is a matter she must deal with. Perhaps the noble Baroness means her amendments to refer to income-based JSA entitlement, but excluding mortgage interest relief.
I wish to go back and look at the reference to the level of remuneration. That appears not to take account of the in-work benefits such as family credit, which people can claim once they are in work. As my colleagues and I pointed out many times, family credit and other reforms of tax and benefits mean that virtually all claimants are better off in work.
But, regardless of the exact detail of what the amendments are supposed to refer to, I cannot accept them. They stipulate that the average weekly remuneration in the employment is to be taken into account. There may be no great difficulty in determining the probable average amount of weekly income. But do we take into account benefits in kind offered by the job? Do we include travel-to-work costs or child-minding fees? How can a jobseeker know about how such matters would affect his level of income before taking a job?
I pose the questions to make the point that it would be virtually impossible in practice, as well as wrong in principle, to make such a calculation on the basis of the level to which each individual jobseeker could restrict their availability indefinitely. That is why I am not going down some kind of spurious and hypothetical Dutch auction route which the noble Baroness has previously tried to tempt us with.
We believe that people should not hold out indefinitely for a given level of remuneration. On previous occasions we have talked about the permitted 13-week period and how, over time, if the jobseeker cannot find a job within that period restricted to his previous rate of remuneration and sphere of activities, the extent of the job search has to be widened. That is important in the context of the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about the level of remuneration indicated in the relevant documentation. It shows where we are starting from.
Considerable play has been made about levels of remuneration, the number of jobs at a particular rate of pay and other jobs at other rates of pay. It is important, looking at the picture in the round, to identify which sort of jobs one is talking about; full-time, part-time and

441
so on. I have mentioned family credit. We have also indicated that we are proposing a pilot scheme in respect of single people and childless couples.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I hope that the Minister will forgive me. I am only addressing the fact that I believe the brief he is referring to does not take adequate note of the fact that the noble Baroness specifically distinguished between those families who were entitled to family credit and those who were not. Indeed, a large part of her remarks were devoted to that aspect. In all fairness to her, I should make that plain to the House. She did not pretend that certain families without children were entitled to family credit, but equally she did not pretend that those with children would not get family credit if they were driven to very low-paid jobs.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I would not wish to be unfair to anybody. However, I should remind your Lordships that Clause 6(5) enables a claimant with a usual occupation to restrict his availability during the permitted period. In determining the length of the permitted period, which can be up to 13 weeks, a number of matters will be taken into account. As we have discussed previously, these will include the claimant's skills and qualifications, and the length of time he had been engaged in his usual occupation. As I said, after the permitted period, he will not be expected to be immediately available for any rate of pay, but he will certainly need to start widening his horizons, since— quite honestly—there is no point in holding out indefinitely for a rate of pay that may no longer be realistically attainable. After six months, we would expect the jobseeker to place no restrictions concerned with the rate of pay. It is the case that two-thirds of those who lose their jobs are already back in work by that point.
Rates of pay are only directly relevant to Clause 7 for the purpose of the permitted period provisions in Clause 7(5). Claimants can confine their jobsearch to their accustomed rate of pay during the permitted period determined under Clause 6(5), and if they do so they will be treated as actively seeking employment.
Apart from that, Clause 7 simply requires a person to take such of the steps he can reasonably be expected to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment. There is no mention of pay in this; provided the claimant is taking steps that give him his best prospects of securing employment, the rate of pay is not of immediate relevance. I suggest that the noble Baroness is confusing availability for employment with the actively seeking test. Let me be quite clear. Provided that jobseekers remain available for any work within any restriction imposed, there is nothing to prevent them concentrating their search for work to highly paid jobs in the City, academia, local government or anywhere else, if the steps they are taking to do that give them their best prospects of securing work.
Two points have been raised which I should like to address directly. I turn first to that raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who returned to a matter that we
442
debated at some length in Committee. I refer to commission-only jobs —that is, jobs which pay no salary and where the reward comes by commission. I suggest that in many cases the contractual nature of such employment would be self-employment. Jobseekers do not have to make themselves available for self-employment (although they may do so if they wish) nor will they face sanctions under Clause 18 for refusing self-employment. If the adjudication authorities took the view that a person had been offered "employment" even though the work in question consisted only of work that paid no salary, they might also take the view that the reason for refusal was not the level of remuneration but the nature of the employment in question and that the jobseeker therefore had good cause for refusing it.
The fact is that we are not aware of adjudicating authorities ever having had to consider such a case. That is because the Employment Service, while it agrees to display vacancies that offer commission only, instructs its staff that claimants should be warned to consider such vacancies carefully before applying for them. Staff do not refer claimants to such jobs against their wishes. Of course, some claimants would welcome the opportunity to work on that basis and many who do so earn substantial sums of money.
The other point raised related to forcing people into work which was some form of exploitation. As I explained on a previous occasion when we debated this matter, it is axiomatic that the way in which the Employment Service operates is reasonable. The Employment Service does not, for example, try to put people into jobs which would be illegal or where the job would in some way endanger them under the health and safety regulations. Over the course of a year, about 4 million people claim through the Employment Service and we cannot find any example since 1989 (during the period that the present rules have been in place) of the Employment Service placing people in work where it has been, essentially, an instrument of exploitation on behalf of the employer. Bearing in mind all that has been said, I must stress that we cannot find any examples of that.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that it cannot be exploitation and that it cannot be unreasonable if it is just a matter of money? Is the noble Lord saying that if, after six months, the: jobseeker is sent somewhere, offered a job or presented with an opportunity by an employment officer and the only thing wrong with the job is not that it is illegal, but that it offers starvation wages that are way below the level of the jobseeker's allowance, that is perfectly reasonable and is not exploitation?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I said earlier that I was not going to enter into a hypothetical Dutch auction because we had plenty of opportunities for that in Committee. I go back to the point that I made: very large numbers of people are dealt with by the Employment Service and we cannot find an example to back up the extreme hypothetical instances quoted by the Benches opposite.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, but that is because the noble Lord will not accept, and would not allow an employment officer to say, that an offer was unreasonable if it involved starvation wages. He does not recognise that as exploitation. That is why he cannot find a case. He prevents any case.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, no. I think that I explained it absolutely clearly.
It is in the interests of jobseekers to show maximum availability to get back to work, and not to restrict their jobsearch. The main cause of poverty, as study after study has shown, is not low wages but the lack of a job—and the more jobs, the more income tax. It is gratifying to note that seasonally adjusted unemployment fell in April to 2.328 million, a decrease of 18,900 on the month, which is the 20th consecutive monthly fall.
As the honourable Member for Birkenhead commented in the same document as the noble Earl, Lord Russell:
"Defining the poverty line is a political Eldorado for any welfare scheme".
We do not believe that that is the right way to approach this. We believe that the effect of the amendments might be to close off opportunities for jobseekers of getting back into work. That is why I cannot accept them.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he discuss some of the arguments that have been raised about the cost to the Exchequer?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the possible extent of such a debate is limitless. However, we do not believe that the right way to mitigate the open-ended commitment to helping people is by going down the route which the noble Earl advocates.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, particularly those on the Liberal Benches. The Minister made two points. First, he challenged us by saying that the amendment is defective because it is unclear. The Minister knows perfectly well what we are talking about—perhaps I should say that he would have known perfectly well if he had been listening to the speeches. We were saying that nobody should be required to accept a job which pays less than the jobseeker's allowance which, as I spelt out, is £37 per week for a single person under 25; £46.80 per week for a single person over 25, and £73 for a couple. I had hoped that I had made that abundantly clear. I am sorry that the noble Lord felt obliged to say that it was not clear.
We dealt with the question of mortgage payments last night. That point is covered by the changes in the mortgage procedure. We are talking about the level of JSA as a benefit by comparison with the pay offered in a Jobcentre. I had hoped that I had made that perfectly clear. I do not think that the noble Lord was fair to suggest that the amendment, as moved, was unclear.
The noble Lord's second point was that we were not sufficiently clear about who might be affected. The noble Lord is the most courteous of Ministers, but on
444
this occasion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, I do not think that he paid us the courtesy of listening to what was said.
I had hoped that we had made it clear that we were distinguishing between couples without children and couples with children. We said that the consequences of failing to pass the amendment would be equally devastating, but in different ways. Why? Because a couple without children or a single person will not be entitled to an in-work top-up benefit. Therefore, they are required to accept a job which pays less than income support or JSA. That is what they are stuck with. They will be earning an income that is below the poverty line. We have said that that is an exploitative wage by any definition. We are talking about jobs that pay less than the noble Lord, myself or anybody else in the Chamber accepts as the minimum poverty level. That is why income support is set at the level that it is—because it is the minimum poverty level; yet those without children are being asked to work for less than that. We are saying that that is unacceptable because it is exploitative.
Although those with children get family credit to top up wages, and that overcomes their immediate poverty problem, it does so at the expense of creating a social security problem for the rest of us. What happens? We, as taxpayers, then top up that poverty exploitative wage to above the poverty line because they have children. What does that mean? It means that the employer can cut wages to wherever he will, because he knows that he can export his wages bill onto us as taxpayers.
Without children, a couple are below the poverty line; with children they are above the poverty line, courtesy of the taxpayer subsidising the employer. I had hoped that we had made it clear that either of those alternatives is unacceptable. It is unacceptable if a couple have no children because they are semi-destitute; it is unacceptable if they have children, because we, as taxpayers, are subsidising the wage bill which should be paid in the wage packet.
The Minister's third argument was that we had no evidence of that happening. I have to tell the Minister— we said this in Committee—that a recent survey of Jobcentres in Manchester showed that nearly one-third of the jobs on offer were paying less than JSA/income support rates. They are no longer protected by wages councils.
When the Minister therefore says that there is no point in someone holding out for a rate of pay which is not realistically obtainable—I quote his words—what is he saying? A rate of pay that is no longer realistically obtainable? If all the employer is willing to offer is £2 a week are jobseekers supposed to accept that? Are they expected to accept £1 a week, £1.50, or 50p a week? Is it reasonable for a couple without children to work for 30 hours a week at 50p an hour and earn £15 a week and have no in-work benefit? Is that what the Minister is saying? It is reasonable to work for £15 a week—30 hours a week at 50p an hour? That is the implication of the Minister's refusal to accept the amendment.
The moment one refuses to put in a floor below which wages cannot fall, some employers—the most exploitative—will take advantage of that to pay below it, because they know that people in the labour market

445
have no choice: without children they will be below the poverty line; with children we, as taxpayers, will be subsidising them because the employer refuses to pay an adequate wage.
I ask your Lordships to support us tonight. While we want —as indeed we do want—people to enter the labour market, we are equally concerned about the cost of the social security bill. How will we stop the social security bill for family credit, rising and rising, and rising? We can only stop that happpening by ensuring that employers cannot pitch wages where they will, knowing that we will prop them up. A vote for the amendment is a vote not just to help people back to work but to cap the social security bill, rather than offer employers an open invitation to pay what they will, knowing that you, I, us, will take the strain. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 25) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 121; Not-Contents, 160.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hamwee, B,

Airedale, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Haskel, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Healey, L.

Avebury, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Barnett, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Birk, B.

Hooson, L.

Blackstone, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Bridges, L.

Howell, L.

Brookes, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hughes, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Hylton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Inchyra, L.

Carter, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Jay, L.

Chapple, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Chorley, L.

Jeger, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Judd, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kennet, L.

David, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Desai, L.

Listowel, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lockwood, B.

Donoughue, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dubs, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Eatwell, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Erroll, E.

McNair, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Falkender, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Fitt, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Foot, L.

Mayhew, L.

Gallacher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Mishcon, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Molloy, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gregson, L.

Nelson, E.

Grey, E.

Nicol, B.

446

Northbourne, L.

Shepherd, L.

Ogmore, L.

Simon, V.

Palmer, L.

Stallard, L.

Parry, L.

Stedman, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Peston, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Redesdale, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Richard, L.

Tope, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Rochester, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Whaddon, L.

Russell, E.

White, B.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Wigoder, L.

Scanlon, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.[Teller.]

Seear, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Serota, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Addison, V.

Geddes, L.

Ailsa, M.

Gisborough, L.

Aldington, L.

Goschen, V.

Ampthill, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Arran, E.

Gridley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Astor, V.

Haig, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Balfour, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Blake, L.

Hives, L.

Blatch, B.

Holderness, L.

Boardman, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hood, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Howe, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Inglewood, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Burnham, L.

Kimball, L.

Butterfield, L.

Kingsland, L.

Butterworth, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Cadman, L.

Knollys, V.

Carnock, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Leigh, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Lindsay, E. [Teller.]

Chelmsford, Bp.

Liverpool, E.

Chesham, L.

Long, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lucas, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Coleridge, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Courtown, E.

McConnell, L.

Cox, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Malmesbury, E.

Davidson, V.

Marlesford, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Dilhorne, V.

May, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Merrivale, L.

Dudley, E.

Mersey, V.

Dundonald, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Eden of Winton, L.

Milverton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Elles, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Moore of Lower Marsh, L.

Elton, L.

Morris, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mountevans, L.

Flather, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Foley, L.

Moyne, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Munster, E.

447

Norrie, L.

Sharples, B.

Northbrook, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Northesk, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Skidelsky, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Slim, V.

Orkney, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Stewartby, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Pender, L.

Strange, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller]

Prior, L.

Sudeley, L.

Pym, L.

Teviot, L.

Quinton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Radnor, E.

Torphichen, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Rawlings, B.

Trumpington, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Vivian, L.

Renton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Renwick, L.

Wakeham, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Westbury, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wise, L.

Salisbury, M.

Wolfson, L.

Sandford, L.

Wynford, L.

Seccombe, B.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5.13 p.m.
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 5, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations shall prescribe that a person who has responsibility for caring for a child under the age of 3 years shall not be required to be available to take up any employed earner's employment at less than 7 days' notice.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee I tabled an amendment directed towards the position of young single mothers. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, convinced me that I was wrong in regard to mothers who did not wish to take up employment in that they would be covered by income support. I have satisfied myself that the amount of income support is equal to the amount of the jobseeker's allowance.
Amendment No. 26 is a modest amendment and is directed towards the position of a single mother with a young child who wishes to go out to work. Some mothers will wish to go to work but others will not. As drafted, the Bill requires a mother or father who is the single carer of a young child to be available within 24 hours to take up work. I suggest that we should not legislate against the best interests of the child. There is no doubt that poor quality childcare and childminding are very much against the best interests of the child and can be damaging. A great deal of research shows that. The arrangement of good quality childcare takes time, even if granny is to look after the child. Granny may have a part-time job and may need time to make other arrangements and so forth.
I suggest that seven days is not an unreasonable period to provide. I accept that one cannot tell a young parent whether he or she should go out to work or stay at home and look after the child. I accept that one cannot tell parents what to do about childcare. However, we must not put in their way obstacles which make it more
448
difficult to obtain proper childcare and which militate against it. That is the purpose of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some comfort and tell me that if he cannot accept the amendment the issue will be covered in regulations or guidance. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I support the amendment and thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for tabling it again. It is sensible and proposes a small measure which shows a degree of compassion. It provides that the potential employee,
"shall not be required to be available to take up any employed earner's employment at less than 7 days' notice".
It does not provide that potential employees cannot be required to attend an interview; therefore, during that period they could be arranging employment. It provides a period of seven days within which it is hoped arrangements can be made for the child, who is an important factor.
It is not a case of judging whether it is better for a child up to the age of three to have the parent staying at home. It does not state whether the parent should go out to work or not. It does not make a moral judgment. Many parents go out to work because they have to. Many parents seek to go out to work because they do not wish to be dependent on the welfare state; they wish independently to provide for their children. However, if a job is available and they are able to obtain it, it is right that they should be given a period within which to make arrangements for their children. Seven days is a reasonable period.
We would all agree that a child is not a parcel that one can pick up today and park tomorrow, even if one can find good childcare facilities which are not as prolific in the UK as they should be. The child must be made aware that he or she is to be looked after by someone else. A sensible parent may wish to take the child to the carer before he or she goes to work on the first day. The parent may wish to introduce the child to the carer and make sure that the child is happy and contented in the situation.
We are dealing only with children up to the age of three. They are toddlers who perhaps have not been out of the care of the person who has looked after and had responsibility for them. This is a small but important measure. I hope that the Minister is able to support it.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, concessions that have been won by Members on all sides who are critical of the Bill have tended to be bite-sized. The amendment represents another bite-sized concession and would reflect a sense of humanity on the part of the Government because it recognises the real world.
I speak as someone who for many years represented a constituency in another place. There, many children, both parents being out to work, found themselves alone in the house in the evening. They were latchkey kids. They had keys hanging around their necks because no

449
one was at home to let them in. Sometimes they played, not only in their own gardens, but up and down the street. They were a danger to drivers and to themselves.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, gave an example of what it is like in the real world trying to cope with young children when one does not have much money, support or a strong supportive family. In new towns, one of which I represented, there is not a nearby generation of grandparents to turn to. Therefore, the parent is locked into a two-generation situation.
This House is supposed to be concerned with family values and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has argued consistently that doing anything which will cause the break-up or challenge the stability of the family is a very unwise path to follow. This relatively modest amendment recognises the acute dilemmas of women with children who are dependent on them. Those women must try to find adequate childcare and that does not mean just a neighbour, the youngster down the road who wants to make a few extra pounds a week, or the teenage girl who has just come out of school and agrees to look after the children for a few hours and who may not realise the dangers of, for example, paraffin stoves. It is an essential safeguard to allow mothers time to find proper childcare for their children.
The Government have seen the point of our arguments as regards volunteers and others with special needs, and that is extremely welcome. I hope that they can look also at this dilemma and respond to it sympathetically.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, perhaps I may begin with a few general words about the jobseeker's system and then focus on the particular amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
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 that it would be unreasonable to expect people with caring responsibilities to be available immediately. That is why in JSA, as we have now agreed, carers will be entitled to 48 hours' notice of any job or job interview. That gives carers longer to rearrange their caring responsibilities and be available for employment.
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 may be offered. When an opportunity of work arises, they will have 48 hours' notice to put these plans into place and take up work or attend an interview.
Over and above those special arrangements for notice, the new JSA availability condition will provide further flexibility for jobseekers, and in particular for carers. In JSA, we will 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
450
minimum of 40 hours to be applied to other jobseekers, in line with their caring responsibilities. That is an important recognition of the importance that we attach to caring responsibilities in society.
It may help if I draw attention to the way the new rules will fit together to the advantage of those with caring responsibilities.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I had understood that the word "carers" does not refer to parents but to those caring for, for example, the elderly, the disabled and so on. Is the Minister now saying that a parent caring for a child is also now a "carer" and that therefore the 48-hour concession now applies to those parents?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, yes. Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to finish my explanation. 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 carer will be expected to be ready to take up work on a day on which he had agreed that he would not be available, the practical effect of these new flexibilities will be that in many instances carers will be given more time to respond to offers of work.
There is a balance to be struck between ensuring that carers make themselves available for as many job opportunities as possible and making sure that they have a reasonable time to make other arrangements for their caring responsibilities. I was unable to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, (whose expertise is well-known and has been alluded to) during Committee because, in effect, it excused any person with a child under two years of age from being required to be available at all. The noble Lord has, I accept, moved a great deal to take account of the concerns I expressed but I believe that his present amendment would still, in fact, tip the balance to the detriment of carers' responsibility—and I use that word in its widest sense. I urge your Lordships' House to take account of the considerable new flexibilities for the treatment of carers that we have introduced for JSA which do not exist in UB or IS.
As I understand the position, unmarried mothers would receive the same money whether they are in receipt of income support or the jobseeker's allowance. The important point is that there is nothing to prevent those women availing themselves of the services of the Employment Service to assist in obtaining work if they wish to do so. The amount of money concerned is the same. It is merely a matter of retaining the integrity of the jobseeker's system, which is intended for people available and looking for work compared with people who are receiving income support but who happen to be looking for a job. I believe that that answers the problem to which the noble Lord has referred.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify what the Minister has just said. I believe that he said that a person who is drawing income support may search for work but would not be subject to the 48-hour constraint. Is that correct?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I believe that those receiving income support are in a position to negotiate according to their circumstances. Once they have started the job, they go forward from there. But it is right that they do not face the 48-hour constraint, which may be a difficulty.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before my noble friend finally sits down, he mentioned in his reply the jobseeker's agreement. Am I right in thinking that anyone who cares for another person, whether elderly, disabled or a small child, can reach an agreement with the Employment Service staff that he may or may not be available for work for a period longer than 48 hours if the Employment Service staff can be persuaded that, in the circumstances, that is not only reasonable but is necessary, because sometimes it may take longer than 48 hours to arrange such matters?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, there are two separate issues here. The first concerns the period within which people must make themselves available; that is, 48 hours. Reference has also been made to the amount of time per week for which a jobseeker must make himself available. In the case of an ordinary jobseeker, that is 40 hours. In the case of those who have various responsibilities, the amount of availability may be reduced. It is a characteristic of the system that the jobseeker may plan for which parts of the week he makes himself available. Therefore, the reality is that by combining the 48-hour rule and the availability rule, there is a considerable degree of flexibility as to when the person actually starts work. That is the crucial point.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I think that I understand what the noble Lord is saying but I still find it necessary to have from him an absolute clarification. We are not necessarily talking only about unmarried mothers. We may be talking about mothers, or indeed fathers, who have been deserted or are single for whatever reason. Am I right that people receiving income support who at the same time are seeking a job may make their own arrangements in relation to the delay before the job is taken up? Am I correct in believing that?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, that is my understanding.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, on that basis, and subject to reading what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 26A:
Page 5, line 32, at end insert:
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that the ejusdem generis rule applies to this subsection.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I fear that I must start with a string of apologies. After the most important social and economic issues which your Lordships have been discussing, this raises a technical point of statutory interpretation. Further, it is always expressed in Latin and so it appears in the amendment in Latin. I
452
remember, when we were consolidating the Scottish law of criminal procedure, that some of us queried whether it was really necessary that so much of the statute should be in Latin. But that great Scottish judge, Lord Guest, came to the rescue of the draftsman and said firmly, "Yes", it was desirable, at which point we all shut up. So there is a precedent for the words appearing in Latin in the amendment.
Thirdly, I am afraid that lawyers have a very odd way of pronouncing Latin.
A noble Lord: Not at all!
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the rule of ejusdem generis is a rule of common sense, with the courts basing themselves on what Parliament presumably intended by its formulae. A characteristic instance would be a measure concerned with the transport of animals where the legislation might say that it applies to calves, lambs and other animals. Of course, "other animals" covers the whole animal kingdom, but the courts always said that that could not have been the intention of Parliament. Parliament cannot really have meant that menagerie animals should be included. It must be animals like, say, kids and foals if you are going to rely on the words "other animals". In other words, the generality is construed with reference to the particular instances that go before. It is construed ejusdem generis, of the same sort.
What the draftsman has done in this amendment—and, in my submission done most valuably—is to follow a suggestion made by the Renton Committee on preparation of legislation which is still a very rich ore that is insufficiently mined. The committee suggested that it would be a valuable indication if examples were given of the sort of generality that is to be applied.
In those circumstances, this must be to some extent a probing amendment because it seems to be inherent in the fact that when you give examples you are giving particular examples of a generality and those examples are meant to be followed. Therefore, the other instances will be of the same sort of which the examples are exemplary. It could well be said—indeed, I believe it probably is to be said —that when examples are given the courts will, in effect, apply the ejusdem generis rule and people reading the statute will do the same. It is for that reason that I have tabled the amendment in declaratory form. It may well be unnecessary, but I thought that it might be useful for your Lordships to know to what sort of instance, apart from these examples, the draftsman intends the subsection to apply. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is, as usual, quite right. I believe that he owes the House no apology whatever for putting forward legal terminology in legal language. After all, we are making law and we need to have some understanding of what we do. The rule to which the noble and learned Lord has drawn attention is, of course, very much to the point. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example of something which offends against his rule. I have in mind

453
the butchers shop which used to be in the market at Oxford and which advertised itself as, "Family, University and Pork Butchers".
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Russell: My Lords, I believe that the understanding of the rule would be very much assisted if we were to accept what the noble and learned Lord suggested. It would clarify the intention of Parliament in a way which I hope would be very helpful to the courts, which may have to consider such matters in the future. The Minister may be able to meet the suggestion if he were to speak with the case of Pepper v. Hart in mind.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. As the noble and learned Lord referred to a recommendation of a committee of which I had the honour to be chairman, I can merely say to him how grateful I am to him for supporting our recommendation and suggesting to your Lordships that it is one that could be followed.
Of course, we do have rather similar circumstances to what we find in subsection (3). But, sometimes, when we have those circumstances, a different situation arises because there is another legal rule of interpretation which is exactly what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has just reminded me of the expression that I was just about to use: expressio unius est exclusio alterius, if you express one thing, you are deemed to exclude others. I say that just as a precaution and to point out that in subsection (3) that principle cannot apply because we have the expression which reads:
"The following are examples of restrictions"—
not exclusive examples—
"for which provision may be made by the regulations".
That indicates that other instances could be given. If other instances are to be given, we must accept the advice of the noble and learned Lord and confine those instances to similar matters. I say that because if we dared to translate the expression ejusdem generis, we could say, "Well, let's use the expression 'similar matters'". However, I think that we had better not do so.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the most useful contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I should like to reiterate the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, by saying that the noble and learned Lord never needs to have any reason to apologise to the House. In his remarks, the noble and learned Lord drew attention to the very valuable and useful legal principle of ejusdem generis.
Having prefaced my remarks with those words, perhaps I may turn to the clause and section which we are now discussing. I must admit that I am slightly puzzled in this case as to how the application of such a rule to subsection (3) would work. Subsection (2) of the clause allows regulations to make provision enabling a claimant to restrict his availability for employment in certain prescribed ways. Subsection (3) lists a number of examples of such restrictions. They are restrictions on the nature, the terms and conditions of employment for which a claimant is available; and the periods for which and
454
locality or localities within which he is available. Although they are simple examples and the list is obviously not exhaustive, I must begin by saying that we have no plans to provide for any other types of restriction.
Allowing a claimant to restrict his availability is, by definition, an easement of the general rule. My noble friend and I have, on many occasions in this House, given assurances about the circumstances in which such a restriction will be acceptable. The sorts of restriction which we have listed at subsection (3) are, we believe, reasonable and fair. Although we have no plans to allow others, it is clear that any such restrictions would be in the claimant's interest. Why else should we allow easements to the basic availability rule?
We believe that making subsection (3) subject to the ejusdem generis rule would not protect the claimant, as there is nothing to protect him from. It is not possible to create restrictions to a claimant's availability—which are easements on the entitlement condition which he has to meet —which damage his interests. In subsection (3) the restrictions relate to the,
"nature of the employment…the periods for which he is available…the terms or conditions of employment for which he is available; restrictions on the locality or localities within which he is available".
It seems to us to be difficult to think of any further restrictions which would fall outside that rather general description of what could be done. We will certainly reflect on the comments of the noble and learned Lord and we would be pleased to discuss the point further with him if he felt that would be useful because he has taken a valuable initiative here. However, I hope that against that background and explanation of our approach to this matter, the noble and learned Lord might consider withdrawing his amendment at this stage.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he would agree with me, in view of what he has said—that the four particular matters which the Government have in mind may be covered by regulations—that it would be better not to use the expression "examples" because the word "examples" implies that there could be other matters. If there are arguably other matters, then those other matters should be dealt with under the ejusdem generis rule.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should say that I agree with that. If I understood correctly what the noble Lord said, he said that he had no intention to extend the examples. How can you have a series of examples, which are examples of something larger, which you have no intention to extend?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that we are talking about the restrictions and not the examples. I would say in response to the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton that the restrictions that will be brought in will not be all encompassing because logically, were that to be the case, there would be no definition of availability

455
for employment at all. I am not convinced that the logic of my noble friend's comments takes him to the conclusion that he suggested to me.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships who have participated in and to the Minister who has replied to the debate. However, I noticed that he carefully differentiated his pronunciation of the Latin phrase from the way the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and I pronounced it. Even so, I am not sure he went as far as the way the ancient Romans would have expressed it. I entirely agree with the comments that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. It seems to me that when you give examples you are implying that there are other matters of which they are exemplary. I very much hope that this way of drafting by examples, as indicated by the Renton Committee, will be pursued. I would very much welcome a chance of discussing the matter with the draftsmen and First Parliamentary Counsel. If the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would consent to join in such a discussion, it would, I think, be useful. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Clause 7 [Actively seeking employment]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("to have").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 29 deals again with the tendency of the Bill to have what are, in effect, hidden provisions, hidden requirements and hidden steps that the claimant may be required to take. I beg the pardon of the House for having lost my place. I was too busy listening to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, whose speech was most interesting and most enjoyable.
Amendment No. 29 and Amendment No. 30, which is consequential upon it, deal with requirements which may be brought in by regulation subsequent to the passage of this Bill. They purchase specifically on Clause 7(1) and the steps which a person may take if he is actively seeking employment. The Bill in its present form refers to,
"such steps as he can reasonably be expected to have to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment".
It is the words "have to" to which this amendment takes exception. There are no steps specified at present which the claimant has to take. Therefore whatever steps the claimant will have to take will be specified in regulation in the future. We do not yet know what they are. As so often in the Bill, we are being asked to approve a pig in a poke. As so often in the Bill, the Government are not relying on the general provision expressing a general principle in the way recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Renton; they are setting out to prescribe, one after another, all the things that a claimant should do and all the steps which he must take in order to prove that he is actively seeking employment. Indeed so many steps are contemplated that one sometimes wonders whether this Bill was written by John Buchan in conjunction with Lewis Carroll.
I do not think that that is a sensible approach to the drafting of legislation and I do not think it is a sensible approach to seeking employment, because the best steps for a person to take when seeking employment may depend on all sorts of things. They may depend, for a start, on what sort of employment a person is seeking. If he is seeking academic employment, there are all sorts of things I would advise him to do which I certainly would not advise him to do if he was seeking a job as a bricklayer. If he was seeking a job as a fisherman, there are all sorts of things I might advise him to do which I would not advise him to do if he was seeking a job as a garage mechanic. Therefore the suitable steps depend on the nature of the work, on where the person is and on what travel one can reasonably expect him to undertake. They also depend on a person's circumstances, such as caring responsibilities, to which reference has already been made.
I simply do not think any legislators, however wise, can set out in advance all the steps which we can require all the claimants to take. If they try to do so, we shall have an endless refinement of regulation upon regulation upon regulation—the sort of proliferation of pages in the statute book to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has so often called our attention, and a great deal of confusion and a great deal of hardship on the ground.
A great deal of the disentitlement to benefit which is likely to happen under this Bill will happen for failure to take various steps prescribed by regulation. We on these Benches believe that even with the best will in the world we cannot always be sure that those steps will be in the client's interest as a way to finding work. There may be circumstances where a client may reasonably fail to take those steps. As we have not succeeded in persuading the Government that claimants should retain benefit pending an appeal, we must return to the restrictions on the steps that they are prepared to take. I may approve a list of steps; I may not approve a list of steps; but either way I want to know what the steps are before I am asked to approve them. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I have been looking carefully at the amendments during the noble Earl's speech and I think that there is a great deal of common ground between us. I shall try to explain that. Let us consider the effect of the two omissions. Is it the noble Earl's intention in removing the reference to "reasonable" steps, that the regulations could in effect make provision for a jobseeker to take any sort of steps, whether reasonable or not? I do not believe that it is. The first priority of all jobseekers should be to get back to work as soon as possible. The requirement for the jobseeker to take such steps in any week as he can reasonably be expected "to have" to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment, is intended to give a clear signal to jobseekers of what is expected of them.
We have spent some time on this matter since the first Committee sessions and receipt of the views of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The wording we have come up with is the product of considerable deliberation, and it may help the House if I try to explain.

457
What we have tried to do here is to put an objective question at the root of the actively seeking work condition. That is the commonsense query "what do I have to do in order to have the best chance of getting a job?" That is then qualified by a reasonableness test as set out in the provision. To delete the words "have to" would take away that commonsense standard. The question is no longer "what should be done, subject to any limitation of reasonableness?" but "what is it reasonable to expect the claimant to do?" I suggest that chat second question is harder to answer, because it immediately makes all aspects of the test more relative.
To give an example, I, knowing my nephew (in fact I have no nephew, so this is a hypothetical nephew), might judge that I could reasonably expect him only to do the tiniest amount to find work. It might be optimistic to the point of being entirely unreasonable to expect him to get out of bed before noon. But in order for him to have the best prospects of finding employment I know that he must make greater efforts than that. We must consider not what I reasonably expect him to do but what he can be expected to have to do. That is the point here, The steps a jobseeker should take are those that in reality he can be expected to have to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment.
I should explain that the current regulations state that:
"the taking of one step on a single occasion during a week shall not be sufficient unless taking that step on that occasion is all that it is reasonable for the person in question to do in that week".
They also contain a non-exhaustive list of steps which may be acceptable as steps towards meeting the actively seeking employment condition. Our intention is to continue that approach in JSA. As we have made clear, however, we propose to broaden the list of steps so that it will include not only steps that are actual jobsearch, as at present, but also steps that will improve a jobseeker' s employability.
To sum up, we believe that it is up to jobseekers to lake responsibility for their steps to find work. Those steps must, however, be reasonable and must take full account of their circumstances. Clause 7(2) (a) is intended to provide for that.
I hope that that explanation answers the noble Earl's questions. If it does, I hope that he will consider withdrawing the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the care he has taken in responding to the amendment. There is common ground on intentions. I understand why he has proceeded as he has, but I am still not happy. I think that he is trying to achieve something that would be very good if he could achieve it but which is impossible to achieve.
I understand why the Minister wanted an objective question, but I do not believe that amid the variety of people and jobs that might be concerned any such thing is possible. The noble Lord has chosen a question which appears to be objective. However, I do not believe that it is any such thing. Case law, regulation and confusion will make clear that it is not. I understand why it would be attractive to the Minister were it possible for the test not to be relative. That would make life a lot easier. So would a great many things make life easier which will not happen.
458
To take the Minister's own example of his hypothetical nephew, which I much enjoyed, in general what he said about his nephew getting out of bed before noon may be perfectly reasonable and sensible. However, suppose, for example, that his nephew is seeking employment and is well qualified as a jazz drummer or a nightclub bouncer and regularly comes home late from any work he may get and goes to bed at 4 o'clock in the morning. In that case his getting out of bed at noon may not be altogether unreasonable. There is inevitably an element of relativity in the very nature of the whole question that the Bill asks. That is why I believe that this attempt to use compulsion and to set out the steps which people have to take is, at the end of the day, profoundly mistaken.
I do not believe that I shall change the Government's mind through the Division Lobbies, even were I to win a majority there. I shall come back to these questions in one form or another, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No 30A:
Page 6, line 30, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations shall provide that where a doubt arises as to whether a person is actively seeking employment or is to be treated as actively seeking employment, an income based jobseeker's allowance shall be payable pending a determination by the adjudication officer, where the person has placed reasonable restrictions on his availability as a result of illness or disability, and hardship would otherwise result if that payment were not made.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 30A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 31A and 31B.
The purpose of the first of the amendments is to enable disabled people who have placed some restrictions on the work for which they are available still to qualify for hardship payments and reduced income-related jobseeker's allowance if there is a doubt that they have not actively sought work in a particular week.
People who do not meet the basic labour market conditions of being available for and actively seeking work are to be disallowed jobseeker's allowance until such time as they change their intentions or behaviour to meet the conditions. That is set out in the jobseeker's allowance White Paper at paragraph 4.36. Where subsequently the Employment Service has some doubt about the conditions, there will be no hardship payment pending a final decision, unless the person is in a vulnerable group. The definition of "vulnerable" is therefore crucial in determining whether any payment is to be made at all.
The amendment seeks to do two things. First, it seeks to widen the proposed definition of disability to include people whose restrictions on their work availability resulting from a physical or mental condition have already been accepted as reasonable. That is an easily identifiable group of claimants who may otherwise be faced with no jobseeker's allowance payment at all. Secondly, the amendment only affects situations where there is a doubt about a claimant satisfying the condition of actively seeking work, not the availability condition.

459
With an estimated 150,000 disabled people moving from incapacity benefit to jobseeker's allowance in its first year, it is important that a definition of sickness and disability should take account of the needs of that particular group of people, who may fail not only the incapacity test but also the labour market conditions of jobseeker's allowance.
An example from a citizens advice bureau shows that people who may not score enough points in the all-work test of incapacity may present problems in fulfilling the condition of actively seeking work. A bureau in eastern England reported the case of a client in his late 50s, who was living with his mother, whose benefit had been suspended for failing to show evidence that he was actively seeking work. The bureau said that he had trouble with reading, writing and communicating and became nervous when meeting strangers. The CAB described him as "slightly mentally retarded".
Unless classed as vulnerable, the claimant would have no access to any payments for at least two weeks and up to a maximum of 26 weeks. Furthermore, people who are not entitled to hardship payments have no recourse to social fund crisis loans for living expenses.
My noble friend stated that some people who are sick or disabled could fall within the definition of vulnerable and therefore qualify for hardship payments, but only where they have a serious medical condition (as reported in our proceedings for 25th April at col. 887 of Hansard) or are eligible for the disability premium (col. 873).
Regarding the phrase "serious medical condition", when my noble friend replies, will he clarify how that is to be defined, giving examples, and say what evidence will be required to verify the condition?
As regards the disability premium, it is likely that few people signing on following withdrawal of incapacity benefit will continue to receive the premium. In order to qualify for the disability premium in the first place, the disabled person has to be registered as blind or in receipt of disability living allowance care or mobility components. Research into invalidity benefit claimants indicates that fewer than one in five receives the disability living allowance or equivalent benefits for care and mobility needs. If a similar proportion is replicated in the numbers coming off incapacity benefit to sign on, less than 25,000 could qualify as vulnerable for hardship payments.
Restricting the definition of a disabled person to someone who is eligible for the premium is therefore likely to miss out many vulnerable people with ill health or disabilities, many of whom may have other needs which do not fall neatly into the qualifying conditions for the premium. Using as a definition people who have restricted availability on health grounds would be easier administratively as it is using a definition which has already been accepted and would include a wider group of people who would certainly be vulnerable. It would provide a much needed cushion for those disabled people who may have been moved from incapacity benefit on to jobseeker's allowance, many of whom would be likely to have to place some restrictions on their availability for work. Such people may be in
460
danger also of losing jobseeker's allowance in the event of just a doubt—not proof—that they have not been doing enough to seek work.
The purpose of Amendment No. 31A is to treat as actively seeking work someone who is appealing against withdrawal of incapacity benefit. Amendment No. 31B treats as actively seeking work someone who is appealing against the withdrawal of incapacity benefit when scoring at least five points in the all-work test of incapacity.
The amendments seek to tackle the issue of people appealing against the withdrawal of incapacity benefit who may not be in a position to fulfil the labour market conditions for jobseeker's allowance. The amendments seek to treat such people as actively seeking work pending their incapacity appeal. It means that they would still have to show that they were available for work, albeit with some restrictions on their availability, but they would not be required to take steps actively to seek work until after their appeal has been heard.
The second amendment is a narrower version of the first as it would be limited to people who had attracted at least five points in the all-work test of incapacity, suggesting some significant disability. People scoring over five points could include someone who "sometimes cannot rise from sitting without holding onto something" and "sometimes cannot bend or kneel as if to pick up a piece of paper from the floor and straighten up again". That would score a total of six points. Situations where "strangers have some difficulty in understanding his speech" would score eight points.
In earlier debates on the Bill the Minister confirmed that signing on will not prejudice an incapacity appeal. However, he failed to answer the point that an incapacity appeal can prejudice a claim for jobseeker's allowance. There is already evidence that people appealing an incapacity decision are regarded by Jobcentres as not being capable of, or available for, or actively seeking, work, pending an appeal hearing.
I have recently had brought to my attention the case of a disabled person with polio. Because of his subsequent condition he was told that he would not be able to get work in any event and could not be considered capable of seeking work even though he wished to do so. If the Minister cannot concede the point about exempting such people from the labour market test, can he give some assurances that all incapacity appeals will take no longer than four weeks to be heard so that if people are stuck in a twilight zone between benefits it occurs only for a limited period of time. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am pleased to support this group of amendments from these Benches. The arguments have been extremely well marshalled by the noble Lord. There is no need for me to be other than brief.
We had a somewhat similar debate at a previous stage of the Bill. The amendments deal with a problem that we all recognise from different angles. It will be interesting to see how the Government reply to the cogent arguments of the noble Lord.

461
Amendment No. 30A is carefully worded. It refers to "reasonable restrictions" on availability and the "hardship" which would result. It is important that the Minister answers the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and gives some estimate of those whom the Government consider will qualify for hardship payments. The amendment deals with the special situation of sick or disabled people and we have already discussed this at earlier stages of the Bill. The situation has been set out clearly. I hope that when the Government reply they will say how the situation regarding sickness and disability is to be taken into account, how hardship and vulnerability are to be defined, and so on. If the rules do not look after that group of people which is particularly hard hit, we believe it important that the Government make the position regarding sick and disabled people absolutely clear. Delays in determination by adjudication officers will be a specific problem for sick and disabled people who have enough problems seeking and finding employment.
A number of later amendments deal with different aspects of the problem. However, this group of amendments is intended to deal with one of the aspects, as the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, explained. It is exemplified in Amendments Nos. 31A and 31B.
Amendment No. 31B refers to a person who scores five or more points in respect of one or more descriptions in the all-work test. That is clear. The amendments deal with a specific problem which the rules should deal with. We are pleased to support the amendment from these Benches.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the amendment so clearly moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and in particular Amendments Nos. 31A and 31B. I understand that at present appeals take about 26 weeks. Therefore, a person would have to show what steps he was taking in actively seeking work for each of those 26 weeks.
We have had much discussion about reasonableness, relative or otherwise, on another amendment. Does the Minister consider it reasonable that someone who may ultimately win his appeal and may be judged incapable of work should have to go through those steps for 26 weeks?
Earl Russell: My Lords, there was a dreadful sting in the last sentence of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. He faced the Minister with an alternative which seems to me perfectly fair: either procure the hearing of appeals within four weeks or concede the amendment. It is a perfectly fair alternative. I should have thought that accepting the amendment was the easier of the two.
I ask the Minister to spare a thought for the employment officers with 150,000 people of limited capacity formerly on invalidity benefit coming at them. I should imagine that it is rather worse than being a Minister with 150,000 amendments coming at him.
There is bound to be a good deal of confusion. During that confusion there is bound to be hardship. That hardship will fall on people of limited capacity who will not be able to deal with it well. The amendment acts as
462
a holding operation to reduce the amount of hardship and confusion while the service beds down to what the Minister himself has admitted will be a process of adaptation that will take a certain amount of time and effort. The amendments are sensible, modest, limited and directed to the needs that they are designed to meet.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to consider a political point. The Secretary of State—no less—has frequently warned (most recently in the Daily Mail of 8th March) about the amount of agitation and protest that he sees coming down the line on the subject of incapacity benefit. I have no idea whether the Secretary of State is right; he may well be. He is concerned, he says, about whether the Government will be able to hold the line against the protest. If the Government wanted to hold the line, I should have thought they would find themselves much better placed to do so if they could show that they had made some manageable limited concessions to meet the problem and, what is more, that they had done so in response to an amendment moved from their own Benches.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Earl invites me to consider what it would be like if 150,000 amendments came at only one Minister. There are two of us here and it feels a little as if 75,000 are coming at each of us. I am happy to say that I ducked out of the one that was conducted in Latin, which was perhaps just as well.
My noble friend Lord Swinfen has returned to matters which he addressed in Committee on a number of occasions. I notice that he has moved his place a little and is directly behind me. I suppose that prevents my giving him a look of a certain kind occasionally without making it too obvious by turning right round—only physically. However, I understand the concerns he has raised and those of other noble Lords about the position of disabled people who may suffer hardship if an allowance is withdrawn in the circumstances we are discussing here. The Government intend to make provision in two ways for disabled people through the list of vulnerable groups who can have access to hardship payments.
First, as my noble friend accepted, we will allow access to payments for claimants who have a disability premium. The award of the premium recognises that the claimant has a significant disability which means that he may be vulnerable to hardship. The second provision we are making is that any claimant who does not qualify for the premium but who has a serious medical condition which could mean that the withdrawal of funds had particularly serious effects for his health will also be able to have access to payments.
I believe that the second provision should address many of my noble friend's anxieties. Many claimants may place restrictions of one kind or another on their availability as a result of a medical condition. In many cases those may be minor in nature, as in the example chosen by the noble Earl, Lord Russell—who is always good for examples. He suggested that someone with rather poor eyesight would not be likely to succeed in a job as a look-out. However, that person's general health may still be good and he would be perfectly capable of a range of work. I therefore believe that the conditions

463
we have suggested will mean that those claimants who have serious difficulties as a result of their disability will have access to hardship payments. I do not wish to go as far as the amendment suggests.
My noble friend asked how I would define "serious medical condition", for hardship purposes. We wish to allow the adjudication officers discretion to consider individual circumstances and therefore we do not propose to set out a list of specific conditions which could exclude some claimants and not take account of the severity of the condition. We have in mind that an adjudication officer will be able to award hardship payments to claimants who have conditions which mean that they have special needs relating to the condition and that they are particularly vulnerable to hardship. For example, a person with diabetes might need to maintain a particular diet. We are still considering the details of the arrangements which will be set out in regulations and we are happy to consider the views of my noble friend and other noble Lords which have been expressed on the matter.
Perhaps I may turn to Amendments Nos. 31A and 31B. We debated the same issues at an earlier stage, so I understand what is behind my noble friend's amendments. Like other amendments, they seek to recognise that people who have a disability deserve special consideration. I have given the House assurances many times that we have taken the needs of people with disabilities into account in drawing up the labour market rules for JSA. I am a little disappointed to have to do so again, but I am happy to lay out what the special considerations are.
The way the system will work is that people who are found capable of work under the all-work test will equally be capable of work for JSA. I believe I made that clear on a number of occasions. Those who wish to appeal against the IB decision can claim JSA, pending the outcome of the appeal, if they make themselves available for work and look for work. In addition, provision has been made for those who do not wish to make themselves available for work pending their appeal. Existing IB claimants, those in receipt of severe disability allowance and others who have been incapacitated for 28 weeks by 12th April 1995, will be able to get their full income support personal allowance pending their appeal if found capable at their first all-work test. Any other person who first claims IB on or after 13th April 1995 can also claim income support pending the appeal. In the second case, the personal allowance will be reduced by 20 per cent. because we do not believe it reasonable to pay the full rate of income support for people who do not satisfy the normal conditions of entitlement.
The first priority of jobseekers is to find employment. To that end it is vital that all jobseekers are available for and actively seeking employment. My noble friend's amendments would mean that certain people who have been found capable of work under the all-work test would not have to fulfil the actively seeking employment condition. I realise that the amendments are aimed at those who are contesting the decision that they are capable of work. I am sympathetic to the situation
464
which many such people find themselves in. But I think it wrong simply to waive the actively seeking employment condition in these cases.
At an earlier stage of the examination of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Swinfen expressed the view that people who are awaiting an appeal should not have to take steps to find work when they may never be regarded as being capable of work. I realise that some of those who appeal against the IB decision will be successful in doing so. But it is equally true that some will not. Rather than waiving the requirement to be actively seeking employment, I think it better to enable the rules to respond sensitively to each person who finds himself or herself in this situation.
Let me explain again how JSA will be geared to fitting in with the needs and capabilities of people with mental and physical disabilities. Of course, I recognise that some claimants—whether or not they are contesting a decision on IB—will have a condition that may affect their job prospects. We intend to carry forward the current provisions in unemployment benefit and income support which allow a person 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. In other words, such claimants who are appealing against an IB decision will have to be available for employment only to the extent that their condition permits. In addition Clause 7(2) (b) of the Bill enables regulations to provide for certain circumstances to be taken into account in satisfying the actively seeking employment condition. Such circumstances will have to be taken into account in determining whether a person is taking such steps as he can reasonably be expected to take in order to have the best prospects of securing employment. The Bill lists physical and mental limitations as relevant circumstances. I can give an explicit assurance that we shall make regulations which cover these circumstances.
I also remind noble Lords that if a claimant or partner would be entitled to a disability premium or has an underlying medical condition which would put them at risk, payment of JSA can be made at any time that hardship can be demonstrated, even when the claimant is not actively seeking work.
As I have said many times, we shall also continue to offer people with physical and mental conditions all the general and specialist facilities which the Employment Service has at its disposal. Putting this all together, I trust it can be seen that we shall offer a sensitive and helpful environment to all those on JSA who have a mental or physical condition whether or not they are appealing against an IB decision.
I hope that my noble friend will accept that we recognise the difficulties encountered by people with disabilities. I have spoken at some length because I believe it is an important subject and I know that my noble friend and other noble Lords feel strongly about it. I hope that what I have said will persuade those who are deeply interested in the subject that we have taken into account and given consideration to the special needs

465
of particular groups about whom my noble friend is concerned in his amendment. I hope that having listened to my explanation he will feel able to withdraw it.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is he able to answer the question I put to him, as did the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, about the Government's estimate of the number of people who will qualify for hardship payments?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not able to give that answer now. I will look into the matter and write to my noble friend and to the noble Lord.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the Government are very slowly moving towards the ideas that we hold. However, it is like trying to drain Loch Lomond by the misuse of a quaich. It is very hard, slow work. My noble friend did not address the administrative point that was raised by me and by the noble Earl, Lord Russell; namely, that employment offices will be absolutely swamped with appeals and it would therefore be administratively much safer and better to deal with disabled people as actively seeking work pending the appeal.
I shall have to read with great care my noble friend's response on Amendments Nos. 31A and 31B. My objective, as I am sure he realises, is to prevent disabled people from falling between two stools. At the moment I have the feeling that both stools are in the cupboard and not available for use and that at the same time my noble friend is actively plying the plane, narrowing down each stool while I am busy trying to get them out of the cupboard. I shall look very carefully at what my noble friend said, but I have a strong feeling that I shall be returning to these matters at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 31B not moved.]
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 32:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
("Refugees etc
. A person who is a refugee within the definition in Article 1 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and as extended by Article 1(2) of the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31st January 1967 or has been granted exceptional leave to remain by the Secretary of State; and

(i) is attending for more than 15 hours a week a course for the purpose of learning English so that he may obtain, or improve his prospects of obtaining, employment; and

(ii) on the date on which the course commenced, had been in Great Britain for not more than 24 months, or had been granted leave, as defined in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, not more than 12 months previously;

shall be treated as available for employment under section 6 and as actively seeking employment under section 7 but only for a period not exceeding nine months.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, refugees are in the main highly motivated and often skilled individuals. Their problem on arriving in this country is how they can adapt their skills to the British job market. One of the key elements in equipping themselves to compete in the job market is the ability to learn English. Without access to education, the prospects for refugees are either
466
no job at all or a poorly paid job well below their skills and abilities and possibly their previous training. Adapting to the job market in this country is the key. That means the opportunity to learn English. I contend that at the moment the scales are tipped very much against refugees. I seek an opportunity in this amendment to demonstrate that simple proposition.
The situation is made even worse by the change in the hours rule—the reduction in the permitted hours of study while actively seeking work from 21 to 16. It is also indirectly made worse by the new provisions that asylum seekers, before they are given refugee status or exceptional leave to remain, may now be charged overseas levels of fees and are to be treated by colleges as overseas students. Colleges have a discretion, but the effect may well be that while people who have come to this country seeking safety are waiting for their status to be determined, the level of overseas fees will debar them from study altogether. Effectively, therefore, when they are given a status that enables them to stay here, they are left with the difficulty of not being able to move into colleges because of the other restrictions upon them.
This amendment is extremely modest. It refers to a period of up to nine months during which such people should be regarded as being available for work or actively seeking work. My purpose is to seek the understanding of the Government. Perhaps I may anticipate the Minister's response. It may well be that, technically, my amendment is not appropriate or correct, and that I should seek to amend the provisions regarding income support rather than JSA. I appreciate that point. I seek from the Government some understanding of the dilemma and an opportunity to move forward on the issue. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, today, 50 years after VE Day, seems a very important moment to recognise the debt this country owes to its refugees. Recently, I attended a degree giving ceremony at the University of London. One of the people awarded an honorary degree was the woman who organised the influx of academic refugees in the years after 1939. That was an enormous job of work, and the degree was very well earned. Being given honorary degrees with her were two former refugees she had helped to bring into the country and get settled. They are both now Nobel Prize winners. There were also two children of the refugees whom she had helped to settle. That is a pretty substantial gain for this country from the work of one person. And that is true not only in this country. At Yale I worked in a department where some 25 per cent. of the members were refugees from Hitler. That is a colossal concentration of talent. This country does not always remember to what extent it has cause to be grateful.
It is perfectly common for refugees, when they arrive, to have either no English or very limited English. The United States has the same experience. Its success in handling the problem is a measure of its success as a country. Limited capacity in English is a problem. We are always coming up against it when we discuss restricted availability for work. It causes a great many problems and gives the benefits system a great many headaches. Therefore if refugees can be taught English, that is a good public object. It is in the public interest

467
by all possible criteria. However, while they are being taught English they must eat, and that involves some visible means of support. We do not need to insist that JSA is necessarily the right vehicle, or that a specific statutory provision is necessarily the only way of doing it.
There are a number of ways in which the Minister could handle this question. He might prefer to do so through income support. He might prefer, as the Government have hitherto handled the question of women in refuges, the prerogative of mercy tucked into the availability rules; namely, the provision that people may be regarded as available or not available. That is one perfectly practical approach. Or he might adopt the method provided by the amendment. We do not insist that it should be done in one particular way. We believe, however, that it should be done in one way or another. It is not merely in the interests of claimants, but in the interests of this country, and of a wider civilisation of which we are all part.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, I support this very modest amendment, as described by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. To echo what the noble Earl has just said, it is indeed in the interests of this country, and in its economic interests over a very short time. Not so many migrants have come into Liverpool in recent years because jobs have been very short. But it happens that a substantial Somali community has settled there. That is why I am prompted to speak. A high proportion of those people do not speak English. My information is that the community includes people who are very gifted in different professions and skills. The language barrier blocks them totally. If, for reasons of our crude, selfish advantage, they are not helped to get through that barrier, they may in the long term become a drain on the benefits system of this country. If, however, they are helped through the educational barrier, they will make a very substantial contribution.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I should like to make just one additional point. When I was a Minister at the Home Office, one of our responsibilities was to deal with the influx of East African Asians who had left their country very suddenly and arrived in this country with very little knowledge of it and, in many cases, had not visited it before. Those people have made a tremendous contribution to this country and have become economically a very significant group.
What often characterises refugees is that they are either exceptionally enterprising or exceptionally courageous people. In many cases either they have stood up against an unacceptable political regime or they have shown a degree of enterprise which is unusual in the country from which they have come. Therefore, as the right reverend Prelate said, they make a great contribution to this country.
There is one other strictly practical point that I should like to put to the Minister. Over the past year the United Kingdom has accepted about 1,000 refugees from Bosnia. I understand that consideration is being given
468
to whether more refugees from that country should be accepted. Very few people in Bosnia speak any English. It is not even the first foreign language of that country. Therefore, if we are to be fair to those people and give them a real chance to settle in this country, make a contribution to it, and begin to rebuild their shattered lives, this kind of relatively modest amendment allows them the opportunity to do so.
In the great tradition of this country, which has always welcomed refugees and regards that as one of the tests of a truly libertarian country, I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to this amendment.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I rise to support briefly the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs. What I like about the amendment is the general principle in it, which goes beyond refugees, although it speaks only of refugees; namely, that we ought to help people acquire skills to enable them to integrate into the community and to seek jobs. That is very important. That applies not only to refugees but to many ethnic groups and especially to the women. Many ethnic minorities have the same need. At some stage we shall have to say that we ought actively to help people to learn the language so that they can integrate into the community and become economically useful as well.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, let me begin by saying that the Government recognise that special rules within the benefit system are necessary for some refugees who have recently entered the country and who wish to undertake an English language course to improve their prospects of employment.
Such special rules currently exist in income support legislation. Refugees, who have been in Great Britain for not more than 12 months, and who are attending a course of more than 15 hours a week for the purpose of learning English, are able to receive income support for up to nine months without being required to be available for work. I suspect that the Bosnian refugees whom we have allowed to come here as refugees would certainly fall into that category.
I believe this is a generous provision. It allows refugees who are undertaking a full-time English course to continue to receive benefit. It is also much more generous treatment than applies to other claimants who, as your Lordships will know, are not able to receive income support or JSA if they are studying full-time. This income support provision will continue when JSA is in place. There is therefore no need to provide for the kind of treatment available in JSA which this amendment suggests.
If I heard him aright, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, however, argued that his amendment, which would provide for even more generous treatment in JSA, as I said, is necessary because the current provisions do not go far enough on two grounds. Perhaps I may address those concerns in turn.
First, there are the people given exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord quite rightly pointed out, the current provisions provide for a distinction between refugees and those given exceptional leave to remain in the UK. Whether

469
someone is given refugee status or exceptional leave to remain is, of course, a decision made by the Home Office, and the distinction between the two is an important one.
No doubt I do not have to remind the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who is a great expert on all these matters, about that distinction. But it may help your Lordships understand my argument if I say that exceptional leave to remain cannot be equated with refugee status, as it represents a temporary permission to stay in cases where it would be unreasonable or impracticable to enforce departure. Exceptional leave decisions can be reviewed. I do not believe that it would be right to blur this distinction by changing benefit rules so that we effectively upgraded exceptional leave status to refugee status. However, that does not mean that those given exceptional leave cannot study English. Like all other claimants, they will be able to study part-time without it affecting their benefit position.
The noble Lord understands that and that the 16 guided hours learning comes into that. I should point out to him that, although on the face of it it looks like a change from the 21 hours—we have had considerable debates on this issue as the Bill has proceeded—the two definitions are quite different. The guided hours learning takes account of the way in which further education has developed and has moved away from how we managed to define part-time courses previously. In fact, in the round, the same number of people will receive the easement which the up to 16 guided hours allows as were receiving the easement which the up to 21 hours rule allowed. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Lord when thinking about people with exceptional leave.
The noble Lord may also be concerned about the current 12-month rule, as part of this situation. We recognised that delays in decisions on refugee status were causing a problem for genuine refugees. That is why we introduced a package of measures, including the Asylum Bill, and a substantial increase of staff aimed at trying to reduce the delays. Those measures have allowed us to bring down the average decision time in new cases from 18 months to around eight months. If the problem still exists, I do not believe that extending the 12-month limit is the answer. In any case, refugees who become caught in that, so to speak, will still be able to study part-time up to 16 guided hours without it affecting their benefit once the 12-month period has expired.
I believe that the current rules operating in income support, which allow certain refugees to study English full-time, are generous and effective in helping members of that vulnerable group improve their employment prospects. They will also, as the noble Baroness said, help them to integrate into life in the United Kingdom. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would extend the provisions in a way which I do not believe can be justified.
I hope that I have given the noble Lord sufficient assurances about the continuation of the current rules in income support. I can assure him that we shall
470
certainly reflect on the points that he made. I hope that he can accept my assurances and will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I draw some comfort, but not overmuch, from what the Minister said. It would be wrong to trespass on the time of the House by going into a detailed set of answers to what he said. I shall limit myself to a couple of remaining concerns.
One concern is that, as I understand it, the special provisions mentioned by the Minister apply to asylum seekers before they are given their status. As he said, the waiting time for a decision to be made is now shorter than it was. I certainly welcome that. However, it means that the benefit that an asylum seeker receives is limited to the shorter time period. Given that asylum seekers often arrive shocked and traumatised by their experiences, they need a little more time to adjust in this country before they are able to take the step of working out their future and moving into education.
The Bosnian refugees, to whom reference was made earlier, are a case in point. I met some of them when they first arrived here. They had been detained, as it were, in Serb camps not long before they arrived in this country. Certainly they were very shocked and traumatised. Not many of them could have stepped into learning English all that quickly. But, now that they have been in this country a little longer, that is precisely what they want the opportunity to do. However, the Bosnians themselves, or many of them, have exceptional leave to remain or limited leave to remain. They are the very people who suffer from the distinction between refugee status and having exceptional leave to remain. I do not agree with the Minister when he wishes not to blur the distinction between the two. Although having exceptional leave to remain is not a permanent status, it has in the past been a status from which people have been able to benefit for quite some time and they have often been allowed to stay. To deny those people an opportunity to improve their English and to move into the job market, or to make it more difficult for them, is neither in their interests nor in the interests of this country.
I draw a little comfort, but only a little, from what the Minister said. Serious problems remain and I should like to return to this issue on a future occasion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 9 [The jobseeker's agreement]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 7, line 36, at beginning insert:
("( ) If a claimant fulfils section 1(2) (a) and (c) he shall be considered to be complying with the terms and conditions of a jobseekers agreement.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to a large group which includes Amendments Nos. 34, 36, 37, 40 to 59, and also Amendments Nos. 75, 78 and 83. I gave Ministers notice of the change in the grouping.
Lord Hay, one of the courtiers of King James VI of Scotland and I of England, was a great advocate of the principle of conspicuous consumption. He invented, in the course of his entertaining—which was lavish and based on the motto "Spend and the Lord will send"—the device of the "ante supper". Guests were brought in to supper and an enormous lavish feast was set out before them. Just as they were about to begin to eat the whole thing was taken away and an even more lavish supper was brought in instead of the "pathetically moderate display" that was put on the table when the guests first arrived. It was the most wonderful principle of ostentation. This group of amendments suggests that what we have before us is an ante Bill and that once it reaches the statute book it will be carried away and a whole new series of legislative principles, even more lavish and extreme, will come into force behind it.
I should say a word about the grouping before I go any further. The grouping includes a string of government amendments. I make no objection to any of those amendments; indeed, some of them were initially my amendments and the Government have put their name to them, for which I thank them warmly. The agenda may not be exactly identical in the two cases, but when one's amendment is accepted by the Government one cannot do other than welcome it with great gratitude.
My speaking to this group as a whole will not present any problem to Ministers when they wish to move their amendments. If I were to push this group to a Division the consequence would be that those government amendments would be agreed; but whether the Government, in those circumstances, would still agree with their own amendments is something we would have to wait to discover. But should I withdraw my amendment, or if it is pushed to a Division and not accepted, the government amendments could perfectly well stand on their own. They can easily be moved and I for one will not in any way oppose them. The grouping therefore will cause no problem.
The central principle of the group of amendments—here I express my gratitude to Anton Obholzer in our Whips' Office, who has done a superb job of work on them—is Amendment No. 33 which states:
"if a claimant fulfils section 1(2) (a) and (c) he shall be considered to be complying with the terms and conditions of a jobseekers agreement".
In fact, it seeks to ensure that the Bill only requires people to be available for employment and actively seeking employment; that all the detail should be left to traditional interpretation rather than being set out in a plethora of new terms and conditions which will come in after the Bill reaches the statute book.
There are two key clauses to be considered and all the rest of our amendments are contingent and consequential upon them. Amendment No. 34 to Clause 9(1) proposes to delete the words that a jobseeker's agreement,
"complies with the prescribed requirements in force at the time when the agreement is made".
472
That is legislation in the future perfect. The future perfect is no doubt an amusing tense with which to play games, but it is a rather dangerous one for legislation. It is a tense which is necessarily contingent. I know of only one time when it was used for serious legislation, which was the Coronation Oath of King Edward II who was made to swear to accept such good laws as the community of the realm "shall have chosen". It was construed by his barons as being an abolition of the royal veto. The king naturally did not agree and ended up being deposed. So legislation in the future perfect is capable of creating serious problems because one is agreeing to one knows not what. Clause 9(1) allows for the taking away of the ante supper and the bringing in of the new supper; the more lavish display, the contents of which we cannot even now guess at.
The next thing we want to do is to delete Clause 18(5), which is something else that the Minister can bring in by regulation. The clause states:
"The circumstances referred to in subsections (1) and (2) are that the claimant … has, without good cause, refused or failed to carry out any jobseeker's direction which was reasonable, having regard to his circumstances".
Subject only to the uncertain test of "reasonableness", it is self guided by regulations which we have not yet seen. The jobseeker's direction can tell the jobseeker to do pretty well whatever it likes. It is within the classic definition of an arbitrary power.
The same clause also allows regulations to deal with a claimant who has, without good cause,
"neglected to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of a place on a training scheme or employment programme".
There is provision, therefore, for the possibility of bringing in compulsory training—for adults as well I believe. I do not know what may come in under that. There is much more which I shall not deal with at this time. Noble Lords can look for themselves at the rest of Clause 18(5).
We are told in the Government's memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, in their exposition of what they want to do with Clause 9, that they intend to use it to introduce by regulation a substantial and systematic legislative framework. Your Lordships can see what brought me back to the idea of the ante supper. It is the substantial and systematic legislative framework which will be the real Bill; this Bill is only the ante supper and is not really of any importance. It is what is to be brought in afterwards, behind the curtain, which will be important.
That is why we want to bring the Bill back to the two basic conditions of entitlement; that the claimant should be "available for employment" and "actively seeking employment". We are prepared to leave the interpretation of that to the adjudication officer, to an appeal tribunal and ultimately to higher judicial authorities. It is a question which must be settled individually or it cannot be settled properly at all. The rest of our amendments are taking-out provisions to require a claimant to observe terms and conditions which are brought in by regulation.
It is hard enough to legislate in the present without trying to legislate in the future perfect as well. Let us give it up. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I hope that it may be of assistance to the House to explain the Government's position generally and their amendments which I shall move, and to speak to the noble Earl's amendments which he has already spoken to. In his opening remarks, he referred to the eating habits of the 17th century epicurean, Lord Hay, and his dinners. Just as he had a fore-dinner, I hope that my speech will succeed it as the main dinner.
In Committee on 11th May the Government brought forward important amendments to those parts of the Bill which deal with availability for employment and actively seeking employment. Your Lordships were pleased to approve these, and they now form part of the Bill.
In introducing those amendments, my noble friend the Minister said that we would also be tabling amendments to the clauses dealing with the jobseeker's agreement and variations to the jobseeker's agreement, now Clauses 9 and 10. Noble Lords will have seen from the Marshalled List that we have met this commitment. These amendments are proposed in the same spirit as the government amendments that your Lordships considered in Committee and approved on 11th May, and we hope they will be welcomed by the House in the same way.
I should like to begin by explaining briefly the thinking behind these amendments. As my noble friend the Minister made clear in Committee, we fully understand the concern to secure the right balance between primary and secondary legislation. As your Lordships are aware, we have taken careful note of the report and recommendations of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The committee's final report did riot make any recommendations in respect of the clauses dealing with the jobseeker's agreement. But we have considered the views expressed in the committee's interim report. We have re-examined carefully the clauses that deal with the jobseeker's agreement with the view that new provisions, and, in particular, new decision-making procedures, should be specified on the face of the Bill.
If I may, I should now like to say a few words about the purpose of the jobseeker's agreement and how we intend that it will work in practice. The jobseeker's agreement is central to JSA. It will be the means of ensuring that every jobseeker has a plan to help him back to work. It will also ensure that every jobseeker understands clearly the conditions of receiving JSA and the nature of the help that they can receive from the Employment Service.
At the start of his claim for JSA, the jobseeker will have an interview with a skilled employment adviser (this is the person called, more formally, the "Employment Officer" in the Bill). The jobseeker and the employment adviser will discuss the jobseeker's work experience and qualifications, the sort of work he is looking for, his availability and his plans for getting back to work and a range of other issues. Together, they will seek to draw up a jobseeker's agreement.
The agreement will set out what sort of work the jobseeker is looking for and what he is going to do to find it. For example, it will record the number of job
474
applications and visits to the Jobcentre he is going to make, and any other steps that have been agreed, such as drawing up a CV or researching potential employers. It will also record details of his availability and any agreed restrictions. For example, if he is a carer, the agreement will record that he has to be available only at 48 hours' notice, as we have already discussed this afternoon.
The agreement is an important way of ensuring that jobseekers understand right from the outset the conditions of receiving JSA, and how their benefit may be affected if they do not satisfy those conditions. It will contain a statement that the jobseeker understands that he must continue to be available for employment and actively seek it; that he may be asked to give evidence of what he has done and has been advised to keep a record; and that if he does not do enough to meet these conditions, his allowance may be affected and his case will be referred to the adjudication officer, in which case he will be informed. He will also be told about his right of appeal.
The agreement will also set out the nature of the help back to work available from the Employment Service. It will explain that Jobcentres display up-to-date details of job vacancies and that the Employment Service will not display vacancies which discriminate against jobseekers on the grounds of race, religion, sex or disability, and that people of all ages will be encouraged to apply; that the Jobcentre can offer information about opportunities on employment and training programmes and schemes to help people become self-employed; that when the jobseeker attends the Jobcentre, his progress in getting back to work will be reviewed with an employment adviser; that wherever possible, the jobseeker will see the same person who understands his circumstances, or someone from the same team; that he will also be able to receive information about other social security benefits, including in-work benefits.
When the jobseeker and the employment adviser have drawn up the agreement, they should both sign it. The jobseeker will thus have an agreement in force and will have satisfied the condition of entitlement contained in Clause 1(2) (b) of the Bill. The jobseeker will be given a copy of the agreement and the original will be kept in the office. It will be used as a basis for discussing the jobseeker's progress in finding work when he attends the office.
If at any point the jobseeker or the employment adviser feel that the agreement needs to be changed, they can suggest this. Again, they will discuss the situation and draw up what is called a "variation" to the agreement. We envisage that variations will be needed in particular if the jobseeker is still unemployed at the end of his permitted period, when he will be required to widen the range of jobs he is available and looking for beyond his usual occupation and rate of remuneration. Variations may also be needed from time to time to respond to changes in the labour market or the jobseeker's circumstances. For instance, if the jobseeker has gained a new qualification, he may find that this opens up new job opportunities. Equally, if, for

475
example, a jobseeker has been looking for driving work but loses his licence, he will have to refocus his search for work on other occupations.
We have heard from time to time that the jobseeker's agreement will be forced on jobseekers. I hope I have reassured your Lordships that it will in fact be the outcome of a dialogue between the jobseeker and the employment adviser. But we recognise that it may not in all cases be possible for the jobseeker and the employment adviser to reach agreement. As Ministers have explained repeatedly in this House and in the other place, that is why the Bill provides an extensive procedure for independent adjudication and appeal. Again, at the risk of trying the House's patience, I should like to explain this briefly.
The jobseeker and the employment adviser will be able to refer a proposed agreement or variation to an independent adjudication officer. I should say at this point that I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the honourable Member for Withington in the other place, for their suggestions earlier in the passage of the Bill that the referral to the adjudication officer should be made "forthwith". This is now provided in the Bill.
Adjudication officers carry out their functions independently of Government under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and receive guidance on carrying out their adjudication duties from the chief adjudication officer, not the Secretary of State. When he receives a proposed agreement or variation, the adjudication officer will consider it and determine whether, if the jobseeker complied with it, he would satisfy the availability and actively seeking employment conditions of JSA; and whether it is reasonable to expect him to have to comply with it. If the jobseeker or the employment adviser is dissatisfied with the adjudication officer's determination, either may seek to have it reviewed by a different adjudication officer. If the jobseeker is still dissatisfied, he, but not the employment adviser, will have the right of appeal to the social security appeal tribunal; and thence to the commissioner on a point of law.
We recognise that the agreement is a new feature of benefits for unemployed people, and we have therefore provided a number of features in the adjudication procedure over and above the standard procedure set out in the Administration Act. First, the adjudication officer will be able to direct the employment adviser to enter into an agreement on such terms as he considers appropriate. If, for example, the adjudication officer considers that both the jobseeker's and the employment adviser's proposals are unacceptable, he may suggest terms which he considers appropriate rather than simply rejecting what is put to him. The employment adviser will be required to enter into an agreement on the basis put forward by the adjudication officer. This is a constructive provision, wholly to the jobseeker's advantage.
Secondly, the adjudication officer will be able to backdate a jobseeker's agreement. For example, if he considers that the jobseeker's proposals were acceptable
476
all along, he will be able to back-date the agreement to the start of the claim; or, if appropriate, he will be able to back-date it to an intermediate point.
Thirdly, there is the provision that I have already mentioned for a review by a second adjudication officer before the case goes to the social security appeal tribunal. The intention of this is that cases will be dealt with quickly and simply. It will be to the advantage of the jobseeker to be able to have his case dealt with in this way. But of course, as I have made clear, if he is still dissatisfied after the review, he will be able to appeal to the social security appeal tribunal.
Finally, the adjudication officer will be able to bring a jobseeker's agreement to an end where the jobseeker fails to comply within a prescribed period with the adjudication officer's decision that his agreement should be varied. This will prevent the jobseeker from being able to keep to the original agreement indefinitely when the adjudication officer has decided that his agreement must be varied.
Your Lordships have been very patient in listening to this explanation. I should now like to turn to the government amendments themselves, Nos. 37, 40, 42, 43, 45, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56 and 59 on today's list. I am pleased to see that in several cases the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Seear, have tabled amendments which are identical to the Government's. It is clear that they, too, have been considering the Scrutiny Committee's interim report and are suggesting to the Government exactly the same means of meeting it as we are indeed proposing. I am glad of that. I think it shows this House at its best when, on a non-partisan basis, we try to work towards common solutions.
The amendments appear extensive in the sense that there are many words on the page. But that is largely a matter of drafting. They are actually quite simple in their intent. They go to the heart of what I have said about the Government's response to your Lordships' concerns about the balance between primary and secondary legislation.
Clauses 9 and 10 contain a number of regulation-making powers. We have re-examined each of these carefully with a view to seeing whether or not the powers could be removed and the provisions could be put on the face of the Bill. I would like to set out our main conclusions. First, Clauses 9(8) and 10(5) at present enable regulations to provide for a proposed jobseeker's agreement or proposed variation to be referred to the adjudication officer. It has always been our intention to make these regulations. We have given commitments to this effect to both Houses and in the memorandum to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. Our purpose in proposing to deal with these matters through regulations was to provide sufficient flexibility to deal with detailed procedural matters. But we have decided on reflection that it is not necessary for this to be provided through regulations and that these are matters which can be dealt with in primary legislation. That is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 40 and 51.

477
Secondly, Clause 9(9) (b) at present provides that regulations may provide criteria to which the adjudication officer is to have regard in making his determination. Noble Lords have asked us what those criteria will be. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and his colleagues have tabled Amendment No. 46 on today's Marshalled List which addresses this very issue. We have always made clear that the criteria—the only criteria—will be those set out in the provisions of Clause 9(8) (a) and (b) and repeated in those of Clause 10(5) (a) and (b). As I have explained, these are: whether the proposed agreement (or variation) would allow the jobseeker, if he complied with it, to satisfy the availability for employment and actively seeking employment conditions of JSA; and whether it is reasonable to expect the jobseeker to have to comply with the proposed agreement.
Noble Lords have rightly asked why, if those were the only criteria that we had in mind and they were already on the face of the Bill, we needed the regulation-making power in Clause 9(9) (b). We want the JSA regulations to be as clear as possible. The current legislation on unemployment benefits is contained in many different regulations. JSA offers an opportunity to consolidate the legislation. Setting out the criteria in the regulations so that all the key provisions on the adjudication of the agreement can be found in one piece of legislation would make it easier for those who administer JSA and for jobseekers and advisory organisations. But we understand the concern that this provision has provoked. We propose, therefore, that it should be removed altogether and your Lordships will see that it does not appear in Amendment No. 45.
Thirdly, Clause 9(9) (c) provides that regulations may provide for the adjudication officer to make his determination before the end of a prescribed period. Our intention here was to ensure that adjudication matters are dealt with promptly. That is in the jobseeker's interest. We proposed, therefore, a power to set a time-limit in regulations. As the memorandum made clear, we believed that regulations would provide the flexibility to deal with different circumstances. On re-examination, however, we have concluded that we can put this on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 45 states that the adjudication officer
"shall so far as practicable dispose of it in accordance with this section before the end of the period of 14 days of the date of the reference".
I should point out that a drafting error has crept into subsection 9(a). The reference to,
"14 days of the date",
should read, "14 days from the date". There is a similar mistake in subsection 6(a) of Amendment No. 56. We propose to amend that on Third Reading. That brings this aspect of the Bill into line with Section 21 of the Social Security Administration Act. I hope that your Lordships will welcome that.
Fourthly, noble Lords, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in particular, have sought assurance that the jobseeker's agreement will not be capable of being used to impose individual conditions of entitlement on jobseekers. We have repeatedly given this assurance, pointing to the provisions in Clause 9(8) (a) and (b) and
478
Clause 10(5) (a) and (b), which I have already mentioned. This has always been our clear intention. It has not changed. On re-examination, however, we have concluded that the Bill could be drafted more clearly in this respect. In particular, we have decided that we should remove any scope that there might be for confusion between the terms and conditions of a jobseeker's agreement and the conditions of entitlement to JSA. That is the specific purpose of Amendments Nos. 37, 42, 43, 50, 53 and 54, and it is reflected in other amendments. As I have said, I am very pleased to see that, in the case of several of these, my noble friend the Minister's name has been joined with those of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Seear.
Perhaps I may also draw your Lordships' attention to two small technical matters. In all but one respect, the purpose of Amendment No. 56 is to make the changes that I have already explained. The minor exception is subsections (6) (b) and (c) of the amendment, which deal with the procedure by which the adjudication officer will be able to direct that an agreement should be varied and bring it to an end if the jobseeker fails to comply with that direction. Those provisions make no changes of substance to the equivalent existing provisions of Clause 10(6) (b) and (c) of the Bill. But we consider that the drafting of these provisions is a little unclear in some respects and we have dealt with that in this amendment in order to avoid any possibility of confusion.
I should also mention that, if carried, the amendments will result in an additional clause in the Bill. Currently, Clause 9 deals with the jobseeker's agreement; Clause 10 deals with variations; and matters connected with reviews and appeals are dealt with in both clauses. In an effort again to make the Bill as clear as possible, we are proposing that Clause 9 will deal with the agreement; Clause 10 with variations; and Clause 11, introduced by Amendment No. 59, with reviews and appeals. This is a matter of drafting and involves no changes of substance other than those that I have already explained.
There is one final point that I would like to make before sitting down. The changes that we are proposing to make to these clauses will result in a genuine and substantial reduction in the number of regulation-making powers. I do not wish to get into a counting exercise, but noble Lords will be able to see for themselves that that is the case. The small number of regulation-making powers that will be retained by the amendments are needed to deal with very specific and generally procedural matters.
I turn now to the amendments. I hope that I shall cover them all comprehensively. On Amendment No. 33, the noble Earl, Lord Russell is, I think, once again seeking reassurance. I am entirely happy, once again, to offer him and the noble Baroness that reassurance. We believe that the amendment is quite unnecessary. As I have explained to the House on previous occasions, the jobseeker's agreement is a supportive measure intended to help each jobseeker to decide how he should best tackle returning to work and then set that out. I can reassure your Lordships that it certainly does not impose

479
additional eligibility conditions, and neither the employment officer nor the independent adjudication officer will be able to impose individual conditions of benefit.
The agreement will give expression to the steps the jobseeker has agreed to take to find work, and the terms on which he is prepared to be available for work. It will act as a reminder of the discussion with the employment officer and what he has agreed to do to meet the availability and actively seeking entitlement conditions.
Once the jobseeker has an agreement in force, the key to his continued receipt of jobseeker's allowance will, however, be the actual steps that he takes to find work, and his actual availability for employment. The agreement will be used to help to establish that jobseekers meet the conditions of availability and active seeking, but abiding by the precise letter of what is in his agreement will not be the test of whether someone continues to meet the conditions.
That is an important point, and it is right that your Lordships should have focused on it, now and previously. I hope that it will reassure your Lordships to note that in the revised Clause 9 which we have tabled, we have removed the power to prescribe criteria against which an adjudication officer should make a determination about a disputed agreement. The reference was never intended to add to the eligibility conditions, but we understand the concern that it provoked. We have, therefore, done away with the reference specifically to make it absolutely clear that there is no question of the agreement setting different standards of availability and actively seeking conditions than are applied by the basic condition.
We are in the business of helping as many people as possible back to work as quickly as possible. We do not intend to tie up their efforts with unnecessary red tape. To introduce the concept of complying with the jobseeker's agreement into the Bill would, in fact, be to add an additional requirement, and I am sure that the noble Earl would not want that. Employment and adjudication officers would want to know what would happen if the jobseeker were to fail to comply with an agreement. That is not a requirement we want or need to introduce.
I hope that the noble Earl and the noble Baronesses are reassured by my explanation, and by the government amendments that have been tabled in relation to the jobseeker's agreement and to which I have referred. By far the greater part of the provisions relating to the jobseeker's agreement, with the exception of minor technicalities, is now part of the primary legislation in this Bill.
Turning to the other amendments, I thank the noble Earl for his explanation of Amendment No. 34. I was curious to know what concerns there could be about the detailed provisions of the agreement.
I should like to reassure the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and other noble Lords that that power is benign. Our intention is to make regulations that set out what will be needed to constitute an agreement—broadly speaking, the headings that it will contain.
480
The intention is to include things such as the jobseeker's name, his availability, the sort of work he is looking for, any period that is agreed in which he can restrict his availability and jobsearch to his normal occupation and rate of pay and a dated signature of both the jobseeker and the employment officer.
I hope that the noble Earl will be reassured that the regulations under subsection (1) will be used only to clarify the requirements of the agreement, and not to add any additional requirements. Our purpose is only to provide clarity as to what constitutes an agreement, and to ensure that agreements are made in a standard form.
Perhaps I may thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his explanation of Amendment No. 36. I am sure that he is satisfied that the Bill would benefit from the additional definitions that subsection would bring. I must, however, assure him, and other noble Lords, that not only is it unnecessary but it is also in some respects misconceived.
As I have explained to the House on previous occasions, the jobseeker's agreement is a supportive measure intended to help each jobseeker decide how he should best tackle returning to work. I can reassure your Lordships that it certainly does not impose additional eligibility conditions, and neither the employment officer nor the independent adjudication officer will be able to impose individual conditions of entitlement to benefit.
The agreement will give expression to the steps the jobseeker has agreed to take to find work, and the terms upon which he is prepared to be available for work. It will act as a reminder of the discussion with the employment officer and what he has agreed to do to meet the availability and actively seeking entitlement conditions. The phrase "terms and conditions" as used on the face of the Bill means nothing other than the contents of the agreement.
As I have explained previously, once the jobseeker has an agreement in force, the key to his continued receipt of jobseeker's allowance will be the actual steps that he takes to find work, and his actual availability for employment. The agreement will be used to help to establish that jobseekers meet the conditions of availability and active seeking, but abiding by the precise letter of what is in his agreement will not be the test of whether someone continues to meet the conditions. For example, if a person states in his agreement that the will apply for jobs in a factory, there is nothing to stop him from applying for jobs in the local supermarket as long as he continues to satisfy the actively seeking test. No one could possibly want that to be the case. The amendment is therefore misconceived.
I hope that it will reassure your Lordships to note that in the revised Clause 9 that we have tabled we have in any event removed the references to the "terms and conditions" of an agreement. The reference was never intended to be confused with the eligibility conditions, but we understand the concern that it provoked. We have, therefore, done away with the reference specifically to make it absolutely clear.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 41 and 52, I made the Government's position on that issue clear in the earlier debate. We agree with the noble Earl, Lord

481
Russell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams and Lady Seear, that the Bill should be amended to remove any scope for confusion between the terms and conditions of the jobseeker's agreement and the conditions of entitlement to JSA. We have dealt with that in a series of amendments.
With regard to Amendments Nos. 44 and 55, it is clear from the range of amendments tabled that clarification is sought of the distinction between the phrases "terms and conditions" of the jobseeker's agreement and the "conditions of entitlement to JSA".
As I explained earlier when introducing the government amendments the intention has always been clear but we have recognised that the drafting of those provisions gave rise to some concern. Our amendments have dealt with that by replacing references to the "terms and conditions" of an agreement with "terms" or simply "the proposed agreement". I was pleased that those amendments received cross-party support.
Amendments Nos. 44 and 55 raise a related issue upon which I should like to spend a few minutes. As I have already explained to the House, the Bill provides that the adjudication officer will consider two matters. Would the proposals allow the jobseeker, if he complied with them, to meet the availability and actively seeking employment conditions of JSA? And is it reasonable to expect the jobseeker to have to comply with the proposed agreement?
To be clear, what the Bill is saying here is that it is possible that the proposed agreement would allow the jobseeker, if he complied with it, to satisfy the availability and actively seeking employment conditions. But the adjudication officer will be able to determine that it would be unreasonable to expect him to have to comply with the agreement. That offers an important protection to the jobseeker.
Take, for example, a proposed agreement which stated that the jobseeker would apply for 90 jobs a week. Applying for 90 jobs a week would clearly enable him to meet the actively seeking employment condition, but it would be unreasonable to expect him to have to do so. Or, take the example of a proposed agreement which stated that a declared anti-vivisectionist would be available for jobs as an assistant in a laboratory that uses animals for its testing. Again, that would be unreasonable because there are many other types of job for which the jobseeker could be available in order to meet the availability condition.
In both those cases, the adjudication officer would be able to determine that it was unreasonable to expect the jobseeker to have to comply with the agreement. He would be able to suggest changes to make the agreement reasonable and the employment officer would have to enter into an agreement on the basis upon which the adjudication officer has directed.
That is the distinction that the Bill is making here. These amendments, however, suggest that, in considering the proposed agreement, the adjudication officer should determine whether it is reasonable to expect the jobseeker to have to comply with the availability and actively seeking employment conditions. That is a different question. We have had
482
extensive debates on the availability and actively seeking employment conditions. I do riot propose to reopen that issue now.
I hope and believe that I have covered comprehensively the various points contained in the amendments tabled by the noble Earl. I hope that we have made our position clear and that that will reassure those who have tabled the amendments so that they may feel able not to move them and to support the Government's amendment.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him a question about his amendments. New Clause 11 provides that any determination of an adjudication officer under that clause shall be binding. However Amendment No. 59 states:
"Any determination of, or direction given by, an adjudication officer…may be reviewed (by a different adjudication officer) on the application of the claimant or of an employment officer".
There is then a procedure for review and appeal, which I welcome. If that is so, should not new Clause 11 contain a rider to the effect that it is binding, subject to the provisions of the new clause put forward in Amendment No. 59? Otherwise, it looks as though the adjudication officer makes a final decision, and that is it.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing that point to our attention. We shall look at it, and, if the problem is as she described, we shall respond accordingly.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank the Minister.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, am I right in understanding that since he spoke early to assist the House and to open his own amendments, it is still in order for other noble Lords to speak if they wish?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, indeed, that is the point of the exercise.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that full, if rather rapid, exposition of the Government's amendments, which I have done my best to follow. I hope that he will forgive me for asking what may be a stupid question, but it would be helpful to have an explanation as it is one of the key reasons why my noble friends Lord Russell and Lady Seear and I tabled this group of amendments. I am referring to subsections (9) and (10) of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and, in particular to the adjudication officer.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said—he went a long way towards reassuring me—that one of the purposes of the long government amendment was to deal with the original part of the Bill we found objectionable; in particular, the possibility of the regulations laying down criteria.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, but I did not properly understand to which subsection she was referring, and so it is pointless going on.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I was going at the Minister's own speed in order to satisfy the Government Whip. If she will he merciful to me, I shall take it a bit more slowly. Subsection (9) of Amendment No. 45 deals, among other things, with regulations being able to prescribe the criteria that the adjudication officer must have in mind. As the Minister said, one of the matters that my noble friend and I found objectionable was the possibility that, by regulation, criteria for adjudication could be added. The Minister said —I think with considerable understanding of our worries—that there was never an intention to add to the criteria the adjudication officer would have to bear in mind, thereby qualifying to some extent his or her own independence.
The new clause appears to meet most of our objections. However, one worry remains with me and perhaps the Minister can put my mind at rest. Subsection (10) in Amendment No. 45 reads:
"Regulations may provide … for such matters as may be prescribed to be taken into account by an adjudication officer in giving a direction under subsection (9) (c)".
My concern is that that could be a complex way of reinstating the issue of adding to the criteria which the adjudication officer must bear in mind. It may be that the wording fully meets the point. However, on a simple woman's reading of it, I am not sure that it does.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am always suspicious when I hear simple women's questions—and simple men's questions too. I understand that the clause is to enable the adjudication officer, when a reference is made to him, to propose an agreement for the parties to enter. I understand that in doing so he will be in the same position as the parties were when they first began discussing the matter. The purpose of the clause is to enable the adjudication officer to operate within exactly the same constraints as regards the agreement as the employment officer would have had to operate at first instance.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, that sounds a little like, "If I say no I mean yes; if I say yes I mean no", which we came to earlier in our discussions today. I shall ponder upon what the Minister has said and, if I do not fully understand it, I shall ask my noble friend to return to the matter at a later stage.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply. Obviously, I must read it in considerable detail and I suspect that I must read it more than once. I found it very helpful as far as it went. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his comments on the phrase "terms and conditions". He penetrated exactly what was in my mind when I tabled the amendments and I have never been quite so glad to be told that I was confused. On that point, the confusion is now entirely clarified.
I was also extremely grateful to the Minister for his examples, which I found entirely helpful. I am not certain that I was so entirely convinced by his replies to
484
my own amendments. In respect of Amendment No. 34, Clause 9(1), I was reassured by the Minister's exposition of the Government's intentions. I was particularly reassured to be told that my amendments are unnecessary. As your Lordships know, the Government have two categories of amendment; the unnecessary and the wrecking. If I had been told that this was a wrecking amendment, I should have been most anxious indeed. However, as I am told that it is an unnecessary amendment I am a great deal less anxious.
I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance that the powers are in their intention benign. I wish to draw his attention to the fact that before we are through a little further drafting might be helpful. I can see nowhere in Clause 9(1) a statement to the effect that any requirements necessarily must be benign. However good the Government's present intentions may be, this Government or any government will not be here for ever.
In the past the Minister has been a little unsympathetic to the argument about the powers of future governments. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee comments on precisely that issue. The House may wish to bear in mind, however, that whatever the current intention of the departments, the powers would remain capable of being used to make amendments of substance.
Being reassured about the Government's intentions is not necessarily the end of the matter. Leaving powers lying about is a little like leaving unexploded bombs or mines: one may not intend to detonate them but in 10 or 20 years some unsuspecting person may detonate them to devastating effect. Is there any possibility of the Government agreeing to tighten the wording of Clause 9(1) so as to bring it into line with their intentions, with which I shall not argue, as the Minister stated them?
Furthermore, I thought that the Government were a little unwise to use an argument from silence about the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee having made no criticism about the wording of Clause 9 as it stands. The Committee stated:
"There is nevertheless a strong argument that the bill is no more than a skeleton bill, in spite of the Departments' arguments as to why the powers are needed to the extent provided for. The Committee must accordingly draw to the attention of the House the extent of the powers Parliament is being asked to delegate to Ministers".
With a general remark such as that, I would have thought that to make an argument ex silentio based on the words of the Committee is of very little weight.
But the Minister has said much for which I owe him nothing but thanks. Proceeding any further tonight would be inappropriate. I shall ask him to bear in mind the possibility of tightening the wording of Clause 9(1). I may wish to return to the matter later when I have read carefully what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 7, line 37, leave out from ("officer") to second ("is") in line 38, and insert ("whereby the claimant agrees to carry out a set of reasonable jobseeking activities in return for the provision by the employment officer of appropriate assistance, including relevant training or jobsearch schemes,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we have had a long debate and have dealt with 24 amendments. For a long time the parties involved in the debate were arguing about which amendment would be pre-dinner and which would be after dinner. If we do not take this amendment at fair lick, I do not suppose that there will be any dinner—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I cannot call the dinner break or adjournment for pleasure until 7.30 p.m., so it is up to your Lordships—and they will get dinner.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does that mean that at 7.30 p.m. the noble Baroness will order me out of the House?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am glad about that. The amendment deals with the appalling Clause 9 and goes to precisely the same part of the clause as the previous amendment which was the subject of a marathon debate. We are trying to take out what we regard to be a largely meaningless phrase. It is:
"and which complies with the prescribed requirements in force at the time when the agreement is made".
We wish to include words that are more precise and relevant to the central problem facing the jobseeker. We wish to put on the face of the Bill in place of the largely meaningless phrase which now appears a provision in respect of the jobseeker's agreement which states:
"whereby the claimant agrees to carry out a set of reasonable jobseeking activities in return for the provision by the employment officer of appropriate assistance, including relevant training or jobsearch schemes".
That is intended to make the agreement a real agreement; a network of mutual obligations. As was said by Members on this side of the House when a similar amendment was moved in Committee, that is what an agreement is supposed to be. The Oxford English Dictionary states that an agreement is "A mutual understanding; a reconciliation; a covenant; a treaty; a contract; an accord which produces a harmony of interest after an interchange or exchange". That is what an agreement is and that is what we want the jobseeker's agreement to be. When a similar amendment was moved in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said that the jobseeker's agreement,
"will set out what the jobseeker has agreed to do to meet the availability for work and actively seeking employment conditions of the JSA".
The jobseeker, he said, could propose terms so that the procedure was not entirely one-sided but if there was no agreement there was adjudication plus a defined series of appeals. Our point is that if there is adjudication, it will be on terms prescribed by the employment officer, the terms which he suggests are a reasonable JSA. I
486
believe that if one reads what was said by the noble Lord on that occasion he accepted our point because he went on to say:
"The Opposition want something very different. They want to use the agreement as a means of placing specific, perhaps almost contractual, responsibilities on the employment officer".
We accept that. We should like the employment officer to have a responsibility to help and we should like that prescription of responsibility to be on the face of the Bill.
The Minister said that,
"it cannot be right that the individual employment officer should be bound to provide specific help".—[Official Report, 25/4/95; col. 895.]
I suggest now—and I would have suggested it at the time had it not been so late—that the Minister knows better than that. He knows that we are not asking for professional help or requiring that to be specified precisely on the face of the Bill. The help, if help there be, would be given by the Employment Service as a whole, not by individual employment officers.
Therefore, we are asking why there should not be a commitment to some kind of exchange—a set of reasonable jobseeking activities agreed by the jobseeker and, on the Employment Service side, what we call appropriate assistance in training, jobsearch and so on.
The difference arises when we come to adjudication. We argue that the jobseeker would be strengthened a little, but not over-strengthened. He can argue that what he has been asked to do is not appropriate or reasonable. I ask the Minister and the Government to consider that. If the amendment cannot be accepted, I ask the Government to tell us whether it would be possible to include something of that sort in the regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the jobseeker's agreement is being introduced to help jobseekers discuss, agree and set out their best route back to work. It will be a useful tool for each jobseeker in his search for work and will allow him to focus on the steps that he has agreed to take to find work and any restrictions that he has placed on his availability.
Each agreement will set out the jobseeker's intentions in terms of availability and actively seeking employment. The form of the agreement will also include a section which explains the help which the Employment Service offers to all jobseekers in their efforts to find work. The point about that is that the inherent obligations of the Employment Service are founded in statute rather than on a contractual relationship with the jobseeker in question. The agreement will not, and could not, stipulate in advance and in precise detail what help will be offered to individual jobseekers at particular points in their claim. Each jobseeker will have access to the full range of government help to assist in getting him back to work. That will be offered by the appropriate employment officer at the appropriate point in the claim and will depend on the needs that the jobseeker and the employment officer have identified at that time.
It seems to us that the amendment suggests that the employment officer should offer specific assistance as part of the agreement. We believe that that could

487
become cumbersome. The effect, which I am sure we all agree is undesirable, would be that whenever the Employment Service's support to the jobseeker changed, it would become necessary to seek a variation of the agreement to reflect that fact.
We return to the point we debated on the previous occasion to which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred. The jobseeker's agreement is not a contract. The jobseeker is not compelled to do precisely what is in it each week and neither is it sensible to bind the Government to particular forms of assistance from the outset. The point is that JSA is a conditional benefit. It is important that claimants should understand that conditionality. That is what the agreement is for. It sets out what the claimant agrees to do to meet the conditions of benefit—no more and no less. What can be the difficulty with that? To me it is sensible that the claimant should have a clear view of what a particular claimant in particular circumstances needs to do to find work.
To some extent our debate has involved a series of semantic gymnastics but one point which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, raised related to the input which a jobseeker might have in the case of a dispute and adjudication about the agreement. We must return to the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, made on an earlier amendment; namely, that there is power for the adjudication officer to bring forward his own proposals if, having heard both the jobseeker and the employment officer, he feels that a different arrangement from that proposed by either is appropriate. This system envisages the involvement of the jobseeker to a greater extent than has been the case hitherto. In that way we believe that the jobseeker will be able to play a full part in mapping out the steps that he should take to get back to work.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the amendment does not refer to specific assistance. If it did, something slightly different might be provided in regulations. I am saying to the Government that if they do not like our words, they should put in some other words, but for God's sake, put some words in.
Secondly, the Minister says that it is not a contract. That is right but, of course, if the jobseeker breaks it he does not receive the benefit. In that sense it is a contract. It is not a contract because there is nothing which the jobseeker can enforce against the Employment Service. That is why it is not a contract. It is an imposition and if I were not in this House at this time of night I would say it was a bloody imposition. It is certainly an imposition.
Thirdly, the Minister says that the claimant must have a clear view and that that is the intention. Yet he will not agree to include in the contract anything which specifies or illustrates in any way what is the responsibility on the Employment Service side. I do not wish to go through all this. There are so many different ways in which we disagree. The Government's attitude towards the jobseeker and the jobseeker's agreement reminds me of Groucho Marx. In "Duck Soup",
488
Groucho says to Mrs. Witherspoon, "Don't read the small print, we haven't written it yet". 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. In moving that Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.

Prisoners (Return to Custody) Bill
7.38 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I must declare an interest. The Bill was carried through in another place by my daughter, Lady Olga Maitland, to whom goes the credit for all the research leading up to it.
Noble Lords will be aware that prisoners who are allowed out on unescorted leave on home leave and temporary release schemes sometimes fail to return. Last year there were more than 5,000 breaches of the release rules, including failure to return. Of course, the failure of some prisoners to return is innocent: a prisoner may be ill; his transport may fail him; or his train may run late. But in such cases the facts are verifiable.
On the other hand, if prisoners do manage to stay unlawfully at large for more than five days, it is likely that as many as half might well commit further offences. For, with no legitimate means of support on the outside, there is a strong temptation to return to crime. So a prisoner may well go to ground, try to change his identity and make a concerted effort to avoid recapture. A worrying instance recently occurred and was reported in the press. On that occasion, a prisoner who had originally been sentenced to life for murder during an armed robbery—the sentence later being reduced on appeal to 15 years for manslaughter —was released on 9th April and failed to return.
Manifestly, such offenders should be swiftly recaptured if only to ensure the safety of the public. But, in such cases, surely it is right that the recaptured prisoner should face an extra criminal sentence, which this Bill would make possible. After all, it is a serious offence which deserves to be recognised in the criminal law. I mentioned that last year more than 5,000 prisoners failed to comply with the terms of their release. Some 12 per cent. were in fact punished, but with no more than a mere 28 days' extra imprisonment. Until the other day that was the most that prison governors could impose. So I welcome the Home Secretary's Statutory Instrument No. 983 dated 1st April. That spells out his decision to increase governors' powers, allowing them to impose up to 42 extra days. But, as things stand, that is still the most that prisoners have to fear. It means that they are not really afraid of the consequences if they do stay out over time.
The Bill would create an altogether new offence— that of failing to return from temporary release; and, an extension of police powers of entry and search to help

489
recapture those unlawfully at large. These have been recommended by the Prison Service Working Group which drew on the expertise of the police and probation services, and such charitable bodies as Victim Support, the Prison Reform Trust and the Federation of Prisoners Families Support Groups.
Clause 1 would make it an offence to fail, without reasonable excuse, to return to a prison, a remand centre, or a young offenders institution; that is, on expiry of a period of temporary release or following notice of recall. The offence would henceforth be punishable with up to six months' extra prison, a fine of up to £5,000, or both, which would be imposed not by magistrates but by a court. That would remove a present anomaly. As things stand, any prisoner who escapes from custody commits a criminal offence in doing so. He is then subject to the full weight of the criminal law. But a prisoner who fails to return after temporary release can, under the present system, only be punished with up to 42 days more prison. Yet such failure to return is in fact akin to escape.
Clause 1(1) creates the new offence of failing to return after expiry of the release period or notice of recall. Subsection (2) excludes from the impact of subsection (1) those who will in future be held in secure training centres or in local authority accommodation. That is because, being in the youngest age group, they would only be given release in the first place into the control of a responsible adult. The youngster may not, therefore, be directly responsible for any failure to return.
Subsection (3) gives the courts power to impose a custodial sentence of up to six months, a fine of up to £5,000, or both. Subsection (4) provides that the offence should be taken to have been committed at the place whence the offender was released. Thus, it enables the offender to be tried at the nearest magistrates' court. Subsection (5) has the same effect as Section 49(5) of the Prison Act 1952 and would ensure that those on temporary release, and thus quite lawfully at large, who then stay out beyond the release period or notice of recall are deemed unlawfully at large. Subsection (6) provides that those unlawfully at large before this clause takes effect are not subject to the provision. That is to avoid any appearance of retrospective effect.
Clause 2 deals with another anomaly. At present, the police may enter and search premises without a warrant to arrest a prisoner who has escaped from lawful custody. They may also enter and search premises without a warrant for recapturing a prisoner unlawfully at large, such as those who have failed to return from a period of temporary release—but only if they are in hot pursuit. The Bill removes that anomaly. It will save valuable time by enabling the police to enter premises to arrest a prisoner unlawfully at large, without first having to apply to a magistrate for a warrant.
Thus, Clause 2(1) amends Section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, listing the conditions under which police may enter and search. Those paragraphs would allow the police to enter and search to recapture those from the categories listed. Both
490
those listed under paragraphs (ca) and (cb) will be recaptured by arrest. The different terminology in the two paragraphs reflects the phrasing of the original Acts.
Clause 3 refers to the Short Title, commencement and extent. The Bill extends only to England and Wales. Prisoners unlawfully at large in Northern Ireland and Scotland are already liable to prosecution. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has recently published a draft Order in Council to extend police powers there in line with the provisions of the Bill. The Bill would clear up important anomalies. It is a public safety measure. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a Second Time.—(The Earl of Lauderdale.)
7.47 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I must confess that my first reaction to the Bill is a mixture of trepidation and suspicion. I say "trepidation" because, for some extraordinary reason, the Bill achieved all of its stages in another place not just in one day but in the space of perhaps one minute at the most, without any speeches being made on either side. I do not know whether Lady Olga Maitland has achieved a first in that respect; but, if she has, she certainly deserves objective congratulation. Therefore, I have nothing to go on except my own instincts. There was no debate in the House of Commons that I can refer to as a point of reference.
My suspicion is twofold, partly because I do not think that it is any secret that I am a long way on the political spectrum from the Maitland family, but also because I am instinctively opposed to the creation, especially by Private Member's Bills, of new summary offences and new police powers. But, having said that and after having considered the matter most carefully, I am bound to say that it seems that the Bill addresses two anomalies which need to be addressed.
The first anomaly is that the penalties available for those who are, in effect, escapers from prison— although overstayers are not escapers physically through the walls—are not available to those who outstay their home leave; and, secondly, the powers of search and entry which the police have for those who overstay home leave are not, and clearly should be, comparable to those applicable to prisoners who escape from prison. To that extent, and that is the fundamental point of the Bill, we shall not oppose the legislation. Indeed, I believe that it performs a useful purpose.
However, I have two reservations, one of which, if the noble Earl will forgive me, goes beyond the scope of the Bill and one which does not. The first reservation which does not go beyond the scope of the Bill is the reference in the noble Earl's speech to the 5,000 prisoners who breached the release rules last year. The question which I want to ask the Minister is: how many of those 5,000 breaches of the release rules were serious? The noble Earl said in his speech that if prisoners managed to stay unlawfully at large for

491
more than five days, as many as half would be likely to commit further offences. If that is the case, what proportion of the 5,000 stayed at large for more than five days? There has been an exchange on this matter in the House in recent months, although I have not been able to find it in Hansard.
However, a high proportion of breaches of release rules occurred over very short periods of hours and certainly for fewer than five days. Those breaches were probably committed without intent or out of neglect rather than intent to commit further crimes. I suggest that we need to know whether there are really 5,000 people who are capable of committing further crime, or whether the problem is much smaller than was suggested by the noble Earl in his speech. That is a matter on which I think the Government could help us and it is important in our consideration of the Bill.
The second matter I wish to discuss was referred to by the noble Earl in his speech, and that is his welcome for Statutory Instrument 983 under which the Home Secretary is proposing—and has probably now brought into effect—a severe restriction on home leave. He announced in November of last year that he would introduce changes in the home leave rules which would reduce home leave by about 40 per cent. That is a severe restriction in home leave. It is a restriction to three particular categories of home leave which I shall not discuss now and it goes against the whole thrust of penal reform and penal policy over recent years. Indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, in his report on Strangeways in 1988 went so far as to say that it was important for the civilised conduct of prisons that there should be an extension of home leave, not a reduction.
I wonder whether the reaction of the Home Secretary to what may be a few cases of further offending while prisoners are on home leave may not have been in the wrong direction rather than in the right direction. I shall not go into that matter at the moment because the order to which the noble Earl referred is before the House under the negative procedure and I have today prayed against that order. I understand that I have been allotted a slot on Tuesday evening which will allow me to express these doubts in more detail. It would, of course, be quite wrong to anticipate, other than in the form of a trailer, the arguments which I shall be putting forward. However, the noble Earl tempted me by referring to his approval for the order. Indeed he can take some responsibility for the fact that, having looked it up, I found myself dissatisfied with it and have prayed against it. However small the numbers may be, the anomalies which are mentioned in the Bill and are corrected in the Bill need to be addressed, and we will not oppose this Bill at this stage or at any later stage.
7.53 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Lauderdale on his excellent speech. It is rare—indeed I believe it may even be the first time ever—that a
492
Member of this House has had the opportunity to pilot through a Bill which was first introduced in another place by his daughter, albeit with such incredible speed. I, too, wish the Maitland family well in this uncommon event.
I can assure your Lordships that the Government fully support my noble friend's Bill. The provisions of the Bill are fully in accordance with the report of the recent working party set up by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to look into the existing home leave and temporary release schemes. As a result of this review, my right honourable friend announced in his speech in another place on 18th November that the Government believed that a new offence of failure to return from a period of temporary release should be created.
The temporary release of suitable prisoners helps them in the process of preparing for the eventual return to the community. Evidence shows that prisoners who have a job to go to, a secure family environment and skills developed by training or education, are less likely to reoffend than those released "cold" into the community. However, the Government recognise and share the public concern about the potential for abuse that these schemes may on occasion offer. In the past, the balance was too much in favour of prisoners and did not give sufficient weight to the need to maintain public safety or to the concerns of victims.
For that reason, we have recently introduced a new scheme of release on temporary licence. This new scheme is more sharply focused to ensure that prisoners are released only for precisely defined and specific purposes which cannot be provided in prisons. The scheme incorporates a new enhanced collaborative risk assessment, which involves in a more pro-active way outside agencies such as the police and probation services. The safeguards we have introduced are designed to prevent prisoners who present any unjustifiable risk to public safety being released.
These new safeguards will enable us to guard against excessive use of the grant of temporary release which may have taken place in the past. It is never possible, though, to guarantee that any system will be infallible; and the provisions continued in this Bill will ensure that, where offenders abuse the new scheme, they can be swiftly recaptured and appropriately dealt with.
As my noble friend Lord Lauderdale has indicated, the Bill also would enable other offenders, such as those who failed to return to prison when recalled from parole licence, to be swiftly recaptured. These further measures will contribute towards improved public safety. I know that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, at least gave me notice of one of the questions he wished to ask.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I forgot to ask that question for which I deeply apologise. I wanted to ask the Minister—when referring to the numbers of those who overstay their release by a very short time— for an assurance that those cases would not be dealt with in the courts as criminal offences but by the usual disciplinary procedures within the prisons, for which I would have thought they were quite adequate.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord was kind enough to give me forewarning of the question. Whether or not he asked the question, I thought it was worth putting on record a response because there is a natural anxiety as regards the degree of flexibility in applying these new measures. I can tell the noble Lord that in the circumstances which he has now explained, the governor would be able to deal with such a breach under prison disciplinary rules. Indeed my right honourable friend the Home Secretary recently increased the powers available to governors for up to 42 additional days in prison. The guidelines which are being drawn up jointly by the Prison Service, the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Crown Prosecution Service on the referral of alleged offences for prosecution will ensure that prosecutions are reserved only for those who have determinedly remained unlawfully at large. Therefore the degree of flexibility which the noble Lord asked for has been provided. On the other point which was raised by the noble Lord—
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene, but listening to the exchanges there seems to be a question which arises as regards who will refer a prisoner who has overstayed his temporary release period to the courts, and in what circumstances that will be done. How will it be determined that the prisoner will be dealt with by the courts under the new criminal law that is being projected? Who will decide whether a prisoner will be dealt with by the prison authorities under their authority?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there will of course be guidance that will help the implementation of this particular measure but it is envisaged that the governor will make a judgment about the seriousness of the breach and the degree to which that needs to be addressed either by referring it back to court as a new offence, or by having a prison deal with it under its internal disciplinary arrangements.
In relation to the other point raised by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, concerning the number of breaches, it is my understanding that under the prison disciplinary system 12 per cent. of prisoners dealt with under the prison adjudication system were given 28 added days; in other words, awarded the maximum punishment under the rules at the time.
Statistical data on the number of prisoners who remain unlawfully at large for more than five days are not yet held centrally. However, I am told that in response to a commitment given from the Front Bench by my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Ferrers, a comprehensive statistical data base is being set up to enable such information to be made available.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, will that information come to me automatically when it is complete, or do I need to trigger that?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord can consider it triggered.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale has already set out most lucidly the purpose and effect of the Bill. I shall therefore do no more than repeat my welcome for the Bill, which I believe will make a valuable contribution
494
to the package of reforms which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has introduced. We wish the measure well during its passage through this House.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, first, I must thank my noble friend Lady Blatch for her support and, through her, her department for the help it has given me in trying to understand my daughter's research.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, raised two questions of which I did not have previous notice. In relation to the figure of 5,000, I must tell him that I asked the same question. I understand that there is no breakdown. He will find that my words were picked very carefully, not to hide that point but to cover it. I did not want to mislead the House in any way, so my words were chosen with great care. No doubt my noble friend Lady Blatch will write to the noble Lord.
On this occasion I could not sit down without having congratulated the honourable Member for Sutton and Cheam for her prodigious research and enormous enterprise in this matter. I ask the House to give the Bill a second reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.40 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.2 p.m. to 8.40 p.m.]

Jobseekers Bill
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 9.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, line 2, leave out ("the terms and conditions of").
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 8, line 3, at end insert:
("( ) In the case of a disabled claimant, a jobseeker's agreement shall set down the financial help that will be available to the claimant to help offset the extra jobseeking costs that he may incur as a direct result of his disability and the personal help and equipment that will be made available to assist the claimant overcome his disability in seeking work.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this hour of the night the time has come to précis speeches. I shall do my best to do so, but my speech will probably still be too long.
At Committee stage in both Houses, the Government affirmed that help, both financial and physical, is available from the Employment Service for disabled jobseekers. The amendment provides for what is said to be already available to be specified in the jobseeker's agreement. Previous amendments in Committee in both

495
Houses sought to explore exactly what help is available to disabled people who may incur additional costs as a result of their disability when seeking a job.
In Committee, at col. 684 of the Official Report of 20th April, my noble friend Lord Mackay confirmed that the Employment Service could help disabled people with the costs of searching for work and getting into work. Provision exists for assistance through the placement, assessment and counselling teams, and payments under the access to work schemes. However, disability organisations have found that many disabled people out of work do not know about such schemes or have not been made aware of them. The amendment simply asks for the kinds of assistance that are available to a disabled jobseeker to be set out in the jobseeker's agreement.
Some people already wait months before they can be seen by a disability employment adviser, and months again before a suitable placement can be made or equipment given. I understand that one deaf-blind man in the South-East reported that it has taken the placement assessment and counselling team over three months to approve just some equipment, and he still has not received it.
In another case, a person assessed as eligible for the job introduction scheme was still waiting for six weeks after inquiring about it. With more disabled people moving from ICB to sign on, there are fears that the placement, assessment and counselling teams will not be able to cope.
At col. 684 of the Official Report of 20th April, in Committee, my noble friend Lord Mackay stated:
"There is no evidence that unemployed disabled people attending any of the Employment Service programmes aimed at helping with jobsearch face additional expenditure costs to enable them to attend or participate fully".
However, anecdotal evidence suggests that even the present access to work budget is insufficient to cover the needs of disabled jobseekers. Some deaf people have found that access to work does not even extend to the provision of interpreting services for interviews with DEAs, even to seek information about the access to work itself. In some cases, interpreters have not been available for interviews for the job interview guarantee scheme or new claims for unemployment benefit.
In one area, access to work payments for the assistance of interpreters at interview do not cover the full cost or the travelling time which is often significant in rural areas, thus leaving the full cost to be met by the individual jobseeker or the organisation providing the interpreter. While appreciating that access to work is being reviewed this summer, can my noble friend give an assurance that access to work will not remain in its present form but will offer enough assistance to help the thousands more disabled jobseekers who may require help from the scheme? Disabled people coming off incapacity benefit will need the fullest possible range and extent of specialist as well as mainstream assistance.
I believe that the amendment goes some way towards ensuring that the individual jobseeker knows exactly what is available to him. I beg to move.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Lord set out the arguments extremely well. The amendment refers to the extra costs of disability and the problem that they create for the disabled person when seeking work.
As the noble Lord states, the help available to disabled people in terms of extra costs is not clear. Some help was indicated at Committee stage both in another place and in this Chamber. The amendment seeks to set out the information clearly in the jobseeker's agreement. It would then be entirely clear to the disabled person exactly what he could or could not expect from the agreement.
The amendment also refers to the importance of specialised equipment to assist in employment. I refer to such equipment as specialised computers for blind people, portable induction loops for the hearing impaired, and personal help.
The noble Lord referred to the access to work scheme. Although it is not strictly relevant to the amendment, having spent some time helping to fill in the forms at the end of the first month of the access to work scheme for a disabled person, I can assure your Lordships that the new scheme is far more bureaucratic than the one that it replaces. I was involved in the previous scheme in helping to fill in forms every quarter. A weekly form is now required. The scheme is immensely more bureaucratic and requires much more form filling than previously. No doubt we shall discuss that matter when we discuss access to work and in particular when we discuss the Disability Discrimination Bill.
From this side of the Chamber, we support the amendment. It has been made clear in another place and in this Chamber that there is help available. The Minister made it clear when he replied in Committee. If such help is available, the information should be spelt out in the jobseeker's agreement so that the disabled person knows exactly where he stands.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the amendment divides into two parts. One is about making known information which already exists and facilities which are already available. The access to work scheme is not the easiest system to find out about. I began writing letters to Ministers about the scheme as far back as 1989 when the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, was a Minister. It is a good scheme. Not enough people know about it. That is why putting the information into the jobseeker's agreement would be a help.
However, the other point of the amendment relates to the extra costs in seeking work which arise from disability. In Committee on 20th April, the Minister stated:
"There is no evidence that unemployed disabled people attending any of the Employment Service programmes aimed at helping jobsearch face additional expenditure costs to enable them to attend or participate fully".—[Official Report, 20/4/95; col. 684.]
To take an extreme example, if you travel in a wheelchair, the journey is an endless series of complications and results in potentially vast additional costs. If you are blind and going to a job interview in a strange town, you will have difficulty. Finding your way around by bus in a strange town for the first time it is

497
hard enough for most of us, but if you are blind it could be positively alarming. If you are short of time, the need to obtain a more expensive form of transport may on occasion be acute. I need not continue with the examples; I am sure that every noble Lord can imagine them. I do not suggest that they go so far as a disabled French friend of mine. He once came to London with his car which had been adapted for the disabled and his disabled parking badge; he thought that that enabled him to park at Oxford Circus. The towing away fees are not the kind of expense that the amendment is meant to cover.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for providing us with an opportunity to discuss this topic. Perhaps I may start at the beginning when the jobseeker seeks his first interview with the Employment Service. It will be with an employment officer and together they will discuss the jobseeker's needs and seek to draw up a jobseeker's agreement. If they decide that the jobseeker would benefit from specialist advice from a specially trained disability employment adviser, that can be noted on the agreement and the employment officer will organise it. Not all jobseekers who would be entitled to do so want to use our specialist disability services. It might be interesting to reflect that many people with a disability want: to seek work through the Employment Service mainstream services. During 1994–95, nearly 80 per cent.—that is more than 55,000—of jobseekers with disabilities placed in jobs by advisers were placed by mainstream advisers rather than by disability employment advisers. It is estimated that more than 25,000 other people with disabilities were placed in jobs by the Jobcentre self-service facilities. So it would be wrong to insist that a disabled person's agreement should necessarily contain information about the help and support that is available. The jobseeker may not wish to go through that route.
However, of course, some disabled people want specialist help and they get it from the disability employment adviser. Those specially trained officers clearly have more expertise and experience than it would be possible for the employment officers negotiating jobseeker's agreements to have. There is a disability employment adviser available to every Jobcentre. That is why the best way to ensure that disabled people receive the best help is to offer them specialist advice, rather than trying to include information, which would necessarily be less individual, in each agreement.
In addition to the services of disability employment advisers, the Employment Service seeks to make available to all jobseekers with disabilities or health problems a leaflet about the help that is available to them through the placing assessment and counselling teams and ability development centres. In recognition of the special needs of disabled jobseekers, there is a wide range of provision, both financial and personal.
My noble friend mentioned people who may be coming off incapacity benefit. As I have said before, the Employment Service will spend an additional £71 million in the first three years of incapacity benefit for all those coming to unemployment from IB, including
498
in-depth interviews, specialised help from placing assessment and counselling teams, extra provision on Jobplan, Jobclub and job interview guarantee. People affected by the introduction of incapacity benefit will, therefore, have early access to the most appropriate provision.
Mention has been made of the access to work scheme introduced in June 1994. That extends and replaces existing programmes to provide a wider range of help to more disabled people. The scheme provides help for people prior to finding a job, and help can continue into employment. Help provided includes fares to interview, aids to communication, adaptation to vehicles, and support workers for people with severe disabilities. That might go some way—I hope that it goes further than that—towards addressing one of the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about travel. This financial year there is a budget of £13.4 million for the access to work scheme.
Information about that scheme and other support for disabled jobseekers will be available from the employment officer when the individual makes his claim or in the leaflet that the Employment Service produces about provision for disabled jobseekers.
Those remarks were a little abbreviated, like my noble friend's introductory remarks, but I hope that he will be reassured that we take the needs of people with disabilities seriously. I have set out the additional financial support that is available through the benefits system and the provision that is provided by the Employment Service. I believe that the amendment would remove some of the flexibility that the current system offers to treat people as individuals and respond to their needs. Many of them wish to go down the normal route and do so very successfully indeed. I hope that with those reassurances and explanations my noble friend will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, when he reads the phraseology of his briefing, I am sure that he would not wish to imply that disabled people seeking employment are rather out of the mainstream or going down an abnormal route. I believe he said that the budget for the access to work scheme was £13 million. Has he an indication of first estimates of the likely cost, as opposed to the budget, for the first year?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am afraid that I cannot help on the latter point. I only know the budget figure. I hope that in my effort not to take too much time I did not make any injudicious remarks. The point I was trying to make was that many disabled people successfully look for and find work through the mainstream services without going to the disability employment adviser.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply and those who supported me. I entirely agree with the Minister that not all disabled people necessarily wish to use the services of the disability employment adviser. What worries me is that so many of them do not know that the help is available or that the access to work scheme exists, as I made clear in my introductory remarks. Can I take it that my noble friend

499
will ensure that all employment officers will make certain that disabled people are aware of the services, even if they do not wish to make use of them? I see my noble friend nodding his head in assent, so I am delighted to accept that assurance and have it on the record. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 8, line 4, leave out subsections (6) and (7).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the three Amendments Nos. 39, 91 and 96 are all consequential on the provisions in new Clauses 6 and 7 for permitted periods, which I explained in my remarks when the House was in Committee last week. The permitted period is when a person may be treated as being available if he is prepared to be available only for employment and to seek employment in his usual occupation and at his former rate of pay.
Before the amendment providing for those new clauses, the Bill made provision for a permitted period through regulation-making powers specifying such a period in the jobseeker's agreement and through the provision giving an exemption from sanctions in Clause 18. As we explained during Committee, we were concerned that this construction in the Bill appeared to imply that the jobseeker's agreement, by introducing the notion of the permitted period, itself gives rise (rather than expression) to the conditions of entitlement to JSA. The new subsections in Clauses 6 and 7 were our response to those concerns.
Now that Clause 6 provides for regulations to stipulate the minimum and maximum permitted period and the factors which adjudication officers should take into account in determining the permitted period, there is no need for the provisions relating to the permitted period in Clause 19. For the sake of completeness, I should also explain that the protection from any sanction for failing to apply for or refusing employment outside a person's usual occupation and below the usual rate of remuneration will be secured through regulations under Clause 18 prescribing the circumstances in which a person is to be regarded as having good cause for such refusal. I beg to move these technical amendments.
9 p.m.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I have to inform the House that if Amendment No. 40 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 41.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 8, line 10, leave out from beginning to second ("to") in line 11, and insert ("The employment officer may, and if asked to do so by the claimant shall forthwith, refer a proposed jobseeker's agreement").
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 8, line 13, leave out ("those terms or conditions") and insert ("the proposed agreement").
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 8, line 18, leave out ("those terms or conditions") and insert ("the proposed agreement").
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 8, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line 20 on page 9, and insert:
("(9) An adjudication officer to whom a reference is made under subsection (8)—

(a) shall so far as practicable dispose of it in accordance with this section before the end of the period of 14 days of the date of the reference;

(b) may give such directions, with respect to the terms on which the employment officer is to enter into a jobseeker's agreement with the claimant, as the adjudication officer considers appropriate;

(c) may direct that, if such conditions as he considers appropriate are satisfied, the proposed jobseeker's agreement is to be treated (if entered into) as having effect on such date, before it would otherwise have effect, as may be specified in the direction.

(10) Regulations may provide—

(a) for such matters as may be prescribed to be taken into account by an adjudication officer in giving a direction under subsection (9) (c); and

(b) for such persons as may be prescribed to be notified of—

(i) any determination of an adjudication officer under this section;

(ii) any direction given by an adjudication officer under this section.

(11) Any determination of an adjudication officer under this section shall be binding.").
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 49 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Variation of jobseeker's agreement]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 9, line 43, leave out ("the terms and conditions of").
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 9, line 45, leave out from beginning to second ("to") in line 46 and insert ("The employment officer may, and if asked to do so by the claimant shall forthwith, refer a proposed variation of a jobseeker's agreement").
[Amendment No. 52 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 10, line 1, leave out ("those terms or conditions") and insert ("the agreement").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("those terms or conditions") and insert ("the agreement")
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I have to tell the House that if Amendment No. 56 is moved, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 57 and 58.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 10, leave out lines 7 to 26 and insert:

501
("(6) An adjudication officer to whom a reference is made under subsection (5)—

(a) shall so far as practicable dispose of it in accordance with this section before the end of the period of 14 days of the date of the reference;

(b) shall give such directions as he considers appropriate as to—

(i) whether the jobseeker's agreement should be varied, and

(ii) if so, the terms on which the claimant and the employment officer are to enter into an agreement to vary it;

(c) may bring the jobseeker's agreement to an end where the claimant fails, within a prescribed period, to comply with a direction given under paragraph (b) (ii);

(d) may direct that, if—

(i) the jobseeker's agreement is varied, and

(ii) such conditions as he considers appropriate are satisfied,

the agreement as varied is to be treated as having effect on such date, before it would otherwise have effect, as may be specified in the direction.
(7) Regulations may provide—

(a) for such matters as may be prescribed to be taken into account by an adjudication officer in giving a direction under subsection (6) (b) or (d); and

(b) for such persons as may be prescribed to be notified of—

(i) any determination of an adjudication officer under this section;

(ii) any direction given by an adjudication officer under this section.

(8) Any determination of an adjudication officer under this section shall be binding.").
[Amendments Nos. 57 and 58 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 59:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
Jobseeker's agreement: reviews and appeals
(".—(1) Any determination of, or direction given by, an adjudication officer under section 9 or 10 may be reviewed (by a different adjudication officer) on the application of the claimant or of an employment officer.
(2) Regulations may make provision with respect to the procedure to be followed on a review under this section.
(3) The claimant may appeal to a social security appeal tribunal against any determination of, or direction given by, an adjudication officer on a review under this section.
(4) A social security appeal tribunal determining an appeal under this section may give a direction of a kind which an adjudication officer may give under section 9(9) (b) or (c) or (as the case may be) section 10(6) (b) or (d).
(5) Where a social security appeal tribunal gives a direction under subsection (4) of a kind which may be given by an adjudication officer under section 10(6) (b) (ii), an adjudication officer may bring the jobseeker's agreement to an end if the claimant fails to comply with the direction within a prescribed period.
(6) An appropriate person may, on the ground that it was erroneous in point of law, appeal to a Commissioner against the decision of a social security appeal tribunal on an appeal under this section.
(7) Any of the following is an appropriate person for the purposes of subsection (6)—

(a) the claimant;

(b) an adjudication officer;

(c) in prescribed circumstances, a trade union;

(d) in prescribed circumstances, any other association which exists to promote the interests and welfare of its members.

(8) Subsections (7) to (10) of section 23 of the: Administration Act (appeals to Commissioners) shall apply in relation to appeals under this section as they apply in relation to appeals under that section.
(9) In this section "Commissioner" has the same meaning as in the Administration Act.").
Clause 12 [Income and capital: income-based jobseeker's allowance]:
[Amendment No. 60 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Trade disputes]:
[Amendment No. 61 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Severe hardship]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 13, line 8, leave out ("or other assistance"].
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 13, line 11, at end insert:
("( ) This section shall apply to any person aged 16 to 18 who has applied to join the armed forces but cannot join until the next enlistment date.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have not totally shrunk into immobility. I have been encouraged to move this amendment partly by the delightfully back-handed sympathy expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who said that it was the only one of my amendments on 16 and 17 year-olds that was not wholly without merit. I have been in this House long enough to recognise a hint when I hear one. I was also slightly encouraged by a very faint chink of sympathy from the Minister.
The point of this amendment is that the Armed Forces have an enlistment system based inevitably, if people are to go through basic training together, on blocks of people who come in together at three-monthly intervals. The Minister said that there was a possibility of that system changing. I shall listen to anything that he has to say about the matter with interest.
The effect on 16 and 17 year-olds is that if they want to enlist in the Armed Forces they have to wait for the next enlistment date. The time between applying and the enlistment date is not sufficient for them to do a youth training course. They cannot get a youth training place because they could not complete the course. Therefore they tend to have no visible means of support until their Army enlistment date arrives. That tends to have the effect of discouraging enlistment in the Army. It also creates very grave hardship among those who are so determined to enter the service that they are not discouraged. This seems to me not to be in the public interest and not to suit the preoccupations of any of us who are concerned with the issue.
The amendment would provide for an entitlement to jobseeker's allowance from the date of registering for enlistment in the Army right up to the moment of enlistment. It is in the interest of the Army, of the teenager, of the Government, and of the country. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, very briefly, I support this amendment. Civilian firms very often take in small groups of people in order to train them for new work. The

503
Armed Forces need such people, quite obviously, in reasonably sized intakes of probably not less than 30 at any one time at a training centre. Therefore the centres have to wait until a sufficient number of high-quality recruits is available to train. There is a lot of merit in this amendment.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we are at one in recognising the importance of this country's Armed Forces. On 27th April, my noble friend said in Committee that we would give further consideration to the noble Earl's point about 16 and 17 year-olds who have applied to join Her Majesty's Armed Forces but who are waiting for their enlistment date. This amendment gives me an opportunity to return to that point.
We said at the time that we would need more time to give this complex matter full consideration. I fear that our early inquiries have only made the question more complicated. The three different services of Her Majesty's Armed Forces each have their own recruiting procedures. All need to be consulted about whether difficulties are experienced by young people who are waiting for their enlistment date. The Ministry of Defence told us in response to our initial inquiries that, on average, after receiving an offer a young person will wait about two months for his enlistment date, but in some cases the wait could be much longer.
When we last debated this point my noble friend suggested that he would like to incorporate young people in that provision. However, I am clear that it is important to strike a balance between young people who have to wait only a few weeks for their enlistment date and those who may have to wait considerably longer. For example, there will occasionally be cases in which the young person has to wait for perhaps as long as six months for his enlistment date. In such a case, it does not seem right to encourage him to sit at home on benefit when he could be in employment or undertaking useful training in the intervening period. Therefore, it is my intention to make special provision for young people who have a firm offer of an enlistment date but only if that date is within a fixed period.
However, there are a number of matters to be considered. There is the question of whether the young person waiting to join the Armed Forces should be required to show severe hardship to be entitled to JSA; whether there should be any period for which that is not required; and whether he should be required to register for either training or employment or both.
There are a number of matters on which it is important to get this matter right. I propose to consult further with the Ministry of Defence and other colleagues before writing to the noble Earl with our proposals. Having heard that explanation, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the trouble that he has taken on this matter and for his recognition that there is a genuine problem. However, it is true to say, important though it is to get things right, that if one looks for difficulties one will find them. I do not see why it is quite so important to work out exactly the average and the median waiting time. One
504
should not be without visible legal means of support, whether it is for two months, three months, three weeks or even three days. If it is one day, it is too long. After all, we are dealing with people who have a very serious wish to undertake what is not a particularly easy form of work and not the sort of activity in which one would expect shirkers to get involved.
I hope that the Minister will not make a meal of the question of how long they must wait. If they must wait, they must eat; if they do not eat, they will not wait. It is as simple as that.
The Minister is also a little optimistic to suggest that they could be in employment or in useful training during a period which, by his own argument, will often not be more than two months. That mistake has been made before. It was made by King Charles I in the summer of 1640 when collecting troops to go and fight against Scotland. He did not have enough money, so he told them to wait for a few weeks, during which time they virtually all deserted. So he could not gather nearly so effective a force as he thought and he lost. I hope that that will not be a precedent.
I think that this matter is not so difficult as the Minister suggested. I may come back to it at Third Reading to see whether the Minister has managed to find ways to make it any simpler. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I have begged the noble Lord to explain. It is most ungracious—
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, despite my noble friend's intervention, the noble Earl asked leave to withdraw his amendment. Therefore, I put to the House that the amendment be, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 63A:
Page 13, line 18, leave out from ("concerned") to ("or") in line 23 and insert ("has—

(i) failed to pursue an opportunity of obtaining training, or

(ii) rejected an offer of training,

and has not shown good cause for doing so;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 15(3) (b), as it now is, 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 for training.
In Committee 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 person had acted without good cause. The noble Baroness argued most persuasively and my noble friend agreed to reflect further on her points. Yesterday I gave an undertaking to bring forward a suitable amendment. That is now on the Marshalled List as Amendment No. 63A.
The amendment makes 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. But if he does not do so, the direction is revoked.

505
If he does, and as a result it appears to the Secretary of State that he has shown good cause, the direction will remain in force.
Several times I have explained that that situation is exactly as it is now in practice. But we have been persuaded that it is right that that important protection should appear on the face of the Bill. That is precisely what the noble Baroness sought. I hope that she feels that the Bill has been improved in that respect.
The amendment also removes the references to employment in Clause 15. It will make clear that the sanctions in Clause 16 can be applied in respect of refusing, failing to pursue or leaving training which is covered by government guarantee but not employment.
I turn to Amendment No. 93A. This amendment makes plain on the face of the Bill that young people in receipt of JSA due to risk of severe hardship, will not receive a sanction under Clause 18 if they have a direction in force and have acted in such a way as to risk its revocation under Clause 15(3) (b) or have a direction in force and are receiving a reduced amount of JSA due to leaving a training course early. It clarifies the sanctions applicable to 16 and 17 year-olds subject to severe hardship direction.
In those directions we have shown a willingness to listen to advice from the Benches opposite. In particular we introduced the concept of "good cause" into Clause 15 and clarified the position on sanctions. I hope that your Lordships will be able to approve the amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, my noble friend thanked the Minister last night in advance, so I can thank him today We thank him for the amendments. They seem to be an advance and establish a principle; that is, that the Government, somewhat late in the day, have been converted to the idea that matters of importance should go on the face of the Bill.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I give a warm welcome to Amendment No. 63A.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are delighted to see the belated conversion of the Government to goody words like "reasonable", "suitable" and "good cause". We hope to see if they can be converted equally to the expunging of words like "regulations" and "as the Secretary of State may prescribe". We regard this as the first small step of the 39 steps to follow.
[Amendments Nos. 64 to 66 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 13, line 34, leave out from ("event") to end of line 36.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Reduced payments]:
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 13, line 41, after ("percentage") insert ("of not more than 10 per cent").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 69 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 70. These amendments deal with the clause relating to young persons in the 16 to 18 age group.
Clause 16 deals with regulation. It is not clear what the reductions in benefit will be for this group of young people in the first stages of being involved in work if they are lucky enough to obtain employment. The clause says that the regulations may provide "in such circumstances"; it does not give them because they will be within the prescriptions. It says the allowance may be reduced by a percentage but does not state what the percentage is. If young people are receiving benefit, the reduction of an already small amount on which they have great difficulty managing may be punitive. We are saying that the amount should be not more than 10 per cent.
The clause states that the allowance will be reduced "for such a period". Amendment No. 70 seeks to ensure that the period is not more than one week. We are dealing with a vulnerable group of people. We have continually tabled amendments affecting this group but have made little progress. Those young people do not need to be turned away; they need help in a situation which often is not of their own making. The amendments are small. Their effect is that the prescriptions will be on the face of the Bill and not subject to regulation. They will therefore be clear for everyone to see. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I support both amendments. In dealing with benefit for young people we must remember that they are already receiving a reduction. As soon as a benefit penalty is imposed, they are subject to a reduction of a reduction and the situation becomes severe. It was somebody in precisely that position, as I mentioned earlier, who told a CAB office in north Wales that he would rather be in prison where he could afford a bed and occasionally put on the electric light.
It is not sensible to subject people to the sort of hardship I have described. And it is not sensible, when people are already disentitled, to subject them to longer periods of disentitlement. During those periods they build up debts which may be a millstone around their necks for years, even if they involve sums which other people may regard as trifling. They have; no resources with which to pay them off and the longer they are disentitled the bigger grow the debts. I hope the Minister will think seriously about the amendments.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support the spirit behind these amendments. I am not sure whether the percentage or the term is right; but in replying my noble friend must give the House an indication of what percentage and term the Government have in mind for these reductions otherwise I do not know how we can go on.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I fully appreciate the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, -was making; but I fear that I do not agree with her and I do not suppose that that will come as any surprise. What we do agree over most emphatically is that most 16–17 year-olds are keen to better themselves and take their obligations seriously. They will, as a result, quickly be offered, and accept, suitable training or other

507
assistance. But, a small minority abuse the system. Clause 16 provides a means of dealing with this. We have seen in Clause 15 that it gives the Secretary of State the power to revoke the direction if it appears to him that the 16–17 year-old has failed to pursue or has rejected training places or other assistance. Clause 16 provides for his personal rate of JSA to be reduced by a prescribed amount for a prescribed period if he subsequently reapplies for a direction.
Our intentions in this area were set out by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment in another place, and I shall repeat them for your Lordships' benefit. We intend that if a 16–17 year-old turns down a suitable training place or leaves such a place early without good cause, they will receive a penalty of a 40 per cent. reduction in the personal rate of JSA for two weeks.
The Government believe that is a fair but realistic penalty. The noble Baroness invites me to defend 40 per cent. against 10 per cent. and two weeks against one. To be effective, a sanction must appear as a real deterrent. But we must also recognise the particular circumstances in which we are seeking to make the sanction work. I do not think that a 10 per cent. reduction would be a deterrent, neither do I think that one week is sufficient. Is the noble Baroness really suggesting that a penalty which in many cases would total less than £3 is really sufficient to the purpose? A 40 per cent. reduction would certainly be noticed and I do not deny that. But we are limiting the application to two weeks. It will not go up to four weeks for a subsequent offence as it would for an adult in a similar position, and I think that is an important recognition of the position of young people.
I should like to remind the House that the purpose of sanctions is to deter: if they are effective, they will not be used. The arrangements we have made will ensure that no young person unwittingly falls foul of this rule. A young person who is new to the guarantee group will be allowed once to turn down any offer of training or leave any course early, as I have explained before, whether or not they have good reason for doing so. And, of course, if they do so subsequently they will be able to argue—as we have newly made clear in the Bill—that they did so for good cause.
This is a new provision, designed to deal with the abuse that in a minority—I admit that it is a tiny minority—of cases is increasingly creeping into the system. We are seeking to act against those who turn down offers or leave training and apply for a new direction the next day, which in practice they may do without fear of penalty. It is important that young people are aware of their responsibilities if they are to receive benefit. This is not a means of support for life. It is a helping hand while they find their feet on the career path. It is not acceptable in my judgment for such young people to refuse or walk out on the opportunities that are provided for them.
I believe that, taken together, the government's youth training guarantee, backed up by these clear sanctions and the safeguards and protection I have described, now and at other stages of the Bill, represent a fair and
508
balanced package of measures for young people. I hope that your Lordships are reassured that there is adequate protection for 16–17 year-olds who refuse, fail to pursue or leave training places. I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, is he aware that he is very lucky not to have read out that reply rather earlier in the day?
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the new details that he has given us. He talked logically and calmly about a group of people who, frankly, do not have the calmness or experience of the Minister or most Members of your Lordships' House. We are talking about young people who will probably be in a degree of turmoil. Many of them will feel rejected.
The Minister said that the provisions are balanced and fair. I do not accept that. There is to be a 40 per cent. cut in a benefit which is already low. If that sanction is applied against a young person I suggest that it will be regarded as a message of rejection; not of trying to help or to give a hand-up to those young people as they attempt to deal with their difficulties and their refusal of a training place.
We must remember that the group with which we are dealing cannot, by definition, have a record of swinging the lead or of trying to find a way around the system. They are new into the system and new to potential employment. Such a group must be given particular attention and shown understanding. That is why the amendment has been tabled. A young person can turn down a training place once. I do not know where that gets us because it is saying, "You are allowed one mistake and then that's it; penalties will be applied". I find the Minister's response unfeeling and unacceptable. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
Lord Henderson of Brompton Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 14, line 15, at end insert:
("( ) In determining whether the amount of a young person's jobseeker's allowance is to be reduced under the provisions of subsection (1) regard shall be had to the welfare of the young person concerned.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister has spent a great deal of time and trouble trying to argue the details of costs and benefits, giving percentages and other such things. This amendment is of an entirely different order from the two amendments that we have just discussed and which were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean.
Amendment No. 71 merely asks that in determining whether the amount of a young person's allowance is to be reduced,
"regard shall be had to the welfare of the young person concerned".
We know that,
"High heaven rejects the lore
Of nicely calculated less or more".

509
I am not asking the Minister to calculate here; I am asking him to think and to feel. There are young people, perhaps without his ken, who are badly treated when they are young by their parents, foster parents or, say, an uncle; or who suffer perhaps simply because of the sheer misery of being a child of an unemployed person or of a person who is imprisoned and who cannot help his children, as I am sure the noble Lord would like to help his own. I am asking the Minister to reflect on how difficult children can be even when they are brought up in well-ordered houses like his own and mine, and with the benefit of an income. I am asking the Minister to remember those other children when he is dealing with his own children of 16, 17 and 18. I am sure that with his own children the noble Lord has experiences similar to mine, but not, I expect, with grandchildren, as I have.
We are talking about children at a very difficult age. Indeed, they are probably even more difficult at 16, 17 and 18 than at three and four and they require every possible consideration from their parents. Those parents may not exist. The children may be in foster care or in care. Very often, such children have no friends to speak for them except those in the social services or possibly in the probation service.
I am asking that where children are destitute of the ordinary love and care which I have no doubt the noble Lord would lavish on his children of that age, they should be treated with special care, and that their welfare should be taken into account by the employment officer and anyone else who has some authority over them. I know that an employment officer is not supposed to have authority, but he wields the whip. Children who are in the parlous condition I have described should not be treated with a whip; they should be treated with kindness. The amendment seeks to encapsulate that principle into the Bill.
As I am not asking for something which will cost money, which seems to be the only gauge by which the noble Lord can answer any questions in this House, perhaps I might appeal to his heart instead of his head. Otherwise I feel that these people, who are often literally destitute and devoid of any help or comfort, should have some obligation towards them laid upon the shoulders of the employment officer. It is for that reason that I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, we are pleased to support the amendment. It is a matter that has been debated previously, and, as the noble Lord said, it is not an area that costs money; but it is one which will probably have a profound effect on young people. I know that when the young 16 or 17 year-old is in the employment office the rules are made clear to him. I know that the JSA to which young people are required to agree and sign up to will be explained to them thoroughly, but the employment officer dealing with a young person will not necessarily know that person's real personal circumstances, the difficulties he may have, or the turmoil he may be going through.
Whereas the Minister may take the view that the Bill will fully cover the issue of a young person's welfare, it is essential to have that on the face of the Bill. If there
510
is a discretion in the Bill as it stands at the moment to take the welfare of the young person into account, there is also the discretion not to take it into account.
We are merely saying that when the young person is faced with a potential reduction in benefit, before the decision is finally taken—before the young person is sent out of the office having been told that the benefit is cut—the welfare of that young person is taken into account. It is not over-dramatising the; position, or over-egging the argument, to say that it could make the difference in that young person being pushed into the twilight zone of our society. We all too often see young people wandering the streets. In many respects, that will determine the rest of their lives.
I hope that the Minister will agree that the amendment in no way distorts the financial implications of the Bill, takes away any kind of authority from the individual employment officer or reduces the Bill's overall impact. It merely requires the welfare of a young 16 or 17 year-old (a child) to be taken into account when his benefit is being considered.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. We all have a responsibility for the welfare of young people. In many respects, the; nation has a greater responsibility than we have as individuals. By taking into consideration the welfare of young people, as the amendment proposes, that could save money, for the simple reason that if their welfare is not taken into consideration at that stage, they could end up as criminals. That would cost the Home Office a considerable amount of money through the police and the probation service. In their criminal activities they could end up injuring other people, which will cost both the National Health Service and themselves money. But apart from that, there is a moral duty to look after the welfare of young people and to ensure that we help them on the road forward through life and not down into the pit.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I support the amendment. There is a danger that we are creating in our society a subsection that will increasingly become excluded from society as a whole. It is becoming forgotten and neglected and is almost losing the citizenship that it ought to enjoy.
That becomes more dangerous because as people have grown older it can be said that those of my generation and of other noble Lords have done extraordinarily well. We have gained from pensions, health provision and many other benefits which to a great extent are being paid for by the working generation and those entering the labour force.
I have real fears about creating a generation tension which will give young people the sense that they are increasingly being abandoned by a luckier and more fortunate generation than theirs. Today most of our children do not expect to be better off than we are. Many parents expect their children to be worse off than themselves. There is a declining projection of what will happen to our society.

511
It is wicked that people should give the impression that they are abandoning those between the ages of 16 and 18; the age when they have hardly entered adult society. That is a very wicked thing to do. Sometimes we should use powerful moral phrases.
The amendment is moderate, and it is greatly to the credit of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, that he has come here tonight to move it. Obviously, doing so has caused him certain problems and therefore I greatly respect him for that. I hope that Ministers will consider carefully what is the minimal possible safety net for young people to whom we owe at least the obligation of a chance in life before they are written off.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I do not believe that the Minister has any idea of the level of hardship that is normal among this group of people. If one lives on a diet of social security briefs, one gets pretty used to hardship; indeed, one must get hardened to it. However, I can think of no where in the whole field of social security where I meet a regular diet of such intense hardship as I do when looking at what is happening to 16 and 17 year-olds.
The amendment is a small start. It also draws attention to a problem that I have raised previously and on which I should like a response. It is the problem of the application of the law of majority to people in this age group. It seems to me that they are treated like children when they would benefit from being treated like adults, and that they are treated like adults when they would benefit from being treated like children. They remind me of the sad case of the man who, when he was asked whether he would like the white or brown meat of chicken, said that he did not know because when he was a child the grown-ups had the white meat and when he was a grown-up the children had the white meat.
It is a sad situation and the question about the law of majority is serious. Will the Government consider asking the Law Commission to look at the question because it has many ramifications and it is rather important?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, posed an interesting question on which I shall reflect. We consider that 16 and 17 year-olds are different from other people who are out of a job. That is why we have set up a special system to try to deal with them. It is based on their need to train and the fact that they should not be allowed to become dependent on benefit and should go into training or, failing that, employment; that is, the declining proportion who do not stay on at school and go on to other forms of education.
I outlined some of the safeguards in my response to the previous amendment. There are other safeguards which we have mentioned at various stages during the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House. Those are safeguards put in place prior to the judgment as to whether the young person has declined or left training places without good cause. First, the careers service decides whether or not a training place is suitable for a young person. With JSA we are
512
introducing a system of internal review which would take place before a direction is revoked on the grounds that a young person has refused a suitable training place. The young person will be given an opportunity to request a re-examination of his case by the Secretary of State before a direction is revoked.
If the young person is in a training place and is not happy with his training, he can take a number of courses of action. He can raise the matter with his training provider, his TEC or the careers service. Again, the facts of the case will be looked into carefully and, if appropriate, he may be found another place.
But if the young person does leave a training place early and feels that he had good cause for doing so, he will be able to put his side of the case to the Employment Service. The circumstances of the case will be re-examined, and, where good cause is established, a certificate will be issued by the Secretary of State and a copy given to the young person. If he reapplies for severe hardship under JSA, the certificate will entitle him to receive the full amount.
Therefore, we have safeguards to try to protect young people who either do not accept training for whatever reason or who leave it without reason to make sure that we are not being unfair to them when it is decided, if it is decided, to sanction them for not accepting or for leaving training.
I hope that those safeguards show that we are mindful of the special position of these young people. I have explained before that I am sure that no young person should unwittingly fall foul of the system. It will be explained to him and he should be aware of what will happen if he gives up or refuses training.
The welfare of young people is the particular concern of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. Not all 16 and 17 year-olds will have to prove severe hardship in order to receive benefit. Perhaps I may give a few examples. Disabled young people and lone parents will be able to claim income support without having to be available for work. Others, such as 16 and 17 year-old couples with children and those leaving local authority care—a particular group which I know is of concern to some of your Lordships—will be able to claim JSA without having to prove severe hardship for different periods depending on their circumstances.
When we are looking at severe hardship, the welfare needs of the young person are taken into account in the decision to award a severe hardship direction. The criteria include vulnerability, health, including pregnancy, as I mentioned earlier, and homelessness or the threat of homelessness.
I do not believe that there is any need for young people to fall foul of the system. Young people who accept training receive an allowance as a wage. If they refuse or leave training places without good cause, then we must look carefully at what we do.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, made much of the fact that we should all give consideration to our teenage children. Indeed, we all do. My experience is that one occasionally needs a sanction and I believe that the same is true in this regard. Dare I say to your Lordships that when we are talking about youngsters who are being

513
difficult and who seem to refuse training places or attend one for a week or two and then decide that they are no longer interested, those youngsters above all need some kind of sanction in order to encourage them to take the help which will mean that they avoid the problems which the noble Lord fears they will face.
We must balance the way we deal with those young people. I believe that the balance is about right and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, I find the Minister's response most unsatisfactory. Indeed, I was very sorry to hear the noble Lord say what he said; namely, that young people need a sanction. Of course, that is true sometimes. But that is not the point. Young people who are destitute do not need a sanction; they need a helping hand. In fact, they need, as set out in the amendment, the assurance that the employment officer will—and this is not very much to ask—have regard,
"to the welfare of the young person concerned".
That is not asking a great deal. I have been given a good deal of detail in the reply to my amendment, but, as Bung Lear said to his ungrateful daughter and son-in-law, the Duke of Cornwall, I would say,
"O reason not the need!".
There is a need, but it has not been recognised by the Minister. Indeed, there is a very severe need. If it were not so late at night, I would give the Minister many examples of the need of young people who are destitute which have been supplied to me by various organisations, not least the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. Quite a number of those children are offenders in one way or another. The Minister will perhaps say that that is their own fault and that, if they have been offending, then they need at least a cuff over the ear or something of that nature. However, what they really need is regard to be had for their welfare.
I cannot for the life of me see why the Minister cannot agree to the incorporation of those innocuous words, which will cost no money, into the Bill. Surely that should appeal to him. I wonder whether the Minister will just reconsider his reply in the light of what I have said and, if he cannot accept the amendment straight away, say that he will at least consider it in time for Third Reading. Will the Minister be good enough to respond to my appeal?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall respond. The noble Lord, with all his long years of experience, has devised a way to get me on my feet again. I listened with care to what he said and I should certainly be interested if the noble Lord were to send me copies of the examples to which he referred. However, I believe that we are talking about youngsters who have been given a choice of. a training place or who have been put on a training scheme and have either refused to go on it or have come off the scheme. Therefore, I believe that they have had an opportunity and that officials of the Employment Service have tried to help them. It is a matter of considering what we do thereafter. Do we just go on
514
ignoring the fact that they will not take any help and that they just wish to stay on that benefit, and leave it at that? I do not think that that is the proper way to address the problem.
I am sorry to be so negative to the noble Lord. But, as I said, I should certainly be interested in studying the examples to which he referred. As the noble Lord probably knows, during the course of debates during both Committee and Report stages of a Bill we look again at the matters raised so as to ensure that we have not missed a point that we should have taken on board.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: My Lords, the Minister's second response gives me the mere whisper of an excuse to seek the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment. I say that because the Minister has not rejected it out of hand. I am asking the Minister to incorporate in the Bill the innocuous words set out in the amendment which would make all the difference between life and death to the people about whom we are talking; and, indeed, would not affect the principles of the legislation one jot or tittle.
Why can the Minister not agree at this stage to accept the amendment, or at least say that he will reconsider the matter before Third Reading? I see that the noble Lord continues to shake his head. In the circumstances, I feel inclined to press the amendment to a Division. It is of very great moral significance as the noble supporter said. I should like to test the opinion of the House.
9.50 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 71) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 23; Not-Contents, 51.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Newcastle Bp.

Grey, E.

Palmer L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Parry, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Seear, B.

Judd, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lawrence, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McCarthy, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Astor, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Balfour, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blaker, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blatch, B.

Gage, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gisborough, L.

Byron, L.

Goschen, V.

Carnock, L.

Hacking, L.

Chesham, L.

Haig, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Harms worth, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Hemphill, L.

Howe, E.

Cross, V.

Inglewood, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Leigh, L.

515

Lindsay, E. [Teller.]

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Long, V.

Renton, L.

Lucas, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Lyell, L.

Seccombe, B.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

McConnell, L.

Slim, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Marlesford, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Trumpington, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Northbrook, L.

Wynford, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9.57 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 14, leave out line 17.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment has been spoken to. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 73 not moved.]
Clause 17 [Recovery of overpayments]:
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Circumstances in which a jobseeker's allowance is not payable]:
[Amendments Nos. 75 to 79 not moved.]
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 16, line 3, after second ("a") insert ("suitable").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, once again the amendment is an attempt to introduce the word "suitable" before "training", to permit a young person to argue that a course of training is not suitable and therefore avoid the removal of the jobseeker's allowance.
Clause 18 is a tough clause. Even in conditions where all the requirements of the jobseeker's allowance have been met it allows the Secretary of State to refuse the jobseeker's allowance to a young person. It sets out the grounds upon which the Secretary of State can refuse a jobseeker's allowance to a young person, overriding even a situation in which all of the conditions have been satisfied. One of the grounds on which he can do so is that the young person has refused or has not taken up a training place.
Once again, we urge the Government to consider the addition of the word "suitable" before "training scheme" on two grounds. First, for a young person to be put into an unsuitable training place is a waste of time and money for the young person, the employer and the trainer. Secondly, the drafting of this subsection is very wide given the stringent situation in which the young person could be placed if he is believed not to have satisfied the additional conditions required in the clause.
In some ways the subsection follows the broad lines of a previous amendment. However, it is more precise and narrow, dealing with the suitability of training. If the Government were to accept the amendment and put the provision on the face of the Bill it would avoid many
516
additional appeals and a good deal of unnecessary trouble. The provision could be borne in mind by employment officers when making a dispensation for a young person.
I have a final point to make. I shall be brief because the hour is late and I do not wish to detain the House; otherwise, like the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I would have much more to say. As with the last amendment, I do not see why the Government cannot accept this amendment, not so much because it is innocuous but because it clarifies, is helpful, more precise and more definite and therefore allows the young person to see where he or she stands. I urge the amendment because I simply do not understand why it cannot be easily accepted by the Government, unless on the ground of some strange machismo which makes people think that to concede anything is somehow an emasculation of themselves. I ask the Government to consider the possibility of including the word "suitable" in the subsection.
Even after the changes that have been made—I welcome them and the willingness of Ministers to move on at least some parts of the Bill—the Bill remains extremely harsh on young people. Very few changes have been made which enable the Bill to be a little more understanding towards their needs and requirements. I beg to move.
10 p.m.
Lord Ingle wood: My Lords, as the noble Baroness explained, this amendment stipulates that a claimant would not be subject to a sanction in connection with a training course or employment programme unless that course was "suitable". Given the wording of the clause, that stipulation would apply to all the circumstances set out in Clause 18(5) (b) and (c).
Perhaps I may begin by commenting on one of the points made by the noble Baroness. We wish to be quite clear that this particular part of the Bill does not relate to young people. The provisions which relate to people under 18 are to be found in Clauses 15 and 16.
I am bound to say that I do not see what the amendment would achieve. As we have explained, the kind of courses we intend to prescribe are provisions such as the motivational courses, Restart courses and job plan workshops. Claimants will be offered places on these courses by Employment Service staff. A government amendment, accepted during the Committee stage, introduced the safeguard that the sanction could be applied only when the opportunity had been offered in this way. I can assure your Lordships that a place will not be offered unless the staff concerned are satisfied that the course is in the claimant's best interest. I hope that that touches on another of the concerns expressed.
I remind your Lordships that throughout Clause 18(5) (b) the claimant can escape a sanction if he can show that he had good cause for his action. This could relate to some personal reason—for example, for leaving the course concerned—but it could also relate to the course itself. If the claimant can satisfy the adjudication officer that the nature of the course was such that he had good cause for refusing the place on it or giving up that place,

517
the effect is surely the same as saying that the course was unsuitable in his case. The only circumstance in which good cause cannot be a factor is where the claimant loses his place on a course through misconduct. If misconduct is indeed proved against the claimant, I cannot imagine that any noble Lord would consider that the suitability of the course was relevant.
Against that background, I suggest to the noble Baroness that it might be an occasion to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I should like clarification on one point. I mentioned young people, not in connection with the technical phrase "young people" in earlier clauses, but with reference to training places which are likely to be largely, though not entirely, taken up by younger people. I do not mean specifically those aged 16 to 18, but the younger workers who are most likely to be sent to training places as a condition of the jobseeker's allowance.
I take the Minister's point about good cause. However, I was trying to point out that the word "suitable" would avoid situations where one had to go through the relatively long process of determining whether the claimant had good cause because the matter would never arise. Will the Minister say something about that?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I shall be pleased to try to elaborate on what I said in the light of the noble Baroness's subsequent remarks. The crucial point is the government amendment to which I referred and which was adopted during the Committee stage. As I explained, it introduced the safeguard that the sanction could be applied only when the opportunity had been offered by the Employment Service for access to the course. We return to the comments I made earlier about the approach that the Employment Service adopts. The whole object of the Employment Service is to try to get people back to work, either by placing them directly in jobs or by putting them on courses which, in turn, will improve and enhance the likelihood of the person finding work.
The whole nature of the jobseeker's system is to try to ensure that we have what I described on a previous occasion as a dialogue between the employment officer and the jobseeker. It is against that background that the placings will be made. I believe that the worst fears of the noble Baroness are misplaced.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may make a point. He is relying on the wisdom of employment officers. I dare say that a great deal of the time they are right, but quite often they are likely to be wrong and they misunderstand what is suitable for the youngster. If the word "suitable" is in the Bill, attention can be drawn to the opportunity for the youngster or older person, as may happen, to say that the course is not suitable. If the word is included in the Bill, it is much easier for the point to be stressed.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords with the leave of the House, we are painting a picture where an almost blindness to the requirements of the jobseeker is the reason for a jobseeker being put on a course that is entirely unsuitable. However, in the real world I suggest that whether or not the word "suitable" is on the face of the Bill will not give a great deal of assistance. What matters is the existence of the phrase "good cause" in a position for the adjudication officer to be able to unravel the mess—if I may put it that way—in which the parties find themselves.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, in view of the Minister's explanation, I hope that everything he said will hold true. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 16, line 23, at end insert:
("( ) In paragraphs (6) (c) and (6) (d), "good cause" shall include the fact that the claimant has completed at least half (and is within 6 weeks of completing) a course of training or study relevant to their prospects of obtaining employment.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Ministers have said on different occasions while we have been debating the Bill today, "That shows that we have been listening, we're prepared to accept changes". We too have been listening and have carefully read the Hansard report in response to a similar debate on training. Our amendment answers the point about the Bill where we are continually told how important it is to get people back to work. All too often today in the workplace the only way people can get back to work is for them to get added skills or retrain. As the Minister said, many people in work also take part in part-time training courses.
The problem with the Bill is that if such people become redundant and are judged not to be available for work because they are attending a training course, they can and will lose their benefit. Yet in taking a decision as to whether they will accept the benefit and come off the course, they may be determining that they will be unemployed for longer.
For instance, we discussed the issue of drivers of heavy goods vehicles. After the last debate I made it my job to see that I was up to date on this matter. I spoke to some people in Scotland who train heavy goods vehicle drivers. The cost of a course is just under £500 and the duration is two or three weeks depending on the ability of the individual. Someone who goes on such a training course will be regarded under this Bill as not being available for work. People who are given notice of redundancy and who may be on a training course will have to take a decision as to whether they come off the course and possibly blight their future prospects of employment.
This amendment is very straightforward. It states that the claimant must have completed at least half the course, or, in an attempt to answer the Minister's point about implied professional students, must be,
"within 6 weeks of completing … a course of training or study relevant to their prospects of obtaining employment".

519
So we are not talking of someone taking a course in, let us say, ornithology, or in any subject that may not be related to their employment prospects. The course must be directly related to their prospects of obtaining employment, and for a period that will entitle them to benefit for no more than six weeks. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister knows that we believe there is a problem here. He listened to us and we are grateful to him for it. Something will have to be done in future. But meanwhile, we need a holding operation to try to keep the mess under control until a real solution is sorted out. This amendment would suit the purpose extremely well. I am glad that the noble Baroness has moved it, and I am happy to support it.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we have previously debated the advantages of jobseekers undertaking study and training. We are all agreed that it can help a jobseeker improve his skills and chances of finding employment. There is no difference between us on that. However, we have on many occasions made clear that a jobseeker's first priority should be to get back to work as quickly as possible. Anyone whose first priority is to undertake a course of study should not look to JSA for funding. Jobseekers should be undertaking a course because they feel it will help them to get a job. They should continue looking for work while they are on the course. If a job becomes available, they should take it. Most jobseekers do find work very quickly, and that should apply to those who have started a course of study as it applies to all others.
I of course appreciate the amount of time and effort that people invest in their study and I understand the noble Baroness's concern that such an investment should not go to waste. However, I hope that in the majority of cases, a jobseeker approaching the end of a course would not have to give up the course or training if a job becomes available. Courses are becoming increasingly more flexible and I hope that most jobseekers would be able to rearrange their course in order to take a job.
As always, the noble Baroness and the noble Earl have argued their case most persuasively. Let me be quite clear. I do not propose to accept this amendment. But having said that, we are willing to reflect on the matter further. We think that we may—I stress "may"— be able to see a way forward. We have in Clause 28 of the Bill a power to pilot regulations with a view to
"ascertaining whether their provisions will, or will be likely to, encourage persons to obtain or remain in work or will, or will be likely to, facilitate the obtaining by persons of work or their remaining in work".
This is an important flexibility to test out new approaches that have been welcomed on both sides of the House.
We propose to collect new and better information on the part-time study arrangements, and perhaps pilot new approaches. This would be intended to provide secure evidence on what kind of arrangements will best enhance jobseekers' prospects of obtaining work. With your Lordships' permission, I should like at the same time to consider whether an approach based on the noble
520
Baroness's proposals might be tested alongside other ideas. I do not say that we will do so immediately after JSA is introduced. Indeed, I do not think that we shall wish to do so until JSA has been allowed to settle in for a year or so. But it is certainly something that we shall consider. We are all agreed that study can help a jobseeker's job prospects. What we want to do is to sharpen our understanding of that through research and piloting, and I can give an undertaking that we will consider what the noble Baroness said in that context.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, I wonder whether he can go a mite further. Since he accepts the principle behind the amendment, would it be possible to do something without waiting until the JSA has, as he put it, run itself in? Would it be possible in the meantime to give guidance and ensure that something like this would be encouraged by the Government? Must we wait all that time until the JSA has run itself in, when the Government believe in the principle behind the amendment?
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord finally sits down—though, as he is in fact sitting down, perhaps I should say before the noble Lord rises again—as I understood him, he was requiring a person who was undertaking a course of training relative to employment to have to take a job, although that person had not quite finished the course. That seems absolutely mad.
Surely if you are training for something, you want to complete the course. If someone has nearly completed a course, what is the sense in telling the chap that he has to leave it before he reaches the end of it in order to take a job? He would be better qualified and do a better job and be less likely to become unemployed again if he completes the course. To say that we now have modules and the last little bit of the course can be found from somewhere else and added on at a later date is quite absurd.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, again, before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, perhaps I may remind him that the point of this amendment came up following very helpful discussions with the Minister.
We accepted that he felt obliged to standardise the procedure across the country by coming from 21 hours down to 16 hours. We understood his thinking, although we thought that he could have been more generous. We understood that he was trying to achieve a standard formulation of 16 guided study hours.
We were concerned that that caught two groups of people. One, as my noble friend said, which had paid fairly heavy fees for a course—more than £100—which was deemed by the employment officer to represent such an investment in the course that those people were then disqualified from benefit; and a second group of those who had almost reached completion of the course and, as the noble Baroness said, were required to leave that course, sometimes perhaps for just a fortnight's temporary job before Christmas in Woolworths. Those

521
people, nonetheless, after three months might have to give up the final month of a four months' course. We all thought that that was foolish and I thought that the Minister had accepted that.
Following the plea of my noble friend Lord McCarthy, and given that we have delayed the implementation of JSA until October though no doubt the guide and study rules will come in through guidance earlier, can the Minister say in the meantime that, at the time that the guided study hour regulations go out, there will be an accompanying note advising employment officers to look sympathetically at a situation in which somebody is undergoing an approved course of training or study relevant to his employment and is close to completing it? It would be an investment for the future. That would not be much. Clearly it could still be taken to adjudication or appeal if either side thought that the other side was behaving unreasonably. It would at least produce a climate in which we respected that situation.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may ask one question before the noble Lord sits down. I welcome very warmly what he has said; but will he also consult the associations of colleges and the heads of further education institutions?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we seem to have been going back round the debate that we had on a number of occasions earlier. As I said, the case from the Benches opposite has been argued most persuasively. The hand that was trying to feed has been bitten a little. I have explained the Government's position. I do not see any need at all to take the matter any further at this stage.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I have heard of giving on the one hand and taking back on the other, and we have just had a very good example of it. The Minister has made the point. The argument is accepted and the fact that it will probably put people back into work. But it will not be done immediately. We welcome the proposals put forward by the Minister. What we have great difficulty with is the timing of those proposals. We have some time in front of us to look at the whole area before this Bill goes on the statute book. If there needs to be a pilot course or if there needs to be more research, that is fine. But to say that it will not happen for a long time makes the apparently generous gesture almost worthless.
With due respect, it is not a reality to say that people on courses, if they gain employment, can rearrange the courses. They cannot. I have dealt with thousands of people who have been on such courses after being made redundant and had to retrain. It is not possible to go to the training centre, the TEC or the college and say, "You must rearrange my course because I have the opportunity of employment." One can imagine the trainer's response, "But you only have a few weeks to go. Why leave the course now when you will come out at the end with a skill that will increase your prospects?"
The Minister almost tripped himself up in saying that the logic is there, the case is made, but they are not going to implement the provisions as yet. I regret that the Minister should feel that we are biting the hand that feeds us. We are not. We are trying to ensure that people do not remain on the unemployment register for one day
522
longer than necessary. Added skills will help towards that. We need perhaps to look at the whole debate again. I shall read the Minister's words tomorrow with increased interest and may well come back to the matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 82 to 90 not moved.]
Clause 19 [Exemptions from section 18]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 17, line 9, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 92 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 17, line 14, at end insert:
("( ) Nothing in section 18, or in regulations under that section, shall be taken to prevent payment of a jobseeker's allowance merely because the claimant refuses to seek or accept employment in a situation which is vacant in consequence of a stoppage of work due to a trade dispute.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords one of the consequences of our accelerated progress through the amendments in the late hours of the Committee stage on 27th April was that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, withdrew her amendment to put on the face of the Bill the protection from sanction for a person refusing to accept an offer of employment arising from a trade dispute. That denied me the rare pleasure of being able to accept an amendment from noble Lords on the Benches opposite. Not to be denied that pleasure a second time, I am bringing the same provision forward as a government amendment.
It was always the Government's intention to carry forward this provision, contained in current legislation, though we had been minded to provide for the protection in regulations. I hope that noble Lords opposite will accept this amendment as an indication of the importance of the provision. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, of course we congratulate the Government. I never thought that this Government could surprise me. It may sadden me, annoy me, make me laugh, but not surprise me. But they surprised me tonight. I still do not know why they have done it but then I never knew why they took away this long-standing concession in 1988. I am only saddened that, as the noble Lord said, the amendment was tabled in our name and if I had moved it at 10.45 p.m. they may have accepted it. One can never tell.
I say only one word of warning: one damn thing leads to another. If the Government start giving back trade unionists their rights, one never knows where it will end.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 93A:
Page 17, line 14, at end insert:
("(1B) Section 18 does not apply, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (5) of that section, if—

523

(a) a direction is in force under section 15 with respect to the claimant; and

(b) he has acted in such a way as to risk—

(i) having that direction revoked under subsection (3) (b) of section 15; or

(ii) having the amount of his jobseeker's allowance reduced by virtue of section 16, because he has failed to complete a course of training.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 93A has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 17, line 15, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another of the consequences of our accelerated progress on 27th April when the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, withdrew her amendment to replace the power to make regulations for trial periods with a duty. As with Amendment No. 93, here I am not to be denied the pleasure again of responding positively to the noble Baroness's concerns and, incidentally, surprising the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy.
In other areas of the Bill we have resisted attempts from the Benches opposite to replace regulation-making powers with duties because of the need to retain flexibility in the way in which we provide for the detailed rules of JSA. In this instance there is no such concern.
The employment on trial rule enables people who have been unemployed for a certain length of time to take up work in the knowledge that if they subsequently decide to give it up after a specified time, there will be no question of a sanction for leaving the job voluntarily. The Government is confident that this protection from sanction provides a valuable incentive for unemployed people to try out areas of work that might be comparatively unfamiliar to them. Our hope is of course that once started in the job, they find that it is working out, and that they decide to stay in it. The success stories are those who do so. Paradoxically, the fewer people who actually end up using the rule and thus return to benefit, the better.
In the JSA White Paper, the Government confirmed their support for the employment on trial rule. We announced that it would be continued and improved. Our intention is that the qualifying period of unemployment will be reduced from six months to three months, and that people using the rule will be able to leave jobs without penalty at any time between the fourth and 12th weeks of employment, instead of the sixth and 12th weeks. This will help potentially an additional 200,000 people. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, can accept this amendment as a response to her own amendment which was not moved in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right in that one damned thing leads to another and we thank him for this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 17, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("payable") in line 24, and insert ("In such circumstances as may be prescribed, an income-based jobseeker's allowance shall be payable to a claimant even though section 18 prevents payment of a jobseeker's allowance to him.
(3A) A jobseeker's allowance shall be payable by virtue of subsection (3) only if the claimant has complied with such requirements as to the provision of information as may be prescribed for the purposes of this subsection.
(3B) Regulations under subsection (3) may, in particular, provide for a jobseeker's allowance payable by virtue of that subsection to be—

(a) payable at a prescribed rate;

(b)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 19(3) provides the powers to make hardship payments of JSA to claimants who are under a sanction imposed for one of the "offences" set out in Clause 18. This amendment has two purposes. First, it corrects a deficiency in the original draft of the Bill which would have restricted hardship payments to people whose original claim to JSA was income-based. This would have meant that someone who was claiming contribution-based JSA only could not have received a hardship payment even though he satisfied the conditions for income-based JSA. The issue arises because, although the personal rate of JSA will be the same by both routes, legally the contribution-based allowance takes priority. Consequently, people who could establish both a contribution-based and an income-based entitlement, of equal amounts would only be claiming contribution-based JSA. The amendment ensures that any JSA claimant can receive hardship payments if he satisfies the relevant conditions since it removes the original qualification that they be made only where an income-based jobseeker's allowance would otherwise be prevented from being paid by Section 18.
Secondly, the new subsection (3A) allows for the adjudication officer to seek additional information from the claimant to ascertain whether he is in a vulnerable group, and whether there would be hardship if benefit were denied. There are already powers to require information in the Administration Act where this is necessary to determine a claim. This cannot apply in these cases since the claim will by definition already have been determined, but benefit will not normally be payable because of the sanction. This amendment ensures that proper provision is in place to carry out the policy intentions which we have already made clear. I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, obviously we accept the need to have hardship payment for those on contributory non-means-tested JSA. Clearly also, we do not move from our view that if somebody is getting means-tested JSA, which means obviously that their partner is not in work and that they have virtually no other earnings and very modest savings, that of itself is a test of hardship. That was the position which we argued at Committee.
Given that the Government nonetheless are persisting in having a definition of "hardship" which is more severe than that for the means-testing of JSA, perhaps I may use this opportunity to ask the Minister to clarify what that additional test of hardship will mean. First,

525
will a person be expected to use up all of their savings before being eligible for hardship payments? At the moment, under means-tested JSA, there is an income scale of £1 for every £250 for savings of between £3,000 and £8,000 for a couple. Will those savings have to be wiped out before there is eligibility for hardship payments?
Secondly, what types of income, normally ignored, will be counted? Will the disability living allowance be included? Will there be the usual disregard of £10 per week for charitable or voluntary payments?
Thirdly, what will claimants have to do to show that they have no alternative access to funds? Will they have to show that they have tried the Social Fund but been refused? Will they have to show that they have tried a bank for a loan but been refused? Will they have to show that they have pestered relatives or charities but been refused? In other words, once the Minister has gone down the path of saying that "hardship" is be be even more harshly defined than "eligibility" for means-tested JSA, it would be helpful to the House if, at the very least, we could know what he has in mind for the basis of that test.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am happy to respond to that, although it takes us back to earlier discussions when I was armed with some information on the subject—but I am armed again. So perhaps I can explain that we shall be carrying forward current practice for hardship payments in income support. It is for the adjudication officer to decide whether to award a hardship payment, taking account of the circumstances of the household and its access to alternative funds, including income from savings or from other benefits. Having modest savings will not automatically debar someone from receiving a hardship payment. For example, provision will be carried forward for a 20 per cent. reduction to apply—rather than a 40 per cent. reduction—where the household has capital of under £200 and a family member is pregnant or seriously ill. The question of borrowing will also, as now, be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, it may appear to the adjudication officer that a claimant may reasonably look for support to a family member, particularly if the period covered by the benefit sanction is short.
In JSA we shall be specifying in regulations that the adjudication officer must take into account the duration of the shortfall of funds—a matter which is currently left to guidance in income support. However, the claimant's representation of hardship will cover not only his circumstances but also why the non-payment of JSA would result in that hardship. It will be for the claimant to satisfy the adjudication officer that he has no alternative source of funds. A hardship payment is made, by definition, to someone who in principle has forfeited his right to JSA. The payment is a safety net and any safety net has to rely on a fair amount of discretion. I hope that I have answered the points made by the noble Baroness and I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 17, line 26, leave out subsections (4) to (6).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Schedule 1 [Supplementary Provisions]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 96ZA:
Page 34, line 23, at end insert:
("Period of entitlement
2A. Where a person has been assessed as capable of work under Part XIIA of the Benefits Act, but has been awarded one or more points in respect of one or more of the descriptors applied under the all-work test; the period for which he is entitled to a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance shall not exceed, in the aggregate, 364 days in any period for which his entitlement is established by reference (under section 2(1) (b)) to the same two years.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as the Minister has surprised my noble friends Lady Hollis and Lord McCarthy, it is only fair to give him a chance to surprise me by accepting this amendment. The purpose is to reinstate the 12 months' contributory JSA to disabled people. The matter has been discussed previously. The amendment protects disabled people from the reduction in contributory benefit from 12 months to six. We know that disabled people take longer than non-disabled people to find work because of their disability or, in some cases, because of a negative attitude to disability and health problems on the part of prospective employers.
With at least 150,000 more disabled people expected to sign on as unemployed for JSA, the scale of the problem will be greatly increased. For example, someone who scored below the threshold for incapacity benefit could, nonetheless, have a substantial disability even though that person would be considered theoretically capable of all work. That is a problem we have discussed on previous amendments.
I am advised by the Disability Alliance that demands on the specialist expertise of disability employment advisers are likely to increase far beyond the numbers for which the Government expect to cater, as a result of removing thousands of disabled people from incapacity benefit. Only 29,000 of the 150,000 people expected to sign on (about one-fifth) will be referred to placing assessment and counselling teams. There is already evidence of long waiting lists to see DEAs. Some people have to wait three months to be seen in the first place. One disabled person had to wait for over six weeks for a DEA to arrange a job introduction scheme.
In effect, a disabled person can spend almost all of the period of contributory JSA waiting for assessment and a suitable training placement. A shorter period of contributory benefit could therefore affect disabled people disproportionately. Reinstating the 12-month duration of contributory JSA to people coming off incapacity benefit will cost about £10 million a year. That information was given in a Written Answer in the Official Report of the other place on 9th May 1995 (col. 394).
When a similar amendment was debated in the other place in Committee the Minister stated that the proper way to help disabled people was through the Disability Discrimination Bill. If that is in the Minister's brief, when he replies perhaps he will tell us how it is proposed to do that. As it stands, it will relax the necessary enforcement procedures needed to ensure that it is implemented fully; and, of course, the exemption from the Bill of small employers will not help those people who are seeking employment in companies with fewer than 20 people—that is, 96 per cent. of all employers.
We have tried to deal with the problems of disabled people throughout the Bill. The amendment would put right an obvious injustice at, as I said, a cost of about £10 million.
The main reason put forward by the Government for reducing the current duration of unemployment benefit to six months under the JSA is that the majority of claimants have only a short spell of unemployment lasting six months or less. A recent parliamentary Answer suggests that 44 per cent. have spells of unemployment lasting less than six months.
We know that the position is bound to be different for disabled people. There is evidence to suggest that many disabled people actively looking for work take a considerable time to do so and therefore could be substantially disadvantaged by a shorter period of contributory benefit. An excellent report entitled Employment and Handicap was produced in 1990 by Social and Community Planning and Research. I shall not go through all the evidence, but it shows without any doubt that disabled people take much longer to find work than do non-disabled people.
There is also the business of training. We know that unemployed disabled people receive priority on training courses for training for work. However, the way training finance operates means that while there is a financial incentive to take on disabled people—there is double the start payment and eight times the outcome payment— providers will have an incentive to take on only those disabled people who they are confident will complete the programme, gain qualifications and find work.
There are many disabled people, especially those moving from incapacity benefit, who are unlikely to meet the requirements of providers looking for a quick throughput for their programmes. If we take the greater disadvantage which already faces disabled people in the labour market, to cut six months from their contributory benefit is little short of mean. Reinstatement to that group of people is unlikely to cost the Government much, but it will make a massive difference to disabled people themselves. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to allow those people who are found capable of work under the all-work test in incapacity benefit, but who have scored one or more points under the test, to receive a contribution-based jobseeker's allowance for up to 364 days rather than the 182 days specified in the Bill.
528
I am almost tempted to say that from my re-appearance at the Dispatch Box the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will realise that I do not consider that would be right for a number of reasons. It seems to be my noble friend who has been giving all the concessions, and so on, for the last little while.
The basic principle of contribution-based jobseeker's allowance is that it is a personal entitlement paid for up to six months, irrespective of the claimant's personal circumstances. Therefore, I do not believe that it is appropriate to adjust the basic conditions for individual groups. However, claimants can receive certain disability benefits on top of their contributory allowance; in particular, disability living allowance. Where there is continuing need at the end of the six months' contributory benefit period, income-based jobseeker's allowance will be available for all those who require it and for as long as it takes to find work.
We recognise that disabled claimants may have special needs and difficulties in finding work. But extending the contributory period is not the answer. The best way to help those in this group, as for all unemployed people, is to get them back into work. I shall not pray in aid the disability Bill that is soon to come to this House. We shall have more than enough time to discuss it. However, I must point out—and perhaps I shall have to do so on a number of occasions—that the figure of 20 per cent., which the noble Lord gave as a limit, is not an accurate reflection of the real situation as regards employees. Eighty per cent. of all employees will be covered by the Bill because so many work for the larger companies.
The Employment Service provides a wide range of services and programmes to help disabled people and their employers, giving unemployed disabled people priority for a place on all main employment and training programmes for which they are suitable. In response to my noble friend Lord Swinfen, I mentioned them in some detail earlier. I do not wish to go over them all again but I remind noble Lords that 53,000 unemployed disabled people were helped into work by the Employment Service in 1993–94. Furthermore, during the next three years an extra £71 million in resources will be going into the Employment Service to provide a package of help to enable those people affected by the introduction of incapacity benefit to have early access to the most appropriate Employment Service provision.
I regret to say that for all those reasons we believe that it would be inappropriate to extend the period of entitlement to contribution-based JSA to this group. I hope with that explanation the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I thought that the Minister was going to surprise me but, obviously, he is not going to do so. Claimants receive DLA in any event, and therefore I do not see what that has to do with the amendment. All the evidence points to the fact that disabled people do not get back into work as quickly as other people. The Minister has no evidence to show that the facts that we have given are wrong.
I am not surprised that he did not quote from the Disability Discrimination Bill. I do not believe that he was stopped from doing so by the time of night but

529
because he realised that the argument which the Government produced when they called that Bill in aid in the other place will not work in this case. He said that 80 per cent. of employees will be covered. That means that 20 per cent. will not be covered. If the proportion is that small, why not include them? We shall discuss that matter when we debate the Disability Discrimination Bill next week.
I am disappointed by the Minister's reply. I believe that we made a strong case but I am not surprised by the rejection. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but we may wish to return to the matter on Third Reading.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 96A:
Page 35, line 40, at end insert:
("(e) for occupational pensions to be disregarded, in the case of a disabled person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under current unemployment benefit rules, people aged 55 and over have their benefit reduced pound for pound if they also receive an occupational or personal pension of more than £35 per week. The proposal in the White Paper for contributory jobseeker's allowance is to remove the age threshold and to raise the pension level to £50. This amendment concerns disabled people, some of whom may have occupational pensions awarded on the basis of early retirement on grounds of ill health. It seeks to disregard such pensions when calculating contributory jobseeker's allowance.
Written Questions were put to the Minister in the other place in order to ascertain how many of the estimated 150,000 people moving from incapacity benefit to jobseeker's allowance in the year 1996–97 will also have an occupational or private pension. The Minister stated that the information is not available, as reported in the Official Report of the other place on 7th March at col. 169 and again, 10 days later, at col. 744.
However, according to the Department of Social Security's own research—in its Report No. 20—over two-thirds of the sample of people receiving invalidity benefit did not receive an occupational pension. Only an estimated 38 per cent. of invalidity benefit claimants received an occupational pension at an average of £60 per week, as reported in the Official Report of the other place on 8th February last year at col. 210.
If that percentage of claimants is reflected in similar proportions in the numbers expected to sign on in 1996–97, about one-third of such claimants—about 50,000 people—could have their contributory benefit reduced or completely withdrawn. For example, an average £60 pension would reduce contributory JSA by £10 per week.
The removal of an age threshold means that people of any age could be affected. That could have the greatest impact on older disabled people moving from incapacity benefit to JSA. The chances of a disabled person having an occupational pension increases with age, with 55 per cent. of men claiming invalidity benefit having some occupational pension payment after the age
530
of 55, compared with only 5 per cent. before the age of 45, as reported in the House of Commons' Hansard of 7th February last year at col. 32.
In Committee in another place the Minister argued that the pension level should be the determinant rather than age, as reported in the Official Report of Standing Committee B in the other place on 7th February this year at col. 248. However, age is relevant to disabled people. Indeed, the greater likelihood of people over the age of 45 having an occupational pension was one of the reasons put forward by the Government during the passage of the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act for reducing the age from which the age allowances are payable with incapacity benefit to below that age.
While only 30 per cent. of people aged between 45 and 54 claiming invalidity benefit received an occupational pension, as reported at col. 32 on 7th February last year in the House of Commons' Hansard, such people in that age group moving from incapacity benefit to JSA could have their benefit reduced as a result of this provision.
Someone with a working spouse or with savings above the limit, could also be excluded from income-related JSA, leaving someone with no benefit at all from day one. I beg to move.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I do not wish to go through the whole argument on this amendment, because it is complicated and has been put extremely well by the noble Lord. I hope that the Minister will deal with the illogicality which the noble Lord pointed out; namely, that the arguments used by the Government when we debated the incapacity for work legislation is the reverse of the argument which they are likely to use on this amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, since 1981, there has been some form of abatement in unemployment benefit for occupational pensions. This is, therefore, a long-standing principle in contributory benefit, and one which is widely accepted. That principle should, we believe, apply to disabled people who receive occupational pensions in the same way as it does to other claimants. There is no reason to treat disabled people who are unemployed and looking for work differently from other jobseekers.
We are, however, increasing the level of disregard that applies to those receiving contributory-based jobseeker's allowance with an occupational and personal pension from £35 to £50 a week. Of course, that will be applicable to all jobseekers on the contributory-based JSA. That provides a positive incentive to people to make provision for their own retirement and allows for a disregard of a substantial part of that pension. Pension payments will continue to be taken into account fully in income-based JSA, as they are in income support for all claimants, including disabled people.
We believe that the removal of the 55 age limit is fully justified. The current limit is arbitrary and inequitable. There is no reason to treat two claimants differently simply because one is 54 and the other is 55.

531
We believe the financial resources available in JSA are better used in measures which will actually help disabled people in general into jobs, not in giving a special disregard for disabled people with an occupational or personal pension. There is an extensive programme of financial and practical help for unemployed, disabled claimants—which we discussed on a number of occasions this evening—over and above that given to the majority of claimants.
I recognise that pension payments are not taken into account in incapacity benefit. However, there is a wide difference in the nature of the two benefits, and as regards the situation of those claiming them. Contributory JSA is a short-term benefit paid to people to tide them over a period of unemployment. Everyone claiming JSA is, by definition, capable of work and is looking for work. In those circumstances it is right to carry forward the long-standing principle of abatement from unemployment benefit. Incapacity benefit, on the other hand, has to cater for those whose disabilities are long term and who are not, therefore, capable of working. With that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall read the response given by my noble friend the Minister, but I may well return to the matter on Third Reading. Pensions granted to people who suffer disability as a result of their work are very often a way of compensation because their ability to work is limited and therefore their choice of jobs is limited. That means that they are likely to be unemployed for longer when they are looking for work. It is a matter which my noble friend does not appear to have taken into consideration. As I said, I shall read my noble friend's response and will perhaps return to the matter on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96B to 96D not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 96E:
Page 36, line 14, leave out ("only").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 96F. The amendments simply correct drafting errors in the provision and make no change to its effect. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 96F:
Page 36, line 15, after ("(2)") insert ("only").
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 96G:
Page 37, line 29, after ("may") insert ("not").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move the above amendment partly for the purpose of discovering a little more about what paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 actually means. As one grinds one's way through such a complex Bill, gradually, rather like a mountain appearing through the mist, the essence of the legislation begins to become clear. I may be wrong, but I am increasingly convinced
532
that the essence of the Bill is about removing people from benefit so that not only will public money be saved but also an impressive fall in official unemployment figures will be brought about.
I have in mind the current gap between the appearance given by the employment statistics of constantly declining unemployment and the reality which seems to be encompassed in news broadcasts every single morning when yet another firm announces its intentions to downscale—usually in thousands—the number of people it employs. Most recently, I recall BRB in York, National Westminster Bank and other banks. I could read out a long list, but I shall not bore the House at this late hour by doing so. However, one becomes aware that there are two ways of reducing unemployment; one is to put people in jobs and the other is to change definitions.
Paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 rather surprisingly suddenly says that additional conditions may have,
"to be satisfied with respect to the payment of a jobseeker's allowance to any person who is, has been, or is to be, in employment".
That is a rather wide number of tenses to cover every possible situation. The paragraph continues,
"which falls within a prescribed description".
One of the excellent things which has happened today is that Ministers have brought forward changes to the Bill which limit that dreaded phrase "prescribed conditions" and try to indicate more clearly what those conditions might be and what are the limits of prescription. But here, right at the very back of the Bill, buried in Schedule 1, we come across this troubling phrase, "within a prescribed description".
The prescription is presumably the result of regulations, the kind of which, the nature of which, and the category of which there are no clues to. As I read paragraph 17—I hope I am wrong—it looks almost like an open door to producing additional conditions which would have to be satisfied for jobseeker's allowance to be paid, with no indication of what those conditions might be. I very much hope I am wrong, because this paragraph by itself would almost undo most of what has been achieved in the past few days, and which Ministers have been kind enough to respond to.
I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, can tell me that these fears are all misplaced, that these possible regulations under which additional conditions can be laid down are circumscribed, narrow and are little more than technicalities. But I think that if he reads paragraph 17 again carefully he will at least see that it is not wholly unreasonable to think that this could be a wide open backdoor into the Bill. Above all, I am seeking a much closer definition of what paragraph 17 may mean. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I wish to add just one word to what my noble friend has already said. I hope, when the Government reply to this amendment, that they will not confine themselves to setting out their own intentions. We want to know what else could be done under these vires, not necessarily by them but by anyone else who might get them into their hands in future. We are thinking of the future as well as the present.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, those on the Liberal Benches have certainly explained well their thoughts on this matter. They have, of course, said virtually everything which could be said about this amendment, but it is a useful amendment and it gives the Government an opportunity to explain what on earth this particular part of the schedule means. We look forward to hearing what they say.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this amendment would negate the power which enables us to require additional conditions to be satisfied by any person claiming a jobseeker's allowance who is, has been, or is to be in specified employment. The provision will be used to place additional availability requirements on share fishermen claiming contribution-based jobseeker's allowance and special availability conditions for those who have been temporarily laid off or put on short-time working. I shall explain this in some detail.
Your Lordships will be aware that this type of power is nothing new in social security legislation—similar powers are currently contained in Section 28(3) of the contributions and benefits Act 1992. Moreover, I should point out that, in carrying these provisions forward, the Government have actually restricted the scope of the power compared with that in the benefits Act, which provides for restrictions on the rate of allowance that can be payable. So what we have here is a more restricted power, which we nevertheless believe is necessary to allow for the fine-tuning of the benefit to meet the needs of individual groups.
It may help your Lordships if I explain in somewhat greater detail how this provision will be used. The first use concerns share fishermen. This is a group which your Lordships will be aware have special access to unemployment benefit at present. They do not pay Class 1 contributions, and so would normally not qualify. However, they are able to gain entitlement on the basis of their special Class 2, self-employed contributions, and this will continue to be the case for contribution-based JSA.
There is currently a rule in the unemployment benefit regime which requires share fishermen to demonstrate that they could not work on any day on which they claim benefit. That additional requirement reflects the self-employed status of fishermen and takes account of their particular work patterns, which are dictated by the weather and the availability of fish rather than the requirements of an employer. Similar regulations will be made in contribution-based jobseeker's allowance to require share fishermen to be available for work at all times and to prove that they could not work as fishermen if they wish to claim JSA. Those additional requirements are part of the overall package which applies to fishermen who are being given special treatment. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it would be a nonsense to treat those claimants as if they worked a normal 9 to 5 day for an employer.
The second use of the power is for short-time or temporarily stopped workers. We accept that the benefit system should offer some support to people who cannot work their normal hours because their employer is experiencing industrial problems, but we do not believe that that can continue indefinitely. We shall use this
534
power to set out a special availability regime for this group which reflects their very particular circumstances. It is clear that we are not dealing here with the normal case of unemployment. Many of these: claimants will have continuing contracts of employment.
We propose that if they are laid off because of industrial difficulties claimants will be able to look for temporary work only or, if they are: on short-time working, part-time work only for the balance of the days on which they are not working. That arrangement will apply for a limited period of 13 weeks. After 13 weeks claimants will be expected to take a full-time job even it if means giving up their existing job. We must recognise that after a while the situation can no longer be regarded as a temporary period of adjustment. Claimants' best chance of returning to full-time work after a reasonable time may be to move to a different employer.
I believe that those proposals strike a sensible balance which is fair to claimants, employers and taxpayers. It would be wrong that a benefit system designed to help people back to work should be used as a means of support for employers indefinitely.
I have explained the two uses which the Government propose to make of this power. I believe that they are entirely reasonable adaptations of the benefit system. I know that the share fishermen system works already under the current regulations. There is nothing sinister here. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment; but I shall find it amusing, and some of my colleagues may find it useful, if she decides to divide against a measure which is designed to help share fishermen.
11 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps he will answer this question. He has given two examples. Are we to understand that, like earlier examples, there may be many further instances, or are they finite examples and the only two instances, in which case why can they not be put on the face of the Bill?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, they are two examples of where we currently apply the same procedure. We need to transform those into JSA. I suggest to the noble Lord that to include the regulations which encompass those two groups on the face of the Bill would probably take up some clauses. That would also mean that we could not fine tune the regulations if that were necessary because the employment patterns of share fishermen changed, if we decided to make a change or if any other group came into being which needed the same kind of special treatment as the two groups that I mentioned.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can he answer the question I asked him about what other governments might do under these powers? That question is central.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am afraid, as I said to the noble Earl on one or two previous occasions when he asked that question, it is very

535
difficult for me to look into a crystal ball and into the minds of future governments. I have explained the use we propose to make of this power. I suggest that in future if a government decided to use the power in a way which seemed not to be in the spirit or the meaning of the words in the Bill or the words I have used this evening, there would be recourse to the courts, for example, to make sure that the interpretation was correct and that that future government were acting legally and were not abusing their powers. However, I cannot envisage a situation in which a future government might decide to use these powers in a punitive manner, other than in respect of the two cases I mentioned, where I believe they are being used in a positive manner.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Earl at least agree that any changes made in this House would be by the affirmative measure so that we should have a chance to see what was being done?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say this. I believe that these powers would be by the negative procedure. I presume that that is the position at present. I shall have to check that. Without checking the detail, I believe that it is the negative procedure. I think that that is how it should be left.
Earl Russell: My Lords, with respect, I do not think the Minister understood the question that I asked. I was not asking him to look into the mind of a future government. I was asking a technical, legal question about the extent of the vires he is taking. With advice, I am sure that he must be able to answer that question. We need to know the answer in order to decide what to do with the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall try to expand on the position. I am not a lawyer but I understand that these tests are very hard to judge in the way that the noble Earl asks. The courts and, in social security legislation, the commissioners can test a specific proposal against the vires test. Clearly, that is what would happen if in future a government seemed to be straying rather wide of what is viewed as the intention of the powers and someone wished to mount a challenge in that regard.
I am afraid that I cannot go any further to allay the noble Earl's suspicions about future governments.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, let me respond to what the Minister said in response to my amendment. First, I am not sure that relying on precedent is always the wisest course if the precedent is bad—and there are some bad precedents in social security legislation.
Secondly, I share the concern of my noble friend about the vires. I do not believe that it would be impossible to draft the provision in a somewhat narrower way, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, suggested, even if it did not deal with the specific examples the Minister gave. With a rather wintry smile, he tried to entice me into pressing the amendment in order to offend share fishermen up and down the country—and I am not as stupid as I look!
536
However, before Third Reading, will the Minister consider whether this paragraph could be somewhat more narrowly drafted? I share the concern of noble Lords that it is so widely drafted that it could allow virtually any additional condition to be added to a jobseeker's allowance. From every point of view, that seems to me constitutionally undesirable. Therefore, I request the Minister to consider, not tonight at this late hour but before Third Reading, whether this paragraph could be more narrowly drafted. I urge him to look closely at the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, hoping that he will respond in that way.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 [The back to work bonus]:
[Amendment No. 96H not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 21, line 30, after ("treating") insert ("the whole or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was busy contemplating what the noble Baroness said to me about the two groups and share fishermen and thinking that it might be quite nice to be in a fishing boat this evening. I have been present when there have been a few fishing expeditions as the evening has progressed. I am slightly thrown by the fact that Amendment No. 96H was withdrawn. However, I am now where I should be in the Marshalled List and I can stop talking about my desires to be in a fishing boat this evening and talk about Amendment No. 97. I am a patient fisherman when I get the chance.
Amendment No. 97 is a technical amendment designed to ensure that the policy intention of this subsection can be carried out. It has always been our intention, where partners' earnings have contributed to the accrual of a back-to-work bonus amount, that the partner should benefit from any payments under the scheme. In the normal course of events, where a claimant receives a bonus payment any benefit from it will be shared by the partner.
However, there are, of course, cases where couples separate during a benefit claim. The intention of the subsection is to ensure that where a partner's earnings have contributed to a bonus amount, that proportion can be transferred to a subsequent JSA or income support claim by the partner, provided that he or she makes a claim within the appropriate linking period.
As currently drafted, the subsection states that
"a prescribed part of an amount which has accrued towards a person's bonus"
can be treated as part of another person's bonus. Where it is solely partners' earnings which have caused the bonus amount to accrue, the present wording leaves some doubt as to whether the whole of the amount could be transferred to the partner's claim for JSA or income support. This amendment puts that right. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 21, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) The amount of the back-to-work bonus shall be reviewed annually in the light of the previous year's price inflation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Ministers have said all night that the central theme of the Jobseekers Bill is to get people back to work. I thought at one stage that they might set it to music, it goes rather well to "Jerusalem". We can sing it tonight because that is what the amendment is about. It deals with the back-to-work bonus and tries to make it more effective. So we can all sing "Jerusalem".
The back-to-work bonus has had a good press, rather too good. The trouble is that it does not go far enough. Funnily enough, it has been little debated in this House and it was little debated in the other place. It is a somewhat bizarre idea. It is supposed to deal with the problem of people who are unemployed and who do certain amounts of part-time work but cannot get back into full-time work, significantly because if they get back into full-time work they will lose money because of the earnings rule. However, it does nothing about the earnings rule itself; it maintains the restrictions exactly as they are. It says: "If you go back into full-time work, we will give you back half of what we take away while you are unemployed".
Many things are wrong with the back-to-work bonus as an incentive to "Jerusalem". The most important is that it depends upon discovery. First, you have to know that the individual is earning more than £5, in order that you can take the rest of the money away, or deduct it from the individual jobseeker's allowance, keep it in the piggy bank and give it back to him when he has a full-time job. But we know that in the majority of cases, because of the rules, we do not get discovery—most people in such situations do not declare the money. Of course they do not; we cannot blame them for it; the rule is ridiculous.
The efficacy of the provision depends on discovery or a sudden mass outbreak of honesty among all charladies in the country. That is not very likely. But the Bill does not deal with the heart of the problem, which is the earnings rule. The Government say: "Somehow, if we do this, we shall know how much they have; we shall stop it and only give half of it back".
However, that is only the first problem. The second is that the poor person in that position who has actually owned up and had the money taken away so that 50 per cent. of it is due to come back, will not know how much there is. Is a person supposed to keep bobbing into the Jobcentre every week, asking, "How much is in the piggy bank?". When there is enough, the person cuts it in half and goes back to full-time work. That is the miracle which will get people back into work. But it is a one-off payment; once a person has had it, that is it, he cannot get it again. He would have to remain out of employment for a long time to get the piggy bank up, and then he will get 50 per cent. of that if he is caught at it. So we say that the back-to-work bonus is a weak provision that should be improved. We suggest in this amendment that one of the ways it might be improved is for it to be reviewed annually in the light of the previous year's price inflation.
We know that the Government will say that that is no good because the back-to-work bonus is already indexed. In a sense it is, because it is 50 per cent. of what was declared. If that goes up, it is indexed. We are
538
not talking about it being indexed in that way. It might be possible, for example, for the Government to say that the 50 per cent. could rise to 75 per cent. It might even rise to 100 per cent. It might even be linked to a rather more sensible earnings rule. In other words, in all kinds of ways this bonus could be improved, because it is in a pretty sick way at the moment. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, to try to add anything to that speech would be to gild the lily. I wish, however, to ask a few questions. First, is it possible that a situation could arise whereby a person was, let us say, £5 short of earning the bonus in the piggy bank and the need to earn enough to complete the bonus could act as a disincentive to going into employment. Secondly, is any uprating of the bonus that might occur to be done by the Department of Employment or by the Department of Social Security? If it comes into the social security uprating statement, then it will be by affirmative procedure and we shall know what is done. Thirdly, can the Department of Employment find better ways of publicising the decisions it takes about uprating? For many years I tried to find out whether it was uprating the youth training allowance and the bridging allowance. It was very difficult to find anyone who had the first idea. If I were to put down a Question for annual Written Answer about what is being uprated and what is not, would it be answered, and could we institutionalise it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the amendment seeks an annual review of the maximum amount payable under the back-to-work bonus, which we intend will be up to £1,000. The maximum will be £1,000 but the bonus will be up to £1,000 depending on what the claimant has accumulated.
If I understood it correctly the first question of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was: will the; claimant decide to stay in benefit in order to accumulate the bonus? Perhaps I was wrong, but I had the impression that the noble Earl was under a misapprehension that either £1,000 could be claimed, or nothing at all. Since the bonus is up to £1,000, if a claimant has accumulated a bonus of, let us say, £400 on returning to work, that £400 is the amount that he will receive. The £1,000 figure is a maximum.
To turn to the interesting knock-about of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, one of the serious questions was: how will a claimant know how much he has banked, so to speak? I can tell the noble Lord that we shall be sending claimants regular quarterly statements of their position. I do not want to go into the matter in detail on this amendment, but I believe that it is an important part of encouraging people back to work. Interestingly enough, many people do declare their earnings. It is not true, as the noble Lord seems to think, that most people do not declare. Many do and will therefore be eligible. Even more might be encouraged to declare. But even without the additional number declaring, those who do will be eligible for the back-to-work bonus. That helps in this problem, which we all accepted and debated recently, although I was not able to give way to the

539
noble Baroness in her desires to uprate the £5 disregard. It also helps the other problem of the bridge between being out of work and returning to work and the additional costs that someone can often come up against in making that move. Also, an amount of up to £1,000 may give people a little more confidence in making that move. I should like to think that everybody thinks that at least the objectives behind the Government's move on this matter are well-judged, and I would like the proposal itself to be approved by your Lordships.
On the annual uprating question, so far as I can recall, the last time I had to do an annual uprating statement there seemed to be just about every figure imaginable on the piece of paper I had. Perhaps I may look at what the noble Earl had to say and write to him about the specific points that he raised. As I said, I did not have the impression from my brief—certainly I did not realise—that there quite so many different benefits, payments and so on, which either had to be up-rated annually or for which, in the case of many of them, Ministers were able to consider and decide whether or not to up-rate them.
The back-to-work bonus is designed to encourage people back to work. I trust that the payments will be seen as attractive for those participating in this particular scheme. We believe that the £1,000 is substantial. We do not have any proposals currently to up-rate the maximum limit on a regular basis, as suggested by the amendment. However, in line with our policy, as I explained briefly to the noble Earl, on a range of financial limits within the benefit system—for example, the earnings disregards—we keep the amount under review. The decision not to up-rate the maximum will not, in our view, devalue the incentive effect in any significant way, as up-rating the amount would be of a minor cash value, particularly while inflation is so low. It would not add anything to the particular attractions of this benefit for me to accept the noble Lord's amendment, but it has given me the opportunity to say a few words about the back-to-work bonus, which I regret has not received the attention that I believe it merits in your Lordships' House.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, as I understand it, the Minister is saying two things. First, he is saying that he has no proposals to up-rate the bonus, even the maximum £1,000; and, secondly, he will meanwhile be sending out regular notices telling people periodically how much they have in the kitty.
I wonder whether he can give any estimate of how many that will be? They will be part-time workers who are in receipt of income support, earn more than £5 and declare it to the Employment Service. I do not think that it will cost much money, but does he know how much?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord was asking one question, but then, towards the end of his remarks, I thought that he was asking me another. Perhaps he might repeat the question.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I asked how much it will cost to send out and how many there will be. The one precise thing that the Minister is telling me in
540
answer to my question "How will they know how much they have in the kitty?" is that he will send them regular notices telling them how much. I wonder whether he has any idea of how many people will be covered and will have to have that information. Unless we know how many people are in that position, we have no idea, even in principle, of how useful the bonus might be.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am happy to help the noble Lord. We expect that 150,000 bonuses will be paid in a full year to JSA claimants. We have no estimate of the administrative costs.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I shall not continue. The figure is 150,000 on the assumption that they will all declare it. However, at this time of night, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Employment of long-term unemployed: deductions by employers]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 21, line 43, at end insert ("or would qualify for disability working allowance upon taking up employment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 99 and 100. All three amendments seek to extend the employers' national insurance contributions holiday to disabled people.
Previous amendments have sought to include incapacity benefits as benefits which count towards qualifying for the employers' national insurance contributions holiday. At Committee stage in the other place the response from the Minister was that of cost. In this House, at the Committee stage, my noble friend the Minister intimated that disabled people were the wrong target. The holiday was,
"aimed at helping back into work people who have been capable of work but have not been able to find it rather than those who have been incapable of work"—[Official Report; 27/4/95; col. 1139]
Amendment No. 98 addresses the point made by the Minister; that is, that the holiday should target employers recruiting people who are capable of work. Disability working allowance is payable to people working more than 16 hours a week but who are disadvantaged in obtaining a job because of disability. It will enable a NIC holiday to be claimed by employers recruiting someone who would qualify for disability working allowance when taking up such employment.
Amendment No. 99 includes a period when someone is claiming disability working allowance towards the two years continuous receipt of jobseeker's allowance. Amendment No. 100 enables people to count periods of benefit, like incapacity benefit, towards the two years on jobseeker's allowance required in order to count as a qualifying employee for the NIC holiday. That could help some of the 150,000 disabled people expected to move from incapacity benefit onto jobseeker's allowance in 1996–97, many of whom may have been on incapacity benefit for over two years. It would enable such people to count a period on other benefits towards the qualifying two years on jobseeker's allowance.
Extending the NIC holiday could result in savings to the state as well as to the employer. For instance, someone moving from unemployment benefit to an average wage of £352 a week could attract a national insurance holiday for an employer of £1,869 a year, and save the Government over £10,000 a year in benefits and increased revenue. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, these amendments are good for disabled people, good for employers and good for the Government. It will be interesting to see what contortions the Minister gets into in order to reject them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I can look first at Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 without contortions. It will come as no surprise to the House that the amendments are technically unnecessary because, as I have explained previously, the clause already contains a power to extend by regulations the scope of the national insurance holiday to other groups of people.
We have proposed a well-targeted and affordable package of work incentive measures to help people back into work. This includes incentives both for the individual and for the employers. It is the national insurance holiday which provides an incentive to employers by encouraging them to offer job opportunities to the long-term unemployed. As I have said before to the House, it is aimed at helping people back into work who have been capable of work but have not been able to find it, rather than those who have been incapable of work. It is about helping people who are in and have been in the labour market for two years or more but have been unable to find work. It would not be appropriate to accept that periods of disability working allowance during which the person must be in work should count towards satisfying the two-year qualifying condition.
Disabled people, whom this amendment seeks to assist, receive other help in returning to work. Disability working allowance is available at a more generous rate than family credit to increase the income of some disabled people in work. Housing benefit and council tax benefit contain extra premiums for disability which again increase the amount of benefits they receive. I recognise that these benefits provide help for disabled people themselves and not to prospective employers, but extending the holiday to this group would go beyond our aim of helping those who have been in the market for a long time without being able to find work. This is where we consider that the need is greatest and where we should target the resources we have at our disposal.
What I can say to my noble friend is that we shall of course be carefully monitoring and evaluating the success of the scheme and would not rule out extending it further in some way if it became clear that there was value in doing so. For now we need to introduce the scheme within the cost constraints which apply and that means focusing the help essentially on the long-term unemployed.
In Amendment No. 100, my noble friend seeks to widen the scope of the holiday so that people who have been sick during the two-year qualifying period would also satisfy the qualifying conditions. We recognise that it might be appropriate to provide for some latitude in
542
the qualifying period so that, for example, small periods of sickness could be ignored. That is why we have taken a power at subsections (6) (a) and (b) to treat people who would not otherwise satisfy the principal conditions as satisfying them.
At this stage we have not decided to what extent the qualifying conditions should be modified under this provision. My noble friend will, no doubt, continue to press me to include people who have been sick throughout the two-year qualifying period. It will come as no surprise to my noble friend that I cannot agree that we should extend the qualifying conditions for the holiday to that extent. This would go beyond our aim of helping those who have been in the labour market for a long time without being able to find work. This is where we consider that the need is greatest and where we should target resources.
As I said, we will be carefully monitoring and evaluating the success of the scheme and I have mentioned to my noble friend that that; would not rule out extending it further in some way if it became clear that there was clear value in doing so.
With that explanation of why we want to concentrate on the long-term unemployed, and with just a little look into the future and the fact that our minds are not closed to it and to making changes, I hope that my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend offered me a mixed bag of sweeties, some of which I like and others I do not particularly like. But at this hour of the night I shall reserve my position on these amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Pilot schemes]:
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 24, line 16, at end insert:
("( ) A pilot scheme under this section may be introduced only after consultation with such bodies or organisations in the specified area or locality as seem appropriate, but wherever possible such consultation shall include organisations representative of employers and employees.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I make it clear at the outset that we are in favour of schemes designed to get people back to work. We are in favour of pilot schemes as well—at least I think we are—although we have not had much opportunity to debate them in this House. We want to make sure that these are suitable and successful. If they are not, they will simply be seen as yet another initiative that loses credibility because it does nothing for the unemployed, particularly the long-term unemployed.
We believe that one of the ways of achieving success would be by the involvement of local people, and/or organisations, which have specifically concerned themselves with employment in the area concerned. We believe that this means involving representatives of employers and employees in the area. After all, they have the task on the ground, so to speak, of representing the interests of job providers and job holders, and also

543
jobseekers. Most unions nowadays have arrangements for retaining in membership those of its members who become unemployed and providing them with a range of services, normally without requiring a subscription. That is certainly true of my own union. We have been anxious to ensure that those who become unemployed retain their links with the union and are not simply cast out once they lose the job which rendered them eligible for membership. There are other organisations too which might profitably be involved in consultations.
I hope that the Minister will not deride this amendment as being unnecessary or perhaps even undesirable. It has been worded carefully. There may well be places where such bodies do not exist and we have said that,
"wherever possible such consultation shall include organisations representative of employers and employees".
There is one question which I would like to pose to the Minister as regards these pilot schemes. I understand that they will not be able to vary the amounts of benefit payable. Will the schemes have any role in relation to benefit sanctions? Can they have any part in extending the period during which a JSA will be payable if there are sanctions? I hope that the Minister will be able to respond in a positive way. I hope that he will appreciate that the amendment is well-intentioned and will therefore be prepared to accept it or, if not this wording, at least something similar. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I certainly would not say that the amendment was wide of the mark, but I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness that it is not needed. Normal consultation procedures will precede the introduction of any pilot regulation. Proposals for pilot regulations will be submitted first to the Social Security Advisory Committee, in accordance with the provisions of the Social Security Administration Act. Your Lordships will be aware that this is the normal conduit for outside comment on social security legislation. We shall of course consult other organisations in the usual way if we consider that to be necessary. For example, any change involving housing benefit or council tax benefit will necessarily involve consultation with local authority associations. It may on occasion be appropriate to consult bodies representing employers and employees. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that on the question of who shall be consulted much depends on the nature of the pilot under consideration.
The pilot power is an innovation in social security in that it allows measures to be tested for effectiveness in advance of national implementation. However, regulations drawn under it will be subject to at least the same level of consultation and legislative scrutiny as they would be if introduced nationally. In some cases, the level of scrutiny may even be higher, since all pilot regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution, whereas for a national change introduced under normal arrangements this might not always be the case.
The noble Baroness asked me whether pilots can be used for benefit sanctions. Regulations can be piloted under all the powers of the Jobseekers Bill. The provision would have to be within the scope of the
544
powers and would have to be intended to promote employment, so there are some tests, so to speak, that any pilot proposed would have to obey before anyone could set up an experiment—a pilot—under these pilot regulations in the future. I hope that—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sorry but I simply do not understand that. I was led to believe that within a pilot scheme the Minister (or the Government) may not change or modify the rates of benefit payable; they have to be nationally determined. We were trying to find out whether, nonetheless, within a pilot scheme there may be a dispensation from the existing rules of sanction—either to be more generous or to be harsher. Can the Minister answer that simply? I did not understand the answer as he formulated it.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thought that I gave that answer. I said that the regulations can be piloted under all the powers of the Jobseekers Bill, and that provision would have to be within the scope of the powers and would have to be intended to promote employment, which is the underlying raison d'être of the pilots. They are supposed to aim to promote employment. As it is a bit late, I shall look into the point that the noble Baroness has made and shall try to come back to her more clearly in the next few days.
In conclusion, as I have explained, we shall be consulting through the Social Security Advisory Committee and it, in turn, will consult all those that it usually consults. We shall also, where necessary, consult with those people we feel appropriate, given the nature of the pilot. As we would want any pilot to succeed, clearly we would want to consult all the people who might be involved in or affected by the pilot-employers, unions, local authorities or whoever.
Perhaps I may clarify one point to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. We certainly cannot reduce benefit rates. We have always made that clear. We have never said that pilots can affect overall income levels, and indeed sanctions. However, I shall return to that in the next few days when I examine the questions that the noble Baroness put to me.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation of the Government's position on this amendment, and I am glad to learn that the intention is to have very wide consultation with all appropriate organisations in relation to pilot schemes. I particularly welcome the involvement of the Social Security Advisory Committee—a broadly based body—the recommendations of which are normally very highly respected. I note what has been said about the inability to reduce rates of benefit. We welcome that assurance. I am glad that the Minister has undertaken to reply to my noble friend Lady Hollis on the sanctions issue that she raised.
In the light of the Minister's statement, which will be in Hansard tomorrow, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Interpretation]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 29, leave out lines 19 and 20.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 103 and 107. The amendments make small adjustments to the definitions of "earnings" and "employment" which will apply in JSA. Amendments Nos. 102 and 107 are designed to remove from the definition of "earnings" certain payments which will not be regarded as earnings for JSA purposes, and to ensure that the definition which is used is aligned fully with income support practice.
The new definition retains the reference to Section 3 of the Benefits Act, which provides the basic definition of earnings that will be used in JSA—payments which are,
"remuneration or profit derived from an employment".
It removes the cross-reference to Section 4 of the Benefits Act. Section 4 provides principally that certain payments, including statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay, are to be treated as earnings. It is not our intention to regard those as earnings for JSA. Claimants could not receive them because they are incompatible with jobseeking, and where the partner of an income-based claimant receives them they will simply be counted as normal income. I think it is clear that they do not fall within our basic definition.
Your Lordships will not fail to have noticed that we have also made the definition subject to any regulations. That is because the basic definition "remuneration or profit" needs some interpretation and we consider it sensible for the Government to be able to provide that as necessary through regulations. Otherwise, we could find that it was interpreted far more widely or narrowly than we had intended. Perhaps I may give an example. In unemployment benefit at the moment that definition has been taken to include certain payments in kind. For JSA we would wish to be sure that such payments were not taken to be earnings, in line with the practice in income support. It is also the case that employers are adopting increasingly flexible work and remuneration packages. The benefit system needs to keep up with that and to be able to reflect those new patterns in its definitions. The regulation-making provision will enable us to iron out any problems that arise by prescribing what is and is not to be included, and it will also ensure that JSA keeps in step with income support.
I turn now to Amendment No. 103. Clause 7(8) defines "employment" for the purposes of that clause to mean, in layman's language, employment or self-employment. Jobseekers will be able to seek self-employment actively if they prefer instead of, or as well as, employed work. Regulations will be made under Clause 7(6) to provide that, in the case of a young person, "employment", as it applies in the term "actively seeking employment", will include training as well as employment. That will allow young people actively to seek training as well as employment. That requires a consequential amendment to Clause 34 to exclude the general definition of employment from Clause 7.
This is a technical, tidying-up amendment and I urge your Lordships to accept it, together with the other two amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 29, line 23, after (""employment"") insert (", except in section 7,").
[Amendment No. 104 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 30, line 31, at end insert:
(""training" has the meaning prescribed for the purposes of this Act and, in relation to prescribed provisions of this Act, if regulations so provide, 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.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I gave the Minister notice when we debated this matter earlier and a few minutes ago that I am not yet happy with the amendment. If the Minister were able to reassure me I would be grateful. The Minister knows that I am concerned that we have definitions that are meaningful, that are: watertight and that we are capable of understanding. What we have here is:
"'training' has the meaning prescribed for the purposes of this Act".
I recall the Minister being asked in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, whether he could give any previous example of where we have been told in legislation that words have a meaning that shall be prescribed. I too would like to know the answer to that question because it is of importance.
I would also like to know—and it is the only thing that could reassure me about the wording of the amendment—the extent to which the power to call anything "training" is restricted by the words "for the purposes of this Act". Or is that restriction not as powerful as I would have hoped because many of the purposes of this Act are hereafter to be disclosed?
The second part of the amendment, which relates to assistance to find training or improving a person's prospects of being employed, is in principle more welcome. But that part of the amendment is to come into force only if regulations so provide. We are not told whether the Secretary of State will be graciously pleased to make regulations or whether this is just an empty provision in case he might feel like playing with it some time in the future. The assistance too is:
"of such a kind as may be prescribed".
When the Minister brings to this House proposals to grant him vires he will have to get used to being asked what else could be done under those vires. That is a question that all Parliaments ought to ask at all times. Personally, I intend to continue to ask it. For example, at present training is governed by provisions similar to those governing training allowance. One has to register for youth training in order to receive training allowance. Can the Government guarantee that they will continue to change the provisions for training and training allowance at the same time?
I understand that there is no present intention to introduce workfare. I am not attempting to create a scare about that. However, if some future Government—and I am not assuming that this Government with this

547
Leader will necessarily be in office for the remainder of this Parliament—were to wish to introduce workfare, could they do so under these vires without the need for additional legislation? If the Opposition's proposals for citizen's service were to be put forward, could they be introduced under these vires without any need for primary legislation?
If a future Government were to decide to reintroduce National Service, could that be done under these vires without the need for primary legislation? They are real questions and I ask them because I do not know the answers. None of those things should be carried out without primary legislation giving us a good chance to look at what is being done.
I have already asked the Minister whether he could avoid difficulties by not pressing this amendment at this time of night, as I have refrained from pressing amendments on the definition of training which were not congenial to the Minister. It is perhaps possible that by rather less public consultation we might be able to find a way of satisfying each other before Third Reading. I fear that on Third Reading we might reach the provisions at very much the same time of night since they come at the end of the Bill. Is the Minister able to do anything to help me about that matter or are we left eyeball to eyeball? I would rather avoid that if possible.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Earl has raised a number of points. I must return to some of the comments that were made when we debated the matter yesterday. I explained that the definition locked in with the proposals that we have made regarding training and other assistance. As the noble Earl pointed out, the definition in the amendment contains a number of elements. It begins by stating:
"'training' has the meaning prescribed for the purposes of this Act".
One of the points which the noble Earl raised was how the meaning of "training" might be changed in hypothetical circumstances and whether that in turn would flow across into other legislation. It is clear from this clause that the meaning which "training" is given in this context is restricted to this piece of legislation. I hope that that narrows the compass of what we are talking about.
It also—and this is important in the context of where we are now—relates to a definition which includes, where appropriate:
"assistance to find training or employment, or to improve a person's prospects of being employed, of such a kind as may be prescribed".
That is important because if we go back to the debate which we had last night, part of the point of this change was that it was, in turn, part of a series of changes which dealt with the wider issue of other assistance.
If we lose that definition it will have a consequential effect on the scope of the Bill in so far as it relates to other assistance as I have described it. Therefore, if we lose that definition it will have a potential knock-on effect on something about which there was no disagreement, something which was desirable.
548
While we have no intention of prescribing a meaning to that at present, because at this stage we have no plans to introduce other assistance, we believe that we need the power because in future we may wish to include job preparation courses or education which are not, in themselves, in the nature of training. But we provide that such other assistance should be such that it will improve the jobseeker's job prospects, which is consistent with the argument that I have used and my explanation of the purpose of this legislation.
The crucial point that was raised by the noble Earl was about the meaning of "training". What does the meaning of "training" amount to? How far can that definition go? Can it include, as the noble Earl suggested, workfare? The precise meaning which will be given in regulations, if the amendment is made, has already been given to the House in the exposition that I gave yesterday. We have in mind something along the lines of training for young people provided directly or indirectly pursuant to an operating agreement between the Secretary of State and the TEC. That does not satisfy the noble Earl because he is concerned about what may be described as an "oppressive" government would do. I am advised that the word "training" must mean training or assistance of the kind described in the amendment. In our view, it cannot have a meaning which could be extended beyond that. For example, it cannot encompass ordinary employment.
Training has a natural meaning. It is not possible to define exactly a meaning extending beyond that except with the addition of "other assistance" which is limited to assistance,
"to find training or employment, or to improve a person's prospects of being employed".
The power to prescribe the meaning of "training" in regulations allows us to prescribe a precise meaning for the particular training that we are talking about whereas, if a definition were to be written onto the face of the Bill, inevitably it would have to be extremely wide. I do not believe that that would necessarily be of assistance in trying to help jobseekers, whether they be younger or older, to have a successful jobsearch because your Lordships will remember that, in speaking earlier about the steps which the Employment Service is trying to take in relation to schemes, the key element is that the schemes are those onto which the Employment Service puts the jobseeker. Therefore, we wish to be able to define the relevant schemes for those purposes by reference to what the Employment Service will be wanting to do. I very much hope that that will reassure the noble Earl and that he will feel able, as a result, to withdraw his objections to the amendment.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his help. However, with the leave of the House, I wonder whether I might ask for a little further assistance on two points. First, I am not quite clear as to the nature of "the purposes of the legislation; secondly, I am not quite sure about the meaning of "training" such as described in the amendment. Is the Minister telling me that it can only be found to be training if it involves assistance to find training or

549
employment, or to improve a person's prospects of being employed? If the Minister could say yes to that question, it would materially assist me.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my understanding is that the meaning of the phrase "for the purposes of in the legislation means that where it is used—and it obviously is used in a particular context in the legislation—that is where the definition applies. I am clear in my mind in that respect.
The noble Earl asked me to look carefully at the exact relationship between "training" in Amendment No. 105 and the second part of that definition. I hope that the noble Earl will allow me to look further at the amendment while I stand at the Dispatch Box so that I may give him a satisfactory reply. I now see that training is defined there only if it is appropriately provided for within the regulations. That would include assistance, and so on,
"to improve a person's prospects of being employed, of such kind as may be prescribed".
The first element of that means that training will have a wider meaning than something which is included. It must follow—must it not?—that the greater includes the less. Therefore, as I said earlier, it seems to me that training cannot have a meaning wider than that which the word could normally have. I return to what I said at the outset. We are talking about the definition of training in this particular piece of legislation; and, indeed, in the particular places where it falls in the legislation. There is no logical reason why the definition of the word "training" need be the same in each individual clause of the Bill.
Therefore, it must be within the scope of the Bill; it must fall within its ordinary meaning; and it can have the characteristics given in the definition. If one looks at the way in which the definition is drawn—or, for that matter, how a definition might be drawn in any other way—I do not see how it could actually contain the danger of oppression of the kind described by the noble Earl. I say that because the word "training" has a meaning. I do not believe that one can read into the meaning of the word "training" in that context the wider meanings of the type about which the noble Earl is concerned.
[Amendments Nos. 106 and 106A not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 30, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) Subject to any regulations made for the purposes of this subsection, "earnings" is to be construed for the purposes of this Act in accordance with section 3 of the Benefits Act and paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to this Act.").
Clause 36 [Parliamentary control]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 31, line 27, after ("section") insert ("6, 7,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendments Nos. 109 and 114. The amendments fulfil the commitment I made in my
550
response to those moved by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, when we discussed the issue of parliamentary control of regulations on availability for employment and actively seeking employment during the recommitment stage last Thursday. The amendments have the effect of ensuring that whenever regulations are made under Clauses 6 or 7 they must be approved by affirmative resolution of each House.
I said in our earlier debate that I accepted that there is real concern in both Houses that regulations that affect the meaning and treatment of the two terms, "availability" and "actively seeking", should receive the full and proper scrutiny of Parliament. I made it clear that we took the findings and recommendations of the Select Committee very seriously when it asked the House to consider whether the affirmative procedure should apply to these terms. These amendments, I believe, address these concerns in full.
Amendment No. 114 tidies up one small measure in the Bill, and is consequential on the changes we introduced at the recommitment of Clause 6. Your Lordships will remember that Clause 6 was split into three parts. Clause 7 now deals exclusively with actively seeking employment. This amendment is consequential on the fact that Clause 6(6), as it was, has now been split into Clause 6(6) and Clause 7(7). This amendment extends the provision to cover Clause 7(7). It restores the original intention in that regard. But I believe the main amendments, which I am sure your Lordships will welcome, are Amendments Nos. 108 and 109, which make Clauses 6 and 7 subject to the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven for detaining the House just long enough to thank the Minister warmly for those amendments.
[Amendments Nos. 108A and 108B not moved.]
12 midnight.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 31, line 33, after ("section") insert ("6, 7,").
Schedule 2 [Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 38, line 41, at end insert:
("The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c. 66)
. In section 31(8) of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (definition of "whole estate of the debtor"), for "section 89(2)" substitute "sections 71(10B), 78(3B) and 89(2)".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the need for Amendment No. 110 arises from the inclusion in the Bill of Clause 31. Your Lordships will recall that Clause 31 concerns the treatment of jobseeker's allowance in insolvency cases and provides that where an amount is deducted from JSA for the recovery of overpayments or social fund awards, that amount shall not be treated as income for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986 and

551
the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985. This consequential amendment simply provides for the Scottish bankruptcy Act to be amended accordingly. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 111 and 112:
Page 43, line 33, leave out from ("not") to ("and") and insert ("entitled to a jobseeker's allowance").
Page 43, line 35, leave out from ("not") to end of line 36 and insert ("entitled to an income-based jobseeker's allowance."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 44, line 5, at end insert ("and where a disability premium is not in payment, he shall fall to be assessed under section 129(1) (b)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I now move the final amendment for discussion this evening and I shall endeavour to do so as quickly as I can. The purpose of the amendment is to enable people on jobseeker's allowance to claim disability working allowance where they pass the "disadvantage" test, even where a disability premium is not in payment. When the disability working allowance was introduced, the Government expected a caseload of 50,000 people. Yet by the end of last year only 7,247 people were receiving it. That is recorded in Hansard for the other place on 28th November this year at col. 524. That cannot be right; I mean last year. We are a forward looking House but not quite as far forward looking as that. I can find the reference for the Minister, if he requires it.
Its take-up is the poorest of any benefit. Research undertaken by the independent Policy Studies Institute found that less than one-sixth of those eligible were claiming it. Unless the caseload increases more dramatically, the Policy Studies Institute estimates that it will be another 25 years before the target of 850,000 recipients is reached. But the changes to incapacity benefit and jobseeker's allowance are likely to reduce this possibility still further. With more people coming off incapacity benefit to sign on for jobseeker's allowance, the pool of people eligible for disability working allowance will fall as a result of the qualifying conditions for disability working allowance.
In order to qualify for DWA, unless in receipt of disability living allowance or similar benefits, someone must have been receiving an incapacity benefit or disability premium within eight weeks of their claim. Many people coming off incapacity benefit and signing on for jobseeker's allowance will not have any entitlement to the disability premium.
The amendment seeks to allow the self-assessment disadvantage test used at renewal stage to be the basis for entitlement to disability working allowance where people do not qualify on other grounds. It would go some way towards extending disability working allowance to disabled people who obtain work but are debarred from that allowance because they no longer have a qualifying benefit. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I should like to make one point to the Minister. Those of us who slogged through the Bill which introduced the DLA and DWA remember the Government's expectation of a caseload of 50,000, as the noble Lord mentioned. At the time we expected a caseload of 16,000. It is very worrying that the actual figure is only just over 7,000. As the noble Lord said, fewer than one-sixth of those eligible claim the benefit. It will be interesting if the Minister can tell us, either now or later in writing, what action the Government are taking to ensure that the benefit is taken up as it should be.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the amendment, if passed, would ensure that where JSA is not a qualifying benefit for disability working allowance because the claimant is not eligible for the disability premium, the claimant may still be considered for disability working allowance.
Disability working allowance is designed to help some people on long-term incapacity benefits to make the difficult transition into work. It provides a top-up for people who have a limited earning capacity because of an illness or disability which puts them at a disadvantage in getting a job.
The best way of targeting disability working allowance is through a connection with incapacity and disability benefits. The qualifying benefit test requires that a person must either be receiving disability living allowance, or a similar benefit, or within 56 days before they claimed disability working allowance, they must have been receiving the higher rate short-term incapacity benefit or long-term incapacity benefit, severe disablement allowance or a disability premium with income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit.
The qualifying benefit test is important in two ways. First, the connection with an incapacity benefit provides an effective measure of disability which obviates the need for a medical examination for new disability working allowance claims. Secondly, it ensures that the resources available are directed to those with greatest need.
The Government are committed to the success of disability working allowance. Although the caseload is small, it has been growing steadily since it was introduced in 1992. We are aware that take-up is slower than we thought it would be. We have commissioned research by the Policy Studies Institute as part of the evaluation of the benefit. Its final report is due in 1996. Any fundamental changes to DWA would be premature in advance of a full evaluation.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that we are committed to raising awareness. We want awareness to be high. We have produced videos in conjunction with the Royal National Institute for the Blind and MENCAP. We have advertised in the jobs pages of the local press and produced a magazine, New Start. So we have made efforts to increase the caseload. It is growing steadily but it has a long way to go before it meets the legitimate expectations of all those who supported DWA at the time of its introduction.

553
I hope with that explanation my noble friend can withdraw his amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I shall certainly withdraw the amendment. I shall read what my noble friend said, and it is possible that I may return to the matter at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 45, line 38, after ("6(6)") insert ("or 7(7)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.
House adjourned at ten minutes past midnight.

  Tourism: Tax Revenue
  Tourism: Tax Revenue
  Security Facilities Agency: Targets
  Security Facilities Agency: Targets
  Social Security Legislation: Regulation-making Powers
  Social Security Legislation: Regulation-making Powers
  Science and Engineering Research: Review
  Science and Engineering Research: Review
  English Spelling
  English Spelling
  English: International Commercial Use
  English: International Commercial Use
  Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: UK Reservations
  Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women: UK Reservations
  Human Rights Convention: Equality of Rights
  Human Rights Convention: Equality of Rights
  Employment Appeal Tribunals: Case Waiting Times
  Employment Appeal Tribunals: Case Waiting Times
  Rwanda and Burundi: Diplomatic Representation
  Rwanda and Burundi: Diplomatic Representation