Sitting of 22 May 1995

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

    Vehicle Emissions
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the total vehicle emissions in the United Kingdom for carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen (a) in 1970 and (b) at the latest available date. [23878]
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): Road transport emissions of carbon monoxide were 2.4 million tonnes in 1970 and 5.1 million tonnes in 1993; emissions of nitrogen oxides were 0.6 million tonnes in 1970 and 1.1 million tonnes in 1993; emissions of volatile organic compounds were 0.6 million tonnes in 1970 and 0.9 million tonnes in 1993.
    Over the same period, total traffic rose from 200 billion to 410 billion vehicle kilometres.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Do not those figures prove not only that we can meet our existing targets on emissions for the year 2005, but that if the 20-point plan outlined in the document "Air Quality: Meeting the Challenge"—commissioned jointly by the Departments of Transport and of the Environment—were implemented in full, we should do considerably better than that? Does that not show that ours is the only party with realistic policies to deal with such difficult environmental problems, and that the Labour party is bereft of such policies?
    Mr. Norris: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Conservative party has consistently shown itself to be the only party prepared to grapple with the genuinely difficult issues involved in air quality. He is also right that the air quality statement produced by the Government will enable us to fulfil our Rio targets.
    Ms Walley: It is difficult to understand how the Government can claim such credit when they are merely looking through rose-tinted spectacles. People throughout the country are concerned about pollution, just as people were concerned about smog years ago. We have still heard nothing about how the Government intend to monitor emissions of PM10, which is clearly a major pollutant. What powers will now be given to local authorities so that we can start to improve the quality of life for people in both urban and rural areas?
    Mr. Norris: The facts are quite the reverse. As the hon. Lady knows, it is the Government who are introducing tighter emission standards more than a year before the date when we are required to do so by the European
    580
    Commission, and that it is her hon. Friend the well-known working-class Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) who has consistently refused to commit himself to any air quality policy; he is frightfully good at defining the problem, but pretty poor when it comes to the solution.
    Sir Peter Emery: I declare an interest as chairman of the National Asthma Campaign. Will my hon. Friend consult Ministers at the Department of Health to ensure that, when there are major inversions in the weather and we experience the problem encountered four weeks ago, the Government can warn people about the conditions that are likely to result from monoxides in the air? It would be helpful if the Government took the lead.
    Mr. Norris: As my right hon. Friend will know, the Committee of Medical Experts on Air Pollution study set up by the Department of Health, with input from the Department of Transport, is addressing that important question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that, given his experience of health matters, he gives high priority to this aspect of pollution control.
    As for powers to control specific episodes of high pollution, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has accepted that we should explore the possibilities and ensure that the appropriate powers are in place, with one caveat: we ought not to consider only how to deal with the rare occasions on which air quality deteriorates badly because of atmospheric conditions—we need long-term measures to improve air quality permanently.

    Bus Companies, London
    Ms Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the performance of bus companies in London. [23879]
    Mr. Norris: The overall quality of bus services in London is continuing to improve.
    Ms Hoey: Has the Minister seen the excellent report by the Lambeth public transport group on route No. 133, which is the only direct route through south London to the City? Is he aware that that report refers to high staff turnover and to demoralisation among staff, leading to a decline in service on that route? Does he agree that that is a direct result of a tendering process which is not open and accountable and which leaves the public no opportunity to see the facts of the tender that was won by London General?
    Mr. Norris: What I know about that report is that it is produced by the Lambeth public transport group, which is funded by that magnificent organisation, Lambeth borough council. I suspect that few objective observers will be surprised to know that that group sets all the difficulties on route No.133—principally traffic congestion on the A23—at the door of the dastardly robber barons who own the London bus companies. The reality is quite the opposite, but the report is an interesting insight into what the priorities of a Labour Administration might be for bus services: pay the trade union members a great deal more money and all the other problems will go away. That is nonsense.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend and all concerned on the definite improvement in London's bus services, but does he accept that one-person

    581
    operated buses sometimes delay traffic enormously while the driver takes the fares of people getting on? Will he bring back the clippies on busy bus routes, and does not he think that that would have other advantages as well?
    Mr. Norris: I shall ponder on my hon. Friend's last point, which raises a fascinating prospect. What my hon. Friend says is important and he is quite right to say that one-person operation tends to reduce the speed.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I should be glad if the Minister would address the House and particularly the Chair. Too many Ministers turn towards the Member asking the question because they think that that is courteous, but it is not: the courtesy is to address the House and the Chair.
    Mr. Norris: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know that you, too, are interested in one-person operated buses and I am happy to follow your direction. I apologise for the discourtesy.
    In London about 70 per cent. of fares do not involve cash but travelcards or elderly persons' cards. The way to develop the service is through cashless technology which allows for more rapid entry rather than going back to the inefficient days of two-man operation.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the Minister confirm that, since deregulation, passenger trips in London—where bus services were not deregulated—have scarcely fallen at all, while in all the metropolitan areas which were deregulated passenger trips have fallen by more than 35 per cent.? Will he acknowledge that deregulation has saddled Britain with a bus industry that is costing passengers more, providing a poorer service for those who need it most and using buses which are generally older, less well maintained and more polluting? Staff are disgruntled and worse off, and deregulation has virtually led to the demise of Britain's bus-building industry. When will the Minister admit that deregulation has been a disaster and that the sooner we have re-regulated bus services under a Labour Government the better?
    Mr. Norris: Once again, by their words shall they be judged: I am happy to leave any objective observer to think on what the hon. Gentleman has invited me to say. The hon. Gentleman's question proves that he knows nothing about bus services. He does not appreciate the huge difference between the London market and the out-of-London market. It is perfectly straightforward: in London, the inability of those who would otherwise commute by car to find parking spaces determines the consistently high level of bus use, while outside London increasing car ownership has led to less bus use—a feature which is common throughout the European Community. However, there is now clear evidence that the process of deregulation has arrested the rate of decline and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has led to a halving of subsidy, a reduction of a third in operating costs and 20 per cent. more route miles.
    Mr. Heald: In assessing the performance of London's buses, will my hon. Friend also look at their environmental performance? Is he aware that Johnson Matthey in my constituency has developed a diesel autocatalyst which is currently being piloted on some of London's buses? Will he see what can be done to spread this excellent initiative across all bus services?
    Mr. Norris: I did indeed go to a demonstration of the continuous recircling trap product developed by Johnson Matthey. It illustrates the fact that in respect of diesel emissions, which were thought for a long time to be relatively benign, we now realise that those 10 micron particles are among the most dangerous emissions and we welcome any technical development which allows us to eliminate them from diesel engines.

    Railway Rolling Stock
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he now expects the companies set up for the purchase of rolling stock to be able to place firm orders. [23881]
    The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): No companies have been set up specifically to purchase rolling stock. The purchase of new rolling stock remains a matter for British Rail until the rolling stock leasing companies are sold later this year.
    Mr. Gunnell: Is the Minister aware that the Transport Select Committee and BR chairman Bob Reid both recognise that we have the longest hiatus that we have ever had in producing rolling stock and that this year, for the first time since 1948, there has been no budget for new rolling stock? Is that not why jobs are being lost in York, Hunslet and Wakefield and what does the Minister intend to do about it? It is not sufficient to give the pat answers that we have heard today.
    Mr. Watts: UK trains currently on order include Networkers for British Rail, mail trains for the Post Office, Heathrow express and channel tunnel trains and new trains for the Jubilee line and the Northern line. Once the rolling stock companies are privatised, of course, they will have access to the private capital markets and will be able to take a longer-term view of investment needs.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the experience of the bus industry demonstrates clearly that when the private sector becomes involved it invests very heavily in new modern rolling stock? Indeed, in one instance, it has invested more in new vehicles in one year than had been previously been invested in 10 years. That surely demonstrates that the same will happen with the railways because new vehicles cost less to maintain.
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is right, although I should remind him that British Rail has invested more than £4 billion in new rolling stock since 1979 and that in the past 10 years more than 4,000 new vehicles and locomotives have been brought into use.

    Roads Programme
    Mr. Mudie: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in the Government's review of the roads programme, following the report of the standing advisory committee on trunk road assessment. [23882]
    Mr. Watts: All schemes in the planning stages are being reassessed at their next key decision stage.
    Mr. Mudie: The Minister will be aware that the House welcomed the sensible conclusions of the advisory committee that continuous road building was no answer to congestion. How long will it be before the Department

    583
    brings forward a serious response to the problem, particularly the pollution and environmental aspects of road building?
    Mr. Watts: Last December my Department accepted the key recommendations of the SACTRA report. As I have said, we are assessing all schemes in their planning stages for the possibility of traffic generation. The committee did not conclude, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, that road building leads only to congestion.
    Mr. Hicks: Does my hon. Friend agree that while it may be fashionable in some quarters not to approve of new road schemes there are two improvement schemes for the A38 trunk road in south-east Cornwall which are not only needed but for which there is unanimous support? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that where people want such schemes, that fact will be taken into consideration?
    Mr. Watts: It has become clear to me since I have had my present job that there are many more road schemes throughout the country which are welcome both to my hon. Friends and, indeed, to Opposition Members and their constituents than there are schemes which cause them concern.

    Private Vehicles, London
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to limit the use of private vehicles in central London. [23883]
    Mr. Norris: Our approach is already laid down in the document, "Traffic Management and Parking Guidance", which we issued in 1993.
    Mr. Banks: That simply is not good enough. Does the Minister share the concern of the Opposition—and, I am sure, that of Tory Members—about the appalling air quality in London? There is congestion in the streets, with clapped-out old buses, lorries and cars spewing filth into the atmosphere which we then have to breathe. What are the Government doing about that? Where are the monitoring stations? What is being done about checking the emissions from filthy cars, lorries and buses and taking them off the roads? Is the Minister waiting for people to start dropping dead in the streets of London before he acts?
    Mr. Norris: If the hon. Gentleman wants to tackle the issues, he must accept that campaigning on the slogan that one is about to restrict the use of private cars in London is unlikely to make him attractive even to the electors of Newham. The reality is that we have to ensure that economic and social activity continues while we come to terms with the very real issues of air quality and congestion that he raises which, as is widely accepted not only by the political parties but by the pressure groups, need to be resolved by using the carrot and the stick, by ensuring the accessibility of public transport and a number of measures to manage traffic demand in a way that improves air quality and the quality of life. I do not believe that arbitrary bans on the number of vehicles coming into major cities is either right or acceptable.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: How about closing the House of Commons car park for an experimental period, giving each hon. Member a week's bus pass and putting a bus lane up and down Whitehall?
    Mr. Norris: Someone told me that when my hon. Friend was a Northern Ireland Minister he once jumped
    584
    out of his ministerial car to ask a couple of taxi drivers to put on their seat belts. That same brave attitude towards policy formulation perhaps lies behind his offer today, which I will leave on the table for hon. Members to consider.
    Mr. Corbyn: Would the Minister consider a number of proposals, such as making parts of central London entirely car free and tackling the questions of tax relief for business motoring in and out of the centre of London, car parking in central London and a subsidy for public transport so that people are encouraged to use it rather than facing the current exorbitant fares?
    Mr. Norris: Subject to the fact that there is already a substantial subsidy for public transport—the largest that there has ever been—to assist operations such as London Underground and London Buses, it might surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that my answer to his question is yes. All the matters that he raises need to be properly explored; I only wish that he would put some pressure on his Front-Bench colleagues to start talking seriously about them rather than hiding behind a great mountain of waffle.

    Network SouthEast
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next visit Network SouthEast. [23884]
    Mr. Watts: As part of the Government's plans for privatisation, Network SouthEast was reorganised into 12 separate train operating units on 1 April 1994. I visited the London-Tilbury-Southend train operating unit last Thursday.
    Dr. Spink: Does my hon. Friend agree that rail travel in south-east Essex, especially on the Fenchurch Street line that he visited, has never been rosier following the £150 million investment in resignalling that was completed last year and in view of the 25 replacement trains coming next year and the new management and worker ethos which is bringing so many benefits? Does he agree that since 1948, when it was nationalised, the line has suffered and failed? What hope can he bring to my constituents that, after franchising, the line will never be renationalised?
    Mr. Watts: I am sure that none of my hon. Friend's constituents would want the line renationalised once they have tasted the benefits of privatisation. On my visit, I, like my hon. Friend, was impressed by the benefits that will come to his constituents from the investment in the new signalling and other management improvements introduced into LTS Rail.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will the Minister assure commuters on the London-Tilbury-Southend line that, following franchising, there will always be as many trains as there are under the current timetable and that all the stations and the Tilbury loop will be maintained?
    Mr. Watts: As the hon. Gentleman knows, passenger service requirements will protect every station and route, including the LTS line. He will also know that PSRs are not timetables. He will be aware, however, that far from looking to reduce the services provided, the management of LTS Rail is looking for opportunities to develop them further.
    Mr. Gale: When my hon. Friend next meets Network SouthEast, will he ask for reassurance that the recent

    585
    sound bite offered to Meridian Television by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) concerning Networker trains was wholly fallacious? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Networker trains ordered for the coast line are on schedule and will be in service by the end of the year and that the remaining trains are out to tender? Is that not very good news for Kent commuters?
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will be aware that there is a further invitation to tender for 44 Networker train sets. Those tenders are due to be returned by the end of this week.

    Rail Franchising
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in the franchising of rail services. [23885]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): On 17 May the franchising director issued invitations to tender for the first three franchises. He expects to issue invitations to tender in respect of five further franchises later in the year.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will know that the nationalised British Rail has a very warm place in the heart of the British nation. For decades it has been the butt of jokes about leaves on the line resulting in train cancellations, or trains not running due to staff shortages despite considerable unemployment. Moreover, the record of the nationalised British Rail has been, and clearly still is, close to the heart of the Labour party. Does my right hon. Friend agree that once privatisation comes and the British people see proper private sector companies bringing about improvements—such as those brought about by British Airways and by long-distance bus services—they will never again want a return to nationalisation and the Labour party will then claim that privatisation was all its own idea in the first place?
    Dr. Mawhinney: It would be difficult for the Labour party to make such a claim. However, I agree that the injection of private finance and investment decisions, private management skills and the private sector's well-known sensitivity to what the customer actually wants will produce, over time, a better railway which is more focused on bringing benefits to the passengers. I assume that that will be welcomed across the House.
    Mr. Snape: If artificially holding down fares in the newly privatised sectors of British Rail will bring about greater passenger use of the railways, why have the Government been doing exactly the opposite for the past 16 years?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I hope that the House has noted the hon. Gentleman's antagonistic reaction to passengers benefiting from the unique benefits which will flow, for the first time, from the railways moving from the public sector to the private sector. I understand that Labour Members have difficulty in getting their minds around the concept that great benefits will flow from privatisation. Even ignoring the history of every other privatisation since 1979, they should accept that it is from the very act of privatisation that benefits will flow, and that those benefits should be shared by the passengers. That is our view, but we note that it is not the view of the Labour party.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend think that the franchisees in the new railway sector will attract more customers if they can achieve the right balance between security at their station car parks and the charges that they make to park there? Should not the name of the game be getting more people to travel on the railways in the sure knowledge that their cars will be safe?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I share that perception with my hon. Friend. I think that I am right in saying that in those car parks where British Rail has installed an element of security the phenomenon referred to by my hon. Friend has already been observed.
    Mr. Tyler: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under the instructions issued to the franchising director by his predecessor in accordance with section 5 of the Railways Act 1993—that the service specifications for loss-making lines and services must be included in criteria which are put to the Secretary of State, agreed by him and then published—have been carried out and will be completed, including publication?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I can confirm that all the arrangements which are duly in place for moving forward the privatisation of the railways are being carried through.
    Mr. Waterson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a level of public subsidy has always been part of the Government's privatisation plans and that it is more than likely that, with a cap on fares charged to passengers, revenues will increase due to greater use?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I told the House in the debate last Wednesday, subsidy was always part of the privatisation process, as was made clear in the White Paper, in the debates on legislation and by Ministers subsequently. Conservative Members recognise that subsidies are very important. Only the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) is raising questions about the continuation of subsidy in the unlikely event of a Labour Government.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why, in the bidding for the channel tunnel rail link, he permitted a bid to proceed from Eurorail which broke the terms of the tender document? Is he aware that the rules of the process, which were published last year, state unequivocally that all tenderers must submit a document on the basis of the reference specifications; yet Eurorail failed to do so and there was no mention in the rules of any tenderer being allowed to submit a fresh bid. Is it not clear that the Secretary of State bent the rules by allowing Eurorail to make a fresh bid because the consortium is led by one of the Government's friends and associates, Lord Parkinson?
    Dr. Mawhinney: First, that has nothing to do with the question before the House. Secondly, as I should have thought the hon. Gentleman understood, all those documents are commercial in confidence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I hope that the Hansard will record that surge of contempt for legal contracts signed by those who have a desire to take part in a channel tunnel rail link project. Unlike the hon. Member for Oldham, West, I am not going to flirt with the law in that regard.

    Rail Privatisation
    Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the privatisation of British Rail. [23886]
    Dr. Mawhinney: Privatisation is moving forward. Most of the restructuring of British Rail is now complete. During the next 18 months or so, most of the railway will be transferred to the private sector.
    Mr. Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the time-keeping problems on the south Kent coastal route, the quality of service and the lack of up-to-date rolling stock will be dealt with by privatisation? My constituents are fed up with the public sector British Rail and want a privatised British Rail.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right that passengers are looking for maximum benefit from the railway services to which they contribute through their taxes and fares and on which so many are dependent. I am greatly encouraged by his support to move the railway into the private sector as quickly as possible and, on behalf of his constituents and those of other right hon and hon. Members, I will do just that.
    Mr. Dalyell: Even though we have just been told that it is not the Secretary of State's style to flirt with the law, how does he get his mind around the considered judgment of senior judges of the Court of Session in Edinburgh that what happened in relation to the London to Fort William sleeper service was illegal? What are the Government's reflections on that?
    Dr. Mawhinney: Were I even tempted to answer that question, Madam Speaker, I think that you would remind me that the matter is sub judice.
    Mr. Garnier: Has my right hon. Friend had the misfortune to see the press release issued by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on passenger service requirements? Does he agree that that press release was no more than black scaremongering propaganda and will he confirm that his Department and the Government fully confirm that the rail network is a public service and that it will continue, not only for the use of people throughout the United Kingdom, but particularly for my constituents in Market Harborough?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. and learned Friend is right. I have seen that press release, just as I have heard about a press release about Peterborough, issued by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), in which she even got the date wrong. Last Wednesday week, Opposition Front-Bench Members issued a press statement which said that a new fares structure for the railways had been postponed indefinitely. It was announced the following Monday. They said that new passenger service requirements for four further lines had been postponed indefinitely; they were announced last Tuesday. They also said that the tendering arrangements for the first three franchises had been postponed indefinitely; they were announced last Wednesday. Given that record of accuracy, my hon. and learned Friend can reassure his constituents that, as everyone on this side of the House already knows, they should not be even remotely worried by what the Opposition Front Bench says.
    Dr. Marek: Is the Secretary of State aware that the travelling public would be much more likely to have a better deal if British Rail was allowed to bid for the first three franchises? The fact that it is not allowed to do so shows that the Government and the franchising director care not one whit for the benefits that accrue to the travelling public.
    Dr. Mawhinney: The declamation does not constitute evidence. The franchising director has taken a view, and I am very comfortable with it.
    Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as privatisation proceeds, as the travelling public and our constituents want, it is crucial that all those in the private sector who wish to run trains should have the fullest opportunity to develop their services? Will he look carefully at the proposals by Statesman Railways to re-introduce the direct through service to Blackpool, which was withdrawn by nationalised British Rail?
    Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is right that passengers will want to see the maximum benefit to them arising from the privatisation process. He will understand that those interested in making a bid will be able to do so in the normal and appropriate way.
    Mr. Llwyd: The Secretary of State has given assurances that fares will be pegged in line with inflation for the next four years. What assurances has he had from the Treasury? If the cash is not there, will not it mean a cut in services?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been for the last week, but I have made it clear on a number of occasions, not least in last Wednesday's debate, that the Government will provide the appropriate and necessary subsidy, including that arising from the fares policy.

    Aston Clinton Bypass
    Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to publish his inspector's report on the A41 Aston Clinton bypass. [23887]
    Mr. Watts: The inspector's report will be published concurrently with the decision following last November's public inquiry. The announcement will be made as soon as possible.
    Mr. Lidington: May I remind my hon. Friend that that bypass was first proposed by his predecessor in 1937 and that my constituents in Aston Clinton have had to put up with vastly increased volumes of traffic through their village since his Department completed the Hemel Hempstead and Berkhamsted bypasses? May I urge him and his officials in the Highways Agency to give that project the highest possible priority?
    Mr. Watts: My hon. Friend reinforces the point that I made earlier about the popularity of many schemes in the programme.

    Manchester Airport
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many passengers used Manchester airport in 1994. [23888]
    Dr. Mawhinney: The number is 14.3 million.
    Mr. Evans: Manchester airport is one of the finest regional airports in Europe. Its popularity can be evidenced by that figure, which is due to grow to 15.5 million by next year. I was extremely gratified when my right hon. Friend announced the open skies policy with the United States of America last year as it is good news for regional airports. Will he take the liberalising spirit a step further and extend the open skies policy to the rest of the world so that more aircraft can use airports like Manchester?
    Dr. Mawhinney: I agree with my hon. Friend that Manchester is a very fine airport and that it has a bright future. Like him, I am pleased that Continental has announced its plans to initiate a flight between Newark and Manchester, arising out of the liberalisation process that I announced last October. That will be good news for passengers and for the Greater Manchester region and its economy. I shall certainly consider carefully any other suggestions that are made to me in that regard.
    Mr. O'Hara: The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) referred to the expected increase in traffic through Manchester airport in the next decade. Manchester airport seeks a second runway to cater for that capacity. It pitches the capacity of its present runway at 18 million whereas Gatwick copes with 24 million passengers on one runway.
    Would not it make more sense, instead of building a new runway in Manchester where there will be at most 12 million or possibly only 6 million extra passengers, to develop Liverpool airport, where there is already a runway that can cope with 12 million passengers, and where meteorological conditions and safety conditions are better? There is less environmental impact, and 20 per cent. of the people who use Manchester airport find it as convenient, or more convenient, to go to Liverpool.
    Dr. Mawhinney: At least the hon. Gentleman's constituents will recognise that he is doing the job that he was sent to this place to do on their behalf. The House will understand that public inquiries are in place relating to both Manchester airport and Liverpool airport, and I am one of only two people in the country who cannot comment about either at the moment.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Hendry: To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the working relationship between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. [23908]
    The Attorney-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): It is of fundamental importance to the Crown Prosecution Service that there should be close co-operation between each of its 104 branches and the local police, usually via their crime support units, and that is becoming increasingly effective.
    Mr. Hendry: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the relationship between the CPS and the police depends on openness and respect for the truth? Does he agree that, when the shadow Home Secretary makes a speech littered with half-truths and inaccuracies to the Police Federation conference, as he did last week, it cannot help that relationship? Is not that a disgrace, and should he not withdraw them at the earliest opportunity?
    The Attorney-General: I must agree with my hon. Friend and deplore the thoroughly inaccurate, irresponsible and misleading speech made to the Police Federation by the shadow Home Secretary last week. I was astonished that, among other things, he sought to wind up his audience by criticising a judicial sentencing decision, and then failed to draw to the attention of that audience the fact that that sentence had been properly referred, as unduly lenient, to the Court of Appeal.
    Mr. John Morris: The Attorney-General knows that I supported the setting up of the CPS and have always been anxious that both the CPS and the Serious Fraud Office are seen to be working well, but does he accept that there are continuing anxieties on the part of judges, lawyers and the police, and is not the disclosure by the Sunday Times of the CPS employing solicitors who have been disciplined for deliberately or recklessly deceiving clients or incompetence, a matter of grave concern?
    In the proposed reorganisation of police force and local authority areas, has the assurance given by the then Home Secretary, in introducing the Prosecution of Offences Bill in 1985, that there would be chief Crown prosecutors for the most part covering a police area, been thrown overboard?
    I suggested a review after five years to discover whether we had got it right. Would it not be valuable now to have an independent review to examine the effectiveness of the CPS?
    The Attorney-General: I would be inclined to acquit the right hon. and learned Gentleman of any part in the speech by his hon. Friend last week, but I doubt whether it would have been made had there been close liaison between them. The speech was very unwise in suggesting that the service should be pulled—
    Mr. Olner: Outrageous.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman has asked the Minister must be answered.
    The Attorney-General: The speech was very unwise—[Interruption.] I am answering the question if hon. Members will listen. The speech was unwise to suggest that the service should be pulled up by the roots. As I made clear the following day, there are 104 branches in the Crown Prosecution Service, and they seek to keep a close liaison with their local police. It is important to ensure effective liaison over discontinuances, which have been coming down over the past two years.
    To answer the second part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question, the CPS is careful about who it employs. The picture given in the recent press article was by no means complete. The CPS would certainly not keep on anyone whose conduct did not merit him being employed by a public service.
    Mr. Jessel: On the role of both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service in relation to the War Crimes Act 1991, can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, in view of the stark enormity of the murder of 6 million people in concentration camps, the CPS and the police will not be inhibited by the passage of time?
    The Attorney-General: Any prosecution decision in relation to war crimes will be taken on proper principles. But it will have regard to the will of the House as

    591
    expressed in the War Crimes Act. This would not cause the mere fact of the passage of 50 years to be taken into account when deciding not to prosecute. I have answered a number of questions in writing recently on the progress of investigations, which are being carried forward with great care.

    Incitement to Racial Hatred
    Mr. Soley: To ask the Attorney-General what assessment he has made of the operation of the law of incitement to racial hatred with particular reference to section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986. [23910]
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): The offences created by part III of the Public Order Act 1986, of which section 18 is but one, provide very full powers for investigation, prosecution and punishment of incitement to racial hatred.
    Mr. Soley: Will the Attorney-General confirm that he is looking at the additional information that I have sent to him about Mr. Bernard Manning and his comments to the police in Manchester? Will he also confirm that the House passed the amendment, as it was then, to the 1986 Act, as it is now, with the precise intention that the Attorney-General should intervene in cases of racial incitement? Will he also confirm that, in such a case, the Attorney-General has the important duty to intervene and help the police in order to take the necessary prosecution, otherwise we would have passed the Act for no purpose?
    The Solicitor-General: I am very surprised at the hon. Gentleman's comment in view of the fact that on 3 May my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, in a written reply, invited the hon. Gentleman to send any evidence he had about a criminal offence to the chief officer of police involved. When I inquired this morning whether any such letter had been received, I was notified that none had. In case the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate it, the Attorney-General's role in the Public Order Act is to give consent in appropriate cases; it is the function of the police to investigate.
    Mr. Garnier: Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that 16 out of 21 applications put to his chambers by the prosecuting authorities under section 18 have been accepted? Will he also confirm that his Department and all prosecuting authorities will do their best to ensure that, if the evidence exists, those who are guilty of offences are prosecuted?
    The Solicitor-General: I can assure my hon. and learned Friend that there is no lack of will to prosecute. The up-to-date figures in respect of applications under part III of the Public Order Act are as follows: There have been 21 applications, 16 have been granted, four were declined and one is under consideration. The House will be aware that in the everyday experience of the courts, most racially-motivated crime falls into the category of criminal damage, assaults or offences under part I of the Act. Offences under part III of the Act are only a small proportion of the whole.

    Mr. Nick Leeson
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Attorney-General when he expects Mr. Nick Leeson to be interviewed by the appropriate criminal investigative authorities. [23912]
    The Attorney-General: The investigation by the Director of the Serious Fraud Office, in conjunction with the City of London police, is not yet concluded and it would be inappropriate at this stage to give details of operational matters.
    Mr. MacShane: Is the Attorney-General aware that barely an hour's flight from here sits Mr. Nick Leeson, who lost £1 million to the Queen as well as the savings of many investors and caused a major bank to shut down, and no one has asked him one simple question about the matter? Is the Attorney-General further aware that, given the hangman state in Singapore which is seeking to bring Mr. Leeson to account through its form of justice, many people in this country believe that the lack of interest or concern on the part of the criminal investigation authorities borders on a cover-up?
    The Attorney-General: I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who claims to have some connections with the City of London, should make such an allegation. The matter is being examined with great care by the Serious Fraud Office and by the authorities in Singapore. The Serious Fraud Office has made an application to the courts in Singapore for detailed information which it requires in order to take forward its investigations. The application was not granted at that stage and the office continues to pursue its inquiries.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    Kenya
    Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on multilateral aid to Kenya following recent political developments. [23919]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): There is no direct connection between the levels of support provided by the International Monetary Fund/World bank and political developments. The IMF and World bank have both had recent concerns about some aspects of the economic programme, which they are continuing to discuss with the Government of Kenya.
    Sir David Steel: The Minister is surely aware of recent events in Kenya, including the arrest and harassment of Opposition Members of Parliament and the interference with the presses which publish Finance magazine and People Weekly. Will he undertake to consider those matters alongside the economic issues at the Paris Club meeting of donors on 26 July? Will he confirm that the international community cannot be expected to continue to assist Governments which act in that repressive manner?
    Mr. Baldry: I agree with the broad thrust of the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I know of his long-standing interest in the welfare of Kenya and of course we share his concerns about the deterioration of the political atmosphere in that country in recent months, particularly the arrest of Opposition Members of Parliament and the destruction of the free press.
    At the Kenya donors meeting in December last year the United Kingdom delegation made it clear that the future provision of balance of payments aid was subject not only

    593
    to continued implementation of economic reform but to continued improvement in the overall political situation and progress in the fight against corruption. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there will be a meeting of Kenya aid donors in July. We will attend, as will the Government of Kenya. The right hon. Gentleman and the House may be assured that there will be some very frank talking at that meeting.

    North Africa
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for the provision of aid to countries on the north coast of Africa. [23920]
    Mr. Baldry: In the current financial year we propose to provide aid through our bilateral programme to Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria. Those countries also receive substantial multilateral aid, in particular through the European Community.
    Mr. Janner: Can the Minister please look with special generosity at Morocco, whose people are suffering as a result of a catastrophic harvest and which is a pivot of political stability in a very fragile area?
    Mr. Baldry: Morocco receives significant European Community aid and in the past four years EC aid to Morocco has increased by 35 per cent. The hon. Gentleman takes a particular interest in North Africa and Morocco and I think that he knows that we are also keen to help Morocco by promoting trade and allowing it greater access to European Union markets. A mandate for a partnership agreement with Morocco was agreed by the European Community in December 1993. That agreement aims to create a free trade zone with Europe progressively over the next 12 years. I am sure that the whole House wants to see maximum stability in North Africa and to prevent any other countries in that region from sliding into civil war.
    Mr. Key: May I encourage my hon. Friend seriously to examine aid to north Africa with our European Union partners? I am convinced that it is in Britain's interest that we should seek to minimise economic migration and the flow of people in north Africa and between north Africa and Europe. One good way of doing that is by investment in jobs, homes and economic prosperity in North Africa to minimise the differences.
    Mr. Baldry: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We want to promote economic stability and economic growth in north Africa. We can do that through the bilateral aid budget and by ensuring that there is greater access for trade from north Africa into the European Union.

    UNESCO
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will review their policy towards membership of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. [23921]
    Mr. Baldry: We are continuing to keep the issue under review.
    Mr. Williams: Will the Minister remind us why Britain withdrew from UNESCO? I remember that at the time it
    594
    was an extremely controversial decision and deeply disappointing to all the aid and third world agencies. As the United Nations is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, would it not be an appropriate time to review and rejoin?
    Mr. Baldry: It is helpful to remember that we left UNESCO because of its bureaucracy, overspending, mismanagement, inefficiency and political bias. Since we left 10 years ago, there has been some progress, but not enough. It is fair to say that UNESCO is not an aid programme, but a bureaucracy as 75 per cent. of all UNESCO staff are employed in Paris and only 25 per cent. are actually out in the field. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that only 6.6 per cent. of spending by UNESCO can be considered as development aid to developing countries.
    Miss Lestor: May I remind the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) did, that it is the 50th anniversary of the United Nations? The Government say with many fine words that they are committed to the United Nations and they are joining the celebrations, but in reality they do the opposite. They recently reduced the contribution to UNICEF and I detect a harder line on UNESCO than previously, when they said that some progress had been made. There is enormous pressure from both sides of the House for Britain to rejoin UNESCO. It is not a party political matter. If the Minister wants to express real support for the United Nations in this anniversary year, he should now cut out all the red tape and announce that we shall rejoin UNESCO at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Baldry: We need no lectures on support for the United Nations. The United Kingdom fully supports the UN and its agencies. We pay in full and promptly, and we support 26 UN agencies, as well as other UN bodies, with funds and programmes. In addition, we are one of the main donors to UN peacekeeping. Recently, we increased our grant to UNICEF and gave it an extra £3.4 million in supplementary funding mostly in response to emergency appeals. The hon. Lady should consider whether it makes any sense at all, in the name of development policies, to give money to an organisation when 75 per cent. of its staff are locked up in Paris and only 6.6 per cent. of its total budget is spent on development aid to developing countries.

    Pakistan Cotton Crop
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance has been given to Pakistan to overcome problems with cotton crop production. [23922]
    Mr. Baldry: The ODA, through the Natural Resources Institute, has been assisting the Government of Pakistan since 1985 in identifying ways of improving the control of cotton pests in an environmentally benign manner. Assistance is also being provided by the Asian development bank, the European Commission, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, the World bank and agro-chemical companies.
    Mr. Pike: As the Minister knows, for the past two years the cotton crop in Pakistan has been affected by a peculiar virus and has reduced by more than half to less than 6 million bales a year. In Pakistan's own view, it is

    595
    a crisis. What help is being given to Pakistan in terms of expertise and finance to overcome that particular problem?
    Mr. Baldry: We have an excellent organisation called the Natural Resources Institute, which is funded by the ODA. Through the Natural Resources Institute, we have spent £1 million in recent years on research into cotton pest control in Pakistan. As the hon. Gentleman said, cotton is Pakistan's most important crop. In recent years it has been attacked by viruses, pest infestations and floods, and we have been working extremely hard with the Pakistan Government and with best science in this country to ensure that much of the crop is saved for the benefit of the people of Pakistan.

    Rwanda
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is planned by Her Majesty's Government between now and the end of the year for Rwanda. [23924]
    Mr. Baldry: Britain has provided £8 million since January for relief and rehabilitation. Over the coming
    596
    months that will be used to resettle those displaced from Kibeho, support human rights monitors, and to strengthen the legal sector and the Government's economic policy-making capacity. We are looking at how we might help further.
    Mr. Hughes: That answer is welcome. Does the Minister agree that it is a great consolation to the people of Rwanda and of other countries that suffer such huge traumas to know that the United Nations will be on hand when needed to respond quickly, act strongly and continue its presence to ensure that human rights are upheld—which is continuing to be necessary, as the Minister said—and to intervene to prevent any further escalation of inter-tribal violence and warfare?
    Mr. Baldry: I agree that all those objectives are desirable, which is why we support the UN fully and pay our subscription on time. As a country, we are contributing more peacekeeping forces to the UN than practically any other country in the world. It is often forgotten that, for example, in Angola at present there are 600 members of the Royal Logistics corps sorting out the food chain. We will continue to support and to work with the UN.

Competitiveness
3.30 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): A year ago, the Government published the White Paper "Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win"—the first comprehensive audit of the United Kingdom's industrial and commercial competitiveness. That White Paper was widely welcomed by business. Today, we publish our second report on competitiveness.
This year's White Paper is designed to report on changes in our performance over the past year, describe the action that the Government have taken to improve United Kingdom competitiveness over that period and set out our plans for further progress, making a number of significant announcements today. The White Paper contains new, more extensive analysis of our competitive position. It looks at the competitiveness of key sectors, regional developments and to the future, as well as reporting on changes in our performance over the past year in each of the main factors of competitiveness that we identified last year.
The White Paper reports in detail on the progress that the Government have made in fulfilling the commitments—more than 300 of them—in the 1994 White Paper. It shows promises kept and action taken. For the future, it contains 70 new initiatives and commits more than £240 million extra, of which £165 million is additional Government expenditure. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is announcing today, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), that he is publishing the report of the technology foresight steering group and the 1995 "Forward Look" of Government-funded science, engineering and technology. My right hon. Friend is also publishing the efficiency scrutiny report on resource management systems in Government. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of Exchequer is today publishing a White Paper on public procurement, and when the markets open tomorrow morning, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will be announcing the Government's conclusions on media ownership issues, followed by a statement to the House in the afternoon.
This White Paper reports good news. Last year, output rose by 4 per cent., manufacturing productivity by more than 4 per cent. and exports by 11 per cent.—increasing our share of world trade. Unemployment fell by 300,000. In the last quarter of the year, investment surged by 8 per cent. and is set to increase still further this year. The balance of payments deficit fell sharply and underlying inflation was at the lowest sustained level for 30 years.
That year-on-year performance is impressive and maintains the turnround in our economic performance started in 1979. But the competitiveness agenda is on-going and long term. Our task is to reverse more than a century of relative decline. Last year's White Paper showed how, during the 1980s, we stopped falling behind the rest of the world. We closed the productivity gap with our main competitors, put strikes into the history books and stabilised the decline in our share of world trade in manufacturing.
Today's White Paper takes the analysis forward. Overall manufacturing productivity is now close to that in Germany and France and continues to catch up the United
598
States of America and Japan. At the same time, British companies have regained their reputation for first-class, world quality in manufacturing and services.
The United Kingdom economy's competitiveness is nowhere better illustrated than in our ability to attract inward investment. The UK accounts for one third of all inward investment in the European Union. That investment is worth more than £130 billion, and it has created and safeguarded nearly 700,000 jobs since 1979.
Our exports too are a huge success. They reached record levels last year, and the Confederation of British Industry reports that orders are growing at their fastest ever rate. Last year, Ministers led more than 80 trade promotion missions, accompanied by more than 1,000 business people, to more than 50 countries. I am delighted to tell the House that the business men and women who accompanied me to China last week were able to strike deals totalling more than £1 billion.
I said that competitiveness was on-going. The White Paper makes clear our determination to seek continued improvement. We shall seek it in management. We have as many world-class firms as Germany, but we have a higher proportion of poor performers. Among a raft of new measures to help companies—particularly small and medium-sized ones—learn from the experience of the best, the Government will make available nearly £100 million extra through business links for locally designed business development programmes.
On improvement in exports, despite the success that I have just described, only 100,000 of our 2.8 million UK firms export. We can do better. Today, therefore, we are setting a target of introducing 30,000 new exporting firms to foreign markets by the year 2000. To achieve that, my Department will spend nearly £40 million extra on support for exporters over the next four years. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has already announced a significant strengthening of Foreign and Commonwealth Office support for commercial work overseas, involving more than 100 new commercial officers, particularly in key, emerging markets.
On improvement in education and training, the Government's reforms—the national curriculum, publication of schools' performance, devolution of management to local level—have already transformed our education system. One third of our young people now go on into higher education. There is, however, no room for complacency. Our aim is for Britain to have the best qualified work force in Europe. The White Paper sets out the steps that we are taking to achieve that aim. Today, the Government are endorsing new targets for achievement in education and training drawn up by the National Advisory Council for Education Training and Targets. Those set new, challenging standards. To ensure that we meet them, we will conduct a major review of our education and training effort, benchmarking it against our leading competitors and identifying where improvement is necessary.
On improvement in innovation, we match the best in inventiveness but not in bringing products to market. Some of the best ideas are born here. We must ensure that more are exploited here. To help, the Government will spend an extra £70 million over four years to support innovation and technology.
In addition, today's report on the technology foresight programme identifies sectors that we need to develop to stay in the top league of industrial nations. The

599
Government's initial response is given in this year's "Forward Look". Foresight will influence spending priorities in Government and the universities. The Government will also encourage industry to respond through a foresight challenge, which will provide £80 million—half from industry, half from Government—for collaborative projects over the next three years,
British businesses have already benefited from the huge structural reforms undertaken by the Government since 1979. We shall build on our programme of radical reform: Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear are to be privatised; the gas supply industry is to be liberalised; and today, I am announcing more than 100 deregulatory proposals on which we shall take early action and new measures to make enforcement procedures more business friendly. In terms of regulations alone, more than 1,000 have now been identified for amendment or repeal.
Today's White Paper adds up to a comprehensive agenda for action: action that will help business extend its growing success, action to improve the support that Government can give to the wealth-creating sector, action to equip our companies with the skills, resources and entrepreneurial drive to challenge the best in the world in the century ahead. I commend the White Paper to the House.
Dr. John Cunningham: We thank the President for making a statement in advance of a wider launch of the White Paper.
We recognise that Britain must survive and prosper in an increasingly competitive global market. There can be no protected Britain and no Fortress Europe. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the essentials for success in that market are much better and more sustained investment in skills, education and training, much better support for technological innovation and much longer-term investment in our manufacturing base? Although the modest announcement that he has made is welcome, in several respects it makes good only the planned reductions in spending which his Department announced in its annual statement for the year. There is little new Government money in what the right hon. Gentleman had to say.
Even allowing for two years of relatively successful growth, the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends will have to do much more to make up for 16 years of devastation of our industrial base. Contrary to what he said, our position has not improved relative to 1979. Manufacturing investment has become worse. Our position in respect of trade and manufactured goods is worse and training now is worse than in 1979. Perhaps we can give a modest welcome to the right hon. Gentleman's belated recognition, after 16 years in office, that some form of industrial strategy is necessary for us to compete in a global market.
The right hon. Gentleman said that his White Paper of a year ago was widely welcomed by industry. We were all reminded by the Director-General of the CBI today in the Financial Times that that was far from the truth. The director-general said that industry gave last year's White Paper two out of 10—hardly widely welcoming. The reality is that again many searching questions will be asked by those in industry and commerce about today's statement.
What happened to the much-vaunted industrial financial initiative that the right hon. Gentleman announced at about this stage last year? We all know that
600
it was supposed to be directed to short-termism and the amount of money paid in dividends. That initiative was pole-axed by Lord Hanson. The right hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), who was then a member of the Treasury team, was moved to the Department of National Heritage and the idea was quietly shelved.
When will the President recognise that unit labour costs matter, not wage rates, when it comes to increasing our productivity and competitiveness? When will he and his right hon. Friends recognise that cutting the training budget by one quarter is not the way to tackle the problem? Reducing training places for work by 55,000 this year over last year is not the way to tackle the problem. Having a training programme in which 50 per cent. of youth trainees achieve no qualifications is not the way to tackle the problem.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned his recent trip to China. We welcome his endeavours. I remind him that those endeavours are certainly needed because in 1979 we had a balance of trade surplus with China whereas last year we had a deficit of £800 million. That is a measure of what his policies have done to our trade with the People's Republic of China.
The fact is that, far from making ground, Britain is falling behind our international competitors. Growth, since 1979, at 1.6 per cent. is the worst performance in the Group of Seven. Unemployment remains persistently high. Britain has lower productivity than any of our main competitors; lower skills, worse capital equipment and depressed investment. It is no wonder that our competitive position is so awful compared with Japan, China, the United States and others.
As the right hon. Gentleman talked about reducing burdens and getting rid of regulations, perhaps he will tell the House how many of the 1,000 regulations that he has identified for scrapping were introduced by his own right hon. and hon. Friends in the past 16 years.
On burdens, what has the right hon. Gentleman to say to industry and commerce about the record levels of taxation that the Government have introduced, despite all their election promises? Last year, he produced a White Paper of some 160 pages. This year his White Paper has an additional 100 pages—like the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt very long on rhetoric and very short on content.
The right hon. Gentleman had something to say about support for industrial innovation, and as he has announced some modern improvement, I welcome that, but the reality is that page 61 of his Department's annual report shows that his planned support for industrial innovation is to decline in real terms. He is just barely making that decline good. Fifteen sector panels on technology foresight have reported. How will his Department build on and back those strategic areas? The reality is, with very little Government effort or support.
All in all, this is yet another attempt at a relaunch by a failed and discredited Conservative Government, by a man who gives all the impression of taking the lead; but the lead that he really wants to take is the job of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister sitting next to him.
Mr. Heseltine: Perhaps the next time that the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) responds to a statement, he might find it helpful to read it—a copy was given to him in advance—before he prepares his response.

601
He will have recognised that all the issues on which he took issue with me were covered comprehensively in my statement.
I do not find it too easy to take lectures from the right hon. Gentleman on matters to do with wage rates and unit costs. I thought that the Labour party was committed to the social contract, to giving back power to trade unions and to introducing a minimum wage. Yet Opposition Members are telling us about unit costs. The Labour party is designing policies that would have one express consequence: to increase the unit costs of British industry. The right hon. Gentleman obviously has not understood, when he runs Britain down in so comprehensive a way—
Dr. Cunningham: I did not do that.
Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman says that he did not do that. I heard him use the words "falling behind". That is of an economy that is attracting 40 per cent. of all the inward investment coming into the European Union, an economy with record levels of exports, with the best inflation record for 30 years and with an industrial relations record that we have not seen equalled for 100 years. I do not call that falling behind.
I must say to the cognoscenti of the House, of whom there are many even on the Opposition Benches, that the right hon. Gentleman trespassed a little on the speeches that are now being made by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition apparently is telling us—I think he did so only today, and I am told that there is, God help us, another lecture coming tonight—that the old Labour days of tax and spend are over. Yet when I announce £165 million of money, the right hon. Gentleman says that it is very little new money. Just exactly how much would Labour's big money be? What will the leader of the Labour party say about the amount of extra money to which, by implication, the right hon. Member for Copeland refers?
I was fascinated by the right hon. Gentleman's references to the comments of the Director-General of the CBI on last year's White Paper. He clearly did not entirely understand what the Director-General had said. He said that the White Paper had been received with "deux points"—I appreciate that my accent may not be all that it should be; there is a limit to the ability even of a Euro-fanatic such as myself to speak French.
I have done some research, and I am told that "deux points" is something to do with a thing called the Eurovision song contest. I understand that the maximum score is 15, so "deux points" is not good news. The problem was, I think, that the Director-General of the CBI thought that the maximum score was "trois points".
The complexities of the translation, given the current exchange rates in France and Britain, may be beyond the right hon. Gentleman's comprehension; but I feel that he should establish whether we are trying to rate the country's performance against a record of serious economic advance or to trivialise it by referring to something to do with the Eurovision song contest. Let us get down to the hard core of the matter. If the Government's track record, economic policy and achievements are as awful as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, why is the leader of the Labour party hawking
602
himself around the country's industrial and commercial communities trying to pretend that nothing much would change if there were a Labour Government?
The reason is that we have got it right, and the only policies that Labour Members can dream up are intended to bring them as close as possible to us without splitting their party in half.
Sir Timothy Sainsbury: The White Paper will provide a welcome opportunity for us to build on the success of the 1994 White Paper in improving understanding of the vital importance of competitiveness to wealth creation in a competitive global economy. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that much work remains to be done? It would help, for example, if the media took more interest in the achievements of British industry and, indeed, showed more understanding. As my right hon. Friend has already demonstrated, there is also much work to be done with Her Majesty's Opposition.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be a widespread welcome for the proposal to benchmark our educational achievements against those of our best competitors? Will he assure us that, when he carries out that exercise, he will have particular regard to what has been achieved in encouraging more of our best and brightest students to undertake courses in science and engineering, thus raising the skill base of our economy?
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He himself has played a distinguished part in helping to advance the competitiveness of our export activities in particular. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will have heard what he said, and he can be assured that we take the matter extremely seriously.
As for the role of the media, none of us in the House expects the media to do other than criticise when it is appropriate, but a sense of balance is needed. Every time Britain's achievements are disparaged or ignored, it sends a message to the men and women on whose success we all depend. We need a greater recognition and a fairer representation of Britain's achievements by the British media.
Mr. Nick Harvey: Will the President say a little more about investment? He spoke of an improvement in the last quarter, but investment is still not leading recovery here as strongly as it is in our competitor economies, or as strongly as it did after the recession of the 1980s. What proposals has the right hon. Gentleman to promote investment further?
Mr. Heseltine: The overall requirement is to preserve the stability of the macro-economy. However, the hon. Gentleman will be as pleased as I was to learn that the latest CBI surveys show encouraging indications for investment. We intend to preserve the economic background that will allow that to continue.
Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the achievement of such a high level of inward investment is very creditable? Does he recall that 16 years ago corporation tax was at 52 per cent., and exchange controls meant that companies had to get permission before being allowed to invest overseas? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there have been substantial improvements in the performance of British industry since those days and that there is still room for improvement in the conduct of business for small companies, particularly in terms of the late payment of debt?
Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend is right. There has been a transformation, and the only people who do not appreciate that are the Opposition. There is no greater indication of that than the decisions by leading German industrialists to invest in this country rather than in their own, let alone the decisions of the Japanese, the Americans and the Koreans, who are increasingly choosing this country as the home base for their European expansion proposals. The record is important and we can be proud of it. In coincidence with the publication of the White Paper, there is a summary document designed to advise people who are in contact with small firms. I hope that all hon. Members will take the opportunity to disseminate the messages in that document. It is designed specifically for small firms.
Mr. Richard Caborn: When the President dealt with last year's White Paper one of the weaknesses that many people criticised related to private financing. The industry finance initiative was set up at that time and it was said that there would be a report on that. First, why has that report not been produced? Secondly, Friday's report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on finance for industry again saw that as a structural weakness and mentioned short-termism. I think that that was accepted by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury when he attended the Select Committee. Paragraphs 52, 53 and 54 of the summary show that that structural weakness has not been addressed. The President has dealt with inward investment. What further financial initiatives indigenous to the UK will the President take, because on this issue the Government have a poor record?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have not responded to the Select Committee report. However, we shall certainly do so with our customary care. A number of proposals are outlined in the White Paper and in the summary document for small firms. For example, one is to use business links to create a chain of advice to help small businesses to gain access to the financial markets. The House will be aware of the changes that we made to permit building societies to operate in that area. We should bear in mind the fact that there are now some 900,000 more small businesses in Britain than there were in 1979 and that they have been able to finance their survival and development within the existing regimes. We are all anxious to try to improve on that, but by and large the problem that affected the small business sector was the recession of the late 1980s.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we regard his statement on competitiveness as good news? We should like to see even more done to help small businesses. One of our main competitors, Germany, has five times as many small and medium manufacturers as Britain. Will he assure the House that his efforts, especially on business links and related schemes, will assist that part of our economy because upon it depends much of our future employment and export prospects?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right. The White Paper contains a proposal to co-operate with the leading organisations representing small and medium companies so as to promote a national consultative process. We shall involve those organisations in that so as to draw the views of their members to the attention of
604
Government. In that way we shall know exactly what are their high priority needs. That process will unfold in the course of the year.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that some of the matters in his statement are in line with the discussions that the Prime Minister had last week with the two main Northern Ireland parties? Is he further aware that business and industry in Northern Ireland will welcome his intention to streamline the fair employment legislation? No one doubts its objectives, but the problem, as some of his right hon. Friends know, is that the legislation imposes a crushing financial burden, mainly on foreign investors in Northern Ireland who have to meet hideous legal costs to defend themselves against frivolous complaints.
Mr. Heseltine: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. It is fair to say that the initiative of the Prime Minister and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in augmenting the peace process in Northern Ireland has been one of the best bits of news for industry and commerce in Northern Ireland in a generation.
Mr. Tony Marlow: How Euro-fanatic is my right hon. Friend? He has been talking about deregulation and he will be aware that an increasing amount of regulation comes from European institutions, either through qualified majority voting or in areas where we did not think that we had given competence to European institutions. Will my right hon. Friend strive strenuously to return to this House powers which this House should never have lost?
Mr. Heseltine: My reference to Euro-fanaticism was a joke. For the benefit of those who take these matters seriously, I am advised that that means a "plaisanterie", but I could have got that wrong, so that might be another joke.
I understand the purpose behind my hon. Friend's question. The purpose of my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher in the mid-1980s was to create a single market which had rules and it is that which led her to send my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Cockfield as a Commissioner to Brussels to make sure that there were standard rules that everyone would keep to. That undoubtedly caused an enormous process of indigestion when the agenda of 300 items was introduced in the Parliaments of the European Union. That process is now behind us. There is no longer the enormous weight of change that has taken place, but we have to recognise that, as a result of that change, our trade with our partners in the European Union has significantly increased. The opportunities for British industry are very large and they are there partially because there is now a common standard of behaviour.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Have not this Minister and the Government got a cheek to talk about the successes in Britain's industrial trade and base when we consider that in the past 16 years they have shut down nearly every shipyard and closed most of the coal mines? Hardly any steel works can be found and one third of the manufacturing base has been destroyed. About the only people who have made anything out of that are those members of Lloyd's who, we have learned today, have

605
had £2.75 billion written off their tax payments? That money has been lost to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He has got a cheek to talk about wonderful Britain under the Tories. They have created more havoc than Hitler did in the second world war.
Mr. Heseltine: If I may paraphrase the party political broadcast, that was new Labour speaking.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement today is particularly welcome because it acknowledges that the prime responsibility for improving industrial competitiveness rests with company management, but that its efforts can be helped or hindered by Government? In that context, is my right hon. Friend aware that I counted seven reports in the 1970s in which the Labour Government acknowledged what we needed to do on education, training and continuing education, with a national curriculum and more further education, and that if they had done anything at all about it, we would now have more maths teachers in our schools and we would not have had the skill-based weaknesses that we have.
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right to point out that virtually every one of the major changes that have been brought about to the benefit of the United Kingdom economy in the 1980s was forced through the House by the Government in the teeth of the union-dominated attitudes of the Labour party.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Does the President agree with last week's Select Committee report that the level of dividends in this country is too high and that far more of the money should go into R and D and other investment? Why did the Government give up their finance into industry initiative last year—was it just because Lord Hanson called the previous Financial Secretary a socialist or was it because the Government have no intention of doing anything about the problem?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that the Government have introduced a range of changes—principally the reduction in corporation tax—to ensure that companies enjoy the use of more of their own money. Those changes enable alternative sources of finance to be made available to small companies and, above all, we have presided over a climate in which there has been a very large increase in the number of small and medium-sized companies. That proves beyond peradventure that our policy of supporting that wealth-creating sector has been working. It is all very well for the Labour party to talk about these matters, but its policy proposals are all designed either to put more costs on or remove more money from the wealth-creating sector.
Mr. John Butterfill: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry greatly welcome the energy and enthusiasm with which he has addressed many of its recommendations and especially his commitment to assist many more small businesses to become exporters? Does he, however, agree that the single most damaging thing that we could do and which would reduce our competitiveness would be to adopt a national minimum wage? Does he therefore share my hope that the recent reported statements of the Leader of
606
the Opposition that he does not now intend to proceed with a national minimum wage will not be diverted by his trade union bosses?
Mr. Heseltine: I have been abroad and might have missed something, but what I thought the Leader of the Opposition was saying was that he was not going to tell us what the national minimum wage would be until after he became leader of a Government, were that unfortunate event ever to occur. It means that he will do a deal with the trade unions and no one will know what the national minimum wage will be until after he is elected. If he were to be elected, everyone would pay the price in lost jobs, but we shall help the public to understand the risks involved in that deception.
Ms Ann Coffey: As the President will be aware, the enterprise allowance scheme has helped thousands of start-up businesses through financial and counselling support. That scheme was abolished by the Secretary of State for Employment in April this year and the business link scheme, which is based on recharging businesses for businesses, is not going to offer the same financial support. Does he not feel that there will be a gap and that start-up businesses will in future be offered less support than previously?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Lady raises an important point. In fact, the single regeneration budget led to a bidding process in which this form of support did not attract locally the degree of priority that it had previously enjoyed. However, when the hon. Lady and other hon. Members read the texts, they will find that we have introduced a new support system to fill part of the gap that has occurred.
Mr. Den Dover: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if inward investment and investment in the United Kingdom is to continue to increase, there needs to be more competitiveness in the construction industry? Can he report whether his officials in the deregulation unit have dropped any opposition that they had to the implementation of Sir Michael Latham's proposals?
Mr. Heseltine: We greatly admire the work that Sir Michael has done and welcome the sponsorship role that the Department of the Environment is pursuing in partnership with the construction industry. I shall have a further look at what may or may not be happening in my Department in relation to my hon. Friend's question.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The President referred to the Government's so-called successes since 1992. Does he attribute any of those so-called successes to the panic devaluation of September that year?
Mr. Heseltine: As the whole House knows, the history of the past 50 years has been one of a constantly depreciating currency. In the short term, that always gives a relative advantage to the country whose currency depreciates. The problem is that, time and time again, we have thrown away that advantage by pursuing domestic inflationary policies that undid what temporary gain there was. The strength of the Government's position is that we are not prepared to see that happen again.
Mr. Harold Elletson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his achievements in boosting United Kingdom competitiveness and creating a

607
sustained export-led growth. Is he aware that one of his Department's initiatives, which has been most successful in that regard, is the export promoters scheme? It has been widely applauded by industry and has significantly boosted UK competitiveness. Will he take this opportunity to thank those companies that have taken part in the scheme and will he ensure that it is extended?
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for providing me with such an opportunity. About 100 export promoters are now seconded to the Department and they are helping to create a change of culture in relationships between the public and private sectors, as well as adding to the significant export achievements of this country.
Mr. Ken Eastham: When the President was trotting out the catalogue of improvements in training, output and production, was he aware that only two weeks ago the Select Committee on Employment was told that the budget for training by training and enterprise councils has been reduced from £3 billion to just over £1.5 billion since 1990? Was he further aware that only a few weeks ago the Engineering Employers Federation issued a document showing that engineering production in the north-west is only 24 per cent. of capacity? What sort of successes are those?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that unemployment is falling by 1,000 people a day. Therefore, it is not surprising that public-supported training may not be at the same level as it has been. I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment to the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Anthony Steen: My right hon. Friend's statement is good news, as every right-thinking person should realise. Will he consider the problem of small businesses that are trading with Europe, which is that although the rules and regulations are rigorously enforced in this country by our officials, they are not rigorously enforced in other European Union countries. The result is that our small firms have on-costs and therefore face more problems in competing. Small firms in other countries do not have those on-costs or the enforcement of rules and regulations.
Mr. Heseltine: I can only ask my hon. Friend to let me have the evidence. I have a range of officials whose task is to examine specific cases, but I have to tell the House that evidence is a great deal harder to obtain than anecdotal suggestions indicate. We will examine every piece of evidence put before us.
Mr. Andrew Miller: The President will be aware that a number of his hon. Friends are concerned about their future employment and their potential retirement. Will he explain what is meant by the section on page 71, which makes it clear that the Government no longer believe that the state will help people in their old age?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman must realise that that is fiction.
Mr. Miller: That is what it says.
Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the global market in information technology
608
and multi-media services is forecast to grow to $1 trillion by the year 2000? Has he considered, in relation to his White Paper, whether British industry will be able to take a leading role in that market? Will he do everything to ensure that as many British jobs as possible are created in that important market?
Mr. Heseltine: One of the success stories of the past few years has been deregulation in that very important area, as a result of which we now have huge investment programmes by both multinationals and a growing number of small and medium-sized British companies. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in what he says.
Mr. George Mudie: The President has rightly drawn our attention to the importance of education and training. As a member of a Cabinet that was told by the Secretary of State for Education that there was insufficient money in this year's budget to fund all teachers, can he specifically tell us how much of the £165 million package will go to education?
Mr. Heseltine: The public expenditure figures for education have already been announced. The specific package that I have announced today relates to programmes in the Department of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my right hon. Friend realise how much his statement will be welcomed by exporters throughout the land, with more than 100 initiatives demonstrating that he and his Department are going full steam ahead with fresh ideas? My right hon. Friend mentioned the £40 million extra that he will provide to exporters. Does he realise how important it is for exporters, especially small firms, to attend trade exhibitions abroad? Can he outline whether any of that £40 million is to be used for that purpose?
Mr. Heseltine: I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that, as part of the package of measures that I announced, we intend to increase the number of missions and trade exhibitions to a record level.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In his opening statement, the President of the Board of Trade referred to Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric. In the debate last Wednesday, two rather different things were said. First, we were told that the headquarters would be coming to Scotland, with all the supposed advantages to Scottish Nuclear. At the end of the debate, however, in answer to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French), who was reflecting legitimate constituency interests, we were told that Barnwood need not worry, no one was going to move and that there might be 50 extra positions. Which is it?
Mr. Heseltine: This matter was fully debated in the House last week. I was extremely grateful to the Opposition for providing the opportunity for such an early debate and I was immensely impressed by the scale of the Government's majority in both Divisions.
Mr. John Fraser: It is more than three years since the right hon. Gentleman's Department proposed changes in competition law. When will he do something to resolve the discrepancies between European

609
and United Kingdom competition law and to make it easier for the victims of anti-competitive behaviour to get an effective remedy?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue and it is a matter of finding parliamentary time.
Lady Olga Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency have thrived and become very competitive as a result of Government policies? Is he also aware of their nervousness of pressures from the Opposition to make the Government sign up to the social chapter, as such a move would cripple them and destroy all their hard work?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend is right and that will become more apparent as the political debate unfolds, especially when it is added to the dangers of the minimum wage.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Will the President of the Board of Trade confirm that the White Paper states on page 71 that, in old age, people will see no improvement in their living standards from public funds. What does he think that old-age pensioners will think about that provision?
Mr. Heseltine: What the paragraph says, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well, is that, if one destroys the wealth-creating process and over-taxes society, it will affect the ability of a society to fund its welfare provisions. That is the context and sense of the observation. It is the most classic extreme of the behaviour of the Opposition to suggest that there is any implication whatsoever that the normal welfare provisions that the Government provide are at risk.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: May I ask for clarification from the President of the Board of Trade in connection with paragraph 6.5 of the companion booklet entitled, "Helping Smaller Firms", which refers to the preparation of an export development strategy for Scotland. Does he mean the facility to have a distinctive and autonomous Scottish export unit, with its own budget and facilities to make direct contacts overseas?
Mr. Heseltine: Of course, that is the position and it will remain the position.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does the President of the Board of Trade agree that it is regrettable that many of the new educational and training standards are still lower than those of our competitor countries? Is not that because the overriding factor that determined the standards was what was attainable rather than what was desirable?
Mr. Heseltine: One of the reasons why we have such education problems is that all the reforms which the Government have introduced have been fought tooth and nail by the Opposition. Every attempt that we have made to extend power to parents, publish a national curriculum and introduce testing of children has been resisted. Once we have introduced those reforms, the Opposition once again admit that they would not change them because they know that we are right and simply lacked the guts to do it themselves.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are considering our productivity record over the past 16 years and lamenting the fact that we may still be behind some of our competitors on productivity, it is worth remembering where we started in 1979: flat on our backs at the end of a period of Labour Government? Will he confirm that, over the past 16 years, we have had the highest growth in productivity of all the G7 nations?
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. That is precisely why White Papers on competitiveness are so valuable: they show the regular annual improvement. We started from a low base. We were behind, but we are catching up. If we go on in that way, the prospect for the country's economy is exciting. The easy way to bring it to an end is not to re-elect a Conservative Government.
Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose grants to British Aerospace specifically for research and development of wing technology? How does he see the future of the European Airbus Industrie project? Are the jobs of my constituents who work on that project safe?
Mr. Heseltine: The Airbus project is at the heart of the country's industrial aerospace strategy. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear our interest in the future large aircraft project, which will take forward the wing technology in which British Aerospace is the European leader.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Does the President agree that, in the case of British Steel, it would be helpful if the £13 million in share option profits announced today were invested in the company? Page 169 shows that Britain in general would then have a higher level of investment and a dividend level that was not twice that of France, three times that of Germany and nearly six times that of Japan.
Mr. Heseltine: One of the last announcements that I remember from British Steel was of a major expansion at Llanwern. As I travel the world, I am also aware of the contracts which British Steel is winning. The reason why it is winning is that it is now a world-class private sector company.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: Will the President of the Board of Trade now read the document that he has put before the House? Does he accept that page 71 does say that individuals will not be able to look to the state to fund improvements in their living standards in old age? What does the President mean by that statement, which will cause considerable worry to many pensioners throughout the country.
Mr. Heseltine: It will cause no worry unless the Labour party indulge in their scare techniques to frighten people when it is not justified. [Interruption.] I shall tell hon. Members what it says. It says that if the economy is not run properly, as a Labour Government would not run the economy properly, improvements in living standards cannot be offered to people. Even the Labour party should understand that.
Mr. Peter Hain: How is our industry supposed to remain competitive when it is required to produce

611
punitively higher rates of return—much higher than our competitor countries? What will the President of the Board of Trade do about that?
Mr. Heseltine: I shall go on helping British exporters to secure the highest export level that they have ever had, even with the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. How is it that we are doing so well if things are so wrong? There is no answer except that things are not as wrong as the Opposition constantly try to suggest.

Personal Statement
4.23 pm
Sir Jerry Wiggin: With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a personal statement.
I wish unreservedly to apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe) and to the House for having tabled amendments to a Bill in Standing Committee in his name but without his knowledge or consent.
I act as parliamentary adviser to the British Holiday and Home Parks Association, a fact which is declared in the Register of Members' Interests and of which my hon. Friend is aware. I thought that he would be supportive of the amendments, so I wrote to him, and we spoke the following day. As soon as he informed me that he was not willing to move them, I apologised to him and withdrew the amendments from the Standing Committee's amendment paper. They never came before the Committee. Nevertheless, I repeat my apologies to the House and to my hon. Friend, for an action which I acknowledge was at odds with the proper expectations of the House.
I am aware too that suspicions have been voiced that my motive in tabling the amendments in the name of a colleague was to avoid the declaration of a financial interest that I possess and he does not. I accept that the amendments would have benefited the association for which I act as parliamentary adviser. My purpose in tabling the amendments in the name of a member of the Standing Committee was, however, to improve their chances of being considered, as I was not in a position to move them myself in Committee.
There was no intention to deceive, but I accept that my actions were open to other interpretations and I wish to apologise to the House without reservation for any harm that they may have done to its reputation.
Madam Speaker: I have a short statement to make. The House has now heard the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) make an apology for his conduct. We do not debate or comment on such statements, but I make the point that, whatever structures and procedures we have in the House, we cannot legislate for integrity, and individual Members should act in such a manner whereby their integrity is not called into question.
I trust that this is the last distasteful occasion on which the Speaker is obliged to inquire into the conduct of an hon. Member.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: So has he got away with it then?

Points of Order
4.26 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is best to resolve minor difficulties without bothering the House or the Speaker, but would you, Madam Speaker, consider that it would be helpful to the House to remind us of the expected courtesies when an hon. Member advises another Member before going into their constituency on a public visit or to make a controversial speech?
Madam Speaker: My postbag is inundated these days with letters from Back Benchers, complaining of other Back Benchers who visit their constituencies without notification. It takes up a great deal of my time to try to resolve those matters. Hon. Members should attempt to resolve them themselves. I think the House knows full well my views on this matter. I cannot enforce them. I merely ask that the consideration and courtesy should be extended to each other which I find lacking these days.
Mr. Peter Hain: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. What action can be taken to investigate the press allegations of the widespread practice of questions and amendments being tabled in other Members' names in order to conceal their commercial origins? Surely too many Members of Parliament are now regarded by members of the public as Arthur Daley lookalikes.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may seek to refer this matter to the Committee on Members' Interests, which may wish to pursue the point that he is making.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last Wednesday, you told my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) that you had received a letter alleging breach of privilege, and you continued:
"I am seriously examining the situation and I shall do so with all speed."—[Official Report, 17 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 335.]
I wonder whether you could say whether you intend referring that complaint to the Committee of Privileges now, or at a later date.
Madam Speaker: I did consider the matter with all speed. The House will understand that I had to wait for the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare to come back and to see me. That was only natural justice.
I have written to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who sent me the letter alleging a breach of privilege. I have indicated the action that I have taken to him. That letter was sent to me; it is not yet in the public domain. It was an exchange of letters between the hon. Member and myself. If he wishes to put it in the public domain, I have no desire to oppose him on that issue.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It seems an odd state of affairs. A few weeks ago, two Tory Members of Parliament were told that they were going to get 10 days' and 20 days' suspension—
Madam Speaker: Is this a point of order?
Mr. Skinner: Yes.
Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would come to the point that is for me to deal with.
Mr. Skinner: I do not understand how, in those two instances and others—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know how to put a point of order if he wants to do so. I shall do my best to respond if the hon. Gentleman has a genuine point of order. At the moment, he is putting an opinion.
Mr. Skinner: My point of order is this: you, Madam Speaker, have just made a statement to the House. We cannot comment on the fact that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) has made a personal statement, but your statement follows on from the fact that it appears that the personal statement will be the end of the matter. The fact that two Tory Members of Parliament were suspended for 10 and 20 days for attempting to take money and not receiving it, seems to contrast with the treatment of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, who is still getting the money.
Madam Speaker: Order. There is nothing to contrast. The hon. Gentleman knows the procedures of the House; we do not comment after a personal statement. At this stage in our proceedings and in light of the difficulties that the House is experiencing, I am sure that the House will understand and be supportive if I give four or five lines of my beliefs to the House once in a while.
Mr. Michael Clapham: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. The Daily Mirror this morning published a dossier showing that the Government have wasted £35 billion—ranging from £245 million spent on a Ministry of Defence building to £25,000 which was wasted on the cones hotline. Has a Minister indicated that he or she will come to the House and make a statement on the matter?
Madam Speaker: That is not the case. The hon. Gentleman would have seen it on the annunciator screen at 1 o'clock when the other statements were announced.
Mr. David Winnick: One of the themes in last Thursday's debate on the Nolan report was self-regulation. Are we to take it that self-regulation means, in effect, what we have heard today from the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) and that will be the end of the affair? May I assure you, Madam Speaker, that many people outside the House will not understand the position.
Madam Speaker: The House must decide for itself what procedures it will adopt. I am a servant of the House and I will follow those procedures.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few moments ago you told the House that you had sent a letter to a Member of the House who had raised a matter on a point of privilege. You further kindly informed us that if that hon. Member so wished it, the letter's content could be made public. My understanding until now has been that a matter sent to you alleging breach of privilege is not referred to, either by the person sending it or by you, unless, in your opinion, the matter raised is a matter of privilege, in which case you would make your decision known to the House. It appears that your decision on today's matter is in the hands of the hon. Member and only he can now tell us what you may have decided. If I am incorrect, will you

615
correct me? If I am correct, is there a precedent for the way in which the matter has been dealt with, which did not include a statement from you?
Madam Speaker: It is not the normal procedure. If the House wishes, I shall certainly give it the information that I have given to the hon. Member as soon as I have a copy of the letter to hand.
Mr. David Hanson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have written to you stating my intention to raise this point of order on the appointment of part-time non-executive members of new health authorities in Wales. The Secretary of State for Wales advertised in local papers in my constituency on 11 May for members to be appointed to new health authorities in Wales. The Bill establishing those health authorities in Wales has not yet completed its parliamentary progress. I wonder whether you, Madam Speaker, have a view on whether the Secretary of State for Wales should spend public money on adverts and pre-empt the wishes of the House before legislation has been passed by the House. I would hope that you would uphold the right of the House and that the Secretary of State should not spend public money on advertising positions that the House has yet to authorise.
Madam Speaker: As a result of the constituency Friday, I have not seen the letter from the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson). I shall certainly examine it and give the hon. Gentleman a reply.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it open to individual members of the House to refer the actions of other hon. Members to the Committee of Privileges?
Madam Speaker: It is a matter for the House, and a resolution of the House must be obtained.
[Following is the text of Madam Speaker's letter to Mr. Hain:
Dear Peter:
You wrote twice to me on 17 May asking that precedence be given to a Motion to refer to the Privileges Committee the action of Sir Jerry Wiggin in tabling amendments to the Gas Bill in Standing Committee in the name of Sebastian Coe but without his knowledge or agreement.
You will have heard Jerry Wiggin's personal statement this afternoon. It is my view that the statement disposes of this unpleasant matter, and no interests of the House would be served by a reference to the Privileges Committee. There are two reasons for this. In the first place, there is no dispute about the facts. Secondly, it is the practice of the House to accept without further demur the bona fides and candour of a Member who makes a personal statement. That being so, it is hard to see what task the Privileges Committee would be asked to do.
You may of course take on your own account any parliamentary action within our rules of order which you think appropriate, including the tabling of an Early Day Motion.]

Orders of the Day

  Child Support Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Child Support Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order, namely, new Clauses, amendments to Clause 1, amendments to Schedule 1, amendments to Clauses 2 to 6, amendments to Schedule 2, remaining amendments to Clauses, new Schedules and remaining amendments to Schedules.—[Mr. Burt]

  Child Support Bill
    New clause 3

      CHILD MAINTENANCE DISREGARD (No. 2)
      '(1) In section 136(5) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (b), there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
      "(bb) in calculating the income of a person claiming income support, a prescribed amount of any payment or payments of maintenance made or due to be made by—

      (i) the claimant's former partner, or the claimant's partner's former partner; or

      (ii) the parent of a child who is a member of the claimant's family, except where that parent is the claimant or the claimant's partner,

      shall be disregarded;".
      (2) At the end of that section, there shall be added the following subsection—
      "(6) In this section 'partner' shall have the meaning prescribed.".'.—[Mr. Bradley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.35 pm
      Mr. Keith Bradley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Throughout the passage of the Bill, whether on the Floor of the House or in Committee, the Labour party has attempted to be constructive. In that spirit, I have moved new clause 3, which would introduce a child maintenance disregard into the legislation.
      As I am sure you are aware, Madam Speaker, this is the fourth time that we have tried to insert a child maintenance disregard into the Bill. We first attempted to do so by way of a reasoned amendment to the Second Reading debate, and we tried to introduce it in two different ways in Committee. We are now attempting on Report to introduce the disregard, which we believe is a crucial omission from the legislation.
      As we have made three previous attempts to introduce a disregard, I do not intend to range over all the issues involved this afternoon. We have always intended to be constructive in the debates, and I hope that our proposals will at last find favour with the Government. However, I proceed with some trepidation, as I do not know whether the Secretary of State, who is lined up against me in the debate, will be persuaded by the logic of the arguments in support of the disregard.
      Under the current arrangements, any maintenance that is paid to the parent with care who is in receipt of income support is deducted pound for pound from that income support. Therefore, the parent with care—normally the mother—and subsequently the children do not receive a single penny from any maintenance payment. Despite all the changes that have been made to the Child Support Act 1991 at various stages through the regulations and through

      617
      this legislation, the situation will not alter, and the arrangements whereby income support is reduced pound for pound will remain in place.
      However, the situation could be rectified if income support claimants were able to keep a small amount of every maintenance payment, which would be known as the maintenance disregard. We are attempting to establish the principle of such a disregard in new clause 3. If the Government were to accept that principle this afternoon, we would welcome their views about the level at which to set the disregard, which would then be debated subsequently as part of the regulations and the provisions in the Bill.
      Such a child maintenance disregard would essentially have two effects. First, the poorest children would gain from maintenance payments. Secondly, the so-called absent parents—I accept that that definition is not satisfactory, but it is the terminology used in the Bill, so I shall use it for the purposes of the debate—would have an incentive to pay, and parents with care would have an incentive to apply for maintenance through the Child Support Agency.
      Let me put the proposal in some overall context. According to official statistics, seven out of 10, or 70 per cent., of one-parent families claim income support. In February 1994, 42 per cent. of all claimants having benefit deducted to replace social fund loans were lone parents, and in 1993, 46 per cent. of parents with care on benefit were repaying fuel debts. Those and other official statistics show that lone parents on income support face particular financial hardship. The child maintenance disregard proposed by the Labour party is an attempt to address the problem.
      The Government consistently oppose the proposal, because they do not wish to incorporate any work disincentives into the benefit system; hence their proposal in the Bill to introduce a child maintenance bonus instead. However, that proposal is inadequate.
      Like the back-to-work bonus in the new jobseeker's allowance, it does not benefit families at the point of real need, but instead promises help, probably in future but perhaps never, as it may take as long as four years of consistent eligibility to reach full entitlement to the new bonus. We believe strongly that split families, with one parent caring for children, need help immediately, not at some future date.
      The Government should recognise that many factors are involved in the decision to seek work, particularly when the needs of young children or other responsibilities, such as caring for sick or disabled relatives or friends, have to be taken into account. Those acting in a caring capacity may not be able to seek work. Even if such a person were available for work, there is clearly no guarantee that work would be available.
      Throughout our deliberations on the matter, the Government have been unable to provide clear evidence that introducing a maintenance disregard on income support creates a disincentive to work. I should be grateful if they could provide that evidence this afternoon.
      However, to allay the Government's fears on that point, it may be possible to run the small weekly disregard alongside the child maintenance bonus in order to help people back to work, thus enabling lone parents on
      618
      income support perhaps to take part-time work, and therefore immediately reducing the social security bill and the cost of the disregard, and allowing lone parents to obtain skills and ultimately move into full-time work in the longer term, when their children become less dependent.
      In addition, a small disregard provides protection against the complete loss of income support that may be associated with maintenance payments, and other losses, such as free school meals and other benefits, that lead to the classic poverty trap, where someone might end up far worse off through the loss of their total entitlement to income support and insufficient compensation.
      It must be stressed that the introduction of such a child maintenance disregard is not the only answer in addressing the enormous problems associated with child poverty, but we believe that it is a clear and proper step in the right direction. The Government, on the other hand, believe that only if lone parents return to work will the problems of poverty really be overcome.
      It is interesting to note that, in one of our debates in Committee on that point, there was an exchange of views between my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) and the Minister. When he was asked how many people were lifted off benefit by the proposals so far, the Minister recognised that, despite the massive £9 billion currently paid in support of lone parents, only 8,000 out of 1 million people—or less than 1 per cent.—had been lifted off benefit. That shows that more must be done to effect the changes that the Government intend.
      4.45 pm
      The Opposition are clear that it is not enough to look only at in-work benefits. We have to consider the reality for lone parents who are out of work, their availability for benefit, and the amount of money they should be given to ensure proper care for their children. Many organisations, such as the Child Poverty Action Group, the citizens advice bureaux and many others representing lone parents and single people living in poverty, identified that the Government's approach is far too simplistic, and that we cannot look at work as the only way out of poverty.
      There are many reasons why it may not be possible to obtain paid employment. Lone parents with young children may feel it more appropriate to remain at home to care for their children, particularly in their early years.
      By refusing to accept the need for a small maintenance disregard, the Government are perpetuating the anomaly whereby children of lone parents who cannot take employment do not gain from the payment of child maintenance. According to the Child Support Agency's own statistics, they represent not only the great majority of CSA clients, but the poorest of those clients.
      In Committee, the Government claimed that the welfare of the child was at the heart of the legislation. If that is the case, they would surely wish to accept new clause 3. It would give more money to the children of parents with care; it would act as an incentive to co-operate with the agency; it would provide an incentive for so-called absent parents to pay maintenance; and it would help restore public confidence in the agency by showing people on income support that the Treasury was not the only gainer and that, crucially, the children would also gain, as was clearly envisaged by the Government's White Paper entitled "Children Come First".

      619
      I hope that, even at this late stage in our deliberations, the Government will accept that there is clear merit in introducing the child maintenance disregard. If they accept that, they will clearly wish to add new clause 3 to the Bill.
      Ms Mildred Gordon: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) has said. Lone parents with care represent the majority of those on income support, and nothing in the Bill will give immediate help to that group of parents.
      All the organisations that support lone parents—those that have attacked the Bill as well as those that feel that the Child Support Agency can do something—are united in asking for a disregard. As has been said, lone parents on income support are often deeply in debt, with rent arrears, debts for utilities and debts for the repayment of social fund loans. They need help now to stop them going under.
      Organisations that support lone parents report that they are unable to give their children adequate diets, and that mothers in particular often go hungry, damaging their health and that of their children. Those parents may never be able to return to work successfully, even when their children are of school age, because they will have got into such difficulties. If they are not helped now, the Bill will postpone long-term solutions, not provide them.
      The maintenance bonus, which will take some years to accrue fully, could be paid in addition to a disregard. I see no contradiction. The immediate need to alleviate child poverty remains. The Government argue that the way to get lone parents off income support is to make them all go out to work, usually in low-paid jobs—but no paid work is available in many areas.
      Employers are often prejudiced against mothers with small children, thinking that their home responsibilities will prevent them from giving full attention to their job. Women often have multiple responsibilities, such as caring for aged or disabled parents, relatives or neighbours. Mothers often do not want to leave children under five years of age. The Government always claim to favour choice, so they should give women the choice whether to leave their children under five to do low-paid jobs or to look after their children themselves.
      I have always advocated a nursery place for every child that can benefit from one, but not every child will do so. When I collected my own son from a nursery all day for the first time, I asked him whether he liked it. He said, "It was very nice, but I don't want to go every day." I respected the fact that he was not ready, at the age of three, to leave his mother, be dragged out come rain or shine, and be left with strangers all day.
      When my son reached school age, I left secondary teaching to teach in a primary school. It always worried me, when the new intake arrived, to hear some children screaming for weeks on end, making themselves sick. When teachers said that such children had settled down, I often felt that they had given up in despair, and that really they were not ready to be separated from their mothers if they were to grow up as secure, stable individuals. It is wrong to drive all mothers out to work and not give them the chance to enjoy decent living standards while looking after their young children at home.
      One third of our children live in households having less than half the average income. If the Child Support Act 1991 and the Bill are to have any effect, they must address, and do something positive to alleviate, child
      620
      poverty. If the Government ensured that, the public would not think that they were totally uncaring, and huge crowds of angry people would not come to see us, write to us and attend meetings throughout the country because they feel that they are being conned and that the Government do not care about child welfare.
      Improving the legislation would have a positive effect on the non-resident fathers, who we want to provide support for their children. Although there may be a few rascals, most fathers care about their children. If they knew that the mothers would enjoy some benefit and be able to raise their income above the level of income support, they would be more eager to pay. For all those reasons, I ask the Government to think again, and to include in the Bill a disregard for parents with care on income support.
      Mr. Stephen Timms: All of us are aware of the enormous problems caused by child support legislation, and many believe that the changes that we are now considering offer the last chance to get the system right and in a form that will be defensible, widely supported and able to function properly. I had hoped and expected that there would be serious scrutiny of the proposals in Committee and an attempt to reach an all-party consensus, so that all hon. Members could have confidence in a supportable way forward.
      I am a relatively new Member of the House, so perhaps I was hoping for more than was possible, but no such all-party consensus emerged. Not one speech in Committee was made by a Conservative Back Bencher. Conservative Members made four brief interventions, but that was the sum total of their contribution. I note that those hon. Members are not present in the Chamber.
      I am extremely puzzled that so little interest was shown by Conservative Members, that they remain unconcerned about getting the changes right, and that they have failed to display a give-and-take approach that might have led to changes in which we could all have confidence. Not one substantive Opposition amendment has been accepted by the Government. We have before us only the changes that the Government first thought of, which were whipped through the Committee without the serious scrutiny that I had anticipated.
      One major reason for the anger surrounding the legislation is that, in many cases, not a penny of the maintenance paid goes to the children who are intended to be the beneficiaries of the child support regime. As 80 per cent. of the agency's caseload is parents with care who are on income support, they account for a high proportion of the total.
      The child maintenance bonus offers some prospect of eventually benefiting the children involved, but that payment will not be made immediately. The bonus will anyway be capped and have a fixed maximum value, and many parents with care will never be in a position to receive it.
      Despite the changes made by the Bill, we will end up with a child support regime that remains unsupportable and that will continue to provoke immense fury among the people affected by it. The fact that none of the payments will benefit most of the children involved is a major part of the regime's unacceptability. I hope that the Government will accept the new clause, which would be a big step towards creating a defensible system, which all of us want to achieve.
      5 pm
      Ms Liz Lynne: I shall not speak on all the groups of amendments, not out of any particular consideration to right hon. and hon. Members—even though, of course, I have that consideration—or out of any satisfaction with the Bill, which is a poor measure and falls far short of what we would wish to be enacted, but because I do not believe that the Government will move on any of the amendments. It is a waste of time for all of us to sit here and try to make the Government see some sense. I should like the wholesale scrapping of the Child Support Act 1991, but, unfortunately, we are not debating that today.
      Parents with care will have their benefit clawed back by the Government, pound for pound. That hardly seems fair or just. The case has been well aired and well argued both on Second Reading and in Committee, so I shall not detain the House for long. I should like to point out, however, that some inconsistency exists between what the Minister has been saying and his position. I heard him say that he deplored children of lone parents living in poverty. The new clause would help to get those children out of that poverty, and they form the bulk of the people we dealt with in the Child Support Act.
      The new clause would not do a great deal—that would depend on how we set the maintenance disregard—but it would help. To a certain extent, lone parents and their children would be helped out of poverty
      Over and again, the Minister says that he wants to get those parents back to work, which seems to be his argument against granting a maintenance disregard. We shall find out whether that is the case when we debate child care costs later this evening. If he accepts the proposal, perhaps I will believe him, but I doubt that he will. He certainly did not accept it in Committee.
      We must realise that some lone parents cannot find work. The Minister knows that other ways exist of getting people out of poverty apart from making them go back into work. A maintenance disregard is one of those ways. If a lone parent wants work and finds it, that is great. No one is against that; everyone would support it. In a way, the maintenance bonus will help them to achieve that, but it does not go far enough.
      We must ensure that lone parents and their children are not suffering too much. Therefore, we also need the maintenance disregard. If parents without care felt that their children were benefiting, that would encourage them to co-operate with the Child Support Agency law. I am totally opposed to the Act, but I know that the Government will not move on it, so we must find some way of making it just a little better.
      I have not heard the Minister or anyone else advance any convincing arguments against a maintenance disregard. I do not know whether he will suddenly come up with some convincing arguments today, but I doubt it. The proposal would also encourage parents with care to co-operate as they would feel that their children were going to benefit and they know that when income support goes, passported benefit and free school meals go. The maintenance disregard would help to offset that clawback of money.
      Voluntary organisations and the Law Society want the new clause to go through. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will accept it. They must ask themselves why all these people want the maintenance disregard, and why everyone recognises the reasons for
      622
      it except the Government Front-Bench team. The Child Poverty Action Group, for instance, points out that the maintenance bonus is one of the few things proposed to help lone parents with children.
      Even though the White Paper says that children come first—and we have said that over and again in Committee—they do not come first in the Bill or the Child Support Act. The Treasury comes first. The Government do not really want to put children first. If they did, they would accept the new clause. The Minister and the Secretary of State can prove that they want children to come first merely by accepting the new clause now.
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: As always, I promise to be brief, but I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. I have long supported child support legislation, but I was always critical of existing legislation, and, indeed, of this Bill. I support new clause 3 and the comments of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne).
      I have a number of concerns about the legislation and the way in which it is implemented. What deeply concerns me is the apparent dilatoriness of officials in Falkirk Child Support Agency office, and the often off-hand way in which they treat my constituents.
      On Friday evening, a young woman came to see me at my surgery. She is precisely caught up in the circumstances that the new clause seeks to deal with. She has had little or no help from the Falkirk office in more than a year. I intervened on her behalf more than a year ago.
      That decent, honourable, poor woman—and she is a poor woman—is living in abject poverty. On Friday evening, she came back to my surgery to complain about what I have just called the apparent dilatoriness of the officials in Falkirk. I would happily bring the details of that case to the Minister's attention, because I know that he will pursue the matter with Miss Chant and her officials.
      That young woman is seeking to bring up a child in a rough, tough part of Greenock. She is having an enormously difficult time of it, and she would be helped by better and more courteous assistance from the Falkirk office. She is in difficult circumstances, and, like many others, she would benefit from such support.
      I have yet to meet a constituent who, under the extant legislation, is defined as an absent parent and seeks to avoid his obligations to his child or children. Some of them may avoid not only their obligations but my surgeries, knowing that I speak in a fairly straightforward manner on these issues. The overwhelming majority of those people—whose wives may be on income support, and hence would be helped by the acceptance of the new clause—readily acknowledge that they have a duty to protect their children.
      Given that the Minister will reject the new clause, may I ask what guidelines are given to local officers in relation to applications made by such mothers for community care grants from the social fund? If they are not to be assisted through a maintenance disregard, why not assist them by way of another disregard: by telling them that they will not be given a crisis loan when they seek assistance to purchase essential resources for the house, but that they will always be considered sympathetically for a community care grant?
      Why cannot women caught up in such circumstances be offered community care grants instead of crisis loans? The Minister will resist new clause 3, but if such emphasis

      623
      were given in relation to parents with care seeking financial assistance from the local Benefits Agency, that would be of some help.
      I know of a young person who made such an application to the Benefits Agency in Greenock. She wanted a community care grant, not a loan that she would have to pay back out of her social security income. The young woman concerned had no complaints against the staff of the agency at Greenock. Indeed, the agency is to receive an award in a fortnight's time from Renfrewshire Enterprise because of its business plan and the work that it carries out in the area. Nevertheless, the young woman did not receive a community care grant. My advice to local officials is that, in such circumstances, they should help claimants by offering a community care grant rather than a loan.
      If it is custom and practice that a community care grant is usually made available rather than a crisis loan, has that principle been established in local offices? I hope that the Minister will respond positively to my question. For most women—in this instance, we are talking mainly about women—it would be of help to know that they can obtain a community care grant rather than being offered a loan. If it is not custom and practice that such preferential treatment is offered, will the Minister give serious consideration to issuing appropriate guidelines by amending the criteria on which grants and loans are assessed?
      I do not want to drift off course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you will forgive that maritime metaphor, in anticipation of the Minister's rejection of the new clause. I wish only to make a plea of mitigation. If the new clause is rejected, my question should be given serious attention.
      In Australia, disregard is an established practice. I was recently speaking to people who are concerned with child support legislation in South Australia. They assured me that it is working well. The Minister will say, "The hon. Gentleman is bound to say that." I accept that there have been difficulties in implementing that legislation in Australia, but I was told that, in the state of South Australia, it seems to be working well. I am told that, to some extent, it meets the needs of women who are caring for children while living in inadequate housing and being unable to provide their children with the resources that other children come to expect as the normal scheme of things.
      In the new clause, we are not asking for a great deal. Surely a compassionate Government should accept it in its entirety. We are not talking about an enormous number of women or a huge amount of money. If the new clause were accepted, some compensation would be made available to those whose lives are at best sparse and at worst characterised by sheer misery.
      Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I support the new clause. I shall start by reflecting on why child support legislation has become controversial, which has necessitated, among other things, the Bill that is before us. That controversy relates directly to the issue which the new clause seeks to take up. It is legislation designed to bring about a cultural change—some might say a cultural revolution—after many years during which fathers were often able to escape financial responsibilities for their children.
      Governments worldwide, and certainly in the United Kingdom—rightly, in my view—are seeking to promote the principle of parental responsibility. After many years during which fathers escaped their responsibilities—when court orders were not enforced—our child support legislation perhaps constitutes a major cultural revolution.
      624
      5.15 pm
      The Government are seeking to respond to two major trends that are affecting the family, both of which are extremely controversial. The first is large-scale separation and divorce, which means that more and more people—adults and children—are living in one-parent families.
      Secondly, there is the increasing phenomenon of single-never-married women with children, something to which the House needs to return on another occasion. The phenomenon is to be found in other European nations, but I think that Britain is ahead—I do not use that word in an approving way—and at the top of the league table. Single-never-married women represent the fastest-rising category of single parents in the United Kingdom. They are the group most likely to be dependent on income support.
      The divorce phenomenon and the phenomenon of never-married-single women are controversial and would tax any Government. These phenomena have often become controversial also because of maladministration. There is controversy also because a public wider than those immediately concerned are cynical in believing that the Bill is not a true child support measure. When we are presented with evidence that the vast majority of one-parent families—those on income support—are not receiving extra benefit from child support, we can understand the public's cynicism. That is why the new clause should be taken seriously by the House.
      Although I have used the term, I am not an Exchequer supporter. I do not disregard the interests of the taxpayer generally. I am struck by the fact, as are my colleagues, I am sure, that many of the families who come to see us at our surgeries are intact families where the marriage has survived. They are two-parent families that are often struggling against the odds, often in difficult economic times and in a difficult job market, to maintain their own children.
      One of the difficulties for the Government is that they are presiding over record levels of taxation and at the same time record levels of social security expenditure. They are doing so—this is the paradox that we need to unravel and understand—at a time when there is a record level of social insecurity, in my judgment.
      We must not make the mistake of saying—this certainly applies to my right hon. and hon. Friends—that there is an association between social security spending—state benefit spending—and true social security in the community. We need to think through the implications of that. If they can be avoided, I do not want to impose greater burdens on taxpayers who are looking after their own children. At the same time, however, a balance must be struck. In my judgment, a disregard—in other words, enabling one-parent families on income support to receive some of the benefit of child maintenance—is a part of the balance that should be introduced into the system.
      If child poverty, not the Treasury, had been at the centre of concern when framing child support legislation, we would have had better social policy. These are always controversial matters, as evidence from various societies shows. At the same time, I think that a wider concern would have produced better social policy.
      We need to get to grips with the fact that the rise of one-parent families is perhaps now the major cause—it is certainly a major cause—of child poverty in this country. The Secretary of State will have seen the recent report on low income statistics from the Social Security Committee,

      625
      which contains a table that shows the total number of children—our children, really—on income support in Great Britain. It is extraordinary in terms of the total number, but what strikes me as important about those data is that, increasingly, it is the one-parent family that is associated with poverty.
      Opposition Members—perfectly rightly—say a great deal about unemployment, but in 1992, whereas 865,000 children of parents who were unemployed were on income support, the number of children on income support in lone-parent families was 1,750,000, a much larger number. That is the group that is growing most rapidly. When unemployment goes up and down—we can argue about how far it will go—at least it brings down the number of children in poverty for employment reasons.
      As far as I can judge, the rise in the number of lone-parent families is somewhat impervious to changes in the economic cycle. It is certainly on the increase at the present time, even when official unemployment statistics point in the other direction. That major contributor to child poverty is of relevance to the new clause, because in a modest way it is saying, "If we can address the poverty of the children of families on income support, at least that will improve the welfare of those children." The welfare of those children must be at the heart of this measure.
      I think that the Government will reply—we shall judge soon—that they do not consider a maintenance disregard as the way to tackle poverty, that evidence shows that we need to enable one-parent families to get into the labour market—to get jobs, in simple terms. I do not think that I and my hon. Friends would largely disagree with that broad analysis. Certainly, when one thinks about public expenditure priorities in the future, it is difficult to envisage any Government finding the resources to increase income support to such a level that one would seriously dent the poverty that those children face.
      I would argue that the Government are now pushing that analysis too far. If one could devise a strategy to include employment, training, child care and the rest, that would be a good thing, and I would encourage it. In fact, I would encourage the Government to go rather further in that direction. By saying no to the disregard but yes to the child support bonus, which borrows heavily from the Jobseekers Bill—once one gets a job, one gets some benefit from the extra maintenance—the Government are in a curious position for the traditional "party of the family". There are lots of inverted commas in that phrase. They are now saying—not about all mothers—that a lone mother's place is in the job market.
      I find that rather interesting, as I have been a student of Tory family politics for a number of years. Whereas, a decade and a half ago, the Tory party of the family was very much persuaded that a woman's place was in the home, and did not really like all the trendy new feminist stuff about careers and so on, there came a time when it came to recognise that perhaps women did have rights in the labour market, and a good thing too.
      I had assumed, until I attended the recent Committee that considered the Bill, that the party of the family at least supported the idea of choice. I think that choice is important, and I commend the principle of choice to the Secretary of State. I should have thought that we should be saying to lone mothers on income support, particularly
      626
      when there are young children, "Although we might give you certain incentives and programmes to get into the labour market, nevertheless, as a mother of a child of four or five, you have a choice: whether to stay at home to look after your own child or to get a job."
      Is the Secretary of State an advocate of choice in that area? I hope he is. I am bound to say that the force of this social policy is to push lone mothers into the labour market. If one stays on income support, one does not get any net benefit from child support. That is a serious point.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) made the point that very few lone mothers are coming off income support because of child benefit. A figure of 8,000 in one year has been cited, against 1 million families involved. I should like to ask the Secretary of State about choice, or whether indeed there is now no choice for lone mothers on income support except to stay in poverty. Is he really now saying that the mothers of England who are on income support have to get jobs, because the Government will not offer any more?
      I support my hon. Friends' arguments for a disregard, because those of us who support child support and who did so before we knew that the Government were to introduce it are wrestling with the difficult task of trying to save decent principle from bad practice. That is what it is about.
      We have rehearsed some of the likely history of this before. We know that a former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, whom I read about in the public prints only today, announced the policy of child support and parental responsibility. My guess is that the official records one day will reveal that the Department of Social Security probably wanted a disregard, because there is some wisdom in that Department, or there certainly used to be, but, of course, the Treasury saw an opportunity.
      The Treasury looked anew at public expenditure targets and projections, it won the battle with the Department of Social Security about the disregard, and it said, "You are not having it. We can't afford it." The original Child Support Bill was therefore a Bill deformed at birth.
      That is the difficulty that we have had ever since. If only we could have had a disregard, we could have faced up to the critics of the Bill, including some, not all, of the nastier elements in British life who send obscene and dangerous communications to the staff of the Child Support Agency, and said, "No, this is child support not just in name. We can now point to evidence that children in the most impoverished circumstances are getting extra benefit."
      One could point to data such as those in Australia, which show that children are getting more money. At least this is making an impression on child poverty, as caused by those circumstances. But I am afraid that the Treasury, which I have always regarded as a social policy literacy-free zone, got its claws into it and attempted to destroy it at birth. Therefore, some of us have been trying to help the Secretary of State and his colleagues to rescue it ever since by proposing changes and tabling amendments.
      I repeat that the taxpayer has an interest—I know that from my advice surgeries, and how poor some of the families paying tax are—but the introduction of a disregard would have brought some social balance into the scheme. Although one or two of us have had this argument before, cross-party, and to some extent we have exhausted the arguments, I hope that Parliament might think again today. I hope that the Secretary of State will

      627
      have listened carefully to the arguments and will recognise that, if we are to create social policy out of this child support measure, a disregard is a modest but essential step in that direction.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. George Stevenson: On Friday, I attended a meeting in Stoke-on-Trent involving people who had been seriously affected by the ignominious activities of the Child Support Agency. One reason for their continuing anger is their belief—justified, in my view—that any resources acquired by the agency are, in the main, not being passed on to the children whom, according to the Government, the whole mechanism is designed to support. The new clause is intended to deal with a fundamental contradiction that the Government, for some reason, have failed to recognise since the agency was set up a few years ago.
      No doubt the Secretary of State will try to justify the Government's rejection of the new clause. I cannot see for the life of me—I know that the same applies to my hon. Friends—why the Government apparently intend, rather than supporting a maintenance disregard, merely to disregard the strength of our argument. If the fundamental principle is to ensure that children receive support, where is the sense in continuing to support a mechanism that will not achieve that? The new clause begins to address this serious anomaly.
      The new clause was discussed in detail during that meeting on Friday. The result was a clear message to the Government: they are making a big mistake if they believe that changes that have been wrung out of them in a Bill forced on a reluctant Secretary of State—no doubt in the face of strong Treasury resistance—and will be drip-fed into the system created by the original legislation and the agency's activities, along with their rejection of a very reasonable new clause, will melt away the anger about the fundamental injustices that remain. Until such injustices are dealt with—new clause 3 tries to deal with one of them, albeit in a small way—the campaign, the justifiable protests and the anger that is felt throughout the country will not only remain but intensify.
      Mr. Derek Enright: I have surgeries or appointments every week, and not a week has gone by without someone complaining to me about the unjust workings of the Child Support Act. They do not complain about the Act itself; most fathers admit that they have a duty to pay what their children require to receive a decent upbringing. They are complaining about the fact that the payment formula has been worked out in such a way that the poorest sections of the population are badly hit.
      In particular, second families in which the husband is dutifully paying what he is required to pay have suddenly been made to double their payments. That is a major problem in low-wage areas such as the one that I represent: it is entirely wrong for those bringing up children on poverty wages suddenly to have sub-poverty wages thrust on them, and the exemptions demanded by the new clause would make a considerable difference.
      It is not as if the Child Support Agency were currently at its most efficient. We were assured that the calculations affecting both the single partner requiring maintenance—male or female—and those paying the maintenance would be made more efficiently, but that has not happened. The cases that infuriate me most involve ladies whose
      628
      husbands have left them and their children to fend for themselves: the agency personnel say that they cannot possibly deal with those cases within two years, and are making no effort to find husbands who are not low earners but are, in fact, doing extraordinarily well. Where is the stretching of manpower that the Government claimed would be achieved?
      It is a question of natural justice—of the recognition that families fall apart, and that we must do our best to foster the new relationships that result without exacerbating difficulties between former partners. Previously, when wives—predominantly—were left on their own, they and their children received allowances in addition to other allowances; now they do not. The allowances are cut to a minimum, so that parents cannot bring up their children decently. Moreover, such parents are unable to secure even the part-time jobs that exist in my constituency, because they are so poorly paid that the money would make no difference to their allowances.
      No doubt the Government will reject the new clause, but I hope that they will show themselves to be flexible and imaginative. The Bill has its roots in cross-party co-operation: the ideals that inspired it are essentially cross-party, and those ideals remain.
      I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will feel able to examine the position and do what they can. I hope that they will understand the difficulties experienced by a woman with one, two or three children who is shut up on her own because it is not worth her while to go out and get a job, and the effect that those difficulties will have on her children. That applies particularly in an area such as mine, where there are few diversions that provide opportunities to meet other people. Jobs often provide the only chance for people to come together. The Bill is a disincentive for families to take jobs.
      Laying down a rate and taking a fixed amount from a man's wage makes the abandoned family, if we may call it that, no better off, but makes the new family infinitely worse off. That is precisely what is happening in terms of the marginal levels. We have made a meagre suggestion to try to alleviate some of the difficulties. It is not a massive step, and we may be criticised for not tabling a more substantial amendment. However, that meagre measure should be considered. It would cost the Treasury scarcely anything, if anything at all when one considers the way that crime could be prevented by a sensible use of this measure. The Government should accept it.
      The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): The new clause deals with an area that has been the main cause of disagreement. However, disagreement has not been characteristic. On the contrary, I endorse the remark by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that the Opposition have been supportive, co-operative and constructive. I welcome that, and may have the opportunity to say more about it later. That attitude is in marked contrast to that of the Liberal party, which has been fundamentally irresponsible and negative in this matter.
      Before coming to my overall reply, I should like to mention one or two points raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke about problems that he has encountered at Falkirk. I shall certainly respond to his specific points if he pursues them with me or with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

      629
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether community care grants could be an alternative to a maintenance disregard. It would not be possible or sensible to give privileged access to community care grants to people who were getting maintenance, and the new clause would give them the right to higher benefit. The Child Support Agency does not give advice on access to community grants. That would be delivered by the Benefits Agency, which is often housed in the same building, and would be in accordance with existing criteria.
      As always, the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) made an interesting contribution. He has always been robust in his support of the Bill's underlying principles—even when he disagrees with us on the detail. He suggested that the choice of the mother to return to work was at stake. By its nature and through its rules, income support loads the choice against taking up work, because it means that, for every £1 earned above the first few pounds, one is paid £1 less benefit. To try to restore the balance, we have introduced maintenance credit. The new clause would intensify the disincentive, and bias the choice against work.
      The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) and some other hon. Members said that the resources raised by the Child Support Agency go mainly to the Treasury. But the Treasury has no money. All the maintenance is paid to the mother and belongs to her. To the extent that benefit is offset by that, money is returned to the taxpayer who is the source of all public finance. We should never forget that.
      5.45 pm
      Although I have carefully considered the arguments for a maintenance disregard as set out in the new clause and as argued in Committee, I reject the proposal for three basic reasons. First, the best way to help lone parents raise the standard of living of themselves and their children is to help them to return to work. Most of them wish to do that. The disregard would effectively pay people more to refrain from working. It raises the hurdle that they have to vault if they are to get back into work and the amount they have to earn to make that worth while. It is precisely the wrong approach.
      We have put the £15 disregard into the benefits that help people who are seeking work or are in work. They are: family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit. On top of that, we have increased the incentive to get off income support and back into work by introducing the maintenance credit, which is worth up to £1,000 and is payable when people get back into work.
      The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) asked us to be flexible and imaginative if we could not accept the new clause. Ours is a flexible and imaginative response, and it was certainly not expected until we presented the Bill. The proposal to introduce a maintenance disregard is particularly odd, because it would give extra only to those who get maintenance, and nothing to those who get none. It would be hard to justify to those who were in that unfortunate position.
      Secondly, I do not support the proposal because we are sceptical about the claim, by the Opposition in general and by the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) in particular, that a disregard would persuade absent
      630
      parents who were otherwise resisting paying maintenance to pay up with more enthusiasm. There is no evidence that, because parents with care receive a £15 disregard in the in-work benefits, absent parents would be less reluctant or more willing to pay maintenance.
      If there is any such effect, the maintenance credit, which enables a parent with care and the child to benefit by up to £1,000 in maintenance from the absent parent, should act as a spur. It should encourage the parent with care to go back to work, and if she does that she may share part of the financial responsibility of maintenance and reduce the assessment of the absent parent. Because of the maintenance credit, the absent parent should be more willing to pay than he was in the past.
      By contrast, the disregard would discourage parents from returning to work. I regret to say that that has been a major source of friction, because the absent parent sees the parent with care staying at home on benefit, and resents the fact that that parent is not working.
      In any case, the changes that we have made through the package of measures introduced by regulations from the beginning of April and incorporated in the Bill will go a long way to reduce the genuine resentments that caused many absent parents to be reluctant to co-operate with the agency and to pay maintenance. I hope that we will undermine resistance in that way rather than by the introduction of a maintenance disregard.
      The final reason for rejecting the proposal for a maintenance disregard is the cost to the taxpayer. The administration cost alone would be some £40 million a year. At the level that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) originally proposed, it would cost in total some £340 million, including administration costs. His last proposal would cost some £245 million a year, including administration costs.
      Certainly, whatever the Opposition are talking about—and they are not specific in the new clause—they are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds extra for the taxpayer to pay. This very day, the Leader of the Opposition in his Mais lecture is claiming that the Labour party has abandoned the politics of tax and spend, yet the new clause is down on the Order Paper in his name. We have to ask whether he is aware of that, or whether it has been put down by his hon. Friends without his knowledge.
      If so, I have to say that it is a fairly frequent occurrence. I have today listed and published 20 spending commitments in the social security sphere alone, the bulk of them put down in the name of Leader of the Opposition, that have been debated in this Parliament and to which we may suppose that the Labour party is committed. They effectively amount to the rejection of the average £4 billion a year of savings that I proposed, as a result of my Mais lecture, in social security spending by the end of the decade, and £14 billion a year in the next century.
      We know that the average working family—married couples and self-supporting lone parents—on average pay around £1,500 a year in extra tax to meet the cost of supporting lone parents on benefit. I do not believe that they want to spend hundreds of millions of pounds more on top of that, yet that is what the new clause would mean. They certainly will not believe any Labour leader who claims that he is against tax and spend while advocating that sort of policy.
      The Leader of the Opposition claims that he is clothing his party in the robes of fiscal responsibility, but the new clause shows that the emperor has no clothes. The Labour

      631
      party has no clothes; it is not so much new Labour as nude Labour. The proposals that we have before us today are typical of old Labour—throwing money at any problem and encouraging dependency.
      Mr. Wicks: I regret interrupting the sound bites. To get back to reality and, if I am allowed, to the new clause, am I right to say that it was under this Government that the amount of maintenance collected under the old regime declined and declined, at huge public cost, and that it is under this Government that the proportion of one-parent families dependent on income support, at great public cost, has risen and risen? The Government have spent and, as a consequence, they have had to tax.
      Mr. Lilley: There has been a trend under Governments of both parties, in this country and in many others, towards the break-up of the family and towards having children out of wedlock, both of which have contributed to the growth of lone parenthood, in Britain and abroad. We believe that that was aggravated by the old system of judgments that were made, but often not enforced, by the courts in cases where proper maintenance was not paid. That is why we, and the whole House, agreed to replace the old system with this system—with, I have to say, the honourable and straightforward support of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks).
      We believe that it is right to do so, because, ultimately, the responsibility for supporting children is that of both parents. Even if they split up, the taxpayer should come in only to the extent that the parents do not have the means to support their children. The Child Support Agency exists to assess whether parents have those means, and to ensure that they pay if they do. Where parents do not have the means, of course, the taxpayer has to bear much of the cost.
      Mr. Wicks: I am not in the business of always defending the last Labour Government, but my recollection is that, in the late 1970s, about four out of 10 one-parent families were on income support. That is a huge proportion, but it is now seven out of 10. The public expenditure implications of that are obvious to us.
      Mr. Lilley: Surely that is a reason for supporting the proposals which we have put forward and which are inherent in the Bill, not for increasing the level of benefit, which would encourage more people to remain on benefit and fewer to work.
      One of the reasons for the trend that the hon. Member mentioned is that, over that period, whereas more married women have gone out to work, fewer women lone parents have gone out to work. The number has declined. That must be for the very incentive reasons which I spelled out earlier, and which would be exacerbated were we to accept the new clause.
      For all those reasons, I believe that it is much better that we rely on maintenance credit and on the disregard in the in-work benefits, rather than on increasing the level of benefit arbitrarily for those who are receiving maintenance, thereby discouraging a return to work, costing the taxpayer money, and, not, I believe, leading to any measurable increase in compliance with the Child Support Agency.
      Mr. Bradley: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's opening remarks, but his speech went downhill from that point. We have always tried to be constructive, to try to
      632
      get equity into the system. The changes that have been made most recently in regulations and in the Bill have basically favoured the so-called absent parent. I do not argue with that, but the new clause attempts to bring in a disregard to try to get fairness and equity in the changes, and to give more support to parents with care.
      I am grateful for the contributions of my hon. Friends, which, as always through the passage of the Bill, have been extremely thoughtful and positive, particularly on the matter of a disregard.
      I am also grateful for the support of the Liberal Democrats for this proposal, but we have heard again tonight that their basic position is to scrap the Bill and replace it with family courts. I am pleased that, during the debate on new clause 4, which proposes an advisory committee and relates to family courts, their spokesperson will have the opportunity to give details about how family courts would work. They promised during the passage of the Bill that they would give us that detail. However, I will not stray into that now.
      It must be stressed again that, under the current arrangements parents with care on income support lose, pound for pound, for any maintenance paid. The sole intention of the new clause is to try to give more money to the poorest parents to help their children. It is not a case of the Labour party having no clothes. We are trying to ensure through the new clause that the parents with care can afford the clothes their children deserve. That is why we are trying to improve the financial situation of parents with care who have to rely on benefit.
      In his summing up, the Secretary of State said that there was a clear disincentive against going back to work, but he also, I think, said that many parents with care wanted to go back to work. I asked him about evidence of that disincentive. He did not provide any, but I hope that he will do so after the debate.
      The Secretary of State also repeated the arguments made in Committee and on Second Reading, that the way to alleviate poverty for lone parents is to enable them to return to work. I would not argue with that as a long-term aspiration, but lone parents, especially those with young children, should have the choice of bringing up their children themselves and remaining at home on a decent level of income. They may be on benefit, so the need for a disregard is paramount, to ensure that we raise marginally the level of income of those parents caring for children at home.
      6 pm
      My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said that he remembers the Tories advocating a family policy to enable mums to remain at home to look after their children. The headlines were reinforced by Tory propaganda about latchkey children. The Bill attempts to return to the situation in which lone parents are forced to return to work when they do not have adequate child care provision. The sole purpose of the new clause is to introduce a disregard, and bring those vital extra pennies into the family to support children.
      We strongly believe that a disregard would be an incentive to co-operate with the agency and pay what is required. It would mean that the public had confidence that the Child Support Agency was making money available to support children. The new clause puts children first and would give more money to the poorest

      633
      families to enable them to support their children. I urge the House to support us in our attempt to protect and support children, by supporting the new clause.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 259.

      Division No. 153]

      [6.01 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Ainger, Nick

      Fatchett, Derek

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Allen, Graham

      Flynn, Paul

      Alton, David

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Foulkes, George

      Ashton, Joe

      Fyfe, Maria

      Austin-Walker, John

      Galloway, George

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Garrett, John

      Barnes, Harry

      George, Bruce

      Barron, Kevin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Battle, John

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Gordon, Mildred

      Bell, Stuart

      Graham, Thomas

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Berry, Roger

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Boateng, Paul

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bradley, Keith

      Gunnell, John

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

      Hain, Peter

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Hall, Mike

      Burden, Richard

      Hanson, David

      Byers, Stephen

      Harvey, Nick

      Caborn, Richard

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Callaghan, Jim

      Henderson, Doug

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Heppell, John

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Hoey, Kate

      Cann, Jamie

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clapham, Michael

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hoyle, Doug

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Coffey, Ann

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Cohen, Harry

      Illsley, Eric

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Ingram, Adam

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Corston, Jean

      Jamieson, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Janner, Greville

      Cummings, John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jowell, Tessa

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Keen, Alan

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Denham, John

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dewar, Donald

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Dixon, Don

      Lewis, Terry

      Dobson, Frank

      Litherland, Robert

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dowd, Jim

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Eastham, Ken

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Enright, Derek

      McCartney, Ian

      Etherington, Bill

      Macdonald, Calum

      634

      McKelvey, William

      Rendel, David

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      McLeish, Henry

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      McMaster, Gordon

      Rogers, Allan

      MacShane, Denis

      Rooker, Jeff

      Madden, Max

      Rooney, Terry

      Mahon, Alice

      Ross, Emie (Dundee West)

      Marek, Dr John

      Ruddock, Joan

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Martlew, Eric

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Meacher, Michael

      Short, Clare

      Meale, Alan

      Simpson, Alan

      Michael, Alun

      Skinner, Dennis

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Milburn, Alan

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

      Miller, Andrew

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

      Spearing, Nigel

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Spellar, John

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Stevenson, George

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Stott, Roger

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Mullin, Chris

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Murphy, Paul

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Timms, Stephen

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Tipping, Paddy

      O'Hara, Edward

      Touhig, Don

      Olner, Bill

      Turner, Dennis

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Tyler, Paul

      Paisley, The Reverend Ian

      Vaz, Keith

      Pickthall, Colin

      Walley, Joan

      Pike, Peter L

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Pope, Greg

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Winnick, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Worthington, Tony

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Purchase, Ken

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Radice, Giles

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Randall, Stuart

      Mr. Peter Mandelson and

      Raynsford, Nick

      Mr. George Mudie.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Alexander, Richard

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Burns, Simon

      Amess, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Ancram, Michael

      Butterfill, John

      Arbuthnot, James

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Atkins, Robert

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Churchill, Mr

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clappison, James

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Bates, Michael

      Colvin, Michael

      Batiste, Spencer

      Congdon, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Booth, Hartley

      Couchman, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Cran, James

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

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

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Day, Stephen

      Brazier, Julian

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Devlin, Tim

      635

      Dicks, Terry

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

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

      Dover, Den

      Knox, Sir David

      Duncan, Alan

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Dunn, Bob

      Legg, Barry

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Leigh, Edward

      Elletson, Harold

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Lidington, David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lightbown, David

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Evennett, David

      Lord, Michael

      Faber, David

      Luff, Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Maclean, David

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Forth, Eric

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Madel, Sir David

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Malone, Gerald

      French, Douglas

      Mans, Keith

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Marland, Paul

      Gale, Roger

      Marlow, Tony

      Gallie, Phil

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Garnier, Edward

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gill, Christopher

      Mates, Michael

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Merchant, Piers

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Mills, Iain

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hague, William

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Norris, Steve

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Onstow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Harris, David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Hawkins, Nick

      Pawsey, James

      Hawksley, Warren

      Pickles, Eric

      Hayes, Jerry

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Heald, Oliver

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hendry, Charles

      Rathbone, Tim

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Riddick, Graham

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Horam, John

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

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

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Sackville, Tom

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Jack, Michael

      Shersby, Michael

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Sims, Roger

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Jessel, Toby

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Key, Robert

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Knapman, Roger

      Spicer, Michael (S Warcs)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      636

      Spring, Richard

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Sproat, Iain

      Walden, George

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Steen, Anthony

      Waller, Gary

      Stephen, Michael

      Ward, John

      Stem, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Stewart, Allan

      Watts, John

      Streeter, Gary

      Wells, Bowen

      Sweeney, Walter

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Sykes, John

      Whitney, Ray

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Whittingdale, John

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Thomason, Roy

      Willetts, David

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Wilshire, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Thumham, Peter

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Wood, Timothy

      Tracey, Richard

      Yeo, Tim

      Trend, Michael

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Trotter, Neville

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Mr. Sydney Chapman and

      Viggers, Peter

      Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New clause 4

      CHILD SUPPORT ADVISORY COMMITTE (No.2)
      ' .—(1) There shall be a body to be called the Child Support Advisory Committee ("the Committee").

      (2) The Committee shall consist of not less than eight and not more than fifteen members appointed by the Secretary of State.

      (3) The Secretary of State shall appoint one member of the Committee to chair its proceedings.

      (4) In appointing the members of the committee, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of appointing persons with experience and knowledge of—

      (a) family proceedings and the work of family courts;

      (b) child support legislation; and

      (c) the welfare of children.

      (5) It shall be the duty of the Committee to advise the Secretary of State on the working of child support legislation, and to make recommendations, when it sees fit, for amending such legislation.

      (6) It shall be the duty of the Committee to prepare an annual report and to submit it to the Secretary of State.

      (7) The report prepared under subsection (6) above shall include—

      (a) details of the number of child maintenance assessments made in the year, and an analysis of their effect on child welfare;

      (b) details of the number of departure directions made in the year, and an analysis of their impact on the effectiveness of child maintenance;

      (c) details of the number of reviews undertaken by child support officers in the year, and an analysis of the results of these reviews;

      (d) details of the number of appeals made to child support appeal tribunals in the year together with an analysis of the grounds of appeals and the findings of the tribunals, and its assessment of any implications of that analysis for the reform of child support legislation; and

      (e) any other matters which the Committee considers appropriate.

      (8) The Secretary of State shall lay copies of each report made to him under subsection (6) above before both Houses of Parliament.

      (9) Any expenses incurred by the members of the Committee appointed under this section may be reimbursed by the Secretary of State out of moneys provided by Parliament.'.—[Mr. Dewar.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Donald Dewar: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I am delighted to move the new clause and I assure the Secretary of State that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I are as one on this matter, as we are on most matters.
      Mr. Lilley: Equally to blame.
      Mr. Dewar: The right hon. Gentleman can put it that way if he wants, but we will let the nation judge.
      During the last minute or two I have managed to obtain a copy of the press release referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. I will not go into the detail because others will no doubt wish to do so. However, it begins with what is positively the most offensive pun, in terms of taste, that I have seen for a long time. It is an extraordinary production.
      However, I am glad to see that of the 20 major and decisive spending commitments that I am accused of making—which apparently will change the whole tide of fiscal history in the United Kingdom—the 20th is the new clause that we are about to discuss. That puts the matter into some sort of perspective. Apparently, the appointment of an advisory body is evidence of the fiscal irresponsibility upon which the right hon. Gentleman founds his case. I need hardly tell him that we will be looking carefully at the list and will want to comment on it in due course. I find it a remarkably unconvincing indictment and it is not one that could be taken to a higher court, never mind the high court of Parliament, by a politician with any sense of perspective.
      I suppose that, in a way, I am flattered, but it seems lunatic for the Secretary of State to assume, for example, that because one tables a question seeking information, in which one asks for the costing of a development at varying levels, one is making a spending commitment at the level of the highest variable. That does not do the Secretary of State's credibility much good.
      Mr. Lilley: It would be simple for the hon. Gentleman to tell us how much he would give in a maintenance disregard, or any of the other items to which he referred. Since he is always prepared to bandy numbers about but not to commit himself, he cannot complain if others put an obvious construction on the numbers that he uses.
      Mr. Dewar: It is not an obvious construction. To put it as charitably as possible, the right hon. Gentleman has been in Government too long. When he arrives on the Opposition Benches I wonder whether he will hesitate, saying, "I would like that information, but my goodness if I ask for it, the Government are entitled to say that that is a spending commitment." No sensible person would take that approach. I suggest that he should reconsider his position.
      I do not want to proceed too far down that line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will confine myself to saying that I would be genuinely surprised to discover that I am as generous a Santa Claus figure as the Secretary of State imagines. It would come as an even greater surprise to the many lobbying groups that have come to me looking for promises and discovered that they are not easy to obtain, for good hard-headed and practical reasons—that is, the problems that the Labour Government are likely to inherit. If the Secretary of State wants something to worry about today, he might consider one sentence in the White Paper on competitiveness.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Does the one sentence refer to the child support advisory committee?
      Mr. Dewar: I—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The answer is either yes or no.
      Mr. Dewar: Even for someone in your impartial position, Mr. Deputy Speaker, answers of yes or no are dangerous. I will merely suggest that the Secretary of State might worry about the Government's inability to help raise living standards in old age, which is mentioned in the White Paper, and the more interesting suggestion that taxation policy is totally out of the Government's control because of global movements of capital across national frontiers.
      Item 20 on the Secretary of State's list is the interesting and important new clause that we are discussing. The new clause has been tabled because the child support advisory committee is a genuine subject for discussion and debate. I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, who is replying to the debate, will say that the committee is unnecessary because we already have the Select Committees on Social Security and on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—the ombudsman—the Social Security Advisory Committee and the chief child support officer.
      I accept that a range of people deal, on an ad hoc or occasional basis, with the facts, figures and development of the Child Support Agency. The trouble is that even they should be redundant if the agency were producing the sort of overall and comprehensive figure in its annual reports that would allow one to take a clear view of what is happening, but I am afraid that that is not the case. The agency has become a special case in many ways, but especially in view of its daunting and, at times, depressing record—a fact that Ministers have conceded. After every allowance is made for special circumstances, every alibi weighed in the balance and every explanation explored, the deplorable fact remains that, in many ways, the agency has been an administrative nightmare. Arguably, it has missed many of its social targets—I say arguably because the figures are obscure.
      I must make it clear that the Opposition recognise that the task of the agency, and no doubt of the Department, has been greatly hampered by people who have not co-operated. On occasions, non co-operation has been taken to lengths that I condemn and from which I would distance my party. Having said that, many people have commented on the failure to learn by past mistakes, such as the introduction of the disability living allowance. We are in the sad situation that many people who are in touch with the agency see its administrative record and the policy framework within which it operates as adding insult to perceived injury.
      I will give one or two brief examples, as I do not want to delay the House. I referred to the chief child support officer who has a remit under section 13 of the Child Support Act 1991. According to the foreword of his recent report the remit includes
      "the making, review or cancellation of maintenance assessments … by Child Support Officers…within the Child Support Agency".
      The figures that he produced, which will be familiar to many hon. Members—certainly to the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security—were remarkable. Of the 1,188 maintenance assessments examined and taken for

      639
      analysis, 157 were found to be correct, 545 to be incorrect and there was insufficient evidence to tell whether the other 486 were correct or incorrect. I rehearse those as an aide-memoire to hon. Members about the scale of the problems that we have been facing. Only 157 assessments out of 1,188 could possibly be said—on the face of the file—to be accurate and as they should have been.
      Of course, a series of reports from the Select Committees on Social Security and on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration have commented harshly on what has been happening and it is important to remember that great efforts are being made to improve the position. There have been changes at the top in the Child Support Agency and there is no doubt about that. I talked to the new chief executive, Ann Chant, and I appreciate that the agency is trying to make some sort of order out of what appears to have been a good deal of chaos.
      I hope that this is not evidence of individual human frailty on my part, but as far as I am concerned it is still extremely difficult to discover with any accuracy what the position is. I am thinking, for example, of the amount of money that the agency takes in maintenance and in other ways as a result of maintenance assessments, the benefit savings and their definition, the liable relative carry-over and what percentage it is of the total, the amount going to children who live in families and the amount going in benefit savings to the Treasury, the number of parents with care who have been floated off—the term that has become jargon—benefit and the number of good cause cases that have not been accepted when there is some dispute as to whether information is being withheld, either properly or improperly, by parents with care at the start of the process.
      In March, I made determined efforts to establish some of those things, on the basis that we were about to have the Second Reading of the Bill. I looked—with advice and some help—at the Child Support Agency's annual report and the various parliamentary questions available to us. It was due only to the fact that the chief executive of the agency readily conceded a meeting that I subsequently got a memorandum that tried to deal with some of those fundamental statistics and I pay tribute to her for that. I think that it was agreed, by implication, that the statistics could not have been collected in any other way because they were not generally available. I have before me the three-page memorandum that I received in March. Even then, it threw up a good number of questions when I tried to move the debate on and satisfy myself that I had good grounds for making various points.
      6.30 pm
      It is easy to say, "That is a simple, basic list of questions. You should be able to get that information easily out of a parliamentary question." It is not so. May I take a simple example and ask for the comments of the Under-Secretary of State, whom we have in our line of sight? It is not a case of trying to shoot the poor man down. He has enough troubles without our adding to them, but this is a good opportunity to get him to elucidate a recent parliamentary question. I recently asked for the average maintenance assessment, excluding those who were on income support, and the answer was £43.46.
      That is an interesting figure because it is the average weekly maintenance payable by absent parents who receive income from employment, but it excludes people
      640
      who may also be on income support. I think that it includes an average of families with one, two or three children, so it is not per capita but per family unit. I presume that that average figure will fall further as a result of the administrative changes that went through in April. I believe that a drop of £5 to £10 is expected, as there was a parliamentary answer to that effect. Unlike the Secretary of State, I do not immediately assume that it will be a £10 drop. I am prepared to accept that the drop may be of only £5, but it will greatly reduce the figure of £43.46.
      This is relevant to the new clause, as I am trying to establish why, exceptionally, there is a case for a review body and an outside assessment. I draw the attention of the House to a parliamentary answer obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) on 18 May. This may be a moment of curiosity on my part. It may not raise a major issue of principle, but I should have expected that the answer to my hon. Friend would have been in the form of a letter from Miss Ann Chant. Although it clearly deals with agency statistics, it has apparently been answered by the Under-Secretary and the Ministry and I am puzzled as to why that has happened. I hasten to say that I do not object. If it is a trend, I am prepared to endorse and welcome it. This will be another area for common ground for an all-party alliance, which is what the Secretary of State is always striving to achieve. Will he say a word or two in explanation?
      I hurry over the first table in the parliamentary answer, which deals with
      "Benefit Status of Parent with Care and Absent Parent at 11 March 1995"—[Official Report, 18 May 1995; Vol. 260, c. 331.]—
      because, with the best will in the world, I cannot understand it. I have asked several people more versed in statistics than me to explain it. I intimated that I was concerned and puzzled about the figures, so perhaps the Under-Secretary has been taking advice and we shall have the benefit of it in a moment.
      Will the Under-Secretary look at some of the other figures in the parliamentary answer, which I understand but cannot easily explain? The table at the top of column 332 shows that the average maintenance assessment, which is a full assessment excluding interim maintenance assessments, for absent parents not on income support—what I prefer to call "liable parents not on income support"—is £37.22. That is significantly lower than the £43.46 but the explanation, which I accept, is that the higher figure refers to liable parents who are not in receipt of income support but who have income from employment, whereas the lower figure refers to all absent parents who are not in receipt of income support but who may receive another state benefit or have no income. I see that that might slightly reduce the average figure.
      However, as the Minister will see from the maintenance assessments, which fall between £0 and £2.30, that sum is paid by 24.4 per cent. of the total number of people who pay maintenance or are assessed for maintenance purposes. I do not doubt the accuracy of the figure because it is in a parliamentary answer but I should like a comment on it because, as the House will remember, those people are not on income support. Most of them are in employment, so it seems remarkable that 24.4 per cent. of them should pay below the minimum figure expected from someone on income support. I simply do not understand how that figure can be so high. It is not a case

      641
      of what they pay but what they are being asked to pay. For one in four people who are not on income support, most of whom are in employment, to pay less than £2.30 is astonishing and I do not understand how it happens.
      The table also shows the full maintenance assessment for liable parents on income support, which is very clear. My understanding always was—clearly, I have got it wrong and should perhaps appear in sackcloth and ashes—that people on income support paid a minimum of £2.30, which has just been uprated to £2.34. The average maintenance assessment—not what is paid—for people on income support is £0.93, which is an awful lot short of £2.34. We also see that 58.9 per cent. of people on income support who have been assessed have a nil assessment. I do not understand that. I do not necessarily object to it because, if there is a good explanation—
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social (Mr. Alistair Burt): The second table to which the hon. Gentleman refers relates to people with second families. Those on income support but with a second family have a nil assessment.
      Mr. Dewar: Is the Minister saying that as many as 60 per cent. of those on income support fall into that category?
      Mr. Burt: Yes.
      Mr. Dewar: Right. I shall think about that, but it seems to be a remarkable statistic.
      Mr. Burt rose—
      Mr. Dewar: The Under-Secretary may want to comment later. I hope that the House does not think that I am making too much of this matter. I merely use this as an illustration, as it is the most recent information to reach me, because it throws up an enormous number of questions which are not easily answered and which suggest that something is out of sync and out of balance in the results that are being produced.
      Mr. Burt: May I help the hon. Gentleman on that table? We were asked for a snapshot of current figures, which is what the table represents. Many of the cases that have already been cleared were the simplest to deal with. Where information comes back and someone is on benefit, it is often simple and straightforward to deal with the administration. A number of cases pending are those where there is a dispute about earnings, where the agency is seeking verification of earnings, or where the person is self-employed. If we were to take all the cases currently on the books, whether or not an assessment has been made, we would expect those figures to change. The proportion of those who are on income support is therefore greater in the assessments that have been cleared than would be expected once all the work has been done. That is why there is now an imbalance. If the hon. Gentleman were to ask for the same figures in 12 or 24 months' time, we suspect that the answers and proportions would be different.
      Mr. Dewar: That makes the case for monitoring closely, and in a way that is more constructive than exchanges across the Floor of the House or the somewhat one-sided process of parliamentary questioning.
      642
      I have to say to the Under-Secretary of State that it is an eloquent comment on what has been happening that, two and a quarter years into the agency system, he is able to advance, as an explanation for what are obviously very skewed results, the fact that it has been difficult to deal with difficult cases.
      Mr. Burt indicated assent.
      Mr. Dewar: It may be true, but it is an unfortunate comment. It appears to me to make the case that I am trying—perhaps rather laboriously—to establish for a review body of the type suggested in the new clause.
      After all, at the moment the number of maintenance assessments that show no employment income is 43.8 per cent.—a very large percentage indeed—and, if 60 per cent. of those parents make a nil contribution, it says something interesting about the way in which the scheme is proceeding. I do not know whether the Minister wants to comment further, but we can, and doubtless will, pursue those matters by letter.
      In any event, I contend that the figures show how difficult it has been to establish the administration of the agency on a proper basis. I hope—as I quite often do—that I am wrong, but I suspect that there may be difficult passages ahead of us. I do not want to be ungracious for a moment about change that we demanded, and which is now on the way. It is not what we wanted; it is certainly not all that we wanted. However, we were keen to have a procedure whereby one could apply for a departure from the usual financial formula, and now it is important that that works well, that it responds quickly in cases where it is needed and that it is seen to be injecting a measure of fairness into a system that is perceived as unfair. Monitoring and adjusting will be key, and in that respect I envisage the child support advisory committee having a useful role.
      That is also true of clean break settlements, which, as you will remember, Mr. Deputy Speaker, apply only to agreements made before April 1993, and which are based on what was reasonably directly called "a broad brush approach" in the White Paper. There is also the vexed question of travel costs. Those will throw up many difficulties. I hope that they will throw up, in the longer term, solutions to some of our problems, but in the teething period there will be frustrations and perhaps mysteries about the way in which the system works. Therefore the need for monitoring is repeatedly proved by experience, and will be proved again.
      There are unexpected aspects in which policy advice from an outside source that perhaps was seen as not being contaminated by contact with the Opposition Benches might, one hopes, bring about some improvement.
      I received a parliamentary answer—perhaps I should have updated it, and I apologise to the House. It is for 1994–95, but it runs from April 1994 to the end of January 1995. It produced what, to me, was another astonishing figure—that special payments for financial redress have been made only 34 times in that period.
      I know the experience of Conservative Members because it has been voiced in the past. There is a very thin turn-out today, but in the past Conservative Members have expressed many complaints and anxieties about the number of angry scenes, confrontations, complaints and anxieties and the amount of stress and strain that the system has caused. It is remarkable that the compensation system is so hedged and circumscribed that it produced only 34 payments for financial redress.

      643
      Select Committees have made many other criticisms of the way in which matters have developed, as has the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Administration, who, as my colleagues will remember, reached the conclusion that he could not take on any more cases unless they produced some new point of principle because of the flood of complaints that he was receiving. He made it clear, as did the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, that he saw much of the seed of that discontent in mistakes by Ministers. I quote the Committee:
      "We are in no doubt that maladministration in the CSA cannot be divorced from the responsibility of Ministers for the framework within which it operated"
      and that
      "any policy deficiency was cruelly exacerbated by administrative incompetence".
      That is from paragraphs 27 and 35 of House of Commons paper 199.
      I hope that I have established that there is anxiety that the system needs a great deal of monitoring. It should receive that monitoring. Co-ordinated scrutiny is needed—we do not want the "dipstick" approach—and it should be carried out by a group of the type that we recommend, which will involve individuals of experience with a wide background and knowledge of the area.
      6.45 pm
      I am not trying to land the Secretary of State with professional critics; I seek tough, realistic assessors. I do not seek a hanging party, a lynch party—unless the circumstances justify that. There is every advantage in a committee that can examine things impartially, to lend some perspective to what I think everyone will see from the record has become the rather blinkered approach of those in command politically.
      Mr. Timms: In supporting the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for a child support advisory committee, I wish to concentrate on one aspect of the system that has been created—the formula by which maintenance assessments from absent parents are calculated, and especially the protected income provisions.
      I am grateful for work that has been carried out by Christopher Allen of the London Business School, which he has shown me. He has considered the maintenance formula system as part of the taxation system and drawn some conclusions about it, many of which are striking. I wish to draw them to the attention of the House.
      The protected income provisions in the formula are intended to ensure that an absent parent is better off working than on income support. The formula assessment compares the maintenance demand with that protected income figure and, if necessary, the maintenance assessment is reduced to allow the absent parent to retain their protected income level.
      The protected income provisions were made considerably more generous in February 1994, the last time that the attempt was made to repair that system. Since then, the arrangements have allowed for £30 earned income in excess of income support levels, plus 15 per cent. of a new partner's income. The provisions have undoubtedly had some impact because, as the figures provided in the parliamentary answer to which my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden referred show, about
      644
      10 and a half per cent. of full maintenance assessments for non-benefit cases are now assessed at a zero contribution. That is considerably more than was the case when the social security statistics were published, the date to which those apply being June 1994.
      Paradoxically, that increased generosity has considerably worsened the poverty trap for those people who earn slightly more than the protected income threshold, because the post-maintenance income of people earning between £30 and £60 above the exempt income level will be reduced to the protected income level. That represents a 100 per cent. marginal tax rate on their income. Remarkably, the figures in the written answer show that about one third—32.8 per cent.—of the non-benefit cases with which the agency is dealing fall in that category.
      I can explain how that system works. The research paper 94/20, which the House of Commons Library produced last year before the changes were made last February, states:
      "If paying the proposed maintenance would reduce the absent parent and any new family to a level of income below the protected income, the child maintenance payable is decreased so that the absent parent is left with the protected level of income."
      Conversely, if the absent parent's income increases because of additional overtime payments or other such factors, the child maintenance payable is increased. The marginal increase in income—all 100 per cent.—is taken away by the formula. That is an extraordinary system, and, taken together with the benefit system, it means that absent parents are no better off, and may be worse off, if they take a better job or work additional overtime.
      I wonder how that position has arisen. It was suggested earlier that the Treasury had intervened in some aspects of the system. The Treasury certainly has not intervened in the formula. The arrangements that have been reached appear to be entirely contrary to the Government's normal taxation policies.
      A large proportion of maintenance assessments—one third of them—fall within the range. If we take 100 per cent. of the marginal income increases of people on relatively low and modest incomes, the system becomes insupportable. I have no confidence that we will not be here in a year's time trying to do yet another desperate repair job on a system that is breaking down. For that reason I strongly believe that we need the monitoring arrangements described by my hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden. We need a committee that can investigate what is going on and that can propose changes to create a sustainable and supportable system. We have not yet achieved such a system.
      I shall say a few words about those who fall beyond the £30 to £60 band. The effect of the protected income system are clearly the most aggressive aspects of the maintenance system, but even without those provisions the system is extremely regressive. Up to the payment in full of the maintenance allowance, the marginal rate on take-home income is 50 per cent. If we take into account national insurance contributions and the 25 per cent. income tax level, the overall marginal tax plus maintenance rate over that range is 77 per cent. The absent parent will keep only 23 per cent. of additional earnings. The position might be acceptable if the money represented a transfer of money to improve the children's welfare, but, as we have heard, it does not. That is one specific example, but it is by no means the only one.

      645
      The system towards which we are moving still contains severe anomalies and insupportable elements that will require further attention. The changes that are proposed in the Bill are helpful, but as I understand it, they increase the scope of protected and exempt income and push the problems that I have been describing up the income scale. There will still be a large proportion of agency cases who suffer 100 per cent. marginal payment rates in maintenance plus tax. That problem and others like it require the monitoring arrangements proposed by my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Burt: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) introduced the new clause in an entertaining manner and tried to divert the attention of the House away from the excellent press release that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State published today. On this occasion, as on all others, I wholly subscribe to the views of my right hon. Friend. The easiest way for the hon. Member for Garscadden to clear up any confusion about what his party intends to do and how it intends to finance it is for him to come clean now about my right hon. Friend's statements and deal with the matter once and for all. I suspect that we will be unable to deal with that matter simply today, as we have been asking for a long time for evidence of what the Labour party intends to do should it come to office, and the answers are always fudged.
      I remember the celebrated exchange in Committee when the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) asked the Government to provide more substantial child care support through family credit—a subject to which he might return today. I asked him how much and he gave an extremely evasive answer. I suspect that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's efforts to get answers on the subject will have limited success. However, that subject is not the substance of our discussions today and I shall hurry on to deal with the new clause.
      The hon. Member for Garscadden also described some of the advice groups that give information to all of us about the effects of the Child Support Agency. He was right to draw a distinction between some of the groups that give us reasonable and straightforward advice and some that appear to have gone slightly too far in some of their activities and the way in which they object to the CSA.
      I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman dissociated himself and his party from some of the more extreme activities that we have seen. I am afraid that those activities still continue. The group, Network Against the Child Support Act, in its current periodical clearly suggests to its members that they should lie to the agency to get information and that they should seek to make life difficult for the officers of the CSA simply in order to disrupt the system. They then wonder why we feel aggrieved at such action and suggest that it does not help anyone. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for dissociating himself from such groups and hope that he continues to do so.
      As the hon. Gentleman has explained, the new clause provides for an advisory committee to advise the Secretary of State on the workings of the child support scheme. We value consultation; there was a wide-ranging consultation exercise before regulations were made under
      646
      the 1991 Act. We have always taken careful note of the advice of the Select Committee on Social Security and the views of other interested parties in developing the improvements to the child support scheme of which the Bill's provisions form a key part.
      We have also had a constructive dialogue with many representatives of absent parents, parents with care and those with experience of family law issues. In developing the changes that we announced in January, we consulted eminent family lawyers and we correspond frequently about the child support scheme with many organisations, including the National Council for One Parent Families, Child Poverty Action Group, citizens advice bureaux and the Law Society. Whatever problems we may have had with child support, they have not been for lack of consultation and it is not clear how the new clause can assist. The Government's main concern is not so much that the new clause and its implications will add to consultation, but that it will obscure existing responsibilities—the hon. Gentleman acknowledged at the beginning of his remarks that that was the main flaw in his argument.
      In addition to the function of overseeing legislation—analogous to that of the Social Security Advisory Committee—the proposed child support advisory committee would be required to monitor operational aspects of child support. It is on that subject that the committee's proposed annual reports would focus. In that respect, the committee would duplicate the role, not only of the Select Committee on Social Security, but of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the National Audit Office and the chief child support officer.
      Both the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the National Audit Office have reported on the operation of the child support scheme. They have drawn attention to problems with those operations and, in response, Ministers have indicated the steps that are being taken to address those problems—in particular, by improved methods within the agency for measuring accuracy, additional checking and enhanced training for staff.
      The hon. Gentleman concentrated briefly on the report of the chief child support officer and he was correct to deal with the shortcomings of the agency which the chief child support officer found. However, I remind all hon. Members that, although comments were raised in 86 per cent. of the sample, that does not mean that the assessment was incorrect in every case. We agree that the accuracy rate has been poor and inadequate and we are exerting a great deal of effort to put it right. The agency aims to reduce that comment rate, which was previously 86 per cent of the sample, to 40 per cent. of the sample as soon as possible. That is a particularly demanding target which has been chosen to reflect the importance that the agency attaches to the judgment of its performance by independent bodies.
      There is great determination to reach that target in 1995–96 and to deal with the problems that have caused that high figure. Action taken to date includes remedial action on accuracy and quality initiatives. The agency's second-year plan has dealt with many problems. There has been a reorganisation of reviews and appeal work and we have developed staff training further. We have taken serious notice of the reports by the chief child support officer. He is part of the vital monitoring equipment that is built into the work of the Child Support Agency. That

      647
      is his job, and it is another reason why we do not believe that the superfluous committee that has been mentioned this evening is necessary.
      Many of the changes announced in the White Paper entitled "Improving Child Support" are also aimed at improving the operation of the child support scheme. I have no doubt that both the Parliamentary Commissioner and the National Audit Office will continue to provide valuable information about areas where we can improve the scheme and that Ministers will continue to respond positively to that feedback.
      Hon. Members will be aware that the post of the chief child support officer was set up under the Child Support Act 1991 to advise child support officers on the performance of their duties. His functions, which he discharges independently of Ministers or the Department of Social Security, include monitoring child support adjudication and reporting annually on performance. His annual reports contain much that is of use in identifying areas where further work is needed and I know that he and agency managers are committed to working together to improve performance.
      7 pm
      The Department and the agency are involved in an on-going process of evaluating the effectiveness of child support policy and operations. That goes beyond responding to external comment and advice; the agency is seeking the views of key stakeholders by means of regular meetings and it has set challenging charter standards that will be monitored carefully. Officials will continue to monitor the policy, particularly the changes introduced in April and those introduced in the Bill. In addition, the departure system will be piloted before its full introduction in order to identify and solve any unforeseen complications.
      There is already considerable overlap between the functions of those who advise about child support and the tasks of a proposed child support advisory committee. In my view, the inevitable overlap would seriously hamper the effectiveness of an advisory committee in the child support field. There is simply no distinct role for a new quango such as the child support advisory committee, either in advising about areas where legislation could be improved or in monitoring the performance of the Child Support Agency.
      There was an exchange across the Floor of the House in relation to a question raised by the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms). He referred to a table that he had particular difficulty following. It would be a cheap shot if I were to say that I cannot see where his difficulty lies. I will not say that, because the table requires quite careful interpretation. Once the hon. Gentleman spots the key, he will find it easy to understand; but one needs to spot the key first. I shall try to assist the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members who may wish to examine the table in more detail.
      The table seeks to illustrate the total number of parents with care—488,000—and to show how many of them are in receipt of benefit. That figure comprises the 391,000 parents with care who are on income support, 63,600 on family credit and 33,400 who receive no benefit. The table then relates each of those figures to the absent parents and their benefit status. For example, of the 391,000 parents with care who are on income support, 77,800 absent parents receive income support, 18,200 are on invalidity benefit,
      648
      138,900 are not on benefit and for 156,100 the benefit status is unknown. That is how the table works: it seeks to relate parents with care to the benefit status of absent parents. The benefit status of absent parents is the column on the right and the parent-with-care column is on the left. I must admit that I can see where the hon. Gentleman's confusion lies at first glance. However, I hope that I have made the situation a little clearer. If he wishes to take up the matter with me later, I shall explain it further.
      The hon. Member for Newham, North-East raised some questions in relation to protected income and the like. He did not give me previous notice of the figures, which I shall examine. I make it clear that protected income is designed to ensure that there is adequate support for the absent parent and his family. That is not the element that ensures that he is better off in work; the element that ensures that the absent parent is better off in work is the amount over and above that element which is built into the formula to make sure that the parent is not simply existing on benefit. The marginal deduction rate is not as high as 100 per cent. when one adds in that figure—it is something like 85 per cent. That is a high figure, but it is not the 100 per cent. figure that the hon. Gentleman cited. I will examine the figures that he has cited tonight and give him a full answer.
      The fact that those questions can be asked and answered by the agency and by Department of Social Security Ministers together with the other equipment that is already built into the system to monitor and control the operations of the Child Support Agency demonstrate that there are enough mechanisms to deal with any queries. The House seeks to ensure that the system works. After two and a half years of live running, we know much more than we knew at the start of the process. Hon. Members have said many times that those who have established agencies similar to ours in other countries have faced similar difficulties. One cannot know a great deal until one gets started.
      We are now determined to make sure that the system works better and more efficiently in order to deal with the problems that our constituents raise. I take each problem extremely seriously and the monitoring process to which hon. Members contribute is extremely important to the future of the agency. I ask hon. Members to recognise the monitoring equipment that is already in place and to accept my assurances that an extra committee is not necessary. I ask the House to reject new clause 4.
      Mr. Dewar: I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy in trying to deal with the various points that I raised. Even when offered the key, I still find the table somewhat complex. The Minister will be glad to know that he has helped me; he will be able to enter the field of education after the next election if he does not wish to return to his solicitor's office—we dream dreams. I now understand that parents with care are in the first column of the table and that that column is then broken down across the other four columns. I am glad that I now understand the table.
      Mr. Burt: No charge.
      Mr. Dewar: I am sure that there is no charge. I pay taxes which help to pay the wages of the civil servants who instruct the Minister. I do not need to feel at all guilty. I will not continue this rather informal conversation as I am sure that it would test your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

      649
      I am still unclear as to where in the table we find those parents with care who work. The Minister says sotto voce that there are "very few". The benefit status of 203,000 absent parents is not known. Does that figure include parents who work? Presumably, quite a number of absent parents are in employment. That seems to be of interest.
      Mr. Burt: The whole point of the statistics relating to the parents with care is to emphasise that more than 90 per cent. of parents with care who are in the system are in receipt of benefit. That is a measure of the extent of the burden being carried by the community at large, and of why a contribution from absent parents to improve the position of those parents with care is so desperately needed. It was one of the major reasons why the agency was set up in the first place.
      Mr. Dewar: I am tempted to say that that sounds like a good argument for a disregard, but that would relate to the previous amendment and I must not stray into that.
      I assume that there must be a number of absent parents in work. Presumably, they appear in the "benefit status not known" column, which seems a little odd as the figure is so high.
      The mysteries can be pursued at another level and on another basis. I remain unconvinced by the Minister's arguments. I recognise, however, that quangos are not popular and that Governments introduce quangos, advisory bodies, non-departmental public bodies and so on only when there is a clear case and a clear need for them. I began by saying that I thought that it was a special case and the somewhat arcane discussion about parliamentary answers was an attempt to establish that. It could probably be more effectively established by the cries of pain from the many people who feel ill-used by the system. Some of them may have a special point of view, but there is no doubt that there is still a perception of injustice about, and that alone would have merited at least consideration of the committee proposed in the new clause.
      The Minister, however, possibly because he wishes to be at one with his senior colleague, has hardened his heart. I was touched by his assurance that he supported everything that the Secretary of State did. I believe that politicians ought to have two personae. Inevitably, one has to support loyalties and collective decisions, but one should not commit oneself heart and soul laminated to one's senior colleague, however admirable one may consider him to be. I shall not inquire into quite how admirable the Minister thinks the Secretary of State is, but it seemed that a moral absolute was being proclaimed that will do the Minister's reputation no good.
      The Under-Secretary of State has always been seen as a little wet and well intentioned. Although it may be an embarrassment within the Department, it stands him in good stead, at least with public opinion, and he should not sacrifice it too easily.
      In any event, I have listened to the arguments and I do not wish to divide the House. We can return to the matter on another occasion, and no doubt we shall do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Timms) said, I do not believe for a moment that this is the last time that we shall debate the Child Support Act. I am certain that we shall return to it many more times
      650
      and I look forward to that pleasure. No doubt the Minister, having noted we are not taking the matter to a vote will note that amendment No. 20 on the Secretary of State's list had better be deleted.
      Question put and negatived.

    Schedule 1

      DEPARTURE DIRECTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 38, in page 24, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 and insert—
      '8.—(1) Regulations may provide for two or more departure applications with respect to the same current assessment to be considered together.
      (2) A child support appeal tribunal considering—

      (a) a departure application referred to it under section 28D(1)(b), or

      (b) an appeal under section 28H,

      may consider it at the same time as hearing an appeal under section 20 in respect of the current assessment, if it considers that to be appropriate.'.—[Mr. Burt.]

    Clause 6

      DEPARTURE DIRECTIONS
      Amendment made: No. 12, in page 5, line 21, leave out from '(1)' to 'the' in line 22.
      Mr. Bradley: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 5, line 23, after 'State', insert—

      '(a) shall give a departure direction, if he is satisfied that the case is one which falls within the provisions relating to child care costs as set out in paragraph 1A of Part I of Schedule 4B; or

      (b)'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 5, in page 5, line 25, after 'in', insert
      'paragraphs 2 to 4 of'.
      No. 6, in page 5, line 30, at end insert—
      '(1A) Subsections (2) and (3) below shall not apply to departure directions relating to child care costs to be made in accordance with the provisions of subsection (1)(a) above and paragraph 1A of Schedule 4B.'.
      No. 7, in page 5, line 47, at end insert—
      '(3A) The Secretary of State shall, by regulations, make provision as to the circumstances in which he would have just cause to decline to make a departure direction under the provisions of paragraph 1A of Schedule 4B.'.
      No. 8, in schedule 2, page 25, line 12, at end insert—'Child care expenses—
      1A. Unless the Secretary of State can show just cause to do otherwise, on the application of a person with care, a departure direction shall be given with respect to expenses of the applicant necessarily incurred to provide child care required to enable the applicant to take up, or remain in, full-time or part-time employment, which were not, and could not have been, taken into account in determining the current assessment in accordance with the provisions of, or made under, Part I of Schedule 1.'.
      No. 9, in page 27, line 21, leave out 'special'.
      No. 10, in page 27, line 22, leave out 'paragraph' and insert 'paragraphs 1A or'.
      No. 11, in schedule 3, page 29, line 30, after 'insert" ', insert '28F(3A),'.
      Mr. Bradley: The amendment relates to schedule 2, entitled "Departure Directions". Although we welcome the main thrust of the Bill, to introduce departure

      651
      directions for special cases, the amendment seeks to include the cost of child care in the six-point menu of items in schedule 2 that identifies the special expenses that can be used by absent parents, and also by parents with care, to seek a departure direction.
      The amendment specifies the parent with care, but it could apply equally to the absent parent. Throughout our deliberations on the Bill, we have always tried to strike a balance between the interests of parents with care and the so-called absent parent, and amendment No. 39 attempts to strike that balance on a measure that may be used, particularly by the parent with care, for the departure direction.
      7.15 pm
      Throughout the passage of the Bill, we recognised that the emphasis should remain on the formula for the maintenance assessments and that the departure direction should be used only in special cases. However, we do not believe that adding child care costs undermines that principle. It could be argued that the items already in the menu of special expenses are more likely to be used by the absent parents, whereas child care costs are more relevant to the parent with care; therefore, the amendment represents another attempt to redress the balance between those competing interests and to introduce equity and fairness to the departure direction system.
      There are many reasons why the Government should accept the amendment. It is clear from our debates earlier today that they consider that the most appropriate way to alleviate family poverty is for the lone parent to return to work, hence the arguments behind their rejection of the child maintenance disregard and their proposal to introduce the child maintenance bonus. However, it seems to us that they want it both ways by denying the fact that child care costs are a significant element in a decision to return to work. If the Government were consistent in their argument that the best way to alleviate poverty is for people to return to work, they should examine every possibility of enhancing that opportunity, and particular to that is the need to take into account child care costs in the departure formula.
      It is a similar argument to one that the Government rightly accepted—that travel-to-work costs should provide a ground for departure, in addition to the provision currently available in the formula. The argument of trying to avoid work disincentives, and even to increase incentives, applies to child care costs in the same way as it does to travel-to-work costs, which the Government accepted.
      The issues raised by the amendment were well explored in Committee, when the Government set out their objections to the proposal, but, as we made quite clear in Committee, that did not stop our attempts to change the Government's mind. We hope that they gave the matter further consideration in the period between the end of our deliberations in Committee and those on Report and that, on reflection, they consider it relevant to include child care costs in the list of special expenses.
      It will be worth while briefly exploring the Government's reasons for rejection. It was never clear in Committee how the definitive list of six items in the special expenses list was determined. Schedule 2 shows them as the costs incurred in travelling to work; costs incurred by an absent parent in maintaining contact with the child; costs attributable to a long-term illness or
      652
      disability of the applicant or of a dependant of the applicant; debts incurred before the absent parent became an absent parent in relation to a child with respect to whom the current assessment was made, with significant amendments; pre-1993 financial commitments from which it is impossible for the parent concerned to withdraw or from which it would be unreasonable for the parent to withdraw; and costs incurred by a parent in supporting a child who is not his child but who is part of his family.
      I would be grateful if the Minister will elaborate on the basis on which those items were chosen. What research was undertaken on those exclusions—and of child care costs, for them to be specifically excluded from the departure direction? The Minister said in Committee that there was considerable research. I hope that he will provide further information tonight.
      The Government claim that an addition for child care costs would have little effect on the overall assessment. Many organisations, including the Law Society and Child Poverty Action Group, believe that pre-empts the way in which regulations may be framed and departure officers handle individual cases. The purpose of the appeal for departure is surely to consider special expenses in the context of the whole individual case, to ensure fairness to both parties. When the departure procedure is used, it is important to give genuine consideration to special expenses. There should be the opportunity for both parties to include child care costs.
      The Government argue that child care costs are already represented by various components of the formula, and for family credit payments in the calculation of the benefit. Our amendment provides for taking into account only costs not already covered by the formula. Those matters are debateable and, as we pointed out in Committee, need to be clarified in the regulations. Although part or all of the adult personal allowance of £46.50 is included at the first step of the formula, only one quarter of persons with care receive that amount. The final level of the assessment and the family's disposable income, including any benefits received, are the relevant factors. We ranged over that aspect in some detail in Committee. The Minister held to the view that the £46.50 allowance was the contribution to child care costs. In fact, only elements of child care costs appear in the final assessment and they should be taken into account more significantly, by allowing the departure direction to include them.
      The proportion of the £46.50 received bears little relationship to the child care costs of the parent with care. In Committee, the Government made great play of the child care component in family credit. Although we welcome that, there is strong evidence that the maximum payable has little relationship to real child care costs. I know that the Government will study the effect of the child care disregard in family credit, but I hope that, since Committee, the Minister has examined more carefully the wide variety of child care costs.
      In many ways, the amount available through family credit does not meet the real costs. At this stage, we are asking only for those elements to be kept under review, and for a proper assessment of the way in which amounts in family credit are applied to child care costs—taking into account in the average figures the fact that many people make informal child care arrangements with other family members and friends, which rather skews the

      653
      information available to help provide the amount of money needed for genuine child care, so that parents with care have the opportunity to return to work, as the Government insist that they do. Departure should be used in cases where the standard formula does not reflect the needs or expenses of a particular family. We hope that the Government will include child care costs in special expenses.
      One of the Government's aims is to help lone parents to take employment, by providing a floor of maintenance on which to build. The current formula acts as a disincentive to increasing hours or wages above a certain limit, when the income of the parent with care begins to reduce the maintenance payable. That is surely contrary to the scheme's intention and is particularly damaging to parents for whom child care costs represent a significant proportion of take-home wages. The amendment would ameliorate that effect and, coupled with other measures, would help to increase the disposable income of families in work.
      Although we have attempted, as always, to be constructive during the passage of the Bill, in an attempt to restore public confidence in the agency, we met with few concessions in Committee. The argument for child care costs commanded support from all Opposition parties, and it would have a significant impact on furthering the Government's intention to alleviate family poverty. If lone parents' proper child care costs are met, that would allow them to go back to work. I hope that the Government will consider carefully how our proposal harmonises most effectively with other special expenses—particularly travel-to-work costs. The amendment would go a significant way towards redressing the balance between absent parents and parents with care, introduce further equity into the system and restore further public confidence in the agency.
      Ms Lynne: The Minister opposed the maintenance disregard because he felt that lone parents ought to be encouraged to go back to work. This group of amendments would help lone parents to do that, but they deal with the parent without care as well. The formula is inflexible, but the proposal would free it up just a little. The Minister has acknowledged that there are problems with the Child Support Act 1991, as he has already brought forward departures in certain areas. The principle has been established, for instance, in travel-to-work costs. The Government have also recognised the principle in other social security legislation, particularly in the provisions on family credit. I know that family credit child care costs are not enough and do not nearly meet the real costs of child care, but the principle has been established there.
      The amendments seek to add a further departure. They propose that child care costs for the lone parent and for the so-called absent parent are taken into account. There is no difference between the costs in this group of amendments and travel-to-work costs. The amendments have been introduced to enable the parent with care to get back into work.
      7.30 pm
      If no child care is available, that parent will not be able to go back to work. It stands to reason that, if child care costs are not met, there is no way in which parents can
      654
      start working again. So-called absent parents have difficulties because their child care costs are not taken into account when their assessment is made. The amendment would also encourage them to work.
      Often, those people have a second family, and both parents are working. Child care costs must be taken into account. It is only fair to treat the parent with care and the parent without care equally. The parent without care would be able to pay the assessed maintenance. The amendment would enable the parent with care to take up work and to get off benefit. Surely that is what the Government have been talking about. The amendment would help people to do that.
      The main reasons why lone parents—parents with care—do not work is that they cannot find work or there is nothing that they can do for their children. They do not have relatives around or friends who can look after their child at no cost. If they could employ a child minder to look after that child, they could go back into the work force. That would help not only them but the absent parent.
      The Minister says that he wants to lift parents out of poverty. The amendment is a way to do it. I urge him not to reject it yet again. He rejected it in Committee and he keeps rejecting it, but he cannot reject the maintenance disregard and child care costs. It does not make sense. As I said, the proposal affects not only the parent with care but the parent without care. We need a child care cost departure to enable parents to work if they want to.
      I am asking not for an automatic right to child care costs but for an application for departure. I am not saying that, if a parent with care has a highly paid job and expensive child care costs, those should be met; of course they should not. It would not be reasonable to expect them to be met within the maintenance formula.
      As the Minister accepts, the majority of lone parents are on income support and cannot get back into the work place, so the floodgates will not be opened by the amendment, but it will help those who want to work. I stress again: surely that is what the Government want.
      We must avoid the situation where people are better off out of work. If the Minister did not agree to the amendments, he would be accepting the principle that people were better off out of work. I hope that he will change his mind and agree to the amendments.
      Mr. Stevenson: In arguing for this element to be considered for departure, we aim to instil a further degree of fairness in the starting point, otherwise the whole system becomes the subject of further suspicion. The inclusion of child care costs would enhance that aim. As has been stated, in the main such costs are borne by lone parents. The Government may be worried that accepting the proposal will open the floodgates, but I do not believe that that will happen.
      Many lone parents are not employed, but research shows that, of those lone parents who are employed, about 29 per cent. have the additional burden of child care costs—not an insignificant figure, so we are considering an important issue. Particularly for lone parents on low disposable incomes, those costs are not a marginal issue, but an extremely important one. Some would argue that it is a vital issue.
      I find it a little perplexing that the Government seem to have accepted travel-to-work costs as grounds for departure, yet they resist child care costs. Travel-to-work

      655
      costs as grounds for departure are in addition to existing provision. I assume that the motivation behind that is to avoid work disincentives. Surely the arguments apply equally to child care costs.
      The Government seem to object to the addition on the ground that it may have little effect on overall assessments. At the very least, that argument pre-empts the form any regulations may take and the discretion that may be used by the departure officer.
      The Government argue in terms of cost and say that child care costs are represented already in the components contained in the present formula. From reading the amendment, I understand that it is concerned with costs that are not covered by the present formula. The Government may feel that the amendment duplicates what is already there, but it does not.
      If the Government were prepared to concede the amendment, there would be a need for clarification in the regulations—that is accepted—but it is the principle that is vital, and hon. Members have already referred to that. The final level of the assessment and disposable income, including benefits, are important factors in the equation. The current formula is a disincentive to work, because wages above a certain level become a penalty. Surely that is contrary to the Government's stated policies and objectives. The addition of child care costs to the disregard system would not, therefore, be contrary to what the Government are arguing for. It would enhance their objectives. It is also consistent with similar changes that they have made in other sectors, such as family benefit, and with the travel-to-work costs element, which, in certain circumstances, would be subject to the disregard.
      Mr. Wicks: I am in favour of the proposal for departure, which in this instance means to take out of account child care costs. It is a modest proposal in many respects but it could be important, especially for mothers in one-parent families, or for fathers who are caring for their children.
      We talked earlier about the Government's clear strategy to encourage more and more one-parent families away from dependence on income support into independence in the labour market. We had a quarrel about how maintenance disregard might fit into that strategy, but many of my right hon. and hon. Friends agree that if so many families, including many children, are to be moved out of poverty, it must be via jobs and, we hope, high-quality jobs. That is why child care is so important.
      We need to think through the implications of the Government's strategy and our arguments about child care, which have been so ably advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) from the Opposition Front Bench. At present, there are many formidable barriers to one-parent families on income support who wish to seek independence. Those who think that we must shift resources in social policy away from family breakdown services—I regard income support as essentially a family breakdown service—towards investment so that people move from dependency towards independence must recognise the barriers standing in the way of one-parent families.
      Unfortunately, those barriers are formidable. They include, of course, low wages. Many of us would argue that the Government have enabled lower wages to be paid, which has led to social security chickens, in terms of costs, coming home to roost. That is one reason why the
      656
      social security budget is at a record level. That has resulted not because we are a more socially secure society—that is not why we are spending more on state benefits—but because we are now a more socially insecure society. That is the paradox at the heart of the Government's social policies.
      There is the low wages barrier and, for one-parent families, there is the means testing barrier. A Government who have lived by means testing will die by it because of their failure successfully to pursue the strategy of moving one-parent families into the independence of the labour market. Unfortunately, that policy has been unsuccessful. We know that in one year only 8,000 one-parent families moved off income support because of the child support element. It is necessary to repeat the same statistic. We know that seven out of 10 one-parent families are dependent on income support. The means-test mountain is a formidable barrier to independence. Indeed, it is a mountain that most one-parent families fail to climb, often because it is impossible to do so.
      That brings me to the other barrier of child care. We are all aware of the relevant arithmetic. One-parent families that are seeking work—many would seek part-time work because, like other mothers, or parents generally, that is the only way in which they can make sense of their dual responsibilities within the family and in employment—are aware that wages for part-time work or, indeed, for full-time work, are only slightly in excess of the moneys that they would receive through income support. The extra moneys are eaten up if it is necessary to pay for child care. That is why the amendment is vital. I am surprised that we are having to make such heavy weather of the arguments that lie behind it, given that we are trying to help the Government implement their strategy of moving people back into the labour market.
      Let us concede that the Government's policy, as announced in their Budget a year or two back, of allowing for a child care element in family credit is to be welcomed. In a sense, we are trying to pursue the logic of their policy. I should emphasise that we are talking about quality child care, not child care per se. If we are to provide more assistance for all parents, not only one-parent families, we must recognise that the best social policies apply to all families. We must understand that many parents may have to sort out the problem for themselves by providing a lower quality of child care than many of us would accept for our children. That is my worry.
      We must at some stage switch the debate from child care to quality of care. If we fail to do so, I predict that we shall soon hear about more cases of children not being looked after properly, and sometimes being neglected or abused because parents were not able to afford adequate child care. Let us not go for child care on the cheap. That is not always better than no child care.
      The Minister may now agree that the arguments in support of a modest proposal for a departure for child care costs fit into the logic behind what the Government are claiming that they are trying to do. We, too, would like more one-parent families, if they choose to take the course, to be more independent in the labour market, and enabled to be independent by a range of training and employment measures, a parcel into which child care fits as a crucial element.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Burt: Opposition Members have proposed that persons with care responsibilities should be able to seek a departure direction where they necessarily incur child care costs in taking up or remaining in employment. I appreciate their comments. I refer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and his colleagues and to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). The hon. Lady has so far resisted the requests of the hon. Member for Withington to enlighten us by setting out her alternative to the child support system that we are discussing. She has had several opportunities to present it to us. There is still time, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Withington and I share the view that it would be interesting to consider it in more detail later. In the meantime, we must await her alternative with bated breath.
      As hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber will appreciate, I understand the sentiments that lie behind this flawed amendment. The Government share the objective of improving work opportunities for women with children. That is why we have introduced the child care disregard in the in-work benefits, such as family credit, disability working allowance and housing benefit, and in council tax benefit, which was introduced in October.
      The hon. Member for Withington asked why we decided to opt for certain expenditures in the departure system and not others. After some consideration of the way in which the child support system works, we accepted that one of the flaws was perhaps that the system was too rigid and that there should be room for an element of discretion within it.
      We made it clear throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee—I think that to a great extent we were joined by Opposition Members—that if the system was to work properly, it was important to keep the gateways reasonably tight at first for the departure system. After due consideration, we decided that it will always be possible to extend the gateways. Once an opportunity has been created, it is always extremely difficult to restrict it or to bring it to an end. If the discretionary system, coupled with the system in which the majority of us—beyond the hon. Member for Rochdale and her colleagues—believe, is to work and the formula is to work in the majority of cases, it is important that the element of departure should now be relatively tight.
      We considered carefully where the greatest pressure points were to be found in the system before coming to a decision on the expenses that we should allow, and that the hon. Member for Withington enumerated. We trawled carefully the representations that were made by constituents through their Members in correspondence. We considered carefully what was being said to us by various organisations. During our review, which took place largely in the autumn, we examined as carefully as we could the various pressure points.
      The list of special expenses that we propose to allow reflects the consideration that I have described. With the exception of one or two interested groups and fairly recent interest, the issue of child care for parents with care responsibilities was not a serious one when compared with the clean-break argument or travel expenses, for example. All Members will remember the representations that they received on those matters. I ask them to consider whether the same pressure was raised on child care costs for parents with care responsibilities. I have to say that
      658
      that was not my experience and I do not really feel that similar pressure was there. Given the amount of concern, we felt it unnecessary to include those costs in a scheme that was primarily intended as a safety valve to relieve the areas of greatest pressure.
      Mr. Bradley: Will the Minister give me an assurance that the research that he undertook included groups representing the so-called "absent parent" as well as the parent with care, because quite clearly the child care cost may refer more reasonably to the parent with care and less so to the so-called absent parent?
      Mr. Burt: Yes, of course. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, representations in relation to child support come from all sides, but often the interests of the parties are quite different. A number of the cases where departure was argued for by those representing the so-called absent parent would be diametrically opposed to the interests of the parents with care. The Government understand that, because, peculiarly—almost uniquely—one of the aims of the system that the Government have set up is to hold the ring between those competing interests. I shall refer to that point later. We received representations from all sides.
      As I made clear from the start in Committee, and as the Government have made clear from the beginning of the reform process, the departure system is genuinely designed to deal with the issues that have been of major concern since the Child Support Act 1991 came into operation. It is not our intention to allow any conceivable expense to be cited as grounds for a departure order. To do so would be to run the risk of there being a return to a discretion-based free-for-all.
      We believe quite strongly that the current legislation already makes some provision for child care costs. If I may, I shall explain this again briefly to the House. The first step in assessing liability under the formula assessment is to calculate what is known as the "maintenance requirement". That is the amount calculated as representing the basic needs of a child and is based on income support rates. The maintenance requirement includes an amount in respect of the fact that a child needs to be cared for. The carer element is currently £46.50 if the youngest child is under 11 years of age. That compares well with the average cost to families of professional child care of some £42.40 a week. The carer element is designed to cover either the parent with care's own cost if she stays at home and provides care, or the cost of providing for that care if she chooses to work. Thus, the formula already makes a significant contribution towards any child care that may be incurred.
      We believe that we have already provided significant help towards child care costs and not just through the benefit system, although of course the changes made to family credit last year are a genuine development of the policy, which we all share, towards assisting women who want to go back into work. Where a working person with care is eligible for family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit or council tax benefit, costs of up to £40 a week can be disregarded in assessing entitlement to those benefits. The combined effect of those allowances means that working parents can be better off by up to £38.20 a week. We have now seen some 17,000 claims to family credit under that particular system.

      659
      I should also point out that those benefits allow for the disregard of the first £15 of maintenance received. That is in addition to the child care disregard and may be used towards the cost of child care, where such costs are incurred.
      One can go wider. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), who is always thoughtful and always well worth listening to on family issues, asked about the Government's policy and intention. Scattered across the system now—from the Department of Employment, the Department of Social Security and through to the Department of Health—is a whole variety of provision for child care costs, on a level unheard of under any previous Government. It is a great determination that we have and I believe that the contribution and support that we are giving, from tax relief to the expansion of day nurseries, is really quite substantial.
      Mr. Wicks: I am grateful to the Minister. Has the Department done any computer modelling recently to allow not only for the support that the Government are now giving through family credit, as the Minister said, but the likely wages that mothers might receive in either part-time or full-time work, to see what the net gain to those mothers would be if they returned to the labour market?
      Mr. Burt: The Department carries out a large amount of modelling, but I do not have that model with me at the moment.
      The hon. Gentleman mentioned the barrier caused to progress through low pay. As he knows, we would consider an even greater barrier to low pay to be that of no job whatever, which a minimum wage—the policy of the hon. Gentleman and his party—would introduce. If he is seriously concerned about that issue, that is something that he must bear in mind. I believe that the deputy leader of the Labour party has already recognised that. Therefore, I do not accept the need for the amendments. The carer element in the formula and the maintenance and child care disregards in family credit provide sufficient help for those expenses.
      There is a further point, which I must raise as it concerns perhaps a slightly greater flaw than anything else. Uniquely, in the list of special expenses, it seems that the Opposition's amendment would make departure mandatory, in that the normal just and equitable provisions, which are there for the special expenses, appear to have been excluded. It is a serious and important point. I am not saying this dismissively. Under the amendment, the Secretary of State, unless he has just cause to rule it out, should otherwise allow it. The hon. Gentleman made a point of saying that, because he was tailoring it to any costs not covered by the formula, only in cases where a higher amount of child care costs had been incurred would the special allowance and departure be considered. The mandatory element of the amendment suggests that, providing that a parent with care could come along and show that she was genuinely incurring virtually any child care costs that she was prepared to put before the tribunal, the mandatory element of the amendment would require it to be taken into account and awarded, with the burden falling on an absent parent.
      Mr. Bradley: If that is the only argument against the amendment—I accept the technical flaw—and if the Minister will accept the principle of including child care costs, I would accept a redrafted amendment tabled in the Lords.
      Mr. Burt: That was a good attempt to deal with one of the two major flaws of the argument, but not, alas, the second, which was what I referred to earlier: our contention that the child care element is there.
      I shall return now, if I may, to the point that I made right at the start about holding the ring and holding the balance. It is wholly laudatory for the Government to attempt in a variety of different ways to ease the transition of women back into work. I maintain that the Government seek to do that not only through the element in the formula or through the family credit disregard but in a variety of other provisions as well. However, the provision would place an extra unbalanced burden on the absent parent. We are holding the ring here. We are already asking the absent parent to make a contribution to child care through the formula. To ask the absent parent to make a further contribution to child care—double provision—does not seem to us to be right.
      It is correct, therefore, to try to ensure the ability of women to go back into work, and we seek to do that in a variety of ways. It is for the Government to find ways to do that, and we shall continue to do so. It seems to me that the way to do that is not through this provision. It is not through an extra burden on the absent parent or through an extra mandatory requirement. For those reasons, I ask the House to reject the amendment.
      Mr. Bradley: I am grateful for the response from the Minister, although, clearly, I am disappointed that he has not accepted the arguments that I and my hon. Friends have made in support of including child care costs in the departure formula.
      As has been clearly pointed out, it was a particularly modest proposal. We accept the principle that the formula should be used in the majority of cases, but the amendment proposed that the departure direction should be used only in special cases, and it was our intention—as it was in Committee—to retain responsibility for that by not including a whole range of options in the departure formula. For that very reason, we specifically moved amendments in Committee that included training elements and child care costs. It was not our intention at any stage to use that procedure to open up the floodgates to allow everyone to apply for departure. We were looking specifically at a matter that we think is of major concern, particularly to the parents with care.
      We believe that the way in which the departure directions will be used will be of particular advantage to absent parents: I do not argue with that. We are, however, trying to introduce equity and fairness by including child care costs—particularly for parents with care—in the departure formula. Throughout our deliberations, we have tried to strike that balance, to ensure that all parties involved in the agency's operations retain confidence in the system through the introduction of the appeals system that we have discussed—a system that has been requested by the Opposition throughout our proceedings on the Bill. We are disappointed that the Government are not prepared to accept our modest proposal. I feel that the views of the House should be tested, and I urge it to divide on the amendment.
      8 pm
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 261.

      Division No. 154]

      [8.01 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Ainger, Nick

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Allen, Graham

      Gordon, Mildred

      Alton, David

      Graham, Thomas

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Ashton, Joe

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Barnes, Harry

      Gunnell, John

      Barron, Kevin

      Hain, Peter

      Battle, John

      Hall, Mike

      Bayley, Hugh

      Hanson, David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Harvey, Nick

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Bell, Stuart

      Henderson, Doug

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Heppell, John

      Berry, Roger

      Hinchliffe, David

      Bradley, Keith

      Hodge, Margaret

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

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Burden, Richard

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Byers, Stephen

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Caborn, Richard

      Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hoyle, Doug

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Illsley, Eric

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Ingram, Adam

      Cann, Jamie

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      Jamieson, David

      Chidgey, David

      Janner, Greville

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Clelland, David

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Jowell, Tessa

      Coffey, Ann

      Keen, Alan

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Corston, Jean

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cousins, Jim

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Cummings, John

      Lewis, Terry

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Litherland, Robert

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dafis, Cynog

      Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      McCartney, Ian

      Denham, John

      Macdonald, Calum

      Dewar, Donald

      McKelvey, William

      Dixon, Don

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Donohoe, Brian H

      McLeish, Henry

      Dowd, Jim

      McMaster, Gordon

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      McNamara, Kevin

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      MacShane, Denis

      Eastham, Ken

      Madden, Max

      Enright, Derek

      Maddock, Diana

      Etherington, Bill

      Mahon, Alice

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Marek, Dr John

      Fatchett, Derek

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Faulds, Andrew

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Flynn, Paul

      Martlew, Eric

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Meacher, Michael

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Meale, Alan

      Foulkes, George

      Michael, Alun

      Fraser, John

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Milburn, Alan

      Galloway, George

      Miller, Andrew

      Garrett, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      George, Bruce

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Gerrard, Neil

      Morley, Elliot

      662

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Short, Clare

      Mudie, George

      Simpson, Alan

      Mullin, Chris

      Skinner, Dennis

      Murphy, Paul

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Snape, Peter

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Spearing, Nigel

      O'Hara, Edward

      Spellar, John

      Olner, Bill

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Stevenson, George

      Paisley, The Reverend Ian

      Stott, Roger

      Pickthall, Colin

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Pike, Peter L

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Timms, Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Touhig, Don

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Dennis

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Tyler, Paul

      Radice, Giles

      Vaz, Keith

      Randall, Stuart

      Walley, Joan

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Rendel, David

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Rogers, Allan

      Winnick, David

      Rooker, Jeff

      Worthington, Tony

      Rooney, Terry

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Carrington, Matthew

      Alexander, Richard

      Carttiss, Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Cash, William

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Amess, David

      Churchill, Mr

      Ancram, Michael

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Colvin, Michael

      Atkins, Robert

      Congdon, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Couchman, James

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Cran, James

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

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

      Bates, Michael

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Day, Stephen

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Booth, Hartley

      Devlin, Tim

      Boswell, Tim

      Dicks, Terry

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Dover, Den

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Duncan, Alan

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Dunn, Bob

      Brazier, Julian

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Dykes, Hugh

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Elletson, Harold

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Burns, Simon

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Burt, Alistair

      Evennett, David

      Butcher, John

      Faber, David

      Butterfill, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      663

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Forth, Eric

      Malone, Gerald

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Mans, Keith

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Marland, Paul

      French, Douglas

      Marlow, Tony

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gale, Roger

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gallie, Phil

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mates, Michael

      Garnier, Edward

      Merchant, Piers

      Gill, Christopher

      Mills, Iain

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Gorst, Sir John

      Moss, Malcolm

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hague, William

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Norris, Steve

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hannam, Sir John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Harris, David

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Pawsey, James

      Hawkins, Nick

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hawksley, Warren

      Pickles, Eric

      Hayes, Jerry

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Heald, Oliver

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hendry, Charles

      Rathbone, Tim

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Riddick, Graham

      Horam, John

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

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

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Sackville, Tom

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Hunter, Andrew

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Jack, Michael

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Shersby, Michael

      Jessel, Toby

      Sims, Roger

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Key, Robert

      Soames, Nicholas

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Knapman, Roger

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Spring, Richard

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

      Sproat, Iain

      Knox, Sir David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Steen, Anthony

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Stephen, Michael

      Leigh, Edward

      Stem, Michael

      Lidington, David

      Stewart, Allan

      Lightbown, David

      Streeter, Gary

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Sweeney, Walter

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Sykes, John

      Lord, Michael

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Luff, Peter

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Maclean, David

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Thomason, Roy

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Madel, Sir David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      664

      Thumham, Peter

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Whitney, Ray

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Whittingdale, John

      Tracey, Richard

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Trend, Michael

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Trotter, Neville

      Wilkinson, John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Wilshire, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Walden, George

      Wolfson, Mark

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Wood, Timothy

      Waller, Gary

      Yeo, Tim

      Ward, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Waterson, Nigel

      Mr. Andrew Mitchell and

      Wells, Bowen

      Mr David Willetts.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 13, in page 5, line 23, leave out 'such a' and insert 'a departure'.
      No. 14, in page 5, line 30, leave out 'the proposed' and insert 'a departure'.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

    Schedule 2

      DEPARTURE DIRECTIONS: THE CASES AND CONTROLS
      Amendments made: No. 37, in page 26, line 8, leave out 'the commitment was' and insert 'they were'.
      No. 28, in page 26, line 19, after 'and' insert 'either'.
      No. 29, in page 26, line 20, after 'made' insert
      'or the child, or any of the children, with respect to whom that assessment was made'.
      No. 30, in page 26, line 21, leave out 'between them'.
      No. 31, in page 26, line 21, after 'kind' insert
      'between the absent parent and any of those persons'.
      No. 32, in page 26, line 23, leave out 'made between them'.
      No. 33, in page 26, line 27, leave out 'is' and insert 'was'.
      No. 34, in page 26, line 38, at end insert—
      '.—(1) A departure direction may be given if—

      (a) before 5th April 1993—

      (i) a court order of a prescribed kind was in force with respect to the absent parent and either the person with care with respect to whom the current assessment was made or the child, or any of the children, with respect to whom that assessment was made; or

      (ii) an agreement of a prescribed kind between the absent parent and any of those persons was in force;

      (b) in pursuance of the court order or agreement, the absent parent has made one or more transfers of property of a prescribed kind;

      (c) the amount payable by the absent parent by way of maintenance was not reduced as a result of that transfer or those transfers;

      (d) the amount payable by the absent parent by way of child support maintenance under the current assessment has been reduced as a result of that transfer or those transfers, in accordance with provisions of or made under this Act; and

      (e) it is nevertheless inappropriate, having regard to the purposes for which the transfer or transfers was or were made, for that reduction to have been made.

      (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(c), "maintenance" means periodical payments of maintenance made (otherwise than under this Act) with respect to the child, or any of the children, with respect to whom the current assessment was made.'.— [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

    Clause 8
      APPEALS
      Amendment made: No. 15, in page 7, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 39.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
    Clause 10

      THE CHILD MAINTENANCE BONUS
      Amendments made: No. 16, in page 9, line 19, after 'treating' insert 'the whole or'.
      No. 17, in page 9, line 26, after 'paid' insert
      'in such circumstances as may be prescribed'.
      No. 18, in page 9, line 26, leave out 'entitled to the bonus' and insert
      'who is or had been in receipt of child maintenance'.— [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

    Clause 12

      REVIEWS ON CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES
      Amendments made: No. 19, in page 11, line 6, after 'subsection (6)' insert '—
      (a)'.
      No. 20, in page 11, line 7, at end insert—
      '(b) after "maintenance assessment" insert "by reference to the circumstances of the case as at the date of the application under this section" '.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

    Clause 14

      CANCELLATION OF MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS ON REVIEW
      Amendment made: No. 21, in page 11, line 28, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 30 and insert
      'maintenance assessment in question was not validly made he may cancel it with effect from the date on which it took effect." '.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

    Clause 19

      NON-REFERRAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 22, in page 15, line 14, after 'shall' insert 'subject to subsection (1B)'.
      No. 23, in page 15, line 15, leave out from beginning to 'shall', in line 17 and insert—
      '(1B) If it appears to the Secretary of State that subsection (10) of section 4 would not have prevented the person with care concerned from making an application for a maintenance assessment under that section he shall—

      (a) notify her of the effect of this subsection, and

      (b) if, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which notice was sent to her, she asks him to do so, treat the application as having been made not under section 6 but under section 4.

      (1C) Where the application is not preserved under subsection (1B) (and so is treated as not having been made) the Secretary of State'.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

    Clause 21

      FEES FOR SCIENTIFIC TESTS
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. James Arbuthnot): I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 16, line 22, leave out from 'made' to 'is', in line 24, and insert 'or a maintenance assessment'.
      666
      Clause 21 enables the Secretary of State to recover from alleged parents those fees for DNA tests which the Secretary of State previously paid in connection with a paternity dispute. The amendment fulfils a commitment that I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) in Committee, and allows recovery to be made in cases where benefit is not an issue as well as in benefit cases.
      In relation to paternity, Opposition Members suggested that we should introduce a presumption of parentage on marriage in disputed paternity cases in England and Wales, similar to that which applies in Scotland. They also moved an amendment so that a declaration of parentage by the courts would have effect for any other proceedings involving the qualifying child.
      On the face of it, both those proposals have merit, but the implications are far reaching and could affect other areas of law, such as adoption and surrogacy, registration of births, parental responsibility, immigration and residence and contact issues. These matters will need to be fully considered by several Departments.
      The Lord Chancellor has general policy responsibility for family law issues, and I am pleased to say that he has agreed to take forward a consultation exercise on both those matters. Such an exercise may involve public consultation, and could clearly not be concluded in time for any changes in the law to be introduced in the current Bill. However, it will establish the need for and the desirability of making the changes suggested by Opposition Members as and when the opportunity arises. I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for his response to our amendments in Committee. They recognised that there may be a need for wider consultation not only within Departments but with the wider public. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has now got agreement through the Lord Chancellor for such a procedure to be undertaken. We shall give our views during that process, and we look forward to any subsequent amendments or changes in the legislation that may be appropriate as a result of the consultation. We welcome the Minister's statement.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 26

      REGULATION AND ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 25, in page 21, line 22, leave out from beginning to 'order' in line 23 and insert—'
      '(4) Subsection (4A) applies to—

      (a) the first regulations made under section 10;

      (b) any order made under section 18(5);

      (c) the first regulations made under section 24.

      (4A) No regulations or order to which this subsection applies shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations or'.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

    Schedule 3

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 35, in page 27, line 38, at end insert—
      ' "(ae) compensation payments made under regulations under section 24 of the Child Support Act 1995 or under any corresponding enactment having effect with respect to Northern Ireland;" '.

      667
      No. 36, in page 29, line 30, after 'insert' insert '28C(2)(b), 28F(3)'.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      8.19 pm
      Mr. Lilley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I am delighted to move the Third Reading, for a number of reasons. First, my officials inform me that this marks the 25th occasion that I have had the opportunity to debate with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—not a moment too many. None the less, despite it being the 25th such occasion, it is my maiden Third Reading speech. I have looked it up to see what is required, and I see that brevity can be of the essence. One of my predecessors managed it in two sentences. However, I have been told that I have a moment or two longer than that.
      I want to use the opportunity to congratulate the Committee on the Bill's smooth passage, which reflects the cross-party support for the basic principles that underlie it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Garscadden for fulfilling his promise that there would be no trench warfare because he wanted the improvements made by the Bill as much as we did.
      As a non-participant, I can objectively praise the whole Committee: the Chairmen—the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks)—and the constructive contributions from Opposition Members such as the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy), and especially those from the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks).
      Above all, I have to thank my hon. Friends the Under-Secretaries of State for taking the Bill through, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). If any one hon. Member has gained in credit, standing and esteem on both sides of the House from this fraught and rather difficult subject, it is my hon. Friend; I am immensely grateful to him for all he has done, both in the context of the Bill and before that.
      I wish that I could extend my thanks and congratulations to the Liberal party, too. Despite the great personal charm of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), I am afraid that I cannot, because she has associated her party with some of the nastiest elements in British politics, and, in proposing to overthrow the Child Support Agency, has actively sought the support of the Network Against the Child Support Act and people like that. They have returned that support with delight.
      I have here NACSA's latest report, which states:
      "There is no doubt that the Liberal Democrats are delighted with the sudden input of support for their party from NACSA supporters. Campaigners in many areas"—
      that is, NACSA campaigners—
      "helped them during the council elections. Word from Lib Dem HQ and the ecstatic Liz Lynne is that they have already had a foot high stack of support pledges from NACSA supporters."
      These are people who, a page or two later, advise people to lie and to harass. They say:
      "Around 150 NACSA stalwarts turned out at Brierley Hill to harass the life out of the inmates of Dudley CSAC."
      668
      The report goes on to say:
      "You should try and get hold of copies of the CSA business plan. Order one for yourself. Don't say you're from NACSA or whatever, try saying something like you are a welfare rights adviser. You might have better luck."
      I would be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Rochdale if she wants to disassociate herself and her party from those undesirable people. However, she does not; she stands, or rather sits, condemned as a result.
      I shall deal now with the basic approach of the Bill. We identified the key problem that we have faced since introducing it, and the main area of legitimate concern, as the failure to take into account fully in the formula the impact of past property settlements. That could not be permanently resolved through a formula system, although we have introduced the broad-brush approach to deal with it in the immediate future. It needed the opportunity to depart from the formula system, and that is how we decided to proceed. Primary legislation was necessary, which enabled us to introduce the departure system, and therefore to tackle a limited range of other problems which could not be covered through the formula system itself.
      I welcome the fact that the official Opposition have not tried to widen the gateways too far, which would give people departures from the formula. As primary legislation was necessary, we were able also to tackle the take-on of non-benefit cases where there was a past property settlement, and to introduce the child maintenance bonus.
      However, the Bill has to be seen as complementary to the secondary legislative changes which we introduced: the broad-brush element in the formula dealing with past property settlements and with travel to work; the changes dealing with housing costs where there were second families; and compensation for family credit and disability working allowance losers as a result of changes elsewhere in the formula. The most important single change introduced by secondary legislation was the 30 per cent. cap on the net income which could be taken by maintenance out of people's net income.
      Those changes came in at the beginning of April, over the Easter weekend. They were introduced and implemented in a very few days. The whole operation was virtually hitch-free, and I congratulate the agency on carrying it out so smoothly. It was a massive achievement. It meant major information technology changes in the whole computer system; it meant examining some 1.25 million cases that are stored on the computer system; and it meant contacting some 675,000 customers of the agency.
      As a result, about a third of those who have assessments have had their payments reduced by, on average, about £8 a week, or roughly £400 a year. Some have had reductions of as much as £22 a week as a result of the changes.
      The two main causes of reduction in numerical terms are the 30 per cent. rule and the shared housing cost, spreading the cost of housing of all members of second households in a way that was not previously done by the formula.
      The agency has notified everyone who might be affected that they can seek changes through the formula to reflect past property settlements or travel-to-work arrangements. So far, it has been rather underwhelmed by the response. By early May, there had been some 13,000 requests for such recognition in the formula for either property or travel-to-work expenses. Such applications have to be in by

      669
      18 July, three months after the change was introduced. There is a continual stream coming in, and I reiterate that we welcome those applications up to 18 July.
      The other issue which is complementary to the primary and secondary legislation is the improvement in the agency's performance, partly as a result of regulatory changes enabling it to operate more smoothly. The success in introducing the April changes is reassuring. It was, as I say, a major change, and not everyone would have backed with their shirt the certainty of it all working out as well as it did.
      I hope that hon. Members are also seeing a steady improvement in the service provided by the agency to them and their constituents. Certainly we have had far fewer complaints to the agency, far speedier replies have been going out to hon. Members, and there has been a four fifths reduction in the number of queries via the direct line compared with the peak.
      I hope that the overall package of reforms that we have introduced—administrative reforms, regulatory reforms and primary legislative reforms—are working out properly. I believe that it was necessary and right to introduce them all. They have been well received outside, as well as inside, the House. The changes, I believe, have smoothed many of the rough edges which were identified in the first 18 months of experience of the agency.
      The changes will mean that those with a genuine grievance will be able to seek departure from the formula. As a result, I hope that the formula used and the assessments made by the agency will be seen to be fairer, and that it will therefore be possible to obtain greater compliance with those assessments, which will be better for the parents with care, and for the taxpayer.
      Overall, I believe that the changes will benefit children, parents and taxpayers, and I commend the Bill to the House.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Dewar: This debate has something of the atmosphere of a private function. I note that even the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) has come back to haunt us for a few minutes. The Secretary of State told me that this is the 25th time that we have faced each other across the Dispatch Box. It will be a somewhat shorter event than our previous exchanges. It is a curious fact that if our exchanges have become habit forming, the right hon. Gentleman could be added to the membership of the Pensions Bill Committee for its last month of sittings, which would allow him to raise the average considerably—although I doubt whether an enjoyment factor would play a prominent part.
      I accept that much of what is happening is what we have requested and we are grateful for that. I know that the Bill had a constructive Committee stage. I do not pretend to have read all the Hansards, but I have tried to keep in touch with what has been happening. I am glad that the Bill has come through all its stages, although we would have liked there to have been more changes. I must stress that because I do not want to give the impression in these pleasantries that we are satisfied and that we did not look for a great deal more change.
      670
      I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's tribute to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt). Who knows, some day he may get his ticket to leave. He may be allowed to leave the treadmill and move to pastures green. He certainly tholed his assize—
      Mr. Piers Merchant: What is that?
      Mr. Dewar: I understand that it is an English legal term. It is not one of my strange Scottish gaucheries, which occasionally trouble the Hansard reporters.
      Mention has been made of the Liberal Democrat party. It is unfortunate that we have not heard a little more about its plans for an alternative to the Child Support Agency. In a few minutes, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) will have her last chance to sketch for us what I am sure must be well-advanced plans for the replacement of the current system. She has been pressed on those plans on more than one occasion, but presumably she has been waiting for the right moment. I hope that Third Reading is that moment—[Interruption.] Perhaps, at some future date, a discreet pamphlet with a pleasant typeface will emerge and explain all.
      I reiterate that there is no interest among Labour Members in seeing chaos, confusion and misery arising from any social initiative. It is probably too optimistic to assume that this will be the last time that we consider the CSA. Indeed, I am anxious to stress that we will want to return to it on other occasions. It is important that the changes being introduced are worked through and introduced speedily. I hope that they will help to tackle some of the problems that have undoubtedly given rise to genuine distress about the way that the system has operated. Much will depend on the small print and the way in which the new policies are implemented.
      I want to cite what may be an obvious example, but I have chosen it because it was the subject of correspondence that I was dealing with yesterday. It is the suggestion that in certain cases arrears will not be enforced for a period longer than six months. That point is important because many people have substantial arrears, often of 12 months or more. We know from the agency's figures that that is quite common. It will be important how the caveats that surround that proposition work in practice. The White Paper states:
      "Where the Agency causes a delay in setting maintenance, consideration will be given to not enforcing more than six months' worth of arrears, provided the absent parent gives a commitment to meet his on-going liability."
      It will be interesting to find out whether that is in fact an important and significant concession or whether it is simply decoration. It is a distinction of some moment.
      There is no doubt that in the past—I referred earlier to the compensation procedures for delay—what has appeared to be quite an important concession has turned out to be the merest and feeblest of gestures. I hope that that will not prove to be the case about the contents of this Bill and the other parts of the package, of which the Bill is the core component. I know that I cannot go beyond the contents of the Bill, but I wanted to make that point.
      Other important changes are still to come. We have always taken the view that capital and financial settlements, which presently come into play—even on a broad-brush approach—only if they were concluded before April 1993, could, with a little imagination, be extended to future circumstances. Again, I pray in aid the system presently operating in Australia.

      671
      As the Minister rightly recognised, the centrepiece of the Bill is the provision for departure from the financial formula where circumstances justify that. I certainly did not want an open door that would tempt everyone to go to appeal and to second-guess the system and the formula. However, it is important that the hard cases—and there are still hard cases—are dealt with sympathetically, that there is a speedy response and that the process does not get bogged down and fossilised, as so often happens in Chancery courts and other corners of the legal world. I have played my part in that. I used to do a great deal of industrial tribunal work and I started out with the assumption that it revolved around the merits of the case and looking at the facts. I then discovered that the other lawyers came to the tribunals carting case law by the tome and that if I did not also do so I was likely to be bowled middle stump. I hope that we will not go down that road with this Bill.
      This is an important area and there is nothing more important than trying to re-establish a degree of public confidence in the system. I do not want to go into detail on one matter that is not in the Bill, but should have been, but it is well known, and has been argued tonight, that there should be a disregard. There is something unsatisfactory about a system under which children living in families that are most financially at risk—that is, those on income support—are the least likely to benefit from maintenance. I give notice that that argument will continue, no matter how many lists the Secretary of State compiles or how often he ridicules our efforts.
      I believe that we speak for the majority of people who are involved with the system and who have followed the arguments about it. It is, perhaps, one of the few arguments that unite those who are violently opposed to the system and those who have doubts about its ability to delivery effectively for the parent with care. Both extremes of the argument agree that common sense and common humanity dictate that a disregard would strengthen the present position. I shall leave it at that. We have made some little progress and it is not unfair to say that Ministers were put under considerable pressure. I hope that the House, and the Opposition in particular, had a not dishonourable role in doing that. We have seen some movement as a result. It is not the total that is required and I am sure that we will come back to the matter, but I hope that the Bill will at least do something to bring a little fairness and a perception of justice to a system that has been terribly battered by the experiences of the past two and a half years and which we all want to be established on a true and genuine basis of public confidence.
      8.39 pm
      Ms Lynne: This is the last opportunity for us to debate the Bill before it goes to another place and I want to make very clear my position on it and the Child Support Act 1991, which it is supposed to amend.
      The Bill does not address the real problems. Like other recent Government Bills, most notably the Disability Discrimination Bill, the Government have recognised that something needs to be done because of the extent of opposition throughout the country, but we have got half-hearted measures and that is what we have again today. Most of the Bills go some way towards a remedy, but do not cure the problem and this Bill is a case in point.
      672
      The Bill goes some way towards improving the deplorable situation in which many people—both parents with care and those without care—find themselves. Perhaps it relieves the distress a little, but it is a very small step. What we need to do and what I believe that we will do in the long term, even though we are not debating it tonight, is to repeal the 1991 Act because it will come back to the House time and again until the Government and the official Opposition recognise that that is the only way out. Then we may be able to start the process of getting a genuinely fair maintenance system.
      The Government and the official Opposition—they are in collusion here—will find that opposition to the Child Support Act will not go away just because the Government have introduced the Bill and the official Opposition support them in it. The Child Support Act has not achieved its purpose—to put children first.
      We all know that the Child Support Agency is in disarray. It might have got a little better recently, but it is still in disarray. The opposition is overwhelming throughout the country and has not gone away. The agency has had to defer taking on cases, to abandon other cases and to replace the chief executive. Now we have this Bill.
      The Government have not learnt many lessons from what happened with the poll tax. They cannot just impose legislation on people, if it does not have their broad support, however grudging that support might be. The Child Support Act does not even have grudging support. Legislation is not generally opposed unless it is an affront to the people it affects, which is what has happened with the Child Support Act. Plenty of legislation has been unpopular, but the majority of people will abide by the law. The Government should have noted the extent of the opposition to the Child Support Act, which is almost as unpopular as the poll tax.
      Many Labour Members have said that I am being opportunistic. Was it opportunistic to oppose the poll tax? We opposed it with all our strength and, after a by-election defeat, the Government decided to scrap it. The Labour party opposed it too. Perhaps new Labour would have branded opposition to the poll tax as opportunism, in the same way as my opposition to the Child Support Act is branded opportunistic. Perhaps new Labour would have supported the Government on the poll tax, as they are supporting them today, and have been during the past few months and years over the Child Support Act.
      Mr. Burt: The House would listen to the hon. Lady with more interest and without such outrage and incredulity if at any stage during the past few months, while she has held her present position, she had enlightened the Standing Committee or the House with any alternative, but we have heard nothing and I suspect that we will hear nothing more. She rightly coined the term opportunism because I am afraid that until now that is all that we have heard.
      Ms Lynne: I cannot say that I am grateful for the Minister's intervention. He should have listened to what I have said in the past. We have talked of a unified family court system—that was even mentioned during the passage of the Children Act 1989—and of bringing family law under one court. Surely most people cannot object to that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Details."] Hon. Members may say give us the details, but the problem with the Child Support

      673
      Act is that the Government did not consult properly. We have to consult properly about a unified family court system and then introduce those measures. We cannot have the half-baked ideas that the Government have put before us tonight. We need full and proper consultation. If the official Opposition would join us, and if they had opposed the Child Support Act instead of propping up the Government, we might get—
      Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms Lynne: The official Opposition are propping up the Government with the Child Support Act and I will give way to the hon. Gentleman with pleasure.
      Mr. Dewar: Does the hon. Lady intend to vote against the Bill tonight? She has said that she recognises that it improves matters. If she does not vote against it, is she not in danger of propping up the Government?
      Ms Lynne: I have every intention of voting against the Bill tonight to ensure that our opposition to the Child Support Act is recognised, and members of the hon. Gentleman's party will be joining me in the Lobby. Not all of the official Opposition agree with the Front-Bench line. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen to some of his Back-Bench colleagues.
      None of us is opposed to the principle of both parents paying for their children—that is not in dispute and never has been. All parents must pay for their children's upkeep.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: The principle is all very fine and good, but how does one make it work in practice? We tried the court system and it failed. Why does the hon. Lady believe that her unified court system would be any different, as it is the same thing? The point about the Child Support Act 1991 was that it laid down a formula, which means that many absent fathers have been paying for the first time.
      Ms Lynne: If the 1991 Act meant that absent fathers were paying for the first time, some people might view it differently. What it does is to make so-called absent parents who are paying, pay more. The Government are not chasing parents who have not paid.
      Mr. Heald: Under the old system, a father might pay £10 a week for a child, which is nothing when compared with the costs. Is the hon. Lady seriously trying to justify that?
      Ms Lynne: Certainly not. That is why we want a unified family courts system. We do not want to return to the system of so-called family courts; we want a unified system that would encompass the Children Act and bring all family law under one umbrella. We are studying and consulting on that and those are the proposals that we will introduce in our own good time—not in the good time of the official Opposition or of the Government.
      Mr. Bradley: Roughly when?
      Ms Lynne: I will not respond to that. If the hon. Gentleman would say when he intends to introduce his policies on anything I might listen to him, but he and his party do not propose policies on anything. We are the ones who have been proposing policies. During the passage of the Child Support Bill, all the official Opposition could say was, "We support the Government."
      674
      The Child Support Act is just not working. It is not good enough to introduce a Bill that tinkers at the edges of a discredited Act, which the changes before us today do nothing substantially to change. Neither the Government nor their partners in the official Opposition have brought forward any radical changes. Why do not they now come out against the Act, given that the amendments which they discussed so eloquently in Committee were not accepted?
      My predecessor warned the Minister more than a year ago that Liberal Democrat support was conditional on wholesale changes. The Bill is a sorry disappointment. My main criticism of the Act is that it introduced a rigid formula, and the departure system in the Bill does not substantially change that.
      Mr. Burt: May I remind the hon. Lady that the original Act provided a rigid formula, and that original Act was supported by her party?
      Ms Lynne: As the spokesman on social security for the Liberal Democrats, my predecessor made it clear in that debate, as the Minister will see if he looks at Hansard, that he would like to see the Act amended.
      Instead of discussing what was or was not said in the past, we should look at the future. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but we are talking about the future of children, which is not a laughing matter. Whether children have a proper support system is extremely serious.
      Mr. Burt: The hon. Lady is being unfair, as hon. Members are laughing not about the future of children but at her attempts to get out of what happened. We have all been looking at the future. We have spent the past few months looking at the future, trying to devise the right system, with to-ing and fro-ing between the Government and the Opposition and without complete agreement. The Opposition sometimes challenged us to get it more right and asked us for things that we could not give. We have been looking at the future and working for it. During all that time, the hon. Lady might have made a constructive contribution but she did not. That is what her party stands accused of, and why there are wry smiles on both sides of the House.
      Ms Lynne: The Minister must accept that the Child Support Act is not working. If he could say that it was, that would be fine and my position might be wrong. But the Act does not take into account individual circumstances and, however much the Bill amends the formula, it will still mean that many lone parents will be worse off because their passported benefits will be taken away; so-called "absent parents"—I cannot stand that term, which should not have been used in the original Bill—
      Mr. Dewar: I genuinely want some information and am not trying to snipe. In the past, the court system has always considered the interests of the two parties to an action and the interests of the child in reaching a financial solution. One of the characteristics of the agency is that it recognises the state's right—I use that word neutrally for the purpose of this question—to recover income support. Would the hon. Lady keep that feature in her new system?
      Ms Lynne: It is up to the court to decide in each individual case. That is the whole point of having separate assessments and not sticking to a rigid formula. That is the whole point of a unified family court system.
      Mr. Dewar: The hon. Lady, I am sure unintentionally, has missed my point: that there is a new element in the Act, which is the recovery of benefit savings. That has not been a feature of matrimonial transactions in the past. Would the hon Lady want to retain that feature in her unified courts? It is a fundamental matter of principle. I do not prejudge whether it is right or wrong but simply ask her view on it.
      Ms Lynne: Obviously, that feature could be retained in a unified family court system. I see no problem with that. I am talking about individual cases, which should be judged on their circumstances. Otherwise lone parents, so-called "absent parents" and second families will all suffer and that will continue to lead to family breakdown, which no one in the House wants.
      I shall continue to press the Government to repeal the Act. I wish that the official Opposition Front Bench would do the same. We need a proper process of consultation so that all these arguments can be discussed at great length. We are not in the business of introducing something like the Government have brought forward without proper thought. We want a proper unified family court system that will work and will benefit children above all.
      Opposition to the Act will not go away. Ultimately, it will have to be scrapped. [Interruption.] Hon. Members and right hon. Members who laugh may realise, in a few years' time when we have tried again and again to amend the discredited Child Support Act, that they got it wrong and will have to repeal it. They will then look back at this debate and realise that what we are saying is right: the Child Support Act must be scrapped.
      8.55 pm
      Ms Mildred Gordon: I intend to vote against the Bill because, although it contains some concessions, which have been forced on the Government, it does not change the position for millions of families. Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that from their post bags.
      The Government have rejected a disregard that would lift children out of poverty. They have not included the abolition of the benefit penalty, which threatens with penury thousands of mothers who feel that they have strong reasons for not giving authorisation. The Bill does not abolish maintenance deductions from unemployed men's benefits, which cost more to collect than they are worth, and disability benefits are still taken into account when reckoning income.
      The opposition to the Bill in Parliament is a pale reflection of the movement of women, men and children outside Parliament against the Government's child support policy. Hon. Members ignore that movement at the risk of bringing Parliament into further disrepute. People expect to see their deepest feelings and experiences reflected in decisions made in the House. The Bill ignores them and I shall therefore vote against it.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 46.

      Division No. 155]

      [8.57 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Alexander, Richard

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Hague, William

      Amess, David

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Ancram, Michael

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

      Hannam, Sir John

      Atkins, Robert

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Harris, David

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Hayes, Jerry

      Bates, Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Batiste, Spencer

      Hendry, Charles

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Horam, John

      Booth, Hartley

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Hunter, Andrew

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Jack, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Jessel, Toby

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Key, Robert

      Budgen, Nicholas

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Burt, Alistair

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Butcher, John

      Knapman, Roger

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Knight, Greg (Derby N)

      Carrington, Matthew

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

      Carttiss, Michael

      Knox, Sir David

      Cash, William

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Churchill, Mr

      Legg, Barry

      Clappison, James

      Leigh, Edward

      Coe, Sebastian

      Lidington, David

      Congdon, David

      Lightbown, David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Lord, Michael

      Couchman, James

      Luff, Peter

      Cran, James

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

      MacKay, Andrew

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Maclean, David

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Day, Stephen

      Madel, Sir David

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Devlin, Tim

      Malone, Gerald

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Mans, Keith

      Dover, Den

      Marland, Paul

      Duncan, Alan

      Marlow, Tony

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Elletson, Harold

      Merchant, Piers

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Monro, Sir Hector

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Evennett, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fabricant, Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Norris, Steve

      Forth, Eric

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      French, Douglas

      Ottaway, Richard

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Gallie, Phil

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Pawsey, James

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      677

      Pickles, Eric

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Thomason, Roy

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Riddick, Graham

      Thumham, Peter

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Sackville, Tom

      Trend, Michael

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Viggers, Peter

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Waller, Gary

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Shersby, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Sims, Roger

      Watts, John

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Wells, Bowen

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Whittingdale, John

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Willetts, David

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

      Wilshire, David

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Spring, Richard

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Sproat, Iain

      Wolfson, Mark

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Wood, Timothy

      Steen, Anthony

      Yeo, Tim

      Stephen, Michael

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Stewart, Allan

      Streeter, Gary

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mr. Simon Burns and

      Sykes, John

      Dr. Liam Fox.

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Austin-Walker, John

      McCartney, Ian

      Barnes, Harry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Maddock, Diana

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Mahon, Alice

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Marek, Dr John

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Clapham, Michael

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Olner, Bill

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Paisley, The Reverend Ian

      Corston, Jean

      Pickthall, Colin

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Gerrard, Neil

      Simpson, Alan

      Gordon, Mildred

      Skinner, Dennis

      Graham, Thomas

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hall, Mike

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Hardy, Peter

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Harvey, Nick

      Tipping, Paddy

      Henderson, Doug

      Tyler, Paul

      Heppell, John

      Vaz, Keith

      Hinchliffe, David

      Hodge, Margaret

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Mr. David Rendel and

      Lewis, Terry

      Mr. David Chidgey.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Wednesday 24th May, the Speaker shall, not later than one and a half hours after their commencement, put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. Robert Jackson relating to Disclosure of Select Committee Papers, &.c; and the said Motion may be entered upon and proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Wells.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  Ordered,
  That Mr. James Cran be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr. Richard Spring be added to the Committee.—[Sir Fergus Montgomery, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

  Meat Products (Imports)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
  9.9 pm
  Mr. Paul Tyler: In recent months we have heard a great deal about the export of livestock. Consumers, producers and all those who are concerned with animal welfare should be examining the implications of that controversy for the import of meat and meat products. My text tonight is as follows:
  "Some people, led by some supermarkets, are selling veal that may be imported but take great care to ensure that it comes from humane rearing sources in Holland and elsewhere. I hope that nothing that we say today will diminish our commitment to that type of effort because, every time that a supermarket does that, it helps us to ensure that animals are reared humanely before we manage to change the law to ensure that they are reared humanely."—[Official Report, 22 February 1995; Vol. 255, c. 295.]
  I think that we would all agree with that. Who made those remarks? It was none other than the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a debate in this place on 22 February. He went on to say that the case for such a selective attitude to imports was "interesting and powerful". The question is why he does not follow his point to its logical conclusion and take action to exclude products that do not meet our own standards of animal welfare and hygiene.
  That is the real debate that should be occurring, and the furore in Plymouth, Brightlingsea, Shoreham and elsewhere has surely distracted attention from it. The fact is that farm animal welfare standards in the United Kingdom are unparalleled anywhere in Europe and probably in the world. Instead of vilifying our farmers we should be celebrating their achievements and considering how best to export our standards to the rest of the European Union.
  The real issues are three-fold: first, promoting the highest possible standards of farm animal welfare, including poultry, and meat hygiene across the whole of the European Union; secondly, sustaining and promoting the development of a vibrant, prosperous and innovative agricultural community in the United Kingdom and throughout the European Union; and, thirdly, ensuring that fair competition takes place in a genuine single market. Obviously those three issues are closely related.
  The public demands meat that has been produced in the most humane fashion possible and that is as hygienic and of as high a quality as can be achieved. If consumers think that they are getting less than that from domestic producers, they will buy elsewhere and our farmers will suffer accordingly. As most farmers know, in that way the highest standards of animal welfare and hygiene are not just an irksome burden, but the bedrock of their trade and a vital marketing tool.
  Equally, it must be the business of government to work at every level to ensure that those objectives are met. It is emphatically not sufficient merely to set up new mechanisms to introduce new policies in the United Kingdom. For example, policing the quality of domestically produced meat is a key weapon in the battle to ensure that British produce maintains and increases its competitive edge, but it is not enough. Just as important is working to promote those same virtues across the whole
  680
  European Union. All too often at present the Government seem to be hell-bent on doing the opposite: punishing our farmers for their success in raising standards.
  Let us take Britain's pig producers as an example. New Government regulations mean that they will have to phase out the use of sow stalls by 1998. Although it is not without controversy, I believe that it is a welcome move that will lead to a marked improvement in animal welfare standards. There is wide agreement, even in other European states, that it is the way to go. However, the policy has been introduced in the kind of unilateral fashion that Ministers oppose so vehemently with regard to livestock exports. There has been no effective attempt to persuade fellow member states to follow our lead.
  Worse still, there has been no attempt to assist domestic producers with the costs involved in making the necessary changes—at least, not in mainland Britain. In Northern Ireland, Ministers have recognised that the regulations will impose extra costs that are unique to our domestic producers and which therefore threaten to diminish their advantage over continental competitors. Accordingly, there is a system of European Union and national grant to help Northern Ireland pig producers through the transition, as I was able to disclose to the House recently.
  In Scotland, Wales and England, however, the same Government Ministers see no such justification and refuse to give even a penny of assistance. Meanwhile, across the channel, our competitors are laughing all the way to the bank. Producers in Denmark and the Netherlands, who supply the lion's share of United Kingdom bacon imports, are under no such obligation to improve their standards; instead they enjoy a massively increased competitive advantage as United Kingdom producers struggle to meet the costs of conversion. If anything, the gap is widening, not narrowing.
  The result is inevitable. Despite, indeed because of their uniquely high standards, British pig farmers are going out of business. A recent National Farmers Union survey showed that one in 10 pig producers could leave the industry after the introduction of the ban and that United Kingdom sow stocks could be reduced by as many as 93,000 animals. The NFU survey further estimated that that could mean a loss to the British economy of some £141 million, with 3,000 jobs slashed in the agricultural community.
  The solution is not to go back on the sow stall regulations. Very few would advocate that and I certainly would not support it, but we cannot support ministerial idleness while pig producers go to the wall. The solution has to be to persuade our continental competitors to follow our lead, and the best way to do that would be to require their imports to meet our own standards. That surely is logical and reasonable and there is a powerful case for it.
  When I asked the Minister, who, I am glad to see, is to respond to the debate, whether she was able to restrict the import of inhumanely reared pig meat, her answer was blithely dismissive:
  "It is not apparent that it would be feasible to identify the production methods used for the imported goods mentioned."—[Official Report, 2 February 1995; Vol. 253, c. 848.]
  Many things in life are not apparent until one starts looking for them. That must be the experience of all Administrations and all Ministers. I would respectfully suggest that it is the job of the Minister, the Ministry and the Government to delve a little deeper into the issue. The

  681
  Minister's glib answer was merely another indication of how far removed many Ministers appear to be from the traditional rural constituencies that they claim to represent.
  Imports that fail to meet our standards are not simply matters of animal welfare; they involve real dangers of hygiene and purity. In particular, there is a danger that United Kingdom consumers are being fed imported meat that contains illegally high chemical residues.
  Clearly, the legal advice that the Minister and the RSPCA have received in relation to livestock exports is relevant. The obligations and responsibilities of our national Government to our national citizens to protect our consumers have a legal resonance way beyond that claimed for the treatment of animals once they leave our shores. It must be the responsibility of Government to protect our citizens, and the treaty of Rome and all other European treaties recognise that national responsibility.
  I would instance the particular problem that was brought to light recently by the Consumers Association, which revealed how EU legislation on the use of hormones in livestock rearing was being routinely flouted on the continent. In tests on beef, traces of illegal synthetic hormone were found in 21 states from 10 countries and in liver samples from 11 out of 21 countries.
  The drugs found, such as clenbuterol, are growth-promoting hormones and have been banned by the European Union since 1988. Their implications for human health are largely unknown but are certainly worrying. As the Consumers Association says:
  "some of the samples had concentrations of clenbuterol nearly high enough to be a single medicinal dose for humans."
  I have no doubt that United Kingdom farmers are not entirely blameless. One or two traces of hormones may well be found in United Kingdom produce. However, UK farmers are always at or near the top of the hygiene safety league table. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of some continental competitors. Belgian beef liver produced nearly eight times as many positive results, and Spanish beef liver was 12 times more likely to contain traces of illegal drugs. More than one third of all Spanish beef liver sampled was found to contain traces of clenbuterol. No wonder the Consumers Association concluded that
  "we advise you not to eat Spanish calf's liver or beef liver."
  That is surely a worrying sign for a Government who are protecting their citizens.
  The implication is that UK consumers are unwittingly eating meat that is illegally contaminated and possibly dangerous, and that many continental farmers are routinely getting away with the use of illegal drugs—thereby gaining an important competitive and economic advantage over their more scrupulous UK colleagues. The answer must be to crack down on the importing of meat that does not meet our national standards. Unlike the problem of lower welfare standards, where there may be a question mark over whether it would be legal selectively to ban the import of certain products, this case is clear cut. The chemicals involved are illegal and their use cannot be tolerated.
  Luckily, we now have a body that is well placed to stop contaminated meat reaching consumers—the Meat Hygiene Service. By giving it the task of cracking down on the clenbuterol cowboys, we could score a double
  682
  whammy—safeguarding public health and protecting our farmers from unfair competition. If the MHS has any useful additional role to justify the replacement of the local inspection system, that must be it. At a time when many people in the agricultural community are less than happy with the MHS—rightly so, given that its charges are dramatically higher than under the old system—such a change could not come soon enough. Otherwise, many people will ask whether the service is anything more than just another wing of the quangocracy.
  The importance of urgently taking action cannot be overstated. Late at night, it may seem a peripheral problem of interest only to a few livestock farmers—but meat imports into the United Kingdom total £1.9 billion every year, while exports are worth only some £900 million. That is a £1 billion trade deficit, and the gap is growing remorselessly. The gap in bacon alone is more than £400 million, and many UK bacon producers have gone out of business.
  Ministry inaction in the face of the growing livestock crisis must cease. Here is a positive way forward that would be supported by the farming industry and have the backing of animal pressure groups. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals recently reiterated that it is critically important to keep re-emphasising the long-term objective of Europe-wide improvements in animal welfare.
  The stark lesson is irrefutable. Boycotting one's own exports is unlikely to cause one's competitors anything more than bemused entertainment. An entirely legal boycott of their substandard products exported to our country is far more likely to produce real economic results. Demonstrating for that purpose may have less emotional appeal, but it would have far more practical effect.
  9.23 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) chose for his Adjournment debate a subject about which we all care—the welfare of farm animals. His concern that some food imported into this country might not have been produced in accordance with the animal welfare standards that apply here is shared by many other people. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, this country has high standards of farm animal welfare. We have a strong framework of legislation in the form of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 and its subordinate regulations and welfare codes. We also provide advice to farmers and conduct publicity campaigns on specific welfare issues.
  To ensure that our decisions are firmly based, we have the benefit of the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which provides independent advice, and we carry out extensive programmes of research. Given the long history and depth of interest in this country, and the efforts that we have devoted to the issue, it is hardly surprising that some of our animal welfare requirements set higher standards than apply elsewhere.
  As the hon. Member for North Cornwall has mentioned, the veal crate issue is of concern. In 1990, we banned those crates, and close confinement stalls and tethers for pigs will have to be phased out by 1999. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman must be aware, in both those

  683
  cases, in 1991 the Council of Ministers regrettably refused to agree that our high standards should be included as requirements in the directive that laid down minimum standards for calves and pigs.
  Unlike some other members of his party, the hon. Gentleman has been supportive of the need for the live animal export trade to continue.
  Mr. David Harris: Not all that party's members.
  Mrs. Browning: Not all its members, as my hon. Friend says, but the hon. Gentleman has publicly and openly gone on record as saying that he understands the argument. I hope that his understanding is not just based on the need to maintain a legal trade, which of course it is.
  I hope that the hon. Gentleman also understands European law in relation to specific directives that allow other countries to produce under systems that we have made or will make illegal in this country. When the hon. Gentleman talks about banning specific meat imports from the European Community on the ground of the welfare conditions under which the meat has been reared, he must also understand that the same ruling would apply. It is legal in that country and we are a single market. Of all parties in the House, the federalist party that he represents surely understands the intricacies and detail of the single market, European rules, and the fact that, when a European directive applies, it does so throughout the Community; it is not selective in the way in which it applies. Instead of making cheap jibes at me about being glib, I hope that he would have the grace, therefore, to understand the law that he and his party constantly advocate should apply: we should have a single market and we should all agree to European rulings.
  Mr. Tyler: The Minister may have missed my point about the different legality of the two positions. As I understand it, the Government of the member state is entitled to take a view about the protection of their consumers in a way that would not apply to the export of products to another country. It is a different legal situation. As I understand it, both the advice to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and to the Minister, which we have not seen the detail of, makes that distinction.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman may not have seen that advice, but he will be aware that today my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made a statement about the legal advice that the RSPCA has asked us to consider. In the further consideration of that legal advice, we have not changed our view; nor has the legal advice suggested to us that we should change it. As my right hon. Friend has said more than once to the House, it stands that we would be in serious trouble if we tried to contravene that legislation. That still holds good.
  Mr. Harris: Will my hon. Friend confirm that some other members of the Liberal Democrats have actively campaigned to stop the export of animals to the continent? What are her views on that?
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is right. We are all aware of early-day motions on the Order Paper which contain the signatures of some of the hon. Gentleman's
  684
  friends. If he really wants to start at home in convincing people about animal welfare and the legalities that apply in this matter, he could do as well to start in his own party.
  Mr. Tyler: I honestly do not think—I hope that the Minister will agree with this—that it will be helpful if we cast aspersions across the Floor. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir A. Bowden), who is a member of the party of the Minister and of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris), has been a vociferous advocate of a ban on all exports of livestock. I understand that there are people who take a different view. This evening, I hope that we will agree that, if we can find some way of exerting real pressure on other continental producers in the way that I have suggested, that will be helpful to all interests.
  Mrs. Browning: After a rather personal attack on me, including the way in which I have answered questions and dealt with these matters in the past, it is no good the hon. Gentleman playing the Liberal Democrat trick of saying that we all want to work together and to be constructive. It is not possible to take that attitude after setting down a marker that he intends to be personal. If the hon. Gentleman cannot take it, he should not dish it out. I shall continue my speech.
  Earlier this year, we secured the Commission's agreement to bring forward the review of the veal calves' directive, which was due originally in 1997. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take note of that when he accuses us of doing nothing and suggests that suddenly he has had the bright idea that things should be done and that the Government have dragged their feet. My officials and I have visited European capitals to impress upon Governments the weight of scientific evidence against the close confinement of veal calves and for a diet that includes roughage and adequate iron. The scientific veterinary committee is considering all the evidence and will report to the Commission later this year.
  In the meantime, there are real concerns that the impact of the two important United Kingdom measures on the welfare of calves and pigs has been limited because they do not extend to the rest of Europe and elsewhere. I should mention that, although the ban on veal crates is not part of European requirements, a number of other member states, such as Germany, have standards that are in line with our own. It is true, nevertheless, that there are some important producers that do not, and that is why we are working to have the directive amended.
  There are two concerns about the use of veal crates. First, as has been discussed in the House on many occasions, there is concern about calves transported from the United Kingdom to be reared in veal crates. Secondly, there is the concern voiced by the hon. Gentleman that imports from countries with lower welfare standards continue to be accepted despite the worries about the conditions in which animals were raised. The same concern also will apply in due course to imports of pork and pork products.
  The hon. Gentleman has called for action on such imports and, as I have explained, we are taking action to have our standards adopted throughout the Community. He has suggested, however, action of a slightly different sort—a ban on the import of meat and meat products from those countries with less rigorous standards than our own. It is not that simple. I am advised that selective import restrictions of the sort proposed would not be compatible

  685
  with Community law. As I have explained, the UK is part of the single European market and we must accept products that comply with the laws of the European Community.
  Mr. Martyn Jones: Will the Minister give way?
  Mrs. Browning: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman is extremely quick.
  Mr. Jones: I am grateful. Of course, the debate can continue until 10.30 pm. Urgency is not as great as it usually is on these occasions.
  Might the Ministry not take another tack, notwithstanding the regulations that we must follow within the single market? Would it not be possible legally to provide aid to our producers to enable them, for example, to label their products as welfare friendly? That would enable them to get around the problem and ensure that we do not import welfare-unfriendly products.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman has hit the nail on the head. What he has suggested is encouragingly happening in the marketplace. Consumers are becoming aware of welfare-friendly methods of rearing animals when they take decisions in butchers' shops and supermarkets to buy meat.
  The hon. Member for North Cornwall seemed to suggest that consumers automatically made that choice. I think that there is quite a deal of work yet to be done to persuade consumers to be prepared to make the choice at the point of sale. I have been enormously encouraged by the supermarkets and butchers who have been talking to the Ministry about ways in which they can flag up on packaging the fact that an animal has been reared welfare-friendly conditions. I hope that we shall see more and more action to reinforce that trend.
  The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones) is right to say that such labelling informs the consumer. I hope that the consumer will be prepared to seek it out and to pay for welfare. Although we hear a great deal of noise about animal welfare, sadly that is not translated as much as we would like at the point of sale.
  Mr. Tyler: On that point about information for consumers, will the Minister confirm that it is no longer possible to insist that the country of origin is put on a label, which might help in the circumstances about which she and I are worried?
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, although in one case it is easy—for example, if one is shopping for bacon, it is pretty easy to mark out Danish bacon. That will be quite an issue once the ban on sow stalls and tethers comes into effect, because in the discussions that I have been having with the trade, undoubtedly the message to the pig farmers from the purchasers is that they will be actively sourcing pigmeat that has been reared in those conditions. I think that that is very encouraging for the pigmeat trade as a whole. So, certainly in those areas, there is a precedent that it is very clear and easy to define. In many cases, although it is not mandatory, many producers and retailers are seeing the benefit of voluntarily flagging up on the label the country of origin. The United
  686
  Kingdom is becoming known to the UK consumer as the country that does apply high welfare standards, and we are doing all that we can to encourage that and to ensure that consumers actively seek it out when purchasing from their butchers or supermarkets.
  As well as Community purchases, I know that there is concern about imports from outside the Community. In particular, many people are anxious about the effect of the new general agreement on tariffs and trade and are worried that it will have a detrimental affect on welfare standards. I understand that; at the same time, we should not overestimate the risks. GATT has been in existence for close on 50 years. In all that time, there has never been a successful challenge of the farm animal welfare safeguards applied by the member Governments of GATT. Nor does the new agreement impose any obstacles to the negotiation of bilateral agreements between the European Union and its third-country suppliers of meat and live animals. Indeed, the sanitary and phytosanitary code encourages the voluntary negotiation of "equitable agreements" between member Governments, where each agrees to recognise the health and hygiene requirements of the other where these have broadly the same effect.
  The Commission has made clear that, in negotiating agreements of this kind on behalf of the EU, it will want to include animal welfare. That, I am sure, is the right way forward for the time being. It will take some time to build the same consensus internationally that we have at home about the need to respect animal welfare safeguards throughout the production chain. As a result, it will be premature to try to force the issue on to the agenda of the World Trade Organisation now. Were we to do so, we would end up with international standards far below our own and far below what are needed. I am sure that the best way to achieve our objectives is to build agreement in Europe and with our trading partners outside.
  I must tell the hon. Member for North Cornwall, who has raised this important debate this evening, that getting a European-wide agreement and bringing the standards of other European partner countries up to our level has been and will continue to be a major part of the work that my right hon. Friend does in his negotiations with our partners.
  I have dwelt until now on the legal issues, and although I do not pretend that our task will be easy, we will continue to work towards a position where the law as it applies within the European Union and in relation to its trading partners does not require us to contemplate what to do about lower standards—because it simply will not be relevant. There is, of course, other action that we can take while that process is going on. We are already looking at the prospects for developing the welfare-friendly veal market in the UK. We held a seminar on the subject in February and are also funding a demonstration farm, where producers can see how veal can be produced in systems with the highest welfare standards, and also suggesting to caterers that they should consider using welfare-friendly veal produced under the sort of conditions that we require in this country. I recognise that welfare-friendly veal is and will continue to be a specialist market which will account for a relatively small number of calves. Nevertheless, precisely

  687
  because it is a small market, the work in which MAFF and the Meat and Livestock Commission are engaged can make a difference.
  I would also hope that our pig industry will seize the opportunity provided by the forthcoming ban on sow stalls and tethers, and emphasise to consumers the high welfare conditions under which British pigs are produced. When last week I attended the pig and poultry fair at Stoneleigh, I had many discussions with people in the industry. It was very encouraging to see that the people who purchase the pigmeat, the retailers and others, are very conscious of the fact that they will be demanding these high standards if they are to purchase in the future. That will automatically exclude imports from countries that do not raise their standards to the level demanded by the United Kingdom.
  Consumers also need to be encouraged to look for British pork—especially bacon, which has already been mentioned this evening. Bacon has a guarantee of high welfare standards and high quality, 85 per cent. of British pigs being in the top two quality grades. At present much of the production in other member states from which we import pigmeat—mainly bacon—relies on systems that will be banned here by 1999. I think that consumers should be made aware of that.
  As I have said, retailers are also conscious of the high-quality health and welfare standards that British pigmeat guarantees them. We have encouraged the development of the British quality assured pigmeat initiative, and announced recently that the Government would continue to run the pig assurance scheme—the farm assurance part of the BQAPI—and hold fees at current levels for three years. I hope that that will prove helpful to the pigmeat industry.
  In recent months, retailers have made encouraging statements. I hope that those statements will come to fruition, and they will buy all their pigmeat from systems that meet our welfare standards.
  Promotion of British meat and meat products is a major responsibility of the Meat and Livestock Commission, and it does a very good job. Hon. Members will have seen the entertaining and highly successful television campaign
  688
  entitled "Recipe for Love". Retailers need to be encouraged to identify and promote British meat to consumers, so that all the awareness of the quality and value being built up can be fully exploited.
  The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the question of meat products coming into the United Kingdom and the possibility that they may contain veterinary medicine residues, hormone growth promoters and other types of drug which—as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out—would be a matter of great concern. Intra-Community trade in meat and animal products has now largely been harmonised: red meat and poultry products must be health marked, and accompanied by commercial documentation confirming that the consignments are in accordance with both public and animal health trade rules. Consignments of other animal products must currently be accompanied by official health certificates confirming compliance with Community or national rules, pending the introduction of new arrangements similar to those applying to red meat and meat products and poultry meat.
  We take very seriously the need to test and monitor meat products that come into this country. The hon. Gentleman mentioned clenbuterol. I am aware that traces of clenbuterol have been found in meat; we are investigating the specific case that the hon. Gentleman cited, to ensure that we obtain all the facts and are able to discover how the information came through the Consumers Association and, if necessary, take action.
  We should beware of complacency. The Ministry is working hard to secure EC-wide agreements to ensure that standards equal our own—not just so that people are not disadvantaged commercially; we genuinely believe in the need to raise animal welfare standards throughout the Community.
  I am encouraged by what I have seen in my visits to countries in Europe. I believe that we have led the way, and that we are making some progress. I do not deny that in some cases it may be a long haul, but Britain has led the way. Farmers, the food industry and consumers also have a part to play. The Government, meanwhile, will continue to maintain the safety and quality of our meat here at home, and will do our best to ensure that standards in other EC countries are brought up to the level of ours.

Point of Order
9.44 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may know that earlier today Madam Speaker replied to me on a point of order about the contents of a letter that she sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) in connection with a matter of privilege which he raised. I should be grateful if you could relay these points to Madam Speaker on the points of order on which she graciously replied to me.
First, I take it that, because she did not say what was in the letter, it was not a ruling from the Chair in the normal sense and does not preclude any further ruling in respect of this matter. Secondly, unprecedented conduct, or possible unprecedented conduct, may require unprecedented procedures. In her letter, Madam Speaker told my hon. Friend that an early-day motion would be a
690
possibility. However, this Session has shown that a debate arising from such a motion could not easily be instigated from the Back Benches. That is because, whereas in the last Session there were 12 occasions on which a Member winning the ballot would have been able to have a debate on such a motion, because of the Jopling arrangements there is none available in this Session. Therefore, I suggest that conditions have changed.
An early-day motion on this matter has been signed by 60 hon. Members. Will you ask Madam Speaker whether hon. Members should be able not only to defend but perhaps to explain such matters, which are of the privilege of the public rather than of the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am not able to deal with this tonight. I assure him that his comments will have been noted.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Ten o'clock.

EMPLOYMENT

  Volunteer Work
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what steps he is taking to encourage unemployed people to seek relevant work experience through volunteering. [24448]

  Miss Widdecombe
  We recognise that volunteering can help unemployed people keep in touch with the labour market and contribute to improving their prospects of getting a job. The potential advantages of undertaking voluntary work while unemployed are set out in an Employment Department leaflet entitled "Voluntary Work When You're Unemployed", copies of which are available in the Library. There are special arrangements in the benefit rules for unemployed people undertaking voluntary work. They are allowed 48 hours' notice to be available for work; and voluntary work is taken into account in determining whether someone is actively seeking employment.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what trials or pilot schemes of anticipated jobseeker's allowance procedures have been undertaken by his Department; where they have been held; how long they lasted; what they covered; and what were the results. [25575]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The jobseeker's allowance implementation project team is setting up trials of the jobseeker's allowance process in 20 locations throughout England, Scotland and Wales. Three trials, in Newton Abbot, Barnstaple and Exeter, started during April. Other locations where trials are likely to start during June are Bathgate, Alnwick, Jarrow, Middlesbrough, Cheetham Hill, Goole, Porthmadog, Madeley, Halesowen, Norwich, Gabalfa and Victoria Park. Discussions are under way with the Employment Service and the Benefits Agency in other locations where trials might take place.

  The trial offices will simulate the jobseeker's allowance process as closely as possible under existing legislation. Evaluation of the trials will inform development of operational procedures.

PRIME MINISTER

  Nolan Committee
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister what has been the cost to public funds to date of the Nolan committee; what payments or emoluments have been 378
  made to each member of the committee; what are the anticipated on-going costs; and if he will make a statement. [25259]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Nolan committee's first report, which was published last week and states that the committee's total estimated cost to the end of April 1995 was £317,200.

  Lord Nolan, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and Ms Diana Warwick do not receive emoluments for their Nolan committee work as they already receive a salary from other public funds. Other members of the committee were paid a salary of £1,000 per month from November 1994 to April 1995. They are now receiving an attendance fee of £155 per day. Members travel and subsistence expenses are met from public funds.

  The on-going cost of the committee is estimated to be £500,000 a year.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister what further action he proposes to take to advance the Government's deregulation initiative. [25801]

  The Prime Minister
  I have established a new ministerial committee to co-ordinate the Government's programme of deregulation and consider how the burden of deregulation on business, charities and individuals can be kept to a minimum. Copies of the terms of reference and membership are in the Library of the House.

  MINISTERIAL COMMITTEE ON DEREGULATION (EDD)

  Composition

  President of the Board of Trade (Chairman)

  Lord President of the Council

  Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  Secretary of State for Employment

  Lord Privy Seal

  Chief Secretary to the Treasury

  Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs,

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Other Ministers will be invited to attend as necessary.

  Terms of Reference
  "To co-ordinate the Government's programme of deregulation and to consider how the burden of regulation on businesses, charities and individuals can be kept to a minimum."

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Resignations
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners (1) if he will list the estimates the Commission has been given by the House of Bishops on the estimated number of resignations and claims which will be made to the Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure 1993 up until the expiry of the Measure;

  (2) what estimates the Church Commission has made of the number of priests who will claim compensation under the Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure 1993 for each year until the expiry of the Measure.
  379
  Mr. Alison
  The House of Bishops has not itself provided estimates, the Church Commissioners' estimates are their own, following consultation with the Church of England pensions board.

  As at 30 April 1995, 265 clergy eligible for financial assistance under the Measure had resigned and so far have received £3.5 million in resettlement grants and periodic payments. A further 40 clergy have indicated their intention to resign. It is difficult to predict the final number of resignations. However, actual expenditure in 1994 and illustrative costings based on a possible total of 350 resignations are set out in the following table. These reflect the pattern of expenditure to date.

  Illustration of costs for 350 resignations

  Year

  Gross Costs to be met from CC Income £

  Housing Capital (funded by CC) £

  Net for Church£

  Net Housing Capital (funded by (CC) £

  1994

  2,452,000

  5,011,000

  747,000

  5,011,000

  1995

  3,439,000

  4,770,000

  1,872,000

  4,770,000

  1996

  3,216,000

  1,370,000

  1,899,000

  1,370,000

  1997

  2,434,000

  355,000

  1,226,000

  54,000

  1998

  1,731,000

  213,000

  706,000

  (100,000)

  1999

  1,250,000

  111,000

  433,000

  (215,000)

  2000

  890,000

  85,000

  272,000

  (254,000)

  2001

  851,000

  88,000

  412,000

  (264,000)

  2002

  707,000

  91,000

  413,000

  (274,000)

  2003

  625,000

  95,000

  437,000

  (285,000)

  2004

  415,000

  —

  321,000

  (396,000)

  2005

  289,000

  —

  244,000

  (411,000)

  2006

  216,000

  —

  197,000

  (428,000)

  2007

  211,000

  —

  204,000

  (445,000)

  2008

  211,000

  —

  209,000

  (463,000)

  2009

  217,000

  —

  216,000

  (361,000)

  2010

  221,000

  —

  221,000

  (375,000)

  2011

  226,000

  —

  226,000

  (390,000)

  2012

  233,000

  —

  233,000

  (406,000)

  Total

  19,834,000

  12,189,000

  10,488,000

  6,138,000

  Notes:

  (a) The number of resignations shown, 350, is a broad estimate, and the final costs may vary substantially.

  (b) Actual costs based on 232 resignations are shown in respect of 1994. A similar pattern of costs has been assumed for future years.

  (c) The figures make allowance for future increases in house prices and stipends.

  (d) It has been assumed that 50 per cent. of resigners will require housing assistance.

  (e) The net figures take account of such variables as stipends savings—assuming at least a temporary reduction in the payroll— allowance for retirement housing provision which would otherwise have arisen on retirement, and the possibility of some people redeeming loans or leaving rented accommodation once they have obtained alternative employment.

  Clergy (Resignations)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, as representing the Church Commissioners what redundancy and other terms are being awarded to clergy who have left the Church of England to join the Roman Catholic Church.

  Mr. Alison
  Clergy who resign from ecclesiastical service and apply for assistance under the Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure 1993 are entitled to the various payments stipulated by the Measure, irrespective of whether they join another church. Provision is made for periodical payments and a380
  resettlement grant. Additional discretionary payments may be made in cases of hardship, and access is also granted to the Church's housing assistance for the retired ministry scheme. Clergy in receipt of assistance under the Measure are obliged to disclose the income or other benefits derived from any new employment or office, and their periodical payments may be reduced or terminated to take account of this.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library(a) a copy of the paper on the United Kingdom's activities relating to the objectives of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to which reference was made by Sir Michael Weston in his presentation to main committee I of the non-proliferation treaty conference on 19 April, (b) all other working papers submitted by the United Kingdom delegation to the main and sub-committees, (c) details of responses made by other delegations to United Kingdom submissions and (d) a copy of the final declaration from the conference; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of the non-proliferation treaty review and extension conference.

  Mr. David Davis
  Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library providing information on the activities and views of the United Kingdom on the principal objectives of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and of our statements to main committees I, II, and III. Copies of the verbatim records of the open debates in the main committees will also be placed in the House Library. It is not our practice to disclose working papers. The conference did not adopt a final declaration. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made a statement to the House on 16 May,Official Report, columns 151–61.

  China (Nuclear Tests)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to China about the nuclear weapons test conducted in China on 14 May. [24882]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have made no formal representations to the Chinese. We have noted their repeated commitment to abide by a comprehensive test ban treaty and look forward to their active participation in the negotiations on that treaty, which we hope will reach an early conclusion.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what indication the Chinese delegation at the recent nuclear non-proliferation treaty conference in New York gave to the United Kingdom diplomatic delegation of the intention of China to conduct a nuclear weapons test on 14 May. [24881]

  Mr. David Davis
  None.

  Iran (Nuclear Weapons)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent
  381
  information has been provided to Her Majesty's Government by the Government of the United States concerning the technical capability and aspirations of Iran to obtain nuclear weapons. [24883]

  Mr. David Davis
  We remain in close touch with the US Government on this issue. However, it is not our practice to reveal details of confidential exchanges with other Governments. We have grave concerns about the nuclear weapon aspirations of Iran, and we continue to work closely with the United States and our European partners to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

  Staff
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many posts were lost in(a) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (b) agencies for which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible, listing the total lost posts agency by agency in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and how many posts are proposed to be lost in 1995–96. [25080]

  Mr. Goodlad
  Details of reductions in job slots resulting from efficiency measures taken in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Overseas Development Administration up to 1993–94 have been published annually in the citizens charter White Paper.

  The number of job slots reduced in 1994–95 was: FCO, 1985; ODA, 32; and Natural Resources Institute, 49. The following reductions in 1995–96 have also been identified: FCO, 92; ODA, 50; and NRI, 140.

  There have been no reductions in slots at Wilton Park, the FCO agency, nor are there plans for reductions in 1995–96.

  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes there have been in the numbers of staff employed by(a) the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and (b) agencies for which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible, listing the changes in the number of staff agency by agency in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what changes are projected for 1995–96. [25062]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The members of permanent and casual staff employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office diplomatic wing and its executive agency and the Overseas Development Administration in 1993–94, projected outturn for 1994–95, and plans for 1995–96 are published in this Department's annual report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  The breakdown for the Overseas Development Administration and its agency, the Natural Resources Institute, is:

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  ODA

  Civil Service full-time equivalents

  1,190

  1,137

  1,120

  Overtime

  21

  17

  17

  Casuals

  56

  63

  70

  1,267

  1,217

  1,207

  NRI

  Civil Service full-time equivalents

  428

  341

  341

  Overtime

  3

  3

  3

  Casuals

  25

  25

  25

  456

  369

  369

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken on the application made by Arshad Iqbal—ref: IMM/C8387—to the post in Islamabad to join his wife in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [25049]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have asked the high commission in Islamabad for details and will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit as soon as possible.

  UN Conference on Women
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the size and membership of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and United Nations Family Planning Association delegations to the UN conference on women to be held in Beijing and of his Department's delegation. [25315]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have no information on the size or composition of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the United Nations Family Planning Association delegations to the fourth world conference on women. On the British delegation, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment on 16 March,Official Report, column 648.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the human rights implications of choosing Beijing as the venue for the UN conference on women; what consideration was given to China's population programme in the choice of venue; what were the reasons for the choice; what representations Her Majesty's Government made to the conference organisers on the issue; and what provision is being made on the agenda to discuss the programme.

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Peking was nominated as the venue for the fourth world conference on women in accordance with the United Nations principle of geographical rotation. Population will be discussed in one of the critical areas of concern in the global platform for action.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to send a delegation of hon. Members and military experts to East Timor to assess whether British arms including Hawk aircraft are being used against the local civilian population by the Indonesian army. [25168]

  Mr. Goodlad
  None.

  We have closely considered the latest allegations that Hawk aircraft have used to attack villages in East Timor and found no evidence from any source to support them.

  Our embassy staff visit East Timor regularly, as do other western diplomats. The all-party Anglo-Indonesian parliamentary group visited East Timor from 17 to 19 September 1994.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees he
  383
  has received that Scorpion tanks exported to Indonesia will not be used against either Indonesia or East Timorese civilians. [25169]

  Mr. Goodlad
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 2 March,Official Report, column 716.

  Romania
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by Her Majesty's Government to promote and sustain the reform process in Romania; and what results have been achieved by the establishment of the Romania information service. [25241]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We continue to support the reform process in Romania through a variety of means including the know-how fund. Romania is now a member of the Council of Europe and has an association agreement with the European Union. We also support financially the Romanian information centre which responds to the needs for advice and support for over 500 British charities and non-governmental organisations working in Romania.

  Charar-e-Sharief Shrine
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the representatives of the Governments of India and Pakistan following the destruction of the holy shrine Charar-e-Sharief; and if he will make a statement. [25249]

  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has not had any discussions with the representatives of the Government of India and Pakistan following the destruction of the holy shrine at Charar-e-Sharief.

  Iraq
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent actions he has taken to ascertain the fate of Kuwaiti military personnel and civilians abducted by the Iraqis; and if he will make a statement. [25389]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We raise this issue at the United Nations at every opportunity and did so most recently when the Security Council reviewed sanctions against Iraq on 12 May. We have made it clear to the Iraqis that the lack of progress to date is unacceptable. We will continue to play a leading role in the tripartite commission and its technical sub-committee set up last December to speed up the review of case files on the detainees.

  Uzbekistan
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent reports he has received of the harassment of Christians in Uzbekistan; and if he will make a statement. [25592]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We have received reports of a meeting in Tashkent in April 1994 at which all religious organisations in Uzbekistan were warned against missionary activity, in particular the publishing and distribution of religious literature. We are not aware of any specific cases of harassment of Christians in Uzbekistan.

  Instruments of Torture
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice has been given to his Department to (a) the Secretary of State for Defence and (b) the President of the Board of Trade on the transfer of weapons that can be used for torture overseas. [25674]

  Mr. David Davis
  A wide variety of weapons could conceivably be used for torture. If this Department judged that defence equipment, if transferred, would be likely to be so used, it would advise against the transfer.

ENVIRONMENT

  Mortgage Arrears and Repossessions
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what are the main conclusions of his Department's report on mortgage arrears and repossessions; if he will identify, specifically, all the conclusions which refer to problems associated with the widespread promotion and uptake of private insurance to cover mortgage interest in the event of redundancy; and if he will make a statement; [24846]

  (2) if he will list all the individuals, companies and organisations which were consulted by his officials in preparing their report on mortgage arrears and repossessions; [24845]

  (3) what has been the cost of producing his Department's report on mortgage arrears and repossessions; and if he will be arranging a press conference to publish that report; [24847]

  (4) when he intends to publish the full results of the report undertaken by his Department on mortgage arrears and repossessions; if he intends to circulate that report with an appropriate press release to the media; if he will make it his policy to make copies of that report immediately available through the Vote Office to all right hon. and hon. Members, and if he intends to make a statement in the House on the conclusions of that report; [24844]

  (5) what plans he has to make available to the Secretary of State for Social Security copies of his Department's report on mortgage arrears and repossessions. [24848]

  Mr. Curry
  On 18 May 1995, my Department published the report of a £313,000 study commissioned from the university of Loughborough and the Policy Studies Institute into mortgage arrears, possessions and voluntary surrenders. Copies of the report, entitled "Mortgage arrears and possessions: perspectives from borrowers, lenders and the courts", have been placed in the Library. Copies have been sent to other Government Departments with an interest in the study, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Association of British Insurers, the Audit Commission, the Housing Corporation and the local authority associations. Further copies are available from HMSO outlets.

  In the course of the study, the researchers carried out surveys and interviews with representative borrowers, lenders and district judges. The methods used and number of respondents of each type are described on pages 115

  385
  to 121 of the report. The main conclusions of the study are set out in pages 107 to 113 of the report, and those relating to mortgage protection insurance are on pages 60 to 62.

  Radioactive Waste, Milton
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the dumping of low-level radioactive waste on the Milton landfill site; and how many of them were in favour of the proposal to dump low-level radioactive waste on the Milton landfill site. [24816]

  Mr. Atkins
  Low-level radioactive waste from "small users" such as hospitals and research laboratories has been disposed of by "controlled burial" at the Milton landfill site for a number of years. The Department's consultation document, "Review of Radioactive Waste Management Policy: Preliminary Conclusions", published in August 1994, suggested that greater use should be encouraged of controlled burial by radioactive waste producers including the nuclear industry. No proposals were made for specific sites. The conclusions of the radioactive waste review will be published in a White Paper in the summer.

  The Department has received 220 letters opposing the disposal of low-level radioactive waste from the nuclear industry at the Milton site, together with two petitions—one with 766 signatures, the other with five. I also understand that the operators of the Milton site have said that they will not accept radioactive waste from the nuclear industry.

  Water Quality
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what guidance on appraisal, covering environmental, economic and financial costs to industry, he has given to the National Rivers Authority to assist it when it draws up its recommendations for statutory water quality objectives for the pilot rivers; and what arrangements he has made for the appraisals to be made available to the public. [24772]

  Mr. Atkins
  It is for the National Rivers Authority to support its recommendations for statutory water quality objectives with an assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of achieving them. It is intended that this should form part of the public consultation document on the proposals.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what provisional resources his Department makes available to assist low-income households improve the energy efficiency of their homes. [25145]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Our major energy efficiency programme for low-income households is the home energy efficiency scheme. More than 1 million households have benefited since 1991 from this scheme, which pays grants for basic home insulation measures and energy advice to householders who are over 60, receive an income-related benefit or disability living allowance. We have increased provision for the scheme substantially. During 1995–96, some £100 million will be made available for grants, and a similar sum has been set aside for each of the next two years. Over the next three years, I expect almost 2 million households to benefit from grants.
  386
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the results of the funding by Midlands Electricity of neighbourhood energy action projects to benefit low-income consumers in the west midlands; and if he will commend the extension of private and voluntary sector partnership to other utilities. [25146]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  More than 20 different projects in the west midlands, ranging in scope from the provision of energy advice to non-English-speaking communities to home improvement programmes building on the energy efficiency measures available under our home energy efficiency scheme, have resulted from Midland Electricity's generous contribution to a partnership with the charity Neighbourhood Energy Action. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State visited one of these projects in the Sparkbrook area of Birmingham on 20 March this year, and was impressed with the energy efficiency improvements for the benefit of low-income households. This initiative is a good example of the kind of partnership between the private and voluntary sectors which many other energy companies have already adopted or are considering.

  Landfill Sites
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the safety of the United Kingdom's landfill sites. [24992]

  Mr. Atkins
  All landfill sites are required to be licensed by waste regulation authorities in accordance with part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. A waste regulation authority is required to reject an application for a licence unless it is satisfied that the landfill operation will not lead to pollution of the environment, harm to human health or serious detriment to the amenities of the locality. Conditions are attached to licences to ensure that operations do not lead to pollution or harm. Waste regulation authorities should regularly review licences to ensure that the conditions remain appropriate and effective. Authorities have powers to suspend or revoke licences if the licensed activities would cause pollution or harm.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his proposals for the allocation of standard spending assessments to the new unitary authorities created as a result of local government reorganisation in Cleveland. [25220]

  Mr. Curry
  The standard spending assessments for the new unitary authorities in Cleveland will be calculated on the basis of the services which these authorities provide, using the formulae which are applied to all relevant authorities.

  Details of the formulae for 1995–96 are set out in the publication "Standard Spending Assessment Handbook, 1995–96", which is available from the Library. Following the review work which we undertake each year with the local authority associations, we will publish our proposals for 1996–97 in the usual way in December.

  UN Conference on Environment and Development
  Mr. Sheermen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment his Department has made of the progress of our European partners towards satisfying the recommendations of the United Nations conference on environment and development. [24986]

  Mr. Atkins
  The primary responsibility for carrying forward the commitments entered into at the Rio Earth summit lies with individual countries. At the request of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, EU colleagues adopted an action plan to implement the Rio commitments. Progress on meeting these commitments, and reviewing them as appropriate, is discussed at international fora such as the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, and the recent Berlin meeting of parties to the convention on climate change. The European Community's fifth environmental action programme, "Towards Sustainability", is linked closely to the principles and themes of Agenda 21. The UK is contributing fully to the present review of the programme by the European Commission.

  Compulsory Competitive Tendering
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to ensure housing management services are exempt from compulsory competitive tendering during local government reorganisation and that those authorities with only boundary changes following the review are exempted in the same way as those with structural changes. [25560]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  On 12 December, the Government made regulations—the Local Government Changes for England (Direct Labour and Service Organisations) Regulations 1994—to exempt local authorities undergoing reorganisation from most of the requirements of compulsory competitive tendering. However, the regulations as drafted did not extend to housing management services or to authorities which will undergo functional changes but where the transferor authority has not been abolished. I have now made amendment regulations to rectify these omissions. These are being laid before the House today.

  I have also taken the opportunity in these same amendment regulations to extend the exemption to local authority subject to boundary changes but not structural changes as a result of the implementation of the recommendations of the Local Government Commission made in pursuance of a direction given before the date these regulations were made. I think it only fair that such authorities are treated in a similar way as those that have been restructured. They also will face problems arising from the need to take decisions on appropriate new patterns of service delivery.

  Abandoned Mine Workings
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what resources, capital and revenue have been allocated to the National Rivers Authority, in the current year and in the next three years' projections specifically for clean up operations of ferruginous discharges from abandoned mine workings. [24907]

  Mr. Atkins
  The National Rivers Authority receives an annual block allocation of resources to cover the gap between income and expenditure on its functions other than 388
  flood defence. Subject to ministerial guidance on priorities the amount used to cover clean-up of ferruginous discharges from abandoned mines is a matter for the NRA. The NRA's corporate plan has made provision for £2 million expenditure for clean-up of ferruginous discharges from abandoned mines in 1995–96 and envisages provision of a similar amount in the three following years.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the projects, both proposed and in operation, relating to discharges from abandoned mine workings, for which the National Rivers Authority has applied for resources. [24908]

  Mr. Atkins
  The National Rivers Authority receives an annual block allocation of resources to cover the gap between income and expenditure on its functions other than flood defence. Subject to ministerial guidance on priorities, the use of these resources is a matter for the NRA. Except in the case of Wheal Jane, the NRA has not applied for resources for individual mine-water projects.

  Wading Birds, Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the European Union environment directorate concerning compliance with the undertaking given to create alternative bird reserves to mitigate the loss of wading birds' habitat in Cardiff bay. [25281]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The European Commission was consulted about a review of the options for suitable sites for mitigating measures. The Commission is being kept informed of progress.

  Majority Shareholdings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those companies in which the holder of his office is a majority shareholder which (a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the past five years. [25718]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  National Parks
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State how he intends to respond to the concerns of those who live and work in the national parks that their views should be properly represented in the management of these special areas. [25745]

  Mr. Atkins
  I am well aware of the concerns expressed during the Bill's passage that local people should have greater involvement in the running of the parks and management of parks affairs. We have already made a number of amendments to the Bill to strengthen the part which local people should play in the parks' affairs. These have generally been welcomed, but we have been giving further thought to the membership of the NPAs, so as to ensure that the interests of park residents are properly represented on the new authorities.

  Under the proposals, a third category of membership would be added to the current provisions of the Bill, which allow for two thirds of the members of the new authorities to be appointed by the local authorities—county, district and metropolitan district councils—with land in the parks and one third by the Secretary of State. The new category would be allocated to parishes which lie wholly or partly within the parks.
  389
  It is proposed that the new authorities would be constituted along the following lines:

  i) one half of the members plus 1 to be appointed by local authorities with land in the parks; and

  ii) the remainder to be appointed by the Secretary of State, of whom one half of his members minus 1 would be drawn from the relevant parishes.

  Parish members would be drawn from parishes wholly or partly in the parks, and would be serving parish councillors or, where there is no parish council, chairmen of parish meetings.

  Nominations to the Secretary of State for parish members would be sought from any or all of the following: the National Association of Local Councils, groupings of parishes within the parks or individual parishes. Nominations could also come from other sources, including individuals with an interest in park affairs.

  Parish members would be appointed by the Secretary of State, after consulting the Countryside Commission, as is already the case for his direct appointments, and would be subject to the same provisions as set out in the Bill as regards, for example, attendance, disqualification from holding office, members' interests, allowances, as apply to local authority and other members appointed by the Secretary of State. I have placed a copy of the letter which I have sent to local authorities in the Libraries of the Houses.

  These proposals apply to the English national parks. Because of commitments which have already been made in respect of the membership of the national park board being established under the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, and the circular letters already issued for consultations about establishing Welsh NPAs, the Secretary of State for Wales is proposing to leave unchanged the provisions for membership of the NPAs as they apply in Wales.

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the chairmanship of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee. [25767]

  Mr. Gummer
  Together with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, I have today appointed Sir Gordon Beveridge to succeed Sir John Knill as chairman of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, when his appointment ends on 31 May. Sir Gordon's appointment is for a three-year term ending on 31 May 1998.

  I have written to Sir John Knill to thank him for the excellent work he has done for the Committee over a period of nearly 10 years, for more than seven of which he has been chairman.

  Sewage Sludge
  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on the Government's response to the recommendations from the review on the current rules on sewage sludge use in agriculture; and if he will make a statement. [25746]

  Mr. Atkins
  Environment and Agriculture Ministers have considered the two reports from the review which examined the soil fertility aspects and the food safety and relevant animal health aspects. We are reassured by their general conclusions on the level of protection afforded by the current rules on sewage sludge use in agriculture.390
  Following consultation with appropriate bodies, we have decided to reduce the advisory limit for zinc in the code of practice on sludge use in agriculture. We shall review the limit again when results from recently commissioned, long-term research become available.

  We have also decided to reduce the advisory limit for cadmium where sewage sludge is applied to grass managed in rotation or grown for conservation. In addition, research will be undertaken to address the review's recommendation on dropping the pH banding for metal limits.

  The water industry has been successful in effectively controlling direct and identifiable metal inputs to sewers, and achieving reductions in metal concentrations in sewage sludge. Trade effluent charges based on the polluter pays principle should lead to continuing improvements in sludge quality. In addition, we expect further reductions in cadmium and mercury concentrations in sewage sludge as we continue implementation of integrated pollution control.

  As recommended, we are also considering the need for controls on heavy metals from other waste materials and products, including animal manures, to protect soil fertility. Results from a study investigating metal inputs to agricultural soils from all sources will shortly be available.

  The decisions we have taken will enable sewage sludge to continue to beneficially recycled to agriculture land, while ensuring that soil microbial processes and human, animal plant health are not put at risk from potentially toxic elements which may be present in sludge.

  British Gas Sites
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the sites formerly owned by British Gas where (a) discussions regarding grant aid have occurred, (b) grant aid has been formally applied for and (c) grant aid has been approved in order to redevelop the sites giving, in each case, the amount of aid involved and including grant aid from (i) his Department and (ii) urban development corporations and other publicly funded bodies. [24599]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information on the former ownership of sites which have been subject to applications for grant is not readily available. In many cases, the previous landowner is unknown. I will, however, write to the hon. Gentleman with such further information as we can gather.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Public Library Review
  Mr. MacIennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to publish the findings of the public library review and the study of the possibilities for contracting out in public libraries; what proposals he has to consult with local authorities and the Library Association; and if he will make a statement. [24407]
  391
  Mr. Sproat
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement about the public library review that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made on Tuesday 16 May,Official Report, columns 150–51. The separate contracting out study was completed and received by my Department after the Aslib report and we are looking carefully at its findings. We expect to make a further statement in due course.

DEFENCE

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current policy in respect of the recognition of Gulf war syndrome; and if he will make a statement. [24125]

  Mr. Soames
  No evidence has emerged to support the existence of a medical condition peculiar to those who served in the Gulf which would justify recognition of the term Gulf war syndrome. We will, however, continue to investigate all those with Gulf-related health concerns and all allegations, both scientific and anecdotal, which bear on this issue.

  Former Service Personnel
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met representatives of the Royal British Legion to discuss the establishment of a Ministry for Veterans Affairs as a sub-department of MOD; and if he will make a statement. [24072]

  Mr. Soames
  Following a meeting last November between the Minister of State for Social Security, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence and representatives of the Royal British Legion, it was agreed that many matters relating to the welfare of former service personnel fall within the scope of the Department of Social Security. That Department is now taking the lead on these issues.

  Plutonium
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will obtain a copy of the United States Department of Energy's plutonium working group report on environmental safety and health vulnerabilities associated with the department's plutonium storage published in November 1994; and if he will evaluate its relevance for the situation at sites and facilities operated by the Atomic Weapons Establishment and British Nuclear Fuels pic on behalf of his Department. [24294]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department's study of the report is currently in progress. The UK's position is, however, different from that of the US in that our holding of fissile materials is broadly in balance with national needs at any given time and is, in the main, embodied in manufactured warheads. The question of managing a substantial reserve stockpile does not, therefore, arise.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals were put by the United Kingdom to the meeting of Western European Union Defence and Foreign Affairs Ministers in Lisbon on 15 May. [25292]
  392
  Mr. Soames
  The WEU Ministerial Council met to consider a number of issues, including the contribution that we expect the WEU to make to the 1996 intergovernmental conference to review the provisions of the Maastricht treaty, and the internal development of the WEU itself to provide it with new decision-making and planning mechanisms and structures. The WEU Council also met associate partners to review progress on a study of the new security conditions in Europe. The UK has made a significant contribution to the debate on all these topics, both at the ministerial meeting and in the preceding months. In particular, we have made proposals for the development of the WEU as the defence arm of the European Union, which were set out in the "Memorandum on the UK's approach to the treatment of European defence issues at the 1996 Inter-Governmental Conference", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. WEU Ministers welcomed the UK's contribution in this regard, as noted in the Lisbon declaration, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House shortly. The UK has also worked with Italy to develop proposals for a WEU task force for humanitarian missions, which Ministers endorsed at Lisbon.

  Russia
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the recent evaluation of the current military threat posed by Russia made by the Chief of the Defence Staff. [25264]

  Mr. Soames
  Although Russia currently poses no direct military threat to the United Kingdom, it retains immense military forces, both conventional and nuclear; the progress of reform, which we all hope will succeed, will remain an important determinant of our security and defence policies.

  Crown Housing Trust
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 January,Official Report, column 192, what amount of performance-related bonus was received by the chief executive of the Crown Housing Trust on the anniversary of his appointment. [25178]

  Mr. Soames
  The chief executive (designate) of the Crown Housing Trust received a total of £19,900 in performance bonus for his service, which was terminated on 31 March 1995.

  Empty Dwellings
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action his Department has taken to reserve all empty MOD dwellings that have been standing empty for six months or more and negotiate their disposal by lease or sale to local authorities of housing associations. [25175]

  Mr. Soames
  The majority of my Department's empty dwellings are not surplus to requirements but are undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work, already allotted to service families due to move in shortly, or form part of the management margin needed to ensure that accommodation is available for entitled service families. Those properties which are surplus are, wherever possible, offered for sale to service personnel through the services' discount scheme to enable them to purchase a home of
  393
  their own. Surplus properties not suitable for this scheme are normally offered in the first instance to housing associations or local authorities before being offered for sale on the open market. In addition, we are planning an enhanced programme of leasing to housing associations or local authorities of properties which are temporarily surplus to requirements but which will be needed again in the long term.

  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MOD homes in Cheshire are empty; and how many of these homes have been empty for more than six months. [25177]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 31 March, my Department owned 107 empty houses in Cheshire, of which 26 had been empty for more than six months. Many of the vacant properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work, already allotted to service families due to move in shortly or formed part of the management margin needed to ensure that accommodation is available for entitled service families. Twenty-eight of the 107 empty properties were in the process of being sold.

  US Air Bases
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the UK American air base sites that have been declared surplus to requirement and sold between April 1991 and April 1995; and the total income generated. [25180]

  Mr. Soames
  The only American air base site that has been declared surplus to requirement and sold between April 1991 and April 1995 is RAF Chessington, Surrey. The income generated from this sale is commercial in-confidence between my Department and the purchaser.

  Surplus RAF Sites
  Mr. Hall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the RAF sites that have been declared surplus to requirement and sold between April 1991 and April 1995; and the total income generated. [25179]

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF sites which were declared surplus to requirement and sold between April 1991 and April 1995 are:

  RAF Chessington, Surrey, formerly UK American air base

  RAF Barnwood, Gloucestershire

  RAF Collaton Cross, Deveon

  RAF Mountbatten, Devon

  RAF Bawdsey, Suffolk

  RAF Ely, Cambridgeshire

  RAF Greatworth, Northamptonshire

  RAF Northcoates, Lincolnshire

  RAF Orfordness, Suffolk

  RAF Jurby Head, Isle of Man

  RAF Bishopscourt, Northern Ireland

  The total income generated from these sales was £18,988,689.

  Bovington
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed at Bovington and Lulworth broken down by types of employee; and whether they live on or off site. [25587]

  Mr. Soames
  There are at present 686 military personnel, about 400 civilian staff and 205 contractors employed at Bovington. Nearly all the military live on 394
  site; and nearly all the civilians live off site. This does not include trainees who come to Bovington for courses, who number around 3,500 a year.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of building sufficient facilities for the 3rd Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment at Bovington on land abutting Stanley barracks, by comparison to splitting the regiment between Bovington and Lulworth; and what studies have been carried out to look at these two options. [25585]

  Mr. Soames
  The two options were both examined in the study of the comparative costs of future locations of the 3rd Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment. This work showed that the cost of building facilities at Bovington alone would be about £7 million higher than the costs of splitting the regiment. Moreover, building extra facilities on a green field site at Bovington would disrupt training activity.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give a breakdown of the living accommodation at Bovington and Lulworth including the number of vacancies; how much of the accommodation is occupied by people on courses; what other accommodation the MOD owns within a 20-mile radius; and what are the vacancies. [25588]

  Mr. Soames
  At Stanley barracks, Bovington there are 550 bed spaces, 336 of which are for trainees. At present, there are 150 vacancies, although these vary from week to week depending on course loading.

  At Allenby barracks, Bovington there are 567 bed spaces, all of which are occupied.

  At Lulworth, there are 465 bed spaces. There are currently 142 vacancies, but these also vary depending on course loading.

  Within a 20-mile radius of Bovington and Lulworth my Department owns three sites; West Moors petroleum training school which has 30 spare bed spaces and Blandford school of signals which has 121 spare bed spaces. The number of spare bed spaces at both sites depends on course loading and will often reduce to nil. In addition to the above two sites there is a hutted and tented training camp at Wyke Regis. This camp does not possess permanent living accommodation.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training activities are carried out at Bovington camp in areas designated on the Bovington and Lulworth Ordnance Survey map as(a) S1, (b) W1 and (c) W2; how many days per year these activities are carried out; and what is the area of each of these sites. [25584]

  Mr. Soames
  The activities are as follows:

  (a) Recruit driver training, Territorial Army training, and infantry tactics; about 100 days a year; 180 acres.

  (b) Engineer training—bridging and digging, driver training, infantry tactics; 280 days a year; 165 acres.

  (c) Driving circuit used for low level infantry training and the armoured trials and development unit; about 100 days a year; 140 acres.

  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will name the consultants who were employed to advise on the location of the 3rd Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment; what were their terms of reference; if these included calculating the cost of locating the whole of the regiment at Bovington; and if he will publish their report. [25586]
  395
  Mr. Soames
  The consultants were Sawyer Architects of Winchester. Their terms of reference which are set out, required them to consider and comment on the option of locating the 3rd Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment in the Bovington area, taking into account a number of factors.

  Terms of Reference

  (1) All the land and buildings associated with Stanley barracks, Bovington and areas available for development at Lulworth camp for satisfying the statement of requirement. The married quarters are not to be considered as part of the study. Any shortfall in existing buildings is to be costed as a new build, and any shortfall of land is to be addressed with a statement on how this shortfall can be overcome.

  (2) The study is to comment on the adequacy of existing, and future requirements for land, buildings and facilities for single living, eating, sleeping, recreation, administration offices, training and working accommodation and the storage, servicing, maintenance and operation of vehicles and equipment.

  (3) Identify in conjunction with the Defence Land Agent any known or anticipated environmental constraints, planning constraints including any historical listings.

  (4) As a desk study examine information available on ground conditions, ground water table which may have a bearing on the options.

  (5) Any proposed new builds, modernisations, extensions of maintenance projects in planning/design or construction.

  (6) For each option give estimated costs of the annual maintenance for the option as a whole as well as any anticipated major maintenance items, and the year in which you estimated they will occur, over a 60-year period.

  (7) Identify with the client representative the security needs for both the active and passive ie fences, lighting, perimeter intruder defence systems, close circuit television and security of buildings.

  (8) The report should identify, consider and make a brief statement on the implications of the feasibility, planning, costing, phasing and execution of the works with the current or proposed occupants in occupation during the construction of any works identified within the options.

  A number of options were investigated including the cost of locating the whole regiment at Bovington. The consultants' report contains much information that is commercial in-confidence, and will not therefore be published. The conclusions of their report, along with other relevant factors, will, however, be made clear by the Ministry of Defence when a final decision on the future location of the 3rd Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment is made.

  Nuclear-powered Submarines
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 17 May to the hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks),Official Report, column 229, what new nuclear safety practices have been introduced; what improvements need to be made to the Devonport facilities; how much these changes will cost and when they will be completed; how many nuclear-powered submarines will be refitted at Rosyth; when a final decision will be announced; and if he will make a statement. [25694]

  Mr. Freeman
  It is Government policy that naval nuclear reactors are operated with at least as high a regard for safety standards as any other nuclear facility in the UK. Civil practice now requires a wide variety of both manmade and naturally occurring environmental hazards to be considered in the safety assessment of nuclear plant including earthquakes, extremes of wind and temperature 396
  on the environmental side, and aircraft crash, blast and dropped loads on the manmade side. In line with the developments in civil practice, additional assessment techniques have been used in this process including probabilistic risk and statistical analysis techniques.

  We are at present assessing the extent of the improvements required to existing nuclear docking facilities at Devonport. Until the assessment is complete, it would be premature to speculate on cost or time scale. We expect that the assessment will complete during this summer. Decisions will be announced shortly thereafter.

  Regarding docking facilities for nuclear-powered submarines, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to hon. Member for Cornwall, South-East on 17 May, Official Report, column 229.

  Devonport Dockyard
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what geological surveys have been carried out at the Devonport dockyard; when these surveys were carried out; what were the problems identified by the surveys; and how much money it will cost to rectify these problems. [25695]

  Mr. Freeman
  Site investigations, including borehole surveys, and desk studies have been carried out to verify that the nature of the underlying geology is suitable to support the development of nuclear submarine refitting facilities at Devonport dockyard. The site surveys were carried out in 1993, with laboratory testing and desk study work completed predominantly during 1994. The surveys confirmed that the site is underlain by competent rock which will form a suitable foundation for the proposed nuclear installations.

  No significant geological problems have been encountered on site to date.

  Accidental Shootings
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State of Defence how many accidental shootings have occurred in the armed forces in each of the last 10 years; how many of these have resulted in compensation payments to those involved; what was the total amount of these payments; and how many of those accidentally shot in the last 10 years left the armed forces as a result of the shooting. [25566]

  Mr. Soames
  In the time available about 20 cases have been identified, in which compensation has been paid to Army personnel following injuries, in some cases minor injuries, resulting from accidental shooting. The total compensation paid in these cases so far is about £250,000; this includes interim payments. Since 1987, service personnel have had the same legal rights as civilians to seek compensation for injuries at work: any dispute over my Department's liability to pay compensation, or on the amount payable, can be taken to the civil courts.

  Old Sarum Airfield
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who was the successful bidder for the freehold of Old Sarum airfield. [25677]

  Mr. Soames
  The successful bidder for the freehold of Old Sarum airfield was Megastream Ltd., trading as the Old Sarum flying club.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Job Creation
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the number of British jobs in the United Kingdom and abroad, which have been secured as a result of ODA-funded projects in the most recent period for which figures are available. [23925]

  Mr. Baldry
  An indirect benefit of aid and the economic development promotes, but there is no ready means of assessing how many or at what cost.

  South Africa
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid provision he has made for sport in South African townships. [23927]

  Mr. Baldry
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 24 April,Official Report, column 328.

  Poverty Reduction
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures he has taken to ensure that structural adjustment programmes alleviate poverty. [23923]

  Mr. Baldry
  Poverty reduction is at the heart of structural adjustment, which restores the economic growth essential for reducing poverty. Our measures alleviate poverty by promoting a framework which protects the poor and by directing our financial support for these programmes to their specific needs whenever possible.

  Aid (Overseas Jobs)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many overseas jobs in how many countries and at what cost are dependent upon United Kingdom overseas aid; and if he will make a statement. [24301]

  Mr. Baldry
  The primary purpose of UK aid is to improve the welfare of those who live in poorer countries than ourselves. An indirect benefit of aid is that jobs can be created in developing countries. But we have no means of assessing how many or at what cost. Any attempt to produce such figures would be complex, and not particularly meaningful.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Law Reform
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what consideration he is giving to examine the Law Commission's proposals to clarify legislation. [23909]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Careful consideration is given to all such proposals. Recommendations for reform in five Law Commission reports were implemented in the last Session of Parliament, and it is anticipated that at least eight further reports will be implemented this Session, together with seven consolidation and statute law repeal Bills produced by the Law Commission.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the number of remand prisoners in England and Wales who had waited more than six months for the commencement of their trial; and what was the number of these who(a) received custodial sentence, (b) received non-custodial sentence and (c) were acquitted or not proceeded with, for the latest date for which information is available. [24374]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. Gerald Bermingham, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about remand prisoners in England and Wales.
  In reply to the first part of your Question, I can tell you that in the year ending 31 March 1995, 3042 remand prisoners waited over 6 months from the date of committal to the Crown Court to the commencement of their trial.
  Information on the sentences of those defendants is not available and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. However, you may like to know that in the year ending 31 March 1995, a total of 24812 defendants on remand were committed to the Crown Court for trial. Of these 73.7 per cent received custodial sentences, 18.9 per cent, received non-custodial sentences and 7.4 per cent were acquitted on all counts.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much money has been dispersed by the legal aid fund under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1989; and what is the maximum hourly rate paid to experts with particular reference to animal psychiatrists. [24730]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  No separate records are kept on the specific cost of legal aid for cases relating to the Dangerous Dogs Act. There is no prescribed rate for the use of expert witnesses, but all bills are subject to taxation based on the merits of the case.

  Sukhwinder Kaur
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, further to the letter of the Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. Member for Walsall, North dated 16 May concerning the appeal of Sukhwinder Kaur, for what reason the registration number TH/21452/95 was given to this case by the immigration appellate authority. [25603]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In accordance with information provided by the immigration appellate authorities, my letter of 16 May explained that Sukhwinder Kaur's appeal had not been received. Subsequent inquiries show that the appeal had been received on 13 April and allocated a reference number on 25 April. I apologise for this error. The computer system used by the appellate authorities is being upgraded and difficulties have been experienced in recent weeks. It is therefore possible that the inaccurate information given in my letter was the result of a manual, but less reliable, search being made for Mrs. Kaur's appeal.
  399
  The progress of the appeal has not been hampered by this error and a hearing date will be offered as soon as Mrs. Kaur's representatives indicate that they are ready.

  Majority Shareholdings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those companies in which the holder of his office is a majority shareholder which(a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the last five years. [25713]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  I am not the majority shareholder in any company, nor have I been the majority shareholder in any company wound up in the last five years.

TRANSPORT

  Manchester Metrolink
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects Manchester Metrolink to be extended to Oldham. [23889]

  Mr. Norris
  The timing of the extension will depend on progress with development of the scheme, the priority attached to it by the Greater Manchester local authorities and the availability of resources.

  Lorry Safety
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will next be meeting BRAKE to discuss lorry safety. [23890]

  Mr. Norris
  I told representatives of the Brake Lorry Safety campaign at my meeting with them on 6 March that I would be prepared to meet them again in approximately six months.

  East London Line
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much of the total planned repair and maintenance work has been carried out to date on the east London line; and what is the latest expected completion date of the works. [23891]

  Mr. Norris
  Good progress has been made on the foundations for the new Jubilee line station at Canada Water, and on upgrading the existing track, signalling, stations, and pumps and drains.

  The final completion date will depend on the outcome of London Underground's application for listed building consent to strengthen and waterproof the Thames tunnel.

  Fare Increases
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the average fare increase between 1985 and 1995. [23892]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  The answer depends on the mode of transport being considered. Between March 1985 and March 1995, the average increase above inflation in rail fares, as measured by the retail prices index, was 2.3 per cent. Bus and coach fares increased by an annual average of 1.9 per cent.

  South Yorkshire Supertram
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider the method of funding the south Yorkshire supertram so that the expenditure is not caught by the capping rules for local authorities. [23893]

  Mr. Norris
  I have no plans to reconsider the method of funding the south Yorkshire supertram.

  Railway Station Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement regarding the destaffing of British Rail stations in London. [23894]

  Mr. Norris
  Staffing levels are a management matter for the railway industry. Like the Government, it wants passengers to have a good service in a safe and secure environment.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on the needs of disabled people in all modes of transport. [23895]

  Mr. Norris
  We are committed to the development of accessible public transport systems which can provide effective and sustainable transport services for all passengers, including those with disabilities.

  Ferry Safety
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which organisations he intends to consult regarding the report of the International Maritime Organisation's panel of experts inquiring into roll-on roll-off ferry safety. [23898]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  We are already consulting interested parties, and have been since the IMO's panel of experts was set up, through a shadow panel organised by the Marine Safety Agency. The shadow panel includes representatives from the Chamber of Shipping, major UK ferry operators, the Consumers Association and trade unions.

  Further consultation will be carried out once we have fully considered the reaction of the IMO's maritime safety committee to the work of the panel of experts.

  Crossrail
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the projected timetable for the completion of the crossrail project; and if he will make a statement. [23899]

  Mr. Norris
  The promoters of crossrail continue to prepare their application for powers under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to build crossrail. This is being done in parallel with the study which the promoters are undertaking at my request, with my Department.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the implications of studies other than the Montagu committee of public transport in London for the timetable for the deposit of a draft order application in respect of crossrail. [24820]

  Mr. Norris
  The impact of studies other than the crossrail study, which the promoters are undertaking at my request, with my Department, is marginal. In parallel
  401
  with this study, the promoters of crossrail continue to prepare their application for powers under the Transport and Works Act 1992 to build crossrail.

  Sleeper and Motorail Services
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the withdrawal of sleeper services and motorail services. [23900]

  Mr. Watts
  I have received a number of representations concerning British Rail's plans to withdraw motorail and certain sleeper services.

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what were the passenger loading figures for the Night Scot for stations between Plymouth and Glasgow inclusive, and for the Night West Countryman in the reverse direction, for each quarter in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and to the latest available date. [25243]

  Mr. Watts
  In 1993–94, 32,000 passengers travelled on the sleeper service between Plymouth and Glasgow and Edinburgh. Figures are not available for each direction, intermediate stations, by quarter or for other years.

  Local Rail Services
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the future funding of local rail services. [23903]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government will continue to provide funding, through the franchising director, to support local rail services. With regard to revenue support for railway passenger services funded by English passenger transport executives, my right hon. Friend intends to replace the current temporary arrangements with an enhancement of the standard spending assessment "bolt on" grant, with effect from 1996–97.

  Road and Rail Building Blight
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made to reduce blight stemming from road and rail building. [23904]

  Mr. Watts
  The 1994 trunk roads programme review which prioritised schemes has reduced blight by removing some schemes from the programme. A review of safeguarding on all schemes in the trunk roads programme will be continued with the aim of reducing blight. Safeguarding directions for the channel tunnel rail link project were issued in December 1994, which effectively reduced blight by removing uncertainty about which land will be required. Considerable effort will be made to minimise the physical impact from construction and operation of the CTRL.

  Rail Freight
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to encourage heavy loads to be transported by rail rather than road. [23906]

  Mr. Watts
  We have already opened up access to the rail network for private sector rail hauliers. In conjunction with the BR board, we are currently progressing plans for the privatisation of the British Rail freight businesses. We also make available capital grants for rail freight facilities 402
  and revenue grants to assist in defraying track access charges levied by Railtrack. For example, a recent freight facilities grant award of £2.6 million to a company based in Derbyshire will secure traffic to rail which would have otherwise gone by road, thereby avoiding an estimated 45,000 lorry journeys per year.

  Vehicle Emissions
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to reduce exhaust emissions from cars and other vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [23907]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  A range of measures has been introduced to reduce vehicle pollution substantially both for new vehicles and by controlling emissions in service. Stringent standards for all new vehicle types which substantially reduce levels of carbon dioxide, hydrocarbon, nitrous oxide and particulates from cars, lorries and buses were introduced from 1993. These promoted the widespread use of catalysts on petrol cars which typically reduce emissions of the main pollutants by 75 to 80 per cent. Diesel cars have to meet the same standards and, additionally, have to comply with a stringent particulate limit. Legislation is already in place for a further tightening which will, in particular, more than halve particulate standards for diesels in 1996. The Government are also playing a leading role in the European Union to secure a further reduction in levels for new vehicles from 2000. These measures will be reinforced by tighter in-service standards for diesel and conventional petrol-engined vehicles from 1 September this year and for catalyst-equipped petrol-engined vehicles from 1 January 1996, together with a continuing intensified roadside enforcement programme to remove the worst offenders from the road.

  Traffic Pollution
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the impact of transport pollution. [23880]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Vehicle emissions can contribute to global warming and poor local air quality. The Government are pursuing a range of measures to reduce such pollution.

  Road Building, North-east England
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about the road building programme in the north-east of England. [23897]

  Mr. Watts
  Recent representations include a petition in respect of the Al Gateshead western bypass proposal. I met a delegation led by Sir Ralph Carr-Ellison on 30 March following which I invited Gateshead metropolitan borough council to work with the Highways Agency in considering a trial of junction closures and the development of a local traffic management scheme.

  London-Tilbury-Southend Rail Services
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the timetable for privatising the London-Tilbury-Southend rail service. [23902]
  403
  Mr. Watts
  The franchising director issued invitations to tender for LTS rail on 17 May. Indicative bids must be submitted by 28 July. Formal tenderers will be selected in September. The franchising director intends to let the franchise by the end of the year.

  Cambridge-St. Ives Railway Line
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he expects that the Cambridge-St. Ives railway line will become fully operational for passenger transport. [23905]

  Mr. Norris
  The Cambridge to St. Ives railway line is currently the subject of a feasibility study by Cambridgeshire county council into the likely use of the line should it be reopened for passenger traffic. It is too early to say whether a viable scheme is likely to emerge, but I have suggested that the county council continue the study work and prepare cost estimates.

  Tolls
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will announce plans to deregulate the tolls of the 10 bridges and ferries that are still subject to statutory controls. [25474]

  Mr. Watts
  I have today published a consultation paper, "Regulation of Tolls at Statutory Undertakings". The paper examines options for replacing the current procedures governing toll revisions of crossing such as private ferry undertakings and private and local authority-owned bridges and tunnels.

  The three main options outlined are continued regulation, but with improvements in the criteria and procedures; partial deregulation, with tolls rising annually up to a prescribed limit; and full deregulation, with undertakings setting their own charges.

  Current procedures are cumbersome and protracted for the 16 private and local authority river crossings that were promoted by statute, and the criteria by which toll revisions have to be judged are unclear and difficult to apply. We are inviting users and operators of the relevant crossings to comment on alternatives to the present system. If some measure of deregulation is the outcome, I envisage consulting further on measures under the Deregulations and Contracting Out Act 1994.

  I have placed a copy of the consultation paper in the Library.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his estimate of the numbers of vehicles now fitted with front bull bars; what the numbers will be over the next five years if present trends continue; and what affect he expects the increase to have on accident figures in each of the next five years. [25268]

  Mr. Norris
  My reply to the hon. Gentleman on the 30 March,Official Report, columns 786–87, gave the Transport Research Laboratory's estimate of the extra deaths and injuries to vulnerable road users that could result from collisions with vehicles fitted with bull bars. It is estimated that in 1993, on the latest figures available,
  404
  3 per cent, of the vehicle fleet were off-road vehicles and 9 per cent, were delivery vans. The TRL's injury projections were based on 20 per cent, of these vehicles having bull bars.

  Information on trends is not recorded. We cannot therefore estimate the effects of bull bars on future accident figures.

  Mr. Scott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will instigate an investigation into the effect of bull bars in traffic accidents in the Metropolitan police district and publish a report. [25261]

  Mr. Norris
  The Metropolitan police, on their own initiative, are collecting details of traffic accidents involving vehicles fitted with bull bars. We will be analysing the results of this work in due course as part of our wider analysis of the effects of bull bars in accidents.

  Rail Fares
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much additional grant his Department will provide to London Transport to compensate for loss of revenue as a result of the franchising director's decision to cap British Rail fares; [25088]

  (2) what is the effect on London Transport revenue forecasts of the franchising director's decision to cap British Rail fares in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000. [25087]

  Mr. Norris
  The effect will depend on the future relationship between London Transport and rail fares, and the fares which LT would have charged in the absence of the franchising director's decision. All relevant factors will be taken into account when LT's future funding requirements are considered.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of his recent statements on rail fares upon the(a) Crewe to Holyhead rail line and (b) Wrexham to Birkenhead rail line; and if he will make a statement. [24838]

  Mr. Watts
  The regulation of fares is a matter for the franchising director. Except in passenger transport executive areas, the franchising director will regulate all Saver tickets, unrestricted standard returns where there are no Savers, and all standard weekly season tickets. Prices for these tickets will be capped by the increase in the retail prices index for the next three years, and 1 per cent, per annum below the RPI for the following four years. Regulation will apply to British rail as well as franchised services. PTEs will continue to be able to control fares in their areas.

  Rail Franchises
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 4 May,Official Report, column 255, what plans he has to impose restrictions on (a) the Rahahane Djjomhouriye Eslami Iran, (b) the Socialist People's Libyan Araya Jamihiriya Department of Road Transport and (c) the Iraqi Republic Railways Organisation from bidding to operate rail franchises in Great Britain. [25410]

  Mr. Watts
  The choice of bidders for passenger rail franchises is a matter for the franchising director, but I understand that none of these organisations has expressed any interest in pre-qualification.
  405
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the additional subsidy required for private franchise operators if rail fares are to be raised in line with the retail prices index; and if he make a statement. [23896]

  Mr. Watts
  Level of subsidy will be determined by the tendering process for each franchise. The Government have stated their commitment to continuing to pay subsidy needed to support passenger services, including the effect of the new fares policy.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress towards rail privatisation. [23901]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  Restructuring in preparation for privatisation is mostly complete and invitations to tender have issued for the first three franchises and the three rolling stock leasing companies. Sales of BR's support businesses have commenced and sales of the domestic freight businesses are planned this year. Railtrack will be floated in the life of this Parliament.

  Hayes-London Rail Service
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 20 December 1994,Official Report, column 1091, if all rail services on the Hayes (Kent) to London line are operated by Networker trains; and what is the average age of the rolling stock used on this line at peak times. [25147]

  Mr. Watts
  Yes. Two years or less.

  Railtrack (Contaminated Land)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list every contaminated site owned by Railtrack, together with the total area; and what is his estimate of the cost of cleaning it up. [24770]

  Mr. Watts
  This is a matter for Railtrack. Railtrack will be considering the environmental condition of its property as part of the preparations for privatisation.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what survey his Department has carried out of contaminated land owned by Railtrack. [24771]

  Mr. Watts
  My Department has not carried out any surveys, but Railtrack will be considering the environmental condition of its property as part of the preparations for privatisation.

  Shipping Collisions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the number of collisions between vessels in(a) the North sea, (b) the English channel and (c) St. George's channel in each of the last 10 years. [25574]

  Mr. Norris
  The figures in the table relate to collisions involving one or more UK registered vessels where the location of the accident has been established.

  The figures are given only for the years shown, as information relating to a particular sea area and type of accident can readily be obtained only from the marine accident investigation branch computerised accident database. The database contains data from 1991 onwards only.
  406

  Year

  Collisions

  North Sea

  1991

  14

  1992

  18

  1993

  15

  1994

  7

  1995 to date

  4

  English Channel

  1991

  9

  1992

  6

  1993

  8

  1994

  10

  1995 to date

  2

  St Geore's Channel

  1991

  2

  1992

  2

  1993

  6

  1994

  3

  1995 to date

  2

HEALTH

  Sir Duncan Nichol
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons Sir Duncan Nichol was made redundant. [24440]

  Mr. Sackville
  Sir Duncan Nichol had been seconded to the national health service executive by Mersey regional health authority. At the termination of the secondment arrangement, he was unable to return to his contracted post in Mersey RHA because, through restructuring, it was no longer available. Since there was no alternative employment available to Sir Duncan, the health authority declared him redundant.

  Care for the Elderly
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average cost of keeping an elderly infirm person(a) in hospital and (b) in a residential care home. [24402]

  Mr. Bowis
  The cost per patient week for the geriatric specialty is provisionally estimated at £791.42 in 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available. This amount does not include expenditure on people over 65 who use acute hospital services or community health services, as such expenditure is not apportioned according to age. In the same year, the average expenditure by local authorities for each supported resident in residential care homes for elderly people was approximately £260 per week. Comparisons of costs between types of care should be treated with caution as dependency levels and other characteristics will vary considerably.

  Immunisation
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research has been conducted by or on behalf of her Department into damage to the body's immune system caused by immunisation; and what conclusions have been reached. [24562]
  407
  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health is not aware of evidence that immunisation causes damage to the immune system.

  The main agency through which the Government support biomedical and clinical research is the Medical Research Council which receives its grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Tobacco Advertising
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the extent to which the Benson and Hedges "Gratis" campaign breaches the voluntary agreement on tobacco advertising in respect of(a) the encouragement of smoking in general, (b) the offering of incentives to smoke more than the average, (c) the linkage of smoking with a healthy life style and (d) the linkage of smoking with children's gifts; what action she intends to take in respect of the campaign; and if she will make a statement. [24662]

  Mr. Sackville
  The content of advertisements is governed by the cigarette code, which forms part of the voluntary agreement. It is for the Advertising Standards Authority to arbitrate on whether the cigarette code has been breached. I understand that a formal complaint about the "Gratis" campaign has been made to the ASA, and it will be conducting an investigation.

  Residential Homes
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which local authorities do not directly manage(a) residential homes for the elderly, (b) residential homes for the mentally ill, (c) residential homes for the physically disabled, (d) residential homes for people with learning disabilities and (e) residential homes for expectant mothers. [24893]

  Mr. Bowis
  Homes are categorised on the basis of their primary function. Homes classified in one client group may also contain residents from other client groups. The absence of a directly managed home does not therefore mean that the authority provides no places for that client group within its own homes.

  The information available at 31 March 1994 shows:

  Local authorities not directly managing residential homes for the elderly are:
  Tameside, Knowsley, City of London, Somerset.

  Local authorities not directly managing residential homes for the mentally ill are:
  Durham, North Tyneside, Barnsley, Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Knowsiey, Warwickshire, Dudley, Sandwell, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Oxfordshire, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, City of London, Barking, Barnet, Bexley, Bromley, Harrow, Havering, Kingston Upon Thames, Merton, Newham, Waltham Forest, Hampshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex, Cornwall, Devon, Gloucestershire, Isles of Scilly.

  Local authorities not directly managing residential homes for the physically disabled are:
  Newcastle Upon Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Sunderland, Humberside, North Yorkshire, Barnsley, Rotherham, Calderdale, Wakefield, Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport, Trafford, Knowsiey, Sefton, Shropshire, Warwickshire, Sandwell, Solihull, Wolverhampton, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Suffolk, Greenwich, Hackney, Kensington, Lambeth,
  408
  Lewisham, Wandsworth, Westminster, City of London, Barnet, Bexley, Brent, Bromley, Enfield, Haringey, Harrow, Hillingdon, Kingston Upon Thames, Merton, Newham, Redbridge, Richmond Upon Thames, Sutton, Waltham Forest, Dorset, Isle of Wight, Kent, Wiltshire, Isles of Stilly.

  Local authorities not directly managing residential homes for people with learning disabilities are:
  Manchester, Warwickshire, City of London, Bexley, Redbridge, Isles of Scilly.

  Centrally available information does not separately identify residential homes for expectant mothers.

  Nurseries
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what action she has taken in conjunction with the Department for Education regarding the situation where a deregistered nursery can reopen as an independent school; and if she will make a statement; [25137]

  (2) what are her plans to deal with those who escape the provisions of the Children Act 1989 on registration of nurseries, by registering as an independent school. [25609]

  Mr. Bowis
  If a private nursery school provides full-time education for five or more children of compulsory school age, it must register with the Department for Education, which will monitor the quality of the service being provided.

  My Department works closely with the Department for Education and other relevant organisations to ensure that facilities offering services to young children are of an acceptable standard. We shall continue to keep these arrangements under review.

  Weighted Capitation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer about weighted capitation of 20 December 1994,Official Report, column 1152, if she will specify the 1995–96 (a) cash allocation, (b) weighted capitation target in cash terms calculated on the basis used for table 8.3 in the Health Committee's first special report of Session 1993–94 on public expenditure, HC617, and (c) weighted capitation target in cash terms on the basis of the modified formula described in annexe 1 of the NHS executive's hospital and community health services revenue resource allocation: weighted capitation formula of October 1994; and if she will list (b) and (c) as percentage of (a). [25002]

  Mr. Sackville
  The table shows:

  (i) 1995–96 hospital and community health services revenue allocations to regional health authorities for resident population.

  (ii) 1995–96 weighted capitation targets for regional health authorities in cash terms using the modified formula.

  (iii) 1995–96 weighted capitation targets as a percentage of revenue allocations.

  1995–96 regional health authority weighted capitation targets on the same basis as used for table 8.3 are not available as there are no operational reasons for these to be calculated.
  409

  Regional health authority

  1995–96 HCHS revenue allocation for resident population £000s

  1995–96 weighted capitation target £000s

  Target as percentage of allocation Percentage

  Northern and Yorkshire

  3,184,616

  3,150,160

  98.92

  Trent

  2,181,505

  2,191,435

  100.46

  Anglia and Oxford

  2,183,496

  2,236,531

  102.43

  North Thames

  3,551,835

  3,499,064

  98.51

  South Thames

  3,330,776

  3,383,899

  101.59

  South and west

  2,953,543

  2,946,094

  99.75

  West Midlands

  2,438,538

  2,399,624

  98.40

  North west

  3,199,588

  3,217,091

  100.55

  England

  23,023,897

  23,023,897

  100.00

  General Practitioner Fundholding
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement about the payment of management allowances to general practitioner fundholders. [25321]

  Mr. Malone
  Payments from management allowances are made to fundholding practices to reimburse the additional costs incurred in directly managing national health service resources on behalf of their patients. Section 15 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 enables fundholders to receive a sum determined in such manner and by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State may direct. However, our legal advice is that payments by fundholders for the sole purpose of management expenses need to be specified within regulations. This has now been provided for under the National Health Service (Fund-holding Practices) Amendment Regulations 1995. The regulations are in line with guidance previously issued by the NHS executive on this matter, copies of which are routinely placed in the Library. Extra-statutory management allowance payments of this kind, made between 1990–91 and 1994–95, estimated at around £165 million, have now been authorised.

  NHS Accounts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State if she will list those instances in each of the last three financial years for which accounts have been finalised when a qualified opinion was issued against the final accounts of any NHS body, with the name of the body concerned and the reason for the qualified opinion. [24911]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information will be placed in the Library.

  World Health Organisation
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations she has had over Government liaison with the World Health Organisation. [23926]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health has lead responsibility for World Health Organisation matters. Departmental officials are in regular and frequent contact 410
  with officials at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration throughout the year and particularly in the build-up to meetings of the WHO executive board and the World Health Assembly. These contacts cover the whole range of issues relating to the United Kingdom's input to WHO, including budgetary and programme matters.

  London Ambulance Service
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much extra money will be given to the London ambulance service to be used specifically in the catchment area of Edgware general hospital. [25242]

  Mr. Sackville
  Barnet health authority will fund two additional ambulance crews at a cost of £320,000 a year before the Edgware hospital accident and emergency department closes.

  Edgware General Hospital
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans exist to extend the opening hours of the planned minor accident treatment service unit at Edgware general hospital, once it is in operation, beyond those normally operated. [25240]

  Mr. Sackville
  Such decisions are for the Wellhouse national health service trust and will depend on local circumstances. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the chairman, David Phillips, for details.

  Primary Health Care
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her oral statement of 10 May,Official Report , column 785 , (1) what discussions she has had with the chairmen of the relevant health authorities in connection with the extra £2 million provision to improve primary health care in West Barnet; how these funds are to be administered; and what plans there are for minister to monitor the utilisation of these funds. [25244]

  (2) how much of the extra £2 million to improve primary care in West Barnet will be allocated to fund improvements in the Hendon, North constituency; and how the remainder will be allocated accordingly to neighbouring parliamentary constituencies. [25245]

  Mr. Malone
  It is the responsibility of local health authorities, working in conjunction with others, to assess the needs of their populations and to balance service and spending requirements both in the medium term and on a year to year basis. Following discussion with the chairman and regional director of North Thames regional health authority, criteria have been set by which effective implementation of the changes in north London will be judged and on the importance of maintaining high-quality standards for patients. The chairman of the regional health authority will take this forward with chairmen of the relevant health authorities. Arrangements are in place for regular progress meetings with the regional chairman. The chief executive of the NHS executive will also continue to work closely with the regional director.

  Special Transitional Grants
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those authorities which have not yet submitted audited returns of expenditure of the 1993–94 special transitional grant. [25322]

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities are required to submit returns to district auditors who, in turn, submit them to the Department. We could not therefore know whether returns that have not yet been submitted to the Department have or have not been submitted by local authorities to their respective district auditors.

  Majority Shareholdings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list those companies in which the holder of her office is a majority shareholder which(a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the past five years. [25717]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Breastfeeding
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what information she has on commencement levels of breastfeeding in each member state of the European Union; and if she will publish the most recent sets of data available; [25607]

  (2) if she will publish league tables for the different regional health authorities for percentage breastfeeding commencement levels. [25723]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information is not available in the form requested; The five-yearly surveys of infant feeding undertaken by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys on behalf of the United Kingdom Health Departments provide information, on a national basis, on breastfeeding levels in the UK. A copy of the 1990 infant feeding survey is available in the Library. Field work for the 1995 study will start later this year. We do not have information on breastfeeding levels in other member states of the European Union.

EDUCATION

  Conductive Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what funding has been provided by her Department to the Foundation for Conductive Education in the past; and what are her future plans for funding in the United Kingdom; [24818]

  (2) what representations she has received regarding funding for the Foundation for Conductive Education in the United Kingdom. [24817]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department has not received any bids for funding from the Foundation for Conductive Education in the United Kingdom, and has not financed the foundation in the past.

  The Department would consider any such representations, with other Government Departments, on their merits. But the statutory responsibility for special educational provision rests in the first instance with local
  412
  education authorities, to be decided in the light of local needs and resources.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for education what funding has been provided from her Department to the Peto Institute in Budapest; and how much funding has been provided over the last three years. [24819]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department for Education provided £600,000 in 1991, as part of an initial Government package totalling £1.75 million. No funding has been provided over the last three years.

  Teacher Numbers
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the number of licensed teachers in each local authority and funding agency area.

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Centrally held information about the number of licensed teachers in post in England on 31 March 1995 is given in the table. On 1 April 1995 responsibility for issuing new licences became the responsibility of the Teacher Training Agency.

  Local authority or funding agency area

  LEA-maintained schools

  Self-governing (grant-maintained) schools

  Avon

  3

  0

  Barking and Dagenham

  14

  0

  Barnet

  8

  3

  Bedfordshire

  21

  3

  Berkshire

  17

  4

  Bexley

  14

  0

  Birmingham

  0

  2

  Bolton

  1

  0

  Bradford

  1

  2

  Brent

  27

  0

  Bromley

  9

  3

  Buckinghamshire

  5

  5

  Calderdale

  2

  2

  Cambridgeshire

  11

  3

  Camden

  9

  2

  Cleveland

  3

  0

  Cornwall

  5

  0

  Coventry

  2

  0

  Croydon

  7

  0

  Cumbria

  7

  0

  Derbyshire

  8

  1

  Devon

  6

  1

  Dorset

  3

  0

  Dudley

  0

  1

  Ealing

  10

  1

  East Sussex

  3

  0

  Enfield

  4

  0

  Essex

  33

  17

  Gloucestershire

  2

  0

  Greenwich

  21

  0

  Hackney

  29

  0

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  4

  3

  Hampshire

  32

  5

  Haringey

  2

  0

  Harrow

  6

  0

  Havering

  4

  0

  Hereford and Worcester

  7

  0

  Hertfordshire

  30

  6

  Hillingdon

  9

  4

  Hounslow

  8

  0

  Islington

  36

  0

  Kensington and Chelsea

  0

  1

  Kent

  40

  13

  Kingston upon Thames

  2

  2

  413

  Local authority or funding agency area

  LEA-maintained schools

  Self-governing (grant-maintained) schools

  Lambeth

  6

  1

  Lancashire

  18

  1

  Leicestershire

  5

  0

  Lewisham

  7

  0

  Lincolnshire

  19

  1

  Liverpool

  0

  2

  Manchester

  1

  0

  Newham

  19

  0

  Norfolk

  3

  4

  Northamptonshire

  23

  2

  Northumberland

  2

  0

  North Yorkshire

  7

  0

  Nottinghamshire

  3

  1

  Oxfordshire

  5

  0

  Redbridge

  15

  1

  Richmond upon Thames

  2

  0

  Rochdale

  3

  0

  Sandwell

  1

  0

  Sefton

  2

  0

  Sheffield

  1

  0

  Shropshire

  5

  1

  Solihull

  2

  0

  Somerset

  6

  0

  Southwark

  6

  0

  Staffordshire

  3

  0

  Stockport

  1

  0

  Suffolk

  9

  0

  Surrey

  21

  7

  Sutton

  4

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  16

  0

  Trafford

  1

  1

  Walsall

  1

  0

  Waltham Forest

  4

  1

  Wandsworth

  9

  0

  Warwickshire

  3

  1

  Westminster

  18

  0

  West Sussex

  8

  0

  Wiltshire

  10

  1

  Jean Monnet Programme
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will publish a list of Jean Monnet projects in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department has no direct involvement with or responsibility for the Jean Monnet programme, which is wholly administered by the European Commission. However, I understand that the following UK universities have applied successfully to the Commission for funding in 1995:1

  University

  Project

  Bath

  European integration and international business

  European integration and the multinationalisation of European business

  Queen's Belfast

  History of the European integration

  Birmingham

  European co-operation and integration: national European élites and European institution buliding

  Derby

  Party systems in contemporary Europe and European international law

  414

  Univesity

  Project

  The language and politics of identity in Europe

  Dundee

  European energy, environmental and economic law

  Energy and economic regulatory theory and practice in the context of the European single market in energy

  Durham

  Annual Jean Monnet public lecture

  East London

  Patterns of intellectual integration in Europe

  Essex

  European Union law

  Glamorgan

  European law

  European integration and regionalism

  Glasgow

  European politics

  Decision making in the European Union

  Humberside

  European studies minor

  Keele

  European unification

  Kent at Canterbury

  Politics of European integration

  Regional initiative/seminars

  La Sainte Union College Of HE

  European integration: history and institutions

  Leeds Metropolitan

  Economics of the European Union

  Loughborough

  The European Union and negotiation in the new Europe

  Luton

  Western European integration

  Manchester

  Organisation and policy for European RTD

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Rural development in the European Union

  Oxford Brookes

  The business environment in Europe

  A social anthropological approach to integration

  Paisley

  European integration and public policy

  Introduction to European institutions/introduction to EU policies

  Research into European policies for care of the aged

  European law and European legal order

  Reading

  The international dimension of European integration

  Assessment of the role of the European Parliament in the development of a European foreign and security policy: case of ex-Yugoslavia

  Salford

  European studies

  Southampton

  Economics

  Labour markets and macro-economic institutions and policy

  South Bank

  The history and theory of European integration

  Reform of European Community and European Union institutions

  Strathclyde

  To establish 2 or 3 "Jean Monnet Scholarships in European Law" for students of Scottish universities to attend the LLM

  Surrey

  The evolution of an integrated Europe

  Ulster

  Organisation of Jean Monnet lectures

  University College London

  Teaching materials

  Westminster

  European integration studies

  European business and the environment

  1 The information given has been provided by the European Commission.

  GCSE Study Leave
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will discuss with as many head teachers as possible the practice of releasing GCSE candidates from attendance at school for about three weeks prior to their exams; and if she will make a statement. [24815]

  Mr. Forth
  Following consultation with the head teacher associations and other interested parties, the Department issued guidance on the categorisation of absence to all schools in May 1994. The guidance included advice on study leave. It recommended that it should be normally available for year 11 pupils only, that it should be granted sparingly and that it should not normally exceed a maximum of two weeks.

  Education Authority Reorganisation, Teesside
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the expected provision, quality and accountability of education services in the former Teesside county borough area when services in that area are provided by three education authorities as a result of local government reorganisation. [25217]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government's aim in reorganising local government is to improve cost-effectiveness and the quality and co-ordination of local services. The role of local education authorities will not change specifically as a result of the reorganisation of local government. It will be for the new LEAs to play their part in ensuring that the education service is run at least as effectively as now.

  University Staff-Student Ratios
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the average student/lecturer ratio in United Kingdom universities(a) currently, (b) in 1979, (c) in old universities and (d) in the new universities. [25019]

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on the student: staff ratios in former English Universities Funding Council and Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council funded institutions was presented in table G of the Department's annual report, Cm 2810, published in March this year, a copy of which is in the Library. This table provides information for both sectors for the academic years 1990–91 to 1992–93. Information on the same basis for earlier years is not available.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she has taken in conjunction with the Department of Health regarding deregistered nurseries reopening as independent schools. [25003]

  Mr. Forth
  Private nursery establishments providing full-time education for five or more pupils of compulsory school age must by law register with the Department as independent schools. The Department works closely with the Department of Health and other relevant agencies to ensure that such establishments meet the statutory requirements for registration and make appropriate provision for pre-school age pupils. If they fail to do so, those establishments may be removed from the register and may not then lawfully operate as independent schools. We continue to keep these arrangements under review.

  Biotechnology Research
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what steps she is taking to encourage co-operation between United Kingdom industries and universities in biotechnology research. [24993]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend provides grant to the Higher Education Funding Council for England to support research in universities. The council is allocating some £10 million in 1994–95 and £20 million in 1995–96 to reward co-operation between universities and industry on generic research that may lead to a range of applications. This includes biotechnology research.

  School Transport
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what consultation took place between her Department and the Welsh Office before the issue of her Department's letter of 21 June 1994 and Welsh Office circular 19/95 about home-to-school transport. [25135]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department consulted the Welsh Office about the text of our letter of guidance which issued on 21 January 1994. Circular 19/95, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, is based closely on the text of that letter. These documents do not provide an authoritative interpretation of the law; that is a matter for the courts.

  Student Employment
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate her Department has made of the number of(a) undergraduates and (b) postgraduates undertaking paid employment during their studies due to financial hardship. [25024]

  Mr. Boswell
  Information on student employment is not collected by the Department. However, the latest student income and expenditure survey, which looked at full-time undergraduate students, found that 22 per cent, of younger students and 23 per cent, of mature students received some income from paid employment during term time.

  Chief Education Officers, Cleveland
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many chief education officers are currently employed in Cleveland; and how many she expects will be employed when the reorganisation of local government in that county has taken place. [25216]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Under section 88 of the Education Act 1944 each local education authority has to have a chief education officer. Cleveland has one. Following reorganisation, each of the four new LEAs in the Cleveland area will have one.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the total number of teachers for each year over the last 10 years taking early retirement; how many of these retirements were on medical or breakdown grounds; and what was the total annual cost of these retirements. [24937]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total number of teachers granted early retirement and, of these, the number granted infirmity and premature retirement in each of the years
  417
  1984–85 to 1993–94 is given in table 1. The first year cost to the teachers superannuation scheme of these retirements and the total expenditure by LEAs on pension enhancements and Crombie compensation for each year from 1989–90 to 1993–94 is given in table 2. Figures for the first year cost to the TSS of early retirements for the years 1984–85 to 1988–89 and for the total annual cost to the TSS of all early retirements could be produced only at disproportionate cost. Figures for LEA expenditure on pension enhancements and Crombie compensation for the years 1984–85 to 1988–89 are not available.

  Table 1: Numbers of teachers granted early retirement (England and wales)

  Year

  Total

  Infirmity

  Premature

  1984–85

  13,166

  2,449

  10,717

  1985–86

  12,976

  2,698

  10,278

  1986–87

  11,794

  2,707

  9.087

  1987–88

  10,103

  2,544

  7,559

  1988–89

  15,769

  3,423

  12,346

  1989–90

  16,516

  4,182

  12.334

  1990–91

  16,626

  4,934

  11,692

  1991–92

  14,943

  4,656

  10,287

  1992–93

  17,081

  4,867

  12,214

  1993–94

  17,798

  5,565

  12,233

  Table 2: Costs (in £ million) of early retirements (England and Wales)

  First year cost to TSS

  LEA expenditure

  Year

  Infirmity

  Premature

  PRC and Crombie

  1989–90

  23.7

  71.0

  53.9

  1990–91

  29.7

  71.7

  58.8

  1991–92

  30.9

  68.8

  79.1

  1992–93

  36.4

  90.4

  91.9

  1993–94

  44.8

  95.3

  96.6

  Drug Education Programmes
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of which drug education programmes in the United Kingdom or elsewhere have resulted in a reduction in drug use. [25174]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend took into account available research evidence when planning the Department's initiatives to support drug education in schools. The innovative drug education and prevention projects supported under the Department's grants for education support and training programme in 1995–96 will be evaluated. At my right hon. Friend's request, the Office for Standards in Education will undertake a specific study of provision for drug education in schools during the academic year 1995–96 in the light of existing research findings on effective drug education.

  Higher Education Funding Council
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will require the Higher Education Funding Council to reply to Mr. Anthony Murray of Wakefield, following his letter to it of 6 March. [25363]

  Mr. Bos well
  This is a matter for the Higher Education Funding Council for England. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Majority Shareholdings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list those companies in which the holder of her office is a majority shareholder which(a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the past five years. [25720]

  Mr. Boswell
  There are no companies, either currently in existence or which have been wound up in the past five years, in which the Secretary of State is or was a majority shareholder. The Student Loans Company Ltd., established in 1989, is owned jointly—50 per cent, each—by the Secretaries of State for Education and for Scotland.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. Lester
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what targets he has set his Department's Radiocommunications Agency for 1995–96. [25864]

  Mr. Heseltine
  I have set my Department's Radiocommunications Agency the following quality of service targets for 1995–96 covering its licensing work and enforcement activities. These are in addition to the target of an overall efficiency improvement of 5 per cent.

  Licensing
  99 per cent, of new aeronautical and aircraft applications and amendments to be processed within three working days of receipt in the agency;
  98 per cent of maritime business radio cases to be processed within one month;
  99 per cent, of new on-site paging applications and amendments to be processed and dispatched within three working days;
  90 per cent, of new private mobile radio applications and amendments that require no international co-ordination to be processed and dispatched within 15 and 20 working days respectively.

  Enforcement
  100 per cent, of safety of life services complaints to be investigated within 24 hours;
  98 per cent of business complaints to be investigated within five working days; and
  98 per cent, of domestic interference complaints to be investigated within one month.
  In addition, I expect the agency's enquiry point to continue to answer 90 per cent, of all calls within 30 seconds and the chief executive to reply within 10 working' days to all letters from Members of Parliament delegated to him for reply.

  Gas Licences
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what date his Department was made aware that the Office of Gas Supply intended to show draft licences under the Gas Bill to independent gas suppliers. [25696]

  Mr. Eggar
  Following a major consultation last year on the introduction of competition into the domestic gas market, the Department and Ofgas followed up the responses received by meeting a number of organisations—both in the industry and consumer groups. In the later stages, DTI and Ofgas discussed draft licence conditions with British Gas and, where appropriate, other parties in the industry. This was necessary to ensure that DTI had a sufficient grasp of the technical issues to
  419
  publish worthwhile draft licences on 20 and 27 March as the basis for parliamentary consideration and wider consultation.

  In addition to the comments made in Committee on the Bill by hon. Members, a variety of parties including the industry, consumer groups and other affected organisations have made detailed comments on the Bill and draft licences to DTI. These will be carefully considered in preparing any Government amendments to the Bill and revising the draft licences.

  Local Government Reorganisation, Cleveland
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the implications for the business community in the Teesside area of the division of Cleveland into four unitary authorities; and what guidance he has issued as to the maintenance of important business support services, such as the Cleveland European advice team. [25223]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Local Government Commission for England, in its report on the future local government of Cleveland and Durham, recommended that the four new unitary authorities, plus Darlington, should work together in the setting up of a strategic alliance—Tees Valley Development Company—in relation to economic development and other activities. This will include private sector members and has been warmly welcomed by bodies such as the Northern Development Company and the business community on Teesside.

  The future of business support services now lies with the newly created Business Link Teesside and its partners, which began operations on 10 April 1995. Partners include all the local authorities, the TEC, the chamber, NDC, Teesside Small Business Club, university of Teesside, and local development and enterprise agencies.

  VSEL
  Mr Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) of 27 March,Official Report, column 408 , when he proposes to announce his decision on the bids for VSEL; and what was the advice of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission on those bids. [25364]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will publish the MMC reports on the proposed acquisitions of VSEL, together with the announcement of any decision which it falls to him to take, as soon as is reasonably practicable. Until then, the advice of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission remains confidential.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has yet received the draft report of Lord Justice Scott. [23913]

  Mr. Heseltine
  No.

  Sir Richard Scott has not yet finished his report. As the report is written, draft extracts are being circulated by the inquiry to a range of persons referred to in the report for comment.
  420
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he has taken to ensure that Whitehall Departments co-operate fully with Lord Justice Scott to ensure the earliest possible publication of his inquiry report. [23911]

  Mr. Heseltine
  Officials are under instruction to co-operate fully with Sir Richard Scott's inquiry. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Sir T. Arnold) on 11 July 1994,Official Report, column 387 , the timing of the report is a matter for Sir Richard Scott.

  Pergau Dam
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest estimate of the United Kingdom contribution to the Pergau dam project. [23918]

  Mr. Needham
  The cost is presently estimated at £233 million, as compared to £255.31 million previously quoted in my answer of 18 April 1994,Official Report, column 360. Some £10 million of the £22 million reduction will be offset by increased costs against other items in Export Credits Guarantee Department's fixed interest support programme.

  Staff
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, (1) how many posts were lost in(a) the Department of Trade and Industry and (b) agencies for which the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible, listing the total lost posts agency by agency in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and how many posts are proposed to be lost in 1995–96; [25084]

  (2) what changes there have been in the numbers of staff employed by (a) the Department of Trade and Industry and (b) agencies for which the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible, listing the changes in the number of staff agency by agency in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what changes are proposed for 1995— 96; [25058]

  (3) what changes there have been in the number of staff in employment by grade in (a) his Department and (b) each agency for which his Department is responsible in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96; [25627]

  (4) how many staff of (a) the Department of Trade and Industry and (b) agencies for which the DTI is responsible, were employed on a casual or short-term basis in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what are the projected figures for 1995–96. [25415]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The numbers of permanent and casual staff employed by my Department and each of its executive agencies in 1993–94, projected outturn for 1994–95; and plans for 1995–96 are published in my Department's annual report, Cm 2804, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. No projections broken down by grade are available. Separate numbers are not shown in the report for the Insolvency Service and the National Weights and Measures Laboratory executive agencies. These are included in the report in the numbers for the gross control area. The numbers of permanent and casual staff for these agencies are as follows:
  421

  Man years

  1993–94

  1994–95

  11995–96

  Permanent staff

  Insolvency Service

  1,592.5

  1,548.2

  1,566

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  46

  44.5

  46

  Casual Staff

  Insolvency Service

  227

  285

  120

  National Weights and Measures Laboratory

  0.5

  0

  0.5

  1In 1995–96 plans are the MINIS scrutiny. provisional subject to the final outcome of the MINIS scrunity.

  Private Payphones
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will consider ensuring the Office of Telecommunications takes action against owners of private payphones who charge unreasonably high multiples of the standard rate of a telephone call and fail to display a statement of pricing at the phones; [24970]

  (2) if he will ask Oftel to ensure that offenders who have operated payphones with illegally high charges either return their illegal earnings of pay or offer them to local charities; [24969]

  (3) if he will investigate the level of monitoring by Oftel of the pricing practices of operators of private payphones in public houses, garages, clubs, supermarkets and shops. [24971]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Provision of private payphones has been liberalised so as to encourage their installation, and with great success—an estimated 500,000 payphones are now in place, giving wider access to public telephony than would otherwise be the case. Tariffs of private payphones have never been regulated, but they are required to be displayed. The question of whether Oftel should investigate "illegally high" charges, or pricing practices generally, therefore does not arise. Enforcement of the requirement to display tariffs is a matter for Oftel, which pursues those cases brought to its attention. Oftel is also discussing with representatives of trading standards officers how compliance with this requirement might be improved.

  Companies House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what checks Companies House carries out of its records before the awarding of government contracts and to the existence of an Inland Revenue interest in the affairs of those companies. [25669]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Companies House carries out checks, relating to compliance with the Companies Act, when requested to do so by Government Departments.

  Any Inland Revenue interest in a company would be confidential to the tax authorities, and such checks by my Department would be precluded on taxpayer privacy grounds.

  Coal Prices
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in real terms of the price of coal used in electricity generation over the period 1989 to 1994. [25189]
  422
  Mr. Page
  Between 1989 and 1994 the price of coal used in electricity generation by major power producers fell by 29 per cent, in real terms.

  Gas Prices
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the change in real terms of the price of materials and fuel purchased by the gas supply industry between 1986 and 1994. [25192]

  Mr. Page
  Between 1986 and 1994 the price of gas purchased by the gas supply industry fell by 23 per cent, in real terms.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the maximum and minimum price of electricity on the pool basis on a monthly basis since privatisation. [25234]

  Mr. Eggar
  The information, expressed in money of the day, is as follows:

  Pool Selling Price

  Date

  Minimum £/MWh

  Maximum £/MWh

  April 1990

  12.37

  37.00

  May 1990

  11.16

  38.15

  June 1990

  9.41

  44.56

  July 1990

  0.00

  32.76

  August 1990

  8.00

  39.97

  September 1990

  10.91

  33.44

  October 1990

  8.00

  65.57

  November 1990

  8.00

  37.35

  December 1990

  12.40

  74.51

  January 1991

  12.26

  51.16

  February 1991

  13.22

  47.79

  March 1991

  14.30

  35.08

  April 1991

  15.74

  60.67

  May 1991

  16.01

  67.57

  June 1991

  15.47

  68.63

  July 1991

  13.50

  34.87

  August 1991

  7.13

  37.05

  September 1991

  5.00

  170.20

  October 1991

  14.90

  145.46

  November 1991

  14.15

  134.26

  December 1991

  16.35

  375.79

  January 1992

  16.95

  115.23

  February 1992

  13.39

  66.59

  March 1992

  16.57

  39.11

  April 1992

  16.68

  35.68

  May 1992

  10.99

  37.40

  June 1992

  17.35

  48.06

  July 1992

  17.43

  43.66

  August 1992

  12.71

  40.41

  September 1992

  17.46

  39.22

  October 1992

  17.44

  117.57

  November 1992

  17.46

  82.22

  December 1992

  17.40

  67.68

  January 1993

  17.41

  67.22

  February 1993

  17.52

  54.22

  March 1993

  17.49

  84.13

  April 1993

  17.57

  86.30

  May 1993

  18.03

  94.09

  June 1993

  16.50

  66.36

  July 1993

  16.50

  125.48

  August 1993

  6.04

  82.12

  September 1993

  17.96

  70.83

  October 1993

  17.97

  74.70

  November 1993

  18.01

  208.60

  December 1993

  17.95

  72.37

  January 1994

  10.67

  63.20

  423

  Pool Selling Price

  Date

  Minimum £/MWh

  Maximum £/MWh

  February 1994

  10.61

  134.52

  March 1994

  10.53

  37.46

  April 1994

  10.56

  66.83

  May 1994

  9.75

  56.51

  June 1994

  9.50

  61.85

  July 1994

  9.50

  60.50

  August 1994

  9.50

  55.19

  September 1994

  9.51

  46.99

  October 1994

  8.07

  213.59

  November 1994

  8.07

  200.67

  December 1994

  8.08

  414.55

  January 1995

  6.74

  724.66

  February 1995

  6.15

  239.25

  March 1995

  6.87

  65.71

  April 1995

  7.23

  841.24

  Source:

  Offer

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average cost of generation of electricity in 1994 for the United Kingdom's(a) coal power stations, (b) oil power stations, (c) gas power stations, (d) Magnox reactors and (e) advanced gas-cooled reactors. [25274]

  Mr. Eggar
  These are commercial matters for the companies concerned.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans the electricity regulator has to review the pool price paid for base load electricity generation. [25283]

  Mr. Eggar
  This is a matter for Professor Littlechild.

  Electricity Users
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to collate data on the number of large industrial and commercial electricity users committed to buying electricity at pool prices; and if he will make a statement. [25235]

  Mr. Eggar
  All consumers with premises which take more than 100 kW of electricity are now free to contract with the supplier of their choice. The terms that they negotiate, including whether the price to be paid is related to short-term variations in the pool price, are commercial matters between the parties concerned.

  Recycling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to encourage British industries to develop end products for recycled materials. [25023]

  Mr. Page
  Identifying end markets for recycled materials has been an important feature in the Government's "producer responsibility" dialogue with a range of industrial sectors. Industry recognises the crucial need for demand to be developed ahead of collection. The Government, for their part, have taken a number of steps to stimulate demand, providing support for R and D projects investigating new uses for recovered materials, including glass, rubber and plastics, and arranging for UK standards to be examined with a view to removing unnecessary discrimination against the use of recycled materials.

  Trade Statistics
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the trend of Britain's share of world trade over the last 30 years, per(a) invisibles, (b) visibles and (c) invisibles and visibles combined. [24569]

  Mr. Needham
  The available information is given in the table.

  UK value share of world exports in visibles. Invisibles and both combined.

  (Per cent.)

  visibles

  invisibles

  Visibles and invisibles

  1963

  7.9

  —

  —

  1964

  7.2

  —

  —

  1965

  7.3

  —

  —

  1966

  6.9

  —

  —

  1967

  6.7

  —

  —

  1968

  6.4

  —

  —

  1969

  6.4

  —

  —

  1970

  6.2

  —

  —

  1971

  6.4

  —

  —

  1972

  5.9

  —

  —

  1973

  5.1

  —

  —

  1974

  4.5

  9.5

  5.5

  1975

  5.0

  9.1

  5.8

  1976

  4.6

  8.8

  5.5

  1977

  5.0

  8.3

  5.7

  1978

  5.2

  8.2

  5.9

  1979

  5.3

  8.9

  6.0

  1980

  5.5

  8.7

  6.2

  1981

  5.2

  12.9

  7.3

  1982

  5.3

  13.0

  7.6

  1983

  5.0

  12.1

  7.3

  1984

  4.9

  12.0

  7.1

  1985

  5.7

  11.9

  7.6

  1986

  5.0

  11.1

  7.0

  1987

  5.3

  10.8

  7.1

  1988

  5.2

  11.0

  7.1

  1989

  5.1

  10.9

  7.1

  1990

  5.5

  10.6

  7.3

  1991

  5.4

  9.7

  7.0

  1992

  5.2

  8.6

  6.5

  1993

  4.9

  8.0

  6.0

  Source:

  IMF International Financial Statistics.

  Balance of Payment Statistics Part 2.

  Sound Recordings
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the Government's position with regard to EU directive 92/100 on guaranteeing performers 50 per cent, of the receipts of a recording company when the record is broadcast or used in public; and what reasons underlie the difference in approach between the UK and other member states. [25007]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Directive 92/100/EEC requires member states to ensure that a single equitable remuneration is paid by users for broadcasting or other communication to the public of sound recordings, and that the remuneration is shared between performers and record producers. It does not specify that performers are to receive a 50 per cent, share of the remuneration. The proposals we have made in the recent consultative draft of regulations to implement the directive aim at flexibility as technical developments increase the ways in which sound recording are communicated to the public, and are intended to ensure that performers receive an equitable
  425
  share, while leaving the precise amount to be agreed between the parties and determined by the Copyright Tribunal in default of agreement. We are aware that performers are dissatisfied with this approach, and will look carefully at the matter again before submitting the legislation to Parliament. Clearly, however, given the various options open to us under the directive, we will also have to consider the views of users and producers on how the legislation should be framed in the UK.

  Nuclear Power
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the load factor at each of Britain's nuclear power stations in the last year for which figures are available. [25272]

  Mr. Eggar
  These are commercial matters for the companies concerned.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff were employed at each of Britain's advanced gas-cooled reactor power stations(a) in 1989 and (b) in 1994. [25273]

  Mr. Eggar
  These are matters for Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when the licence for the operation of the Sizewell pressurised water reactor and each of Britain's advanced gas-cooled reactors was last issued by the nuclear installations inspectorate; what is the period of the licence; what are the consent conditions; how often inspections are carried out; and what modifications there have been in each licence since first issued. [25287]

  Mr. Eggar
  The table gives the dates on which the current nuclear site licences were granted for the sites listed and the number of times the licences have been varied.

  Site name

  Date licence last granted

  Number of Variations since last licence was granted

  Sizewell

  1 March 1990

  4

  Dungeness

  1 March 1990

  5

  Hinkley Point

  30 July 1993

  5

  Hartlepool

  1 March 1990

  3

  Heysham 1 and 2

  1 March 1990

  5

  Hunterston

  1 March 1990

  5

  Torness

  1 March 1990

  3

  Nuclear site licences are granted to nuclear operators for the sites on which installations are situated and not for the individual facilities such as reactors. For example, the Sizewell B pressurised water reactor is situated on the Sizewell site, for which the last licence was issued on 1 March 1990, as indicated in the table.

  Nuclear site licences may be varied for a number of reasons—for example, the commissioning of full power.
  426
  A complete list of the variations that have been made to each of the site licences listed is not readily available and could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  The Health and Safety Executive grants a nuclear site licence for an indefinite period. The licence can be revoked by the HSE and can also be surrendered by the licensee, who is responsible for the safety of activities on the site. HSE's publication, "Nuclear Site Licences under the Nuclear Installations Act 1965 (As Amended), Notes for Applicants", sets out the current conditions attached to a licence. A copy of this is in the Library of the House.

  In 1994, on average, HSE's nuclear installations inspectorate inspected each nuclear power station every 2.5 weeks. The operation of each reactor is constrained by HSE using controls, including consents, derived from the conditions attached to the licence.

  Electricity Demand
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the United Kingdom's(a) base load and (b) peak electricity demands during 1994. [27276]

  Mr. Eggar
  The simultaneous maximum demand for electricity in the United Kingdom met during the winter 1993–94 was 54.8 GW and during the winter of 1994–95 was 52.4 GW. The lowest demand met in the UK during the year 1994 was 20.2 GW. Base load varies according to season, with the minimum load on the day of maximum winter demand almost twice the minimum load in mid-summer. There is thus no single measurement for base load.

  Nuclear Decommissioning
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the latest projections for the total cost of decommissioning(a) Berkeley and (b) Trawsfyndd nuclear power stations at 1995 prices, and what are the anticipated dates when these costs will accrue. [25280]

  Mr. Eggar
  These are matters for Nuclear Electric plc.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount of money set aside to date by Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear for decommissioning(a) Magnox reactors and (b) advanced gas-cooled reactor power stations. [25275]

  Mr. Eggar
  I refer the hon. Member to the annual reports and accounts of Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear, available in the Library of the House.

  Sizewell
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total insurance cover for an accident at the Sizewell pressurised water reactor; and how such risks are insured against. [25290]

  Mr. Eggar
  The insurance of Nuclear Electric's own property and other commercial risks is a matter for the company.

  With regard to insurance cover for third party liability claims resulting from a nuclear occurrence, Nuclear Electric is insured in accordance with the requirements of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, which reflected international agreements. This requires the operator to take out insurance for £140 million.

  Fossil Fuel Levy
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much has been raised by the non-fossil fuel obligation in each financial year since 1989; and how the total levy proceeds have been distributed. [25286]

  Mr. Eggar
  The fossil fuel levy was introduced on 1 April 1990. The information requested is:

  £ million

  Amount raised

  Payments to:

  Nuclear Electric

  Renewable generators

  1996–91

  1,175

  1,135

  6

  1991–92

  1,324

  1,281

  12

  1992–93

  1,348

  1,291

  29

  1993–94

  1,233

  1,139

  68

  1994–951

  1,204

  1,081

  96

  1Estimate.

  Sources:

  Office of Electricity Regulation, amounts raised, and Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency Ltd. payments.

  The balance of levy receipts is used to finance payments to British Nuclear Fuels pic in respect of nuclear electricity generated by its plant, and to cover certain other costs such as administration costs.

  Electricity Supplies
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what determines which power stations provide base load electricity supply within the pool pricing arrangements. [25278]

  Mr. Eggar
  The order of priority for calling stations to run is determined by the England and Wales grid code and by the pool rules.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if purchases from the French interconnector are to provide base load electricity supply; and if prices are discounted on the basis of the guarantee to run continuously. [25285]

  Mr. Eggar
  The interconnector was built for mutual system support and to trade electricity when one country could supply it more cheaply than the other. Because of low avoidable generation costs at its nuclear plants, Electricite de France has been able to bid into the pool to supply electricity at prices lower than the marginal cost of indigenous fossil-based supplies. As a consequence of the level of EdF's bids, the interconnector has normally supplied base load electricity from France to England.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what percentage of Britain's electricity is provided by companies other than National Power, PowerGen and the nuclear industry; and if he will list the main contributors; [25270]

  (2) what percentage of Britain's electricity supply in 1994 were provided by (a) National Power, (b) PowerGen and (c) advanced gas-cooled reactors. [25271]

  Mr. Eggar
  In the United Kingdom in 1994, provisional data show that 62 per cent, of electricity generated was by the former nationalised industries in Britain—National Power, PowerGen, Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric—26 per cent, by Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear, 7 per cent, by new entrants to generation 428
  and 5 per cent, by other generators, including those generating electricity for their own use. Information about individual generators cannot be provided. Advanced gas-cooled reactors generated 19 per cent, of UK electricity in 1994.

  The new entrants to electricity generation are: Barking Power Ltd., Corby Power Ltd., Elm Energy and Recycling Ltd., Fellside Heat and Power Ltd., Fibropower Ltd., Fibrogen Ltd., Keadby Generation Ltd., Lakeland Power Ltd., Peterborough Power Ltd., Regional Power Ltd., South East London Combined Heat and Power Ltd. and Teesside Power Ltd.

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the average price paid by the distribution companies to the generating companies during 1994(a) for base load electricity supply and (b) for electricity supply at peak demand. [25279]

  Mr. Eggar
  Supply companies, rather than distribution companies, purchase electricity from generating companies. The price paid is dependent upon commercially confidential contracts between the parties.

  Nestles-Rowntree Factory, Norwich
  Ms Harman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he plans to meet representatives of the management of Rowntree, trade unions representing employees at Rowntree and other interested parties in relation to the proposed closure of the Nestles-Rowntree factor in Norwich; [24756]

  (2) what discussions his Department has had with the Department of Employment and other Government Departments concerning the proposed closure of the Nestles-Rowntree factory in Norwich and the effect of the closure on the local economy; [24758]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the proposed closure of the Nestles-Rowntree factory in Norwich; [24759]

  (4) how many jobs in total will be lost in Norwich and the surrounding areas as a result of the proposed closure of the Nestles-Rowntree factory in Norwich; [24755]

  (5) what representations he has received regarding the proposed closure of the Nestles-Rowntree factory in Norwich. [24757]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answers 17 May 7995]: Neither my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has had representations about the proposed closure of the factory. Nor do we have any immediate plans to make a statement on the proposed closure of the factory. The closure decision was taken on purely commercial grounds and is expected to involve the loss of some 900 jobs. We have no plans to meet with the management of Nestle or with the trade unions at the plant. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade hopes, however, to visit Norwich in the autumn and in the course of his visit expects to hear at first hand more about the impact of the closure and the immediate and longer-term response of the business and other communities in the town. Since the closure announcement was made, the Government office for eastern region, which embraces the Departments of Trade and Industry, of Employment, of the Environment and of Transport, has kept closely in touch with business, local government and

  429
  the training and enterprise council in Norwich and is providing help and advice to the emerging partnership which is addressing economic development and competitiveness in the area.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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. [23956]

  Mr. Heseltine
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: The information in relation to DTI's executive NDPBs is as follows:

  (a) The Coal Authority

  (b) The NAO's access to DTI's NDPBs is detailed in "Public Bodies 1994" which is available in the Library of the House. The newly created Coal Authority is not listed but is audited by the NAO.

  (c) None.

  (d)

  (i) All DTI's NDPBs are appropriately monitored by the relevant divisions of the Department.

  (ii) All DTI's NDPBs are encouraged to follow citizens charter principals where they are appropriate.

  (iii) DTI's NDPBs are encouraged to introduce performance indicators where they are appropriate. So far, the following bodies have adopted or are soon to adopt indicators:

  Coal Authority—precise indicators to be agreed in 1995–96

  Simpler Trade Procedures Board United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority

  National Consumer Council—precise indicators to be agreed in 1995–96

  Gas Consumers Council

  (iv) Although board members of DTI's NDPBs may in certain circumstances be liable for wrongful or negligent actions, individual members are not subject to surcharge of a statutory nature.

  Trading Standards Service
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the applicability of the views attributed to his Department on pages 42 and 43 of "Renewing Local Government" in the English shires to the future of the trading standards service after the proposed division of Berkshire into six unitary authorities. [24547]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 17 May 1995]: The Government remain committed to the continued provision of an effective and efficient trading standards service following the reorganisation of local government. However, responsibility for particular organisational arrangements, including, allocation of resources to provide the necessary services, such as trading standards services, which will best service the needs of their respective communities, is a matter for individual authorities.

  Where they are unable to provide a satisfactory service from their own resources, it is opened to new unitary authorities to enter into voluntary co-operative arrangements with neighbouring authorities. Smaller
  430
  authorities in particular may wish to consider entering into such arrangements. In areas where reorganisation leaves in place a previous provider of the service, new authorities may wish to consider the scope for sharing an existing capability.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his reply of 20 January,Official Report, column 759, what is the total amount paid to date by the Export Credits Guarantee Department in respect of defaults on credits to Nigeria; and what sum relates to contracts for defence equipment. [24686]

  Mr. Needham
  [holding answer 17 May 1995]: From the period 1 April 1980 to 31 March 1994, ECGD paid claims of £1,449 million in respect of capital goods and project business in Nigeria.

  It is not practicable to extract the amounts that relate to contracts for defence equipment in Nigeria.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Social Fund
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the annual social fund allocated to each local office of his Department when the fund was introduced in April 1988. [24463]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is in the Library.

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of income support claimants were repaying a social fund loan in(a) Scotland and (b) Britain as a whole at the end of each financial year between 1988–89 and 1994–95. [24464]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table. Information on the percentage of income support recipients who are repaying a social fund loan is available only at the end of May of each year. Data are unavailable for May 1993.

  Per cent.

  Year

  Scotland

  Great Britain

  31 May 1989

  14.6

  8.5

  31 May 1990

  15.7

  9.2

  31 May 1991

  17.2

  9.9

  31 May 1992

  18.1

  11.5

  31 May 1994

  17.2

  11.7

  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the criteria by which the social fund budget allocations were made to local offices in his Department when the fund was introduced in April 1988. [24465]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information requested is in annexe 3 of the Secretary of State's annual report on the social fund 1988–89, Cm 748, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Majority Shareholdings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those companies in which the holder of his office is a majority shareholder which(a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the past five years. [25708]

  Mr. Hague
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not, in his official capacity, hold shares in any company.

  Access Committee for England
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for the future funding of the Access Committee for England. [23589]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 16 May,Official Report, column 165, by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis).

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many of the parents with care in the case load of the Child Support Agency are caring for(a) one, (b) two or (c) three or more children; [24830]

  (2) what is the average maintenance requirement assessed by the Child Support Agency in cases where the parent with care is not in receipt of benefit; [24832]

  (3) what proportion of maintenance collected through the Child Support Agency is retained by parents with care; [24834]

  (4) what is the average maintenance assessment made by the Child Support Agency in cases where there is (a) one child, (b) two children and (c) three or more children. [24829]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tony Ward to Mr. Stephen Timms, dated 18 May 1995:
  In the absence of Miss Chant, the Chief Executive, I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Social Security about parents with care (PWC) who have had child maintenance arranged by the Child Support Agency.
  Information relating to the number of PWCs caring for up to three or more children and the average maintenance payable in such cases is only available in relation to the total number of children in the PWCs household. There will be instances where some of the children in the PWCs household do not qualify for a child maintenance assessment to be carried out by the Agency.
  As at 11 March 1995, 190,700 PWCs cared for one child; 166,500 cared for two children and 97,400 cared for three or more children. The average maintenance assessed for households with one, two, three or more children was £41.62, £45.88 and £42.79 respectively. The average weekly maintenance assessed in cases where the PWCs household was not in receipt of benefit was £61.48. These figures are all estimates taken from a one per cent sample of Agency cases.
  From launch to the end of March 1995, a total of £86.81 million was received and allocated by the Agency. Of this, 36% (£30.88 million) has been paid to PWCs.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of absent parents in the case load of the Child Support Agency has second families. [24833]
  432
  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tony Ward to Mr. Stephen Timms, dated 18 May 1995:
  In the absence of Miss Chant, the Chief Executive, I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the number of absent parents with second families.
  As at 11 March 1995, it is estimated that the absent parents who had returned a maintenance enquiry form, 6.5 percent had second families.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what benefit savings he estimates to have been achieved through the Child Support Agency in(a) 1993— 94 and (b) 1994–95. [24835]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for Miss Ann Chant, the chief executive. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Tony Ward to Mr. Stephen Timms, dated 18 May 1995:
  In the absence of Miss chant, the Chief Executive, I am replying to your recent parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the benefit savings achieved by the Agency.
  During 1993/94 the Agency achieved £418 million in benefit savings. The estimated figure for 1994/95 is £479.05 million.

  Income-related Benefits
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the total of households in the United Kingdom; and what proportion there are on means-tested benefits; [24607]

  (2) how many pensioner households there are in the United Kingdom; and what proportion there are on means-tested benefits. [24606]

  Mr. Burt
  [holding answer 16 May 1995]: The information requested is not available for households and has therefore been provided for benefit units. A benefit unit is defined as a single person or a couple, with or without children. There may be more than one benefit unit within a household. Information is available only for Great Britain.

  The available information is in the table.

  Benefit units (Great Britain)—totals and proportion receiving an income-related benefit

  Total

  Pensioners

  Benefit units (millions)

  29.5

  8.6

  Proportion of benefit units receiving an income-related benefit

  29 per cent.

  40 per cent.

  Notes:

  1. People may be in receipt of more than one income-related benefit. Overlap between benefits has been taken into account.

  2. Pensioners have been defined as those eligible for the income support pensioner premiums, that is, where the claimant and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  3. Information is for May 1993, the latest date for which figures are available for all benefits.

  Source:

  Income support annual statistical inquiry, 5 per cent, sample Family credit statistical system, 5 per cent, sample of awards made Disability working allowance statistical system, 100 per cent, count Housing benefit/council tax benefit MIS annual 1 per cent, sample Family expenditure survey

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from voluntary organisations regarding the potential effects of the Jobseekers Bill on voluntary work. [24449]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.

  Ministers in the Employment Department and the Department of Social Security have received a number of representations from voluntary organisations. As my noble Friend Lord Inglewood indicated during discussion on the Jobseekers Bill in Committee, we will consider the view of the representatives of the voluntary sector before jobseeker's allowance regulations are drafted.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect of the Jobseekers Bill on the numbers of people gaining work experience through long-term voluntary work. [24447]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have been asked to reply.
  434
  People who undertake voluntary work must still be available for employment and must actively seek employment in order to receive unemployment benefit or income support for the unemployed. Current provision in regulations however, allow unemployed people who undertake voluntary work 48 hours' notice to be available to take up an offer of employment. Current provisions also enable a person's voluntary work to be taken into account when considering whether he has met the actively seeking employment condition for receipt of benefit. As my noble Friend Lord Inglewood indicated during discussion of the Jobseekers Bill, we will be following this approach in jobseeker's allowance.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what trials or pilot schemes of anticipated jobseeker's allowance procedures have been undertaken by his Department; where they were held; how long they lasted; what they covered; and what were their results. [25575]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Employment.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Hospital Study
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will place in the Library a copy of the complementarity study undertaken in respect of hospitals within the Eastern health and social services board's area. [23051]

  Mr. Moss
  I will write to the hon. Gentleman about this matter.

  Hospital Agency Staff
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost of employing agency staff in hospitals covered by the Eastern health and social services board in each of the last four years. [24446]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is only available from 1992–93 and is as follows:

  Year

  Total cost (£)

  1992–93

  21,325

  1993–94

  145,048

  1994–95

  2Nil

  Notes:

  1 In 1993–94 two units of management increased their use of agency staff.

  2 By 1994–95 all directly managed units within the Eastern health and social services board were established as health and social services trusts. The board's accounts for 1994–95 remain subject to audit.

  Public Service Offices
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the public service offices, other than local government offices, and the number of persons employed in such offices, in Armagh district council in(a) January 1992, (b) January 1993, (c) January 1994 and (d) January 1995. [23528]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is listed in the table:

  Office

  January 1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  January 1995

  Department of Agriculture

  The Mall West, Armagh

  163

  157

  150

  140

  Divisional Veterinary Office, Alexander Road, Armagh

  33

  37

  37

  38

  Newry Road, Armagh

  23

  24

  29

  27

  Manor House, Loughgall

  87

  86

  83

  79

  Cornmarket Street, Tandragee

  Nil

  1

  1

  1

  Kinelowen Street, Keady

  4

  4

  4

  3

  Gosford Forest Park, Markethill

  25

  23

  22

  22

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  Ballynahonemore Road, Armagh

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  1

  436

  Office

  January 1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  January 1995

  Department of Economic Development

  Training and Employment Agency, Armagh

  14

  14

  13

  14

  Trading Standards Branch, Armagh

  3

  5

  4

  4

  Department of Environment

  Ardmore Road, Armagh1

  31

  31

  23

  19

  Ballynahonemore Road, Armagh1

  28

  26

  26

  19

  Hamiltonsbawn Road, Armagh1

  10

  10

  11

  10

  Dobbin Street, Armagh1

  Nil

  1

  1

  1

  Dobbin Centre, Armagh1

  11

  11

  11

  12

  Roads Service, Cornmarket Street, Tandragee

  10

  9

  9

  5

  Environment Service Markethill Depot

  5

  5

  5

  6

  Water Executive, Ardmore Road, Armagh

  47

  47

  41

  42

  Roads Service, Ballynahonemore Road, Armagh

  92

  85

  79

  48

  Department of Health and Social Services

  Social Security Office, Armagh2

  70

  73

  73

  70

  Notes:

  1Figures apply to non-industrial staff in months of April.

  2Includes Keady community benefit office which is staffed by members from the Armagh Office.

  Department of Agriculture figures for 1992, 1993 and 1994 and estimated.

  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the public service offices, other than local government offices, and the number of persons employed in such offices, in Down district council in(a) January 1992, (b) January 1993, (c) January 1994 and (d) January 1995. [23531]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is listed in the table:

  Office

  January 1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  January 1995

  Department of Agriculture

  Crown Buildings, Ballynahinch

  2

  2

  4

  3

  Main Street, Newcastle

  6

  6

  6

  6

  Rathkeltair House, Downpatrick

  3

  4

  5

  5

  Castlewellan Forest Park

  53

  58

  55

  52

  The Harbour, Ardglass

  1

  1

  2

  1

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  Valuation and Lands Agency, Downpatrick

  11

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Rathkeltair House, Downpatrick

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  2

  437

  Office

  January 1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  January 1995

  Department of Economic Development

  Training and Employment Agency, Ballynahinch

  6

  6

  5

  5

  Training and Employment Agency, Downpatrick

  14

  15

  15

  13

  Training and Employment Agency, Newcastle

  4

  6

  5

  5

  Department of Health and Social Services

  Social Security Office, Ballynahinch

  33

  32

  34

  32

  Social Security Office, Downpatrick

  53

  55

  52

  46

  Social Security Office, Newcastle

  53

  55

  52

  46

  Department of Environment

  Castlewellan Demesne1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Ferry Terminal, Strangford1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Flying Horse Industrial Estate, Downpatrick1

  10

  10

  9

  12

  Cloonag Road, Downpatrick1

  21

  21

  18

  21

  129 Newcastle Road, Seaforde1

  8

  9

  9

  9

  13 Newcastle Road, Seaforde1

  17

  17

  17

  18

  Mourne Countryside Centre, Newcastle1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Rathkeltair House, Downpatrick1

  200

  207

  203

  187

  Quay Road, Downpatrick1

  3

  3

  3

  3

  Water Executive, Cloonagh Road, Downpatrick

  52

  48

  47

  50

  Roads Service, Castlenavan, Seaforde

  127

  124

  104

  61

  Castlewellan Depot

  11

  12

  10

  10

  Environment Service, Quoile, Quay Road, Downpatrict

  4

  3

  3

  3

  Environment Service, Mourne Countryside Centre, Newcastle

  1

  1

  1

  2

  Note:

  1 Figures apply to non-industrial staff in months of April.

  Department of Agriculture figures for 1992, 1993, 1994, are Estimated

  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the public service offices, other than local government offices, and the number of persons employed in such offices, in(a) Ards, (b)> Castlereagh and (c) North Down borough councils in (i) January 1992, (ii) January 1993, (iii) January 1994 and (iv) January 1995. [23625]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is listed in the table:
  438

  Office

  January1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  January 1995

  (a)Ards Borough Council Department of Agriculture

  Divisional Veterinary Office, Robert Street, Newtownards

  34

  37

  38

  43

  Portaferry Road, Newtownards

  8

  8

  9

  9

  The Harbour, Portavogie

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Department of Economic Development

  Training and Employment Agency, Newtownards

  18

  17

  15

  14

  Department of Health and Social Services

  Social Security Office, Newtownards

  67

  65

  65

  62

  Department of Environment

  Church Street, Greyabbey1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Jubilee Road, Newtownards1

  26

  27

  25

  28

  Scrabo Country Park, Newtownards

  5

  5

  5

  7

  Roads Service, Jubilee Road, Newtownards

  44

  42

  42

  9

  Environment Service, Church Street, Greyabbey

  11

  11

  9

  9

  Northern Ireland Office

  Prison Service College

  47.5

  75.5

  51.5

  77.5

  Ulster Bank Building, Newtownards

  8

  8

  8

  8

  (b) Castlereagh Borough Council Department of Agriculture

  Houston Road, Crossnacreevy

  35

  36

  35

  35

  Knockbreda Crown Buildings, Belfast

  16

  17

  28

  27

  Belvoir Forest Park

  13

  11

  11

  10

  Department of Economic Development

  Training Centre, Dundonald

  107

  100

  99

  83

  Department of Health and Social Services

  Social Security Office, Knockbreda

  86

  87

  83

  74

  Department of Environment

  Road Service, Newtownbreda

  24

  21

  18

  Nil

  Prince Regent Road, Belfast

  14

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Northern Ireland Office

  HM Young Offenders Centre

  250.5

  240.5

  248.5

  248

  NI Forensic Science Laboratory

  141.51

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  (c) North Down Borough Council Department of Finance and Personnel

  Crown Buildings, Bangor

  29

  29

  27

  29

  439

  Office

  January 1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  January 1995

  Department of Education

  Rathgael House, Bangor

  674

  684

  572

  480

  Department of Economic Development

  Training and Employment Agency, Bangor

  17

  18

  16

  16

  Department of Health and Social Services

  Social Security Office, Bangor

  80

  83

  76

  71

  Department of Environment

  Crawfordsburn Country Park1

  2

  3

  3

  2

  Crown Buildings, Bangor1

  17

  17

  19

  15

  Green Road Industrial Estate, Conlig1

  33

  32

  33

  30

  N Down Section Office, Balloo Road, Bangor1

  10

  11

  11

  11

  Rathgael House, Bangor1

  10

  10

  11

  10

  Roads Service, Balloo Industrial Estate, Bangor

  42

  40

  36

  57

  Water Executive, Conlig

  63

  56

  65

  59

  Environment Service, Crowfordsburn

  Country Park

  10

  10

  10

  5

  Note:

  1 Figures apply to non-industrial staff in months of April.

  Department of Agriculture figures for 1992, 1993 and 1994 are estimated.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the public service offices, other than local government offices, and the number of persons employed in such offices in Newry and Mourne district council in(a) January 1992, (b) January 1993, (c) January 1994 and (d) January 1995. [23529]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is listed in the table.

  Office

  January 1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  January 1995

  Department of Agriculture

  Divisional Veterinary Office, Crown Buildings, Newry

  47

  53

  55

  54

  Holts Building, Newry

  11

  12

  15

  17

  Bridge House, Kilkeel

  3

  3

  3

  3

  The Harbour, Kilkeel

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Forest Service, Rostrevor

  16

  14

  15

  14

  The Harbour, Warrenpoint

  3

  3

  1

  Nil

  The Square, Crossmaglen

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Armagh Street, Newtownhamilton

  2

  2

  2

  2

  440

  Office

  January 1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  January 1995

  Department of Economic Development

  Training and Employment Agency, Kilkeel

  1

  2

  2

  2

  Training and Employment Agency, Newry

  28

  29

  24

  24

  Training Centre, Newry

  48

  53

  48

  41

  Trading Standards Branch, Newry

  2

  2

  2

  2

  Department of Environment

  Cecil Street, Newry1

  19

  16

  15

  15

  Rathfriland Road, Newry1

  10

  10

  10

  11

  Carnbane Industrial Estate, Newry1

  32

  33

  27

  26

  Bank Parade, Newry1

  11

  11

  10

  9

  Roads Service, Newry Road, Rathfriland

  21

  14

  15

  16

  Road Service, Greencastle Street, Kilkeel

  9

  8

  8

  6

  Road Service, Cragganduff, Crossmaglen

  5

  5

  4

  4

  Roads Service, Cecil Street, Newry

  52

  51

  50

  40

  Water Executive, Carnabane Industrial Estate, Newry

  65

  67

  69

  62

  Department of Health and Social Services

  Social Security Office, Kilkeel

  35

  36

  34

  32

  Social Security Office, Newry2

  139

  149

  141

  138

  Child Support Agency, Newry

  Nil

  Nil

  6

  6

  Notes:

  1 Figures apply to non-industrial staff in months of April.

  2Includes Crossmaglen community benefit office which is staffed by members from the Newry office.

  Department of Agriculture figures for 1992, 1993 and 1994 are estimated.

  Mr. Molyneaux
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list all the public service offices, other than local government offices, and the number of persons employed in such offices, in Lisburn borough council in(a) January 1992, (b) January 1993, (c) January 1994 and (d) January 1995. [23530]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information requested is listed in the table:

  Office

  January 1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  January 1995

  Department of Agriculture

  Ravarnet House, Lisburn

  187

  177

  168

  145

  Large Park, Hillsborough

  15

  15

  14

  14

  Batchelor's Walk Lisburn

  9

  10

  10

  9

  Department of Finance and Personnel

  The Sidings, Lisburn

  23

  34

  31

  38

  441

  Office

  January 1992

  January 1993

  January 1994

  January 1995

  Department of Economic Development

  Industrial Science Centre, Lisburn

  100

  110

  117

  122

  Training and Employment Agency, Lisburn

  20

  28

  19

  19

  Training Centre, Lisburn

  43

  41

  37

  30

  Department of Health and Social Services

  Social Security Office, Lisburn

  95

  96

  92

  81

  Department of Environment

  Ballinderry Industrial Estate, Lisburn1

  11

  11

  11

  12

  Benson House, Lisburn1

  16

  17

  15

  13

  Bow House, Lisburn1

  13

  13

  13

  12

  Derryvolgie House, Lisburn1

  23

  23

  22

  22

  Roads Service, Sprucefield, Lisburn

  86

  76

  73

  64

  Environment Service, Station Road, Moira

  35

  35

  34

  31

  Water Executive, Belfast Road, Lisburn

  62

  62

  56

  51

  Northern Ireland Office

  HMP Maze

  1,336

  1,077

  1,059

  1,122.5

  HMP Maghaberry

  670

  664

  655

  647

  Hillsborough Castle

  5.5

  5.5

  5.5

  6.5

  Note:

  1 Figures apply to non-industrial staff in months of April.

  Department of Agriculture figures for 1992, 1993 and 1994 are estimated.

  Table 2.6: Road traffic accidents

  Per 100,000 population

  Per 10,000 vehicles

  Year

  N.Ireland

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  N. Ireland

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  1984

  386

  474

  388

  375

  118

  122

  138

  105

  1985

  371

  455

  402

  364

  123

  116

  141

  99

  1986

  394

  459

  387

  373

  130

  114

  133

  99

  1987

  403

  442

  365

  371

  130

  108

  117

  96

  1988

  440

  455

  375

  391

  139

  106

  114

  97

  1989

  455

  478

  404

  411

  139

  107

  118

  99

  1990

  450

  472

  395

  411

  132

  105

  111

  97

  1991

  385

  427

  372

  375

  111

  96

  103

  90

  1992

  411

  423

  353

  363

  115

  94

  95

  85

  1993

  399

  417

  326

  346

  111

  92

  86

  80

  Table 2.7: Road traffic deaths

  Per 100,000 population

  Per 10,000 vehicles

  Year

  N. Ireland

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  N. Ireland

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  1984

  12.2

  10.1

  11.6

  8.9

  3.7

  2.6

  4.1

  2.5

  1985

  11.4

  9.2

  11.7

  8.7

  3.8

  2.3

  4.1

  2.4

  1986

  15.1

  9.6

  11.7

  8.3

  5.0

  2.4

  4.0

  2.2

  1987

  13.6

  9.2

  10.9

  7.8

  4.4

  2.2

  3.5

  2.0

  1988

  11.3

  9.0

  10.7

  7.9

  3.6

  2.1

  3.2

  2.0

  1989

  11.4

  9.6

  10.9

  8.1

  3.5

  2.2

  3.2

  1.9

  1990

  11.6

  9.2

  10.7

  8.5

  3.4

  2.0

  3.0

  2.0

  1991

  11.6

  8.0

  9.5

  7.9

  3.3

  1.8

  2.6

  1.9

  1992

  9.3

  7.3

  9.0

  7.6

  2.6

  1.6

  2.4

  1.8

  1993

  8.8

  6.7

  7.8

  6.4

  2.4

  1.5

  2.1

  1.5

  Road Safety
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has for improving road safety in Northern Ireland. [24318]

  Mr. Moss
  The Government will publish Northern Ireland's first road safety plan later this year, which is intended to increase the effectiveness of their road casualty reduction measures by providing a more strategic approach to the planning, co-ordination and delivery of road safety activities. Strong emphasis will continue to be placed on road safety education and publicity and on enforcement of traffic law. Increased resources have been provided and further increases planned, for accident remedial measures and traffic calming schemes at locations where accidents are known to occur.

  Northern Ireland's road traffic legislation is being strengthened and brought more closely in line with the rest of the United Kingdom; legislative proposals include the introduction of a penalty points scheme for traffic offences.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what comparison he has made between road safety standards in Northern Ireland and those in the rest of the United Kingdom. [24321]

  Mr. Moss
  Road safety standards, when measured in terms of accident, death and casualty rates, are published annually in "Northern Ireland Transport Statistics". This publication is available from the House of Commons Library. These statistics permit comparisons between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom and are summarised in the tables.
  443

  Table 2.8: Road traffic casualties

  Per 100,000 population

  Per 10,000 vehicles

  Year

  N. Ireland

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  N. Ireland

  England

  Scotland

  Wales

  1984

  564

  604

  508

  504

  173

  156

  181

  141

  1985

  554

  586

  531

  492

  184

  149

  187

  134

  1986

  603

  593

  510

  512

  200

  147

  175

  136

  1987

  631

  574

  484

  504

  203

  140

  156

  131

  1988

  695

  592

  499

  531

  219

  138

  152

  132

  1989

  733

  623

  540

  563

  224

  140

  158

  136

  1990

  740

  611

  534

  571

  217

  135

  150

  134

  1991

  644

  562

  496

  521

  185

  126

  137

  125

  1992

  696

  562

  473

  508

  195

  125

  127

  120

  1993

  680

  555

  438

  493

  189

  123

  116

  115

  Source: DOE (NI). RUC, DOE (L), Scottish Office, Welsh Office.

  Play Areas (Safety Surfacing)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [24088]

  Mr. Ancram
  A handbook, "Playground Safety Guidelines", prepared by the national Children's Play and Recreation Unit, was issued in 1992 to the Association of Local Authorities of Northern Ireland for distribution to local district councils. These guidelines include a section on safety surfacing of play areas.

  No special financial provision has been made available to local authorities for improvement works in this area.

  Foxes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many fox destruction clubs or societies are registered in Northern Ireland; what is the level of assistance they currently receive; what guidelines he issues on how these clubs and societies destroy foxes;

  Occupational therapists in HSS trusts

  30 September 19941

  30 September 19902

  Trust

  WTE3

  SIP4

  WTE3

  SIP4

  Belfast City Hospital

  16.5

  17

  16.3

  17

  Greenpark Healthcare

  20.8

  22

  25.0

  26

  South and East Belfast

  29.9

  33

  29.4

  31

  Ulster, North Down and Ards

  19.6

  22

  16.1

  20

  Royal Group

  17.0

  17

  16.0

  16

  Mater Infirmorum

  2.0

  2

  3.0

  3

  North and West Belfast

  21.1

  23

  12.8

  14

  Down and Lisburn

  22.3

  26

  16.0

  20

  North Down and Ards

  11.8

  15

  6.2

  9

  Causeway

  12.1

  13

  6.0

  6

  Newry and Mourne

  13.0

  13

  11.0

  11

  Craigavon and Banbridge

  19.9

  23

  3.5

  4

  Craigavon Area Hospital

  —

  —

  13.5

  14

  Notes:

  1 Latest available figures.

  2 Information as requested is not available as trusts were not set up in 1990. However, figures for occupational therapists within the units have been provided for that year.

  3 WTE = Whole-time equivalent.

  4 SIP = Staff in post.
  444
  what guidelines he issues on the numbers of foxes to be destroyed; how the fox population is assessed; and if he will make a statement. [24128]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no fox destruction clubs or societies registered in Northern Ireland, nor is there any mechanism for registering them.

  No scientific monitoring of the fox population in Northern Ireland is carried out.

  Belfast Harbour Commissioners
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what development land is possessed by the port of Belfast. [24319]

  Mr. Moss
  The Belfast Harbour Commissioners currently own 226 acres of commercial development land, the majority of which is on the County Down side of the harbour estate.

  Occupational Therapists
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many occupational therapists are employed in each health and social services trust; and what were the figures five years ago. [24015]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is set out in the table.
  445
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many vacant positions exist in respect of occupational therapists in each health and social services trust in Northern Ireland. [24016]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Occupational therapists in HSS trusts

  Vacancies1

  Trust

  WTE2

  Belfast City Hospital

  1.0

  Greenpark Healthcare

  2.0

  South and East Belfast

  4.0

  Ulster, North Downs and Ards

  4.0

  Royal Group

  2.0

  Mater Infirmorum

  2.0

  North and West Belfast

  0.5

  Down and Lisburn

  3.5

  North Down and Ards

  2.5

  Causeway

  2.0

  Newry and Mourne

  0.5

  Craigavon and Banbridge

  2.0

  Craigavon Area Hospital

  —

  Notes:

  1 Latest available figures.

  2 WTE = Whole-time equivalent.

  Ports (European Grant Aid)
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what grant ports in Northern Ireland have received or are receiving from the European Union; and whether these would have to be repaid in the event of privatisation. [24317]

  Mr. Moss
  Details of grant paid prior to 1986 are incomplete.

  Details of grant paid to Northern Ireland ports from 1986 to date are as follows:

  Ports

  £

  Belfast Port

  70,388,570

  Londonderry Port

  18,071,419

  Warrenpoint Harbour

  6,841,407

  Larne Harbour

  7,164,729

  Coleraine Harbour

  403,467

  Total

  102,869,592

  In the event of the privatisation of a trust port, the question of repayment of grant aid would be a matter for discussion between the Commission and the Government.

  Northern Ireland Railways
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the involvement of private sector finance in Northern Ireland Railways. [24315]

  Mr. Moss
  The Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company, which is the parent company of Northern Ireland Railways, has commissioned a study which will consider the scope for attracting private finance into Northern Ireland Railways's capital programme.

  Housing Associations
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what purposes he requires(a) names
  446
  of children, (b) names of spouse and (c) details of member's hobbies from all members and senior staff of the housing associations in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement about the relevance of these personal details to the performance of all the housing association members and staff involved. [24501]

  Mr. Moss
  The information was sought in order to obtain up-to-date and accurate pen pictures of members and senior staff of housing associations. Such information is already sought routinely by the Department from associations on an ad hoc basis. There is no link whatever between the personal details and performance. The provision of the information is entirely voluntary and will be treated as confidential.

  Craigakulliar Quarry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will now visit Craigakulliar quarry. [24584]

  Mr. Moss
  I have no plans to do so at present.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the commissioner who heard the inquiry into the planning application to use the Craigakulliar quarry as a dump completed his report; when the other commissioners finished their consideration of that report; when they decided to overturn the recommendations of the commissioner who held the inquiry; and when their decision was(a) first communicated to the officers and town clerk of Coleraine borough council and (b) published. [24588]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Planning Appeals Commission. I have asked the chief commissioner to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  National Insurance Numbers
  Mr. Clifford Forsythe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many national insurance numbers existing on 31 March were being held as a record following the death of the owner; [24595]

  (2) how many national insurance numbers existing on 31 March 1995 (a) referred to owners living abroad and (b) were cancelled between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 1995; [24596]

  (3) how many national insurance numbers existed in Northern Ireland on 31 March 1995. [24594]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Social Security Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Alec Wylie. I have asked him to arrange a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alec Wylie to Mr. Clifford Forsythe, dated 18 May 1995:
  I have been asked to reply to your three recent Parliamentary Questions relating to National Insurance numbers.
  I should first explain that all National Insurance records for the United Kingdom are held centrally in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Northern Ireland National Insurance numbers are not held separately from the rest of the United Kingdom. The information you require is not readily available and to disaggregate the National Insurance numbers for Northern Ireland would incur disproportionate costs.
  I can, however, tell you that at July 1994, for the United Kingdom as a whole, there was 8.8 million National Insurance numbers being held as a record following the death of the owner. This can be for a number of reasons including to support payment of a Widow's Pension. At July 1994, again for the United Kingdom as a whole,

  447
  there were 6.1 million National Insurance numbers which referred to owners living abroad.
  Finally, from 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995, there were 10,421 National Insurance Numbers cancelled in the United Kingdom.
  I am sorry that I cannot provide the information in the format you require but I hope that the information I have given you will be helpful.

  Roman Catholic Council for Maintained Schools
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 9 May,Official Report, column 433, if he will make a statement on the role of the Roman Catholic Council for Maintained Schools [24667]

  Mr. Ancram
  The functions of the Roman Catholic Council for Maintained Schools are set out in part IX of the Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  National Lottery Grants
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what occasions he as used his powers under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 to direct the administrators of lottery grants to withhold grants to groups; and what proposals he has to use these powers in future. [24601]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has not to date used his powers under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993 to prohibit the distribution of money to any group and has at present no proposals to do so.

  Belfast

  Western

  North-Eastern

  South-Eastern

  Southern

  Total

  Maintained

  28,149

  37,149

  20,348

  17,105

  38,789

  141,540

  Voluntary

  15,652

  8,528

  9,234

  7,580

  8,674

  49,668

  Integrated:

  Grant-maintained

  1,050

  918

  512

  1,028

  665

  4,173

  Controlled

  167

  —

  51

  155

  266

  639

  Independent

  100

  65

  109

  552

  117

  943

  Public Health Notices
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many public health notices have been issued by each district council in respect of properties between 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1995; and what were the reasons for such notices. [24745]

  Mr. Moss
  The service of public health notices is a statutory duty of district councils. The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many home improvement grant applications were approved as a result of public health notices issued by each district council in Northern Ireland since 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1995; what were the budgetary amounts allocated; and if each application fulfilled the criteria for unfitness as laid down in the Housing (NI) Order 1992. [24750]

  Mr. Moss
  This is a matter for the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. However, the chief executive has provided in the table, for each district council area, the

  Suicides
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the most recent available percentage suicide rate for employed 18 to 65-year-olds in Northern Ireland. [24555]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Information on the number of employed people who have committed suicide is not available. At death registration, informants are asked for the last occupation rather than the employment status of the deceased.

  Education and Library Boards
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for how many pupils in each education and library board area in Northern Ireland the area board has a responsibility to provide services. [24666]

  Mr. Ancram
  Details of the services provided for pupils by the education and library boards are contained in their annual reports, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of children enrolled in(a) maintained, (b) voluntary, (c) integrated and (d) independent schools in each area board in Northern Ireland. [24668]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information requested is as follows:

  numbers of repairs grants approved on foot of the service of public health notices and the amount of grant paid for the period April 1993 to March 1995. Applications for grant aid resulting from the service of public health notices do not have to fulfil the criteria for unfitness as laid down in the Housing (NI) Order 1992.

  Numbers of repairs grants approved and amount of grant paid, by district council area, between April 1993 and March 1995

  District council

  Repairs grants approved

  Amount of grant paid £

  Belfast

  2,479

  769,492

  Newtownabbey

  23

  13,071

  Carrickfergus

  48

  14,651

  Larne

  12

  2,120

  Ballymena

  6

  3,466

  Moyle

  —

  —

  Antrim

  7

  10,083

  Coleraine

  10

  9,956

  Ballymoney

  4

  3,453

  Derry

  10

  7,277

  Magherafelt

  6

  714

  449

  Numbers of repairs grant, approved and amount of grant paid, by district council area, between April 1993 and March 1995

  District council

  Repairs grants approved

  Amount of grant Paid £

  Strabane

  7

  5,468

  Limavady

  —

  —

  Omagh

  82

  110,809

  Dungannon

  254

  330,486

  Cookstown

  15

  31,519

  Fermanagh

  137

  116,308

  Newry and Mourne

  625

  946,749

  Banbridge

  373

  467,318

  Craigavon

  913

  1,154,827

  Armagh

  951

  1,290,249

  Lisburn

  246

  284,237

  Down

  39

  50,852

  North Down

  157

  140,218

  Castlereagh

  90

  75,810

  Ards

  203

  137,955

  Totals:

  6,697

  5,977,088

  Downpatrick Regeneration Project
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will fill the vacant project officer position in the Downpatrick regeneration project. [24746]

  Mr. Moss
  The Department is actively seeking to fill the vacant post and it is hoped that an appointment will be made shortly.

  Conservation Area Grants
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations have taken place about increasing the level of conservation area grants. [24747]

  Mr. Moss
  Consultations about increasing the level of conservation area grants have taken place with the Historic Buildings Council. In the light of these, it was decided that grants should remain unaltered.

  Housing Executive
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to sell off the Housing Executive's stock to the private sector, and if he will make a statement. [24748]

  Mr. Moss
  There are no plans to sell off the Housing Executive's stock to the private sector. The executive, however, does have powers to sell houses to the private sector to complement its own developments or to tenants under its house sales scheme.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consultations took place about the recent price increase in respect of certain planning applications. [24751]

  Mr. Moss
  It is Government policy to achieve full recovery of the costs of processing applications and current planning fees do not meet these costs. The recent increase was designed to close this gap and external consultations were not considered appropriate.

  Disclosure in Criminal Cases
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish the consultation paper on disclosure in criminal cases in Northern Ireland; and if the consultation period will conclude after 31 July. [25176]

  Sir John Wheeler
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State published such a paper on 19 May, seeking comments by 31 July.

  Miss Markievicz Gorman
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the shot which wounded Markievicz Gorman was fired before the stolen car in which she was a passenger had passed the Army patrol. [22917]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: It has not been established at what stage Miss Gorman received her wound.

  Miss Gorman herself did not appear to have realised at what stage she received her injury and in fact became aware that she was injured only after the shooting had stopped and she was removed from the car by Army personnel.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Inquests
  Ms Hoey
  To ask the Attorney-General what criteria he uses when deciding to exercise his discretion under section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988 to grant a fresh inquest. [23914]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General considers whether an application to the High Court would have a reasonable prospect of establishing that it is necessary or desirable in the interests of justice for a fresh inquest to be held.

  Private Lee Clegg
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his oral answer of 6 February,Official Report, column 13, what further representations he has received on the case of Private Clegg. [23915]

  The Attorney-General
  The Law Officers have received 42 individual representations since 6 February and two petitions, one bearing 18 names and the other 45.

  Stefan Kiszko Case
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Attorney-General what plans he has to appeal against the decision of Rochdale's stipendiary magistrate to drop charges of perverting the course of justice in the Stefan Kiszko case against former Superintendent Richard Holland and Mr. Ronald Outteridge; and if he will make a statement. [23916]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is carefully considering and taking counsel's advice on the possibility of an appeal.

  War Crimes Act 1991
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Attorney-General what recent representations he has received about the workings of the War Crimes Act 1991. [23917]

  The Attorney-General
  With regard to second world war crimes, following initial advice from Treasury counsel, further inquiries are in hand in relation to certain potential defendants. Decisions as to possible prosecutions will be taken as soon as all the relevant evidence has been fully considered and analysed.

  Treasury Counsel
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General how many barristers on the panel of Treasury counsel received more than £200,000 in fees from public funds for the latest year for which information is available. [25055]

  The Attorney-General
  There are two Treasury counsel retained for Government civil work. A supplementary panel of counsel is also maintained and used in suitable cases. Both Treasury counsel received more than £200,000 in fees from public funds in the financial year 1994–95.

  There were 14 Treasury counsel based at the central criminal court to represent the Crown in serious criminal cases until Easter 1995, when three resigned having accepted appointments as Her Majesty's counsel. On the information currently available, seven of those received in excess of £200,000 from the Crown Prosecution Service over the same period. However, criminal Treasury counsel are not exclusively retained by the Crown Prosecution Service and may work for other Government Departments and undertake legal aid defence work. Information on fees from those sources can be determined only at disproportionate cost.

  The information referred to is based on payments made inclusive of value added tax.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General how many barristers are presently on the panel of the Treasury counsel. [25056]

  The Attorney-General
  There are two Treasury counsel retained for government civil work. A supplementary panel of counsel is also maintained and used in suitable cases.

  There are at present 11 Treasury counsel based at the central criminal court to represent the Crown in serious criminal cases.

  Majority Shareholdings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will list those companies in which the holder of his office is a majority shareholder which (a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the past five years. [25714]

  The Attorney-General
  There are no companies in which the Attorney-General is a majority shareholder and no such companies have been wound up in the past five years.

  Electro-shock Batons
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement about the outcome of the investigation 452
  by the Crown Prosecution Service relating to British Aerospace and the export of electro-shock batons. [25567]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service does not itself conduct investigations. The relevant police investigation is not yet concluded.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Majority Shareholdings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list those companies in which the holder of his office is a majority shareholder which (a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the past five years. [25710]

  Mr. David Hunt
  None.

  Parliamentary Council
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the role of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel in relation to(a) public Bills, (b) private Bills and (c) private Members' Bills; how this has changed over the past 20 years, with specific instances; and if he will make a statement. [24132]

  Mr. David Hunt
  Parliamentary counsel are responsible for drafting Government Bills, except common form ones and those relating exclusively to Scotland. Parliamentary counsel advise on all aspects of parliamentary procedure in connection with these Bills. On the instructions of sponsoring Departments, they are responsible for drafting Government amendments and a procedural and other motions.

  The Office is not involved in the production of private Bills. It may, however, provide drafting assistance on private Members' Bills on the instructions of Departments acting with the authority of Ministers.

  There has been no change in the role of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel over the past 20 years.

  Science Budget
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will place in the Library the Director General of the Research Councils', review of the science budget published at the press briefing on Tuesday 16 May, together with accompanying press releases and press pack; and if he will make a statement. [25688]

  Mr. David Hunt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) on 16 May,Official Report, column 123.

  I have today deposited in the Libraries of the House the press pack issued at the press briefing on 16 May. The text of the director general's review is also available on the Internet through http://www.open.gov.uk/ost/osthome.htm.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. McAIlion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the grade on entry to the civil service of all current permanent secretaries, including
  453
  those officials nominally graded at permanent secretary level. [25067]

  Mr. Horam
  The following list gives details of all current permanent secretaries, including those nominally graded, within the home civil service and their grade on entry to the civil service:

  Name

  Entry grade

  Adye Sir J. A.

  Executive Officer

  Battishill Sir A. M. W.

  Assistant Principal

  Bichard M. G.

  Grade 2

  Brown Sir A. P.

  Principal

  Budd A. P.

  Grade 1A

  Burns Sir T.

  Grade 1A

  Butler Sir F. E. R.

  Assistant Principal

  Caiman K. C.

  Grade 1A

  Chilcot Sir J. A.

  Assistant Principal

  Culpin R. P.

  Assistant Principal

  Davies D. E. N.

  Grade 1A

  Gregson Sir P. L.

  Assistant Principal

  Hart G. A.

  Assistant Principal

  Hillhouse Sir R. R.

  Assistant Principal

  Hosker Sir G. A.

  Legal Assistant

  Jenkins J. C.

  Assistant Parliamentary Counsel

  Langlands A.

  Grade 2

  Lankester Sir T. P.

  Principal

  Legg Sir T. S.

  Legal Assistant

  McIntosh Dr. M. K.

  Grade 1

  Mills Mrs B. J. L.

  Grade 2

  Mottram R. C.

  Assistant Principal

  Mountfield R.

  Assistant Principal

  Packer R. J.

  Inspector of Taxes

  Partridge Sir M. J. A.

  Assistant Principal

  Phillips G. H.

  Assistant Principal

  Rimington J. D.

  Assistant Principal

  Scholar M. C.

  Assistant Principal

  Stewart J. M.

  Assistant Principal

  Strachan Mrs. V. P. M.

  Assistant Principal

  Turnbull A.

  Assistant Principal

  Vereker J. M. M.

  Assistant Principal

  Wicks Sir N. L

  Assistant Principal

  Wilson R. T. J.

  Assistant Principal

  In July, Professor Tim Holt will take up the post of director at the Central Statistical Office. This appointment was made following an open competition. He will join the civil service directly as a grade 1A.

  "Forward Look" 1995
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish the "1995 Forward Look of Government Funded Science, Engineering and Technology" and the report of the technology foresight steering group. [25769]

  Mr. David Hunt
  I am today publishing the report of the technology foresight steering group and the "1995 Forward Look of Government Funded Science, Engineering and Technology". Copies of both reports are being placed in the Library and summaries are available from the Vote Office.

  The report on technology foresight is from an independent steering group chaired by the Government's chief scientific adviser, Sir William Stewart. I am grateful to Sir William and his colleagues for their report. This builds on those of the 15 technology foresight sector panels, all of which have already been published by my Department. They have been widely welcomed. The steering group report provides an overarching assessment
  454
  of the broad areas of science, engineering and technology that will help the UK capture national and global markets over the next 10 to 20 years. The report also makes recommendations concerning basic research, skills, finance and regulation.

  The Government will respond vigorously to the steering group and panel reports. Their recommendations will inform policy and priorities in Government, the research councils and universities. My Department, in partnership with the DTI, will also be undertaking a major campaign to spread awareness of foresight findings throughout industry.

  The key to success will be to get industry and the science and engineering base working in partnership to address the opportunities which foresight has identified. To stimulate this, I am announcing today a foresight challenge. This will be financed through an extra £40 million of public money which I will make available over the next three years, for collaborative initiatives which address foresight priorities. The challenge will be based on existing mechanisms for industry/science base collaboration, in particular the successful LINK scheme. It will attract matching funds from industry—making £80 million of new resources. I intend to consult the scientific and business communities about the detailed arrangements for the challenge.

  Further details of the Government's plans for the next stage of the foresight exercise are set out in the 1995 "Forward Look". This report provides an up-to-date statement on the ways in which public funds for science, engineering and technology are being spent throughout Government and the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. Particular emphasis is given to the ways in which Government Departments and the research councils are refocusing their programmes in support of wealth creation and quality of life in line with the policy objectives of the 1993 White Paper "Realising our Potential".

  Taking account of technology foresight, the Government will continue to work towards a much closer coupling between publicly funded research and development and the wealth-creating private sector, to help deliver the goals of enhanced national prosperity and quality of life.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Food Labelling
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what further measures he plans to introduce to ensure that food labelling is truthful and accurate about its impact on animal welfare and the environment; and if he will make a statement. [24065]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Food Safety Act 1990 already requires that food labelling shall neither falsely describe the food nor mislead as to the nature or substance or quality of the food concerned. Statements on food labels concerned with animal welfare must therefore comply with those requirements. I have no plans to introduce any more specific requirements; advice I received from the Independent Food Advisory Committee indicated that it would not be appropriate so to do and there are no proposals at European Community level to introduce any such requirement.

  Foxes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many fox destruction clubs or societies are registered in England; what is the level of assistance they currently receive; what guidelines he issues on how these clubs and societies destroy foxes; what guidelines he issues on the numbers of foxes to be destroyed; how the fox population is assessed; and if he will make a statement. [24129]

  Mrs. Browning
  Fox destruction clubs or societies are neither required to be registered with nor are they financially assisted by the Ministry and information is not collected on the number of such organisations.

  Responsibility for the control of foxes rests with those who most benefit from such control, that is, individual landowners and occupiers. The actual method of control is also at the discretion of individual landowners and occupiers, provided that the method does not contravene current legislation, such as the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Control of Pesticides Regulations 1986.

  Plant Labelling
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures are in place to ensure that containerised and container-grown decorative house plants destined for sale in supermarkets which also sell food are clearly labelled with any potential dangers associated with their natural features or pesticide treatments by growers or suppliers; what further measure he plans to introduce; and if he will make a statement. [24160]

  Mrs. Browning
  The risks associated with the sale of potentially hazardous plants by supermarkets and other outlets is a matter which has been considered in a horticultural industry initiative. A voluntary code of practice on handling, retailing and labelling of poisonous plants has been drawn up for adoption. This is a good example of self-regulation. The risk of contamination of food by pesticides used on ornamental plants sold in the same store is extremely small. We have no plans to require growers or suppliers to label plants with the treatments applied.

  Fish Imports
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the economic impact of cheap fish imported from non-EEC countries on the livelihoods of east coast fishermen. [24153]

  Mr. Jack
  No specific assessment has been made in relation to the situation on the east coast of England, but last year's broad-based analysis by the European Commission indicated that underlying structural problems rather than non-EU imports were responsible for the generally depressed state of the fish market within the European Union. The EU market depends increasingly on imports for its supplies and fish processors in particular depend heavily on imported raw material because their needs cannot be met from EU resources.

  Live Animal Exports
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer 456
  of 18 April, Official Report, columns 103–104, regarding the conformity of the vessel Northern Star to the provisions of the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994, by what authority his Department takes the view that point 18 of schedule 3 to the order, which implements EC directive 91/628, does not apply to roll-on roll-off ferries. [24441]

  Mrs. Browning
  My previous answer to which my right hon. Friend refers gave the view which the Department takes when assessing roll-on roll-off ferries for compliance with the law.

  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 581, when he expects his Department's consideration of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' latest legal advice on the export of live animals to be completed. [24779]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  I have now received advice from lawyers on the opinion from Mr. Gerald Barling QC entitled "Welfare of Calves: Lawfulness of Export Restrictions".

  My legal advice in the light of that opinion remains: namely, that a ban on calf exports—whether a blanket ban or a selective ban on exports to certain countries or to rearing units using veal crates—would be at serious risk of successful challenge under European law.

  There are also policy considerations. By far the best outcome, which I believe is achievable, would be EU measures to prohibit the use of the veal crate across Europe. That, I am sure all would agree, would be the best way of achieving a real increase in the sum of animal welfare. A unilateral restriction on exports from the UK—if it could be made to stick—would be only a gesture in terms of animal welfare: continental rearers would carry on using veal crates, and would obtain calves from alternative, more distant, sources from which they would probably be transported in conditions less humane than those we impose on our own exports. There would be no net gain across Europe in animal welfare terms.

  In addition, to attempt to introduce a unilateral ban would be counter-productive in relation not only to the chances of getting a Euro-wide ban, but to the very delicate negotiations on welfare in transit in general. We would have antagonised other member states, some of them at present our allies, and might indeed give them a pretext for declining to take matters further, pending resolution of the legal issues. These are strong reasons for not introducing a ban, even if I thought—as I do not—that I had discretion to do so in legal terms. The fact is that I am still being advised that I do not have that discretion.

  Mr. Barling's opinion does, however, raise an interesting new point in highlighting the fact that the provisions of Community directive 91/629 on the welfare of calves fail to reflect those of appendix C to the recommendation on cattle which the Council of Europe adopted under the European convention for the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. As I have said, this does not alter the legal position in respect of a unilateral ban on calf exports. However, I am, as the House will know, already pressing the Council of Ministers to revise directive 91/629 so as to prohibit the use of the veal crate

  457
  throughout the Community. In support of this aim, I intend drawing Mr. Barling's argumentation over the Council of Europe texts to the Commission's attention. I hope it will see this as a powerful reason for it to make proposals to the Council for the Community's own rules to be brought into line with the rules to which the Community has subscribed in the Council of Europe.

  I believe that the RSPCA—and other animal welfare organisations—can play an important role in our efforts to achieve changes in the Community rules. I am today conveying to it my views in the light of Mr. Barling's opinion, and inviting it to meet me to discuss how matters can now be taken forward.

  Head of EC Tobacco Sector
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the result of the Belgian police investigation into the circumstances surrounding the suicide of the former head of the tobacco sector of the EC. [24867]

  Mr. Jack
  The Belgian police investigated the immediate circumstances surrounding the death of the former head of the tobacco sector of the EC, with the assistance of the Commission, and concluded that he took his own life. They did not carry out a further investigation into the alleged case of fraud. The Commission, from its own internal investigation, passed dossiers of information to the Italian and Greek authorities, and the state prosecutors in Rome and Athens are now pursuing their own inquiries with the full assistance of the Commission's anti-fraud squad.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [23965]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Wright) on 16 May 1995, Official Report, columns 203–204, as regards the role of the ombudsmen and the NAO in relation to the Ministry's executive NDPBs and the applicability of the citizens charter and performance indicators. The ombudsmen and NAO may also scrutinise funding and secretariat support for other NDPBs. The Audit Commission has no role in relation to MAFF's NDPBs, but NDPBs are subject to internal and external audit. The normal legal rules on liability to surcharge apply to board members of NDPBs, whose liability is not limited.

WALES

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning nurses' pay in Wales. [24336]
  458
  Mr. Richards
  The independent pay review body has recommended a 1 per cent. increase in national salaries to be supplemented by local negotiations on pay which are expected to lead to improvements in total of between 1.5 and 3 per cent. These recommendations have been accepted in full by the Government.

  Some 13 trusts and units in Wales have made offers known—all at the 3 per cent. mark. The remainder are expected to make offers soon.

  Negotiations are still continuing between the management and staff sides of the Nursing and Midwifery Staffs Council to translate the pay review body recommendations into an agreement for promulgation to the service.

  Community Care Charters
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he intends to issue his consultation paper on community care charters for Wales. [24017]

  Mr. Richards
  We intend to issue our draft framework for community care charters in Wales for consultation within the next few weeks. The new health and local authorities will be asked to have their charters in place by April 1997.

  Unitary Authorities (School Pupils)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for how many school pupils each of the proposed unitary authorities in Wales will be responsible. [24582]

  Mr. Richards
  The following table shows at January 1994 the number of pupils attending LEA-maintained schools in each unitary authority area. These pupils may not be residents of the unitary authority in which their school is located.

  Number of pupils on roll at January 19941

  Unitary Authority

  Part-time

  Full-time

  Total

  Anglesey

  219

  10,703

  10,922

  Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire

  221

  17,078

  17,299

  Aberconwy and Colwyn

  774

  11,051

  11,825

  Denbighshire

  1,063

  14,201

  15,264

  Flintshire

  1,745

  22,979

  24,724

  Wrexham

  1,694

  18,160

  19,854

  Powys

  32

  18,844

  18,876

  Cardiganshire

  163

  10,445

  10,608

  Pembrokeshire

  549

  18,451

  19,000

  Carmarthenshire

  524

  27,011

  27,535

  Swansea

  3,350

  34,261

  37,611

  Neath and Port Talbot

  2,256

  21,418

  23,674

  Bridgend

  537

  21,917

  22,454

  Vale of Glamorgan

  890

  17,087

  17,977

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  214

  43,027

  43,241

  Merthyr Tydfil

  701

  10,931

  11,632

  Caerphilly

  1,174

  29,224

  30,398

  Blaenau Gwent

  808

  10,967

  11,775

  Torfaen

  935

  15,402

  16,337

  Monmouthshire

  408

  11,554

  11,962

  Newport

  1,588

  22,870

  24,458

  Cardiff

  2,759

  47,616

  50,375

  Wales

  22,604

  455,197

  477,801

  1 Includes pupils on roll at all LEA-maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special schools

  Suicides
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the most recent available percentage suicide rate for employed 18 to 65-year-olds in Wales. [24556]

  Mr. Richards
  Information on the number of employed people who have been recorded as having committed suicide is not available. At death registration, it is the last occupation rather than employment status of the deceased that is recorded.

  Live Sheep Exports
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sheep were exported live from Wales in 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1994. [24557]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The number of sheep exported live from Wales in recent years are as follows:

  1980: 86,500

  1985: 18,500

  1990: 128,500

  1994: 242,000

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of abattoirs in Wales in 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1994. [24559]

  Mr Gwilym Jones
  Since the beginning of 1993, agriculture departments have been responsible for licensing fresh meat premises including abattoirs; prior to that local authorities had this responsibility. Figures for the numbers of abattoirs before 1993 are derived from records of state veterinary service visits made at the end of each year as set out in the chief veterinary officer's reports for those years. The number of abattoirs operating in Wales was 62 in 1980, 72 in 1985, and 60 in 1990. At the end of 1994, the number of abattoirs licensed by the Welsh office was 40—not 39 as previously advised to the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley).

  Education Funding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what action he has taken to ensure increased funding for school budgets in 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [24850]

  Mr. Richards
  When making its public expenditure decisions for 1996–97, the Government will give careful consideration to the spending needs of unitary authorities, taking account of the views of the Welsh Consultative Council on Local Government Finance.

  Smoking
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what advances his anti-smoking campaigns have achieved; and if he will make a statement on specific results achieved. [25160]

  Mr. Richards
  In Wales there has been an encouraging decrease in the level of smoking prevalence in recent years. Studies carried out by the Health Promotion Authority for Wales show that the percentage of men aged 18 to 64 smoking daily has fallen from 35 per cent, in 1985 to 27 per cent. in 1993. The equivalent change for women of the same age group was from 30 to 25 per cent.

  Countryside Council for Wales
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he held with(a) the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales and (b) local government in Wales, concerning his proposals for the future of the Countryside Council for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [25005]

  Mr. Redwood
  Copies of the Countryside Council for Wales action plan were sent to the local authority associations and to the Campaign for Rural Wales.

  GP Fundholders
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the payment of GP fundholder management allowances.

  Mr. Redwood
  Management allowances are paid to GP fundholders to reimburse the additional costs incurred in directly managing NHS resources on behalf of their patients. Section 15 of the NHS and Community Care Act 1990 enables fundholders to receive a sum determined in such manner and by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State may direct. However, legal advice is that payments by fundolders for the sole purpose of management expenses need to be specified within regulations. This has now been provided for under the NHS (Fundholding Practices) Amendment Regulations 1995, which came into force on 1 April 1995. Extra-statutory management allowance payments of this kind, made between 1990–91 and 1994–95—which are estimated at around £9 million—have now been authorised.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make it his policy that nuclear industrial waste will not be disposed of within(a) the boundaries of the Cynon Valley and (b) the boundaries of Mid Glamorgan. [25025]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are no sites in the Cynon Valley or in Mid Glamorgan which are authorised by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution for the disposal of radioactive waste from nuclear licensed sites. The Government's overall policy in this area will be set out this summer when the conclusions to their review of radioactive waste management are published.

  Welsh Office Accommodation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 101, if he will list all the accommodation rented by the Welsh Office in Cardiff and elsewhere, indicating the percentage of use in each case and the remaining length of the lease and annual rental. [25167]

  Mr. Redwood
  For reasons of commercial confidentiality, it is Government policy not to disclose information about rent levels for individual properties. The total amount of rent paid in 1994–95 was £4,131,761. Other information requested is given in the following table.
  461

  Welsh Office accommodation on the Common User Estate (CUE)

  Property

  Welsh1 Office occupation (per cent.)

  Tenure

  Lease expiry

  Cathays Park, Crown Building (CP1)

  100.00

  Freehold

  —

  Cathays Park, New Crown Building (CP2)

  69.95

  Freehold

  —

  Government Buildings, Llanishen

  10.80

  Freehold

  —

  Caradog House, Cardiff

  5.53

  Leasehold

  28 September 2000

  Golate House, Cardiff

  100.00

  Leasehold

  29 September 1999

  Bessemer Road, Cardiff

  100.00

  Leasehold

  31 January 1999

  John Williams Building, Cardiff

  74.28

  Leasehold

  23 June 2000

  Southgate House, Cardiff

  4.85

  Leasehold

  22 September 2019

  Brunel House, Cardiff

  56.00

  Leasehold

  24 March 1999

  Ty Nant, Swansea

  2.58

  Freehold

  —

  Pontfaen Road, Lampeter

  20.97

  Freehold

  —

  Picton Terrace, Carmarthen

  53.03

  Freehold

  —

  Jobs Well Lane, Carmarthen

  100.00

  Freehold

  —

  8 Barn Street, Haverfordwest

  43.13

  Freehold

  —

  4 and 5 Hamilton Terrace, Milford Haven

  100.00

  Leasehold

  10 September 1998

  Spa Road East, Llandrindod Wells

  88.87

  Freehold

  —

  Park Street, Newtown

  16.00

  Freehold

  —

  Canal Road, Brecon

  35.81

  Freehold

  —

  Royal Welsh Pavillion Showground, Builth Wells

  100.00

  Leasehold

  31 December 2082

  Y Buarth, Aberystwyth

  100.00

  Leasehold

  24 December 2054

  Bryn Adda, Bangor

  2.20

  Freehold

  —

  Dinerth Road, Colwyn Bay

  33.99

  Freehold

  —

  New Crown Building, Ruthin

  46.35

  Freehold

  —

  Penrallt, Caernarfon

  52.00

  Freehold

  —

  Newry Street, Holyhead

  18.25

  Leasehold

  24 December 2009

  Arran Road, Dolgellau

  1.81

  Freehold

  —

  Chartist Tower, Newport

  1.06

  Leasehold

  23 June 1998

  23 Gold Tops, Newport

  100.00

  Leasehold

  23 June 1997

  14 King Street, Carmarthen

  50.96

  Freehold

  —

  Gwydyr House, Whitehall

  100.00

  Freehold

  —

  1 Represents the amount of accommodation within each of the respective CUE properties occupied by the Welsh Office. Where there is a balance of space it is not the responsibility of the Welsh Office. There is no space currently within Welsh Office occupations which is surplus to its needs.

  Cardiff Bay
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the World Wide Fund for Nature concerning breaches of faith in relation to the Government's creation of alternative bird reserves to mitigate the loss of wading birds' habitat in Cardiff bay. [25282]

  Mr. Redwood
  The director of the World Wide Fund for Nature (UK) wrote to me on 22 February 1994 seeking a meeting to discuss the progress made on the Cardiff bay barrage scheme and associated bird compensation measures. A meeting involving officials from my Department, Cardiff Bay development corporation and the WWF about the Government's commitment to the undertakings given to Parliament was held on 27 June 1994.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further progress he has to report on the proposal to spend £5.8 million on the Gwent levels to create bird reserves to mitigate the loss of wading birds from Cardiff bay. [25269]

  Mr. Redwood
  Cardiff Bay development corporation has completed a site options study. This has been considered by a working group comprising representatives from the Countryside Council for Wales, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the Land Authority for Wales. More detailed investigations are being undertaken to determine which sites present the best options. These should be completed by September.

  Drug Strategy
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in the drug strategy for Wales. [25171]

  Mr. Richards
  I hope to publish the Welsh drug and alcohol strategy for consultation in the next few weeks.

  Majority Shareholdings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those companies in which the holder of his office is a majority shareholder which(a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the past years. [25704]

  Mr. Redwood
  There are no such companies in either category.

  Deprivation Payments Scheme
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the amended basis for calculating the deprivation index for awarding supplementary payments to GPs in Wales; how many(a) GP practices and (b) individual GPs in each family health services authorty area qualified for supplementary payment under the deprivation payment scheme in 1994–95; and what estimate he has made of the figures for the present year. [25606]
  463
  Mr. Redwood
  The Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration has recommended that payments under the deprivation payments scheme should be based on the 1991 census Jarman scores. The Government have accepted its recommendation, which will take effect in 1995–96 and is likely to lead to a further £1.2 million being paid to doctors in Wales, an increase of 66 per cent. This excludes the increase due to the upgrading of the payment levels per patient in each of the deprivation bands following the review body's award for 1995–96.

  The number of GP practices and individual GPs with patients in deprived wards at 1 April 1994 is given in the following table:

  FHSA

  GP practices

  GPs

  Clwyd

  19

  45

  Dyfed

  1

  1

  Gwent

  64

  134

  Gwynedd

  28

  70

  Mid Glamorgan

  95

  224

  Powys

  6

  22

  South Glamorgan

  49

  131

  West Glamorgan

  43

  111

  Wales

  305

  738

  As a result of the revision of the scheme, it is not yet possible to make a reliable estimate in respect of the present year.

  Building Process Work
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for each piece of work subject to a building process under the auspices of(a) his Department and (b) agencies for which his Department is responsible (i) who the successful bidders were where work was contracted out and (ii) which contracts were won by in-house bidders in (1) 1993–94, (2) 1994–95 and (3) 1995–96. [25546]

  Mr. Redwood
  This information is not held centrally.

TREASURY

  Medals and Decorations
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the cost of producing the conspicuous gallantry cross medal awarded to Corporal Wayne Mills; and what will be the unit cost of future medals. [25170]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Royal Mint supplied the medal under contract to the Ministry of Defence. The terms on which the Royal Mint supplyies medals to its customers are not disclosed for commercial reasons.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to bring the intrinsic financial value of medals in line with the valour honoured by their award. [25173]

  Mr. Nelson
  None.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 April,Official Report, columns 266–67, what are the reasons for the costs of those medals whose cost exceeds £3,000. [25181]

  Mr. Nelson
  The cost of insignia is dictated by the complexity of the design, the materials used and the labour costs.
  464
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to continue recycling the insignia of the Order of the Garter; what is the cost of recycling; and what plans he has to recycle other insignia. [25172]

  Mr. Nelson
  Current practice will continue. The insignia of the Order of the Garter is always returned on the death of a holder, renovated and reissued when another knight is appointed. Renovation costs depend upon its condition on return, but represent a significant saving over replacement by new insignia. All other insignia that are returned—for example, on promotion within the same order—are already also renovated and reissued.

  Majority Shareholdings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those companies in which the holder of his office is a majority shareholder which(a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the past five years. [25705]

  Mr. Nelson
  There are no companies in either category.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the yield from 2.5 percentage points on value added tax in each year since 1991–92, showing separately the estimated yields in respect of the United Kingdom and England. [25409]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The estimated revenue yield from an increase of 2.5 percentage points on the standard rate of VAT—£ million—is as follows:

  UK

  England

  1991–92

  5,200

  4,400

  1992–93

  5,800

  4,900

  1993–94

  6,200

  5,200

  1994–95

  5,900

  5,000

  1995–96

  6,300

  5,300

  1996–97

  6,900

  5,900

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimate for VAT receipts in 1995–96; and what it would be if the 1978–79 VAT regime still applied. [25194]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The estimate for VAT receipts in 1995–96 was published in the revised 1995–96 "Financial Statement and Budget Report". Any attempt to estimate under the 1978–79 VAT regime would require the revisiting not only of the legislation as it then stood, but the reinterpretation of many changes in practice since that time. I do not think this would be a meaningful exercise.

  Biodiesel Fuels (Excise Duty)
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to implement section 11 of the Finance Act 1993 dealing with excise duty on biodiesel fuels. [23713]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Section 11 of the Finance Act 1993 provides for excise duty to be charged on fuel substitutes, including biofuels. The necessary commencement order is currently being drafted. The intention is that the order will be made and laid before
  465
  Parliament in accordance with negative procedures, and be subject to the scrutiny of the Statutory Instruments Committee. It is expected to take effect later this year.

  Tax Fraud
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the estimated amount of tax fraud in each year since 1979. [23673]

  Sir George Young
  No official estimates have been made, but the annual yield from the Inland Revenue's counter-evasion and anti-avoidance work rose from £137.9 million in 1979–80 to £1,609.6 million in 1993–94.

  A significant part of this arises from improved targeting of cases and more effective working methods.

  Charitable Donations
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investigations the Inland Revenue have made into the charitable donations made by(a) the Porter Foundation, (b) G G M Newton Charitable Trust, (c) Robert McAlpine Ltd., (d) the liquidators of London and Paris Property Group plc., (e) Wimpey Group Services Ltd., (f) Regalian Properties plc and (g) Hammerson Group Management Ltd. to the Foundation for Business Responsibilities; what conclusions these have drawn; and what further investigations are planned. [24701]

  Sir George Young
  The tax affairs of all charities, companies and trusts, like those of all taxpayers, are protected by strict rules of confidentiality. The Inland Revenue is unable to provide any information which might breach these rules.

  Privatisation
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total of the sums paid or which are due to be paid to financial institutions or companies in respect of their services or advice in regard to those privatisations which have been completed or partially completed since 1979 or which are in preparation or under consideration at this time; and what payments have been or are expected to be paid to the seven businesses or institutions which have received the largest share of these payments. [24200]

  Sir George Young
  For the sale costs of privatisations that have been completed, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave at 27 April 1995,Official Report, column 646. Details of disaggregated costs can be found in my replies of 23 March 1995, Official Report, column 287, and 16 May 1995, Official Report, column 108. Sale costs for those privatisations that have yet to be completed will be announced in the normal manner following the completion of each sale. Details of the firms which have been the seven largest recipients of privatisation sale fees are not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the cumulative total for privatisation receipts from 1979–80 to 1995–96 in 1995–96 prices. [25196]

  Sir George Young
  Privatisation proceeds from 1979–80 to 1995–96 are expected to total £82.4 billion in 1995–96 prices.

  Forged Currency
  Mr. French
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the fact value of forged currency in currency in circulation in the form of(a) notes and (b) coinage. [24715]

  Mr Nelson
  The Bank of England is not in a position to provide a meaningful estimate of the number of counterfeit notes in circulation. A record is maintained of the number which are received from circulation but the Bank, in common with most note-issuing authorities, does not publish details of the counterfeits it receives. However, despite an increase in counterfeiting over the last few years, counterfeit notes detected still represent only a fraction of 1 per cent, of the total notes in circulation.

  The Royal Mint is not in a position to provide an estimate of the number of counterfeit coins in circulation.

  Improper Financial Advice (Compensation)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the implications for compensation of investors who have been improperly advised by a firm of its takeover by another; [24752]

  (2) what plans he has for compensation to be paid to investors who have been wrongly advised by financial advisers before the coming into force of the Financial Services Act 1986. [24731]

  Mr. Nelson
  Investors who were given advice which breaches the rules of a regulator under the Financial Services Act 1986 once the relevant provisions of the Act came into force and who suffer loss as a result may be entitled to compensation. This compensation comes either from the firm concerned, or from the investors compensation scheme if the firm defaults. In either case, compensation payments are not affected by any takeover.

  Compensation for wrong advice given before the Financial Services Act came into force is a private matter between the investor and the firm concerned. The Government do not intend to provide for compensation to be paid in respect of loss suffered as a result of bad advice given before the relevant provision of the Act came into force.

  Long-term Investment
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with the Governor of the Bank of England regarding long-term investment in British industry. [25021]

  Mr. Nelson
  My right hon. and learned Friend and I meet regularly with the Governor to discuss the prospects for inflation and the current state of the economy, including long-term investment in British industry. Recent figures for investment show some very encouraging signs. For example, in the fourth quarter of 1994, manufacturing investment in plant and machinery was over 10 per cent, up on a year earlier.

  Retail Prices Index
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will provide forecasts of the percentage change on the previous financial year for the retail prices index
  467
  excluding and including mortgage interest payments for 1994–95 and 1995–96. [25198]

  Mr. Nelson
  The November "Financial Statement and Budget Report" forecast that underlying inflation would be 2¼ per cent, in the second quarter of 1995 and 2½ per cent, both in the fourth quarter of 1995 and in the second quarter of 1996. These forecasts will be updated in the summer economic forecast.

  Oil and Gas Revenues
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what will be the cumulative total for Government revenues from oil and gas production from 1979–80 to 1995–96 expressed in 1995–96 prices. [25195]

  Sir George Young
  Total revenues to the Exchequer from North sea oil and gas production from 1979–80 to 1995–96, at 1995–96 prices, are expected to be £128 billion.

  Currency Values
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the tests which he applies in considering whether a currency is overvalued. [25476]

  Mr. Nelson
  The values of currencies are determined in foreign exchange markets. The Government do not have a target for sterling's exchange rate.

  Procurement Strategy
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a statement on the Government's procurement strategy. [25927]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I am today presenting to Parliament a White Paper entitled "Setting New Standards: A Strategy for Government Procurement", Cm 2840. Copies of the White Paper are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  With the development of the Government's policies for private finance, market testing, contracting out and internal markets, Departments are doing more of their business than ever before through procurement as against in-house provision. The annual spend is now about £40 billion a year and, in addition, purchasing authorities in the national health service internal market spend more than £20 billion. These policies have brought immense benefits to the country. Their full potential has still to be realised. The more procurement there is, the more important it becomes that Government Departments should make a first-class job of it. The Government owe nothing less to citizens, taxpayers and suppliers. Ten years have passed since the Government's first major statement on procurement strategy, in 1984. That statement, which came to be known as the Government's purchasing initiative, was an excellent beginning but much has happened since then. The Government now need a new strategy to carry it forward for the next 10 years and beyond. "Setting New Standards" provides this strategy. Key points from the strategy include:
  A clear objective throughout Government, and at all levels of management, to achieve world-class standards in procurement.
  A broader interpretation of procurement to cover all non-pay, non-transfer expenditure.
  A continuing emphasis on fair competition, as being the cornerstone of good procurement, coupled with constructive co-operation between customers and suppliers.
  468
  Emphasis on integrated procurement processes focused on whole-life costs and benefits, non-short-term lowest price, and on intelligent management of risks.
  A step change in professionalism and skill development among officials with procurement responsibilities.
  A clear pinning of responsibility on contract managers and project sponsors, supported by multi-disciplinary teams.
  An agenda for benchmarking of processes and performance to world standards.
  A new statement of good practice designed to promote fair competition, constructive co-operation between customers and suppliers, and world-class suppliers.

  The objectives of Government procurement are to achieve best value for taxpayers' money and to increase the competitiveness of their suppliers. The strategy set out in "Setting New Standards" is therefore an essential part of the Government's commitment to improved competitiveness, described in "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead", Cm 2867, which my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is publishing today.

  Civil Service Appointments
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil service appointments were made to administrative assistant and administrative officer posts in his Department and the agencies for which he is accountable in each quarter from September 1993 until April 1995. [21777]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 1 May 1995]: The information for the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's four agencies is as follows:

  HM Treasury

  Administrative assistant

  Administrative officer

  Permanent

  Casual

  Permanent

  Casual

  Q4 1993

  3

  6

  0

  4

  Q1 1994

  1

  6

  0

  3

  Q2 1994

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Q3 1994

  6

  1

  11

  3

  Q4 1994

  0

  7

  0

  2

  Q1 1995

  0

  6

  0

  0

  Total (52)

  11

  26

  1

  14

  Notes:

  Dates refer to date of taking up post.

  1 Transferred from MOD.

  Central Statistical Office

  Administrative assistant

  Administrative officer

  Permanent

  Casual

  Permanent

  Casual

  Q4 1993

  0

  8

  3

  †11

  Q1 1994

  0

  26

  3

  †18

  Q2 1994

  0

  11

  *2

  †25

  Q3 1994

  *1

  13

  1

  †25

  Q4 1994

  0

  5

  *1

  †19

  Q1 1995

  0

  4

  *1

  †23

  Total (200)

  1

  67

  1

  121

  Notes:

  Dates refer to date of taking up post.

  Includes † 6 fixed-term appointments (1993).

  * 4 transfers (1994).

  † 18 fixed-term appointments (1994).

  * 1 transfer (1995).

  † 17 fixed-term appointments (1995).
  469

  Royal Mint

  Administrative assistant

  Administrative Officer

  Permanent

  Casual

  Permanent

  Casual

  Q4 1993

  14

  1

  0

  3

  Q1 1994

  0

  15

  0

  1

  Q2 1994

  0

  1

  0

  4

  Q3 19942

  0

  0

  3

  1

  Q4 19942

  0

  1

  0

  11

  Q1 19952

  0

  6

  2

  15

  Total (38)

  4

  14

  5

  15

  Notes:

  Dates refer to date of taking up post.

  1Includes 1 transfer, 2 part-time AA (1993)

  1 part-time AA/1 part-time AO (1994)

  1 part-time AO (1995)

  2From 1 August 1994 recruitment is to Royal Mint equivalent grades.

  Paymaster

  Administrative assistant

  Administrative officer

  Permanent

  Casual

  Permanent

  Casual

  Q4 1993

  0

  2.5

  0

  0.5

  Q1 1994

  0

  31

  0

  31

  Q2 1994

  0

  11

  0

  1

  Q3 1994

  0

  24

  0

  0

  Q4 1994

  0

  211

  0

  2

  Q1 19952

  0

  20.51

  0

  0

  Total (78.5)

  0

  72

  0

  6.5

  Notes:

  Dates refer to date of taking up post.

  1 Includes 13 fee paid AA/3 fee paid AO/1 short notice AA contract (1994)

  3 fee-paid AA (1995).

  Valuation Office

  Administrative assistant

  Administrative officer

  Permanent

  Casual

  Permanent

  Casual

  Q4 1993

  34

  172

  1

  6

  Q1 1994

  11

  1157

  0

  111

  Q2 1994

  18

  1508

  0

  32

  Q3 1994

  6

  1170

  0

  113

  Q4 1994

  7

  1146

  0

  118

  Q1 1995

  7

  1204

  2

  110

  Total (1,533)

  83

  1,357

  3

  90

  Notes:

  Dates refer to date of taking up post.

  1 Includes 465 fixed-term appointment AA/31 fixed-term appointment AO (1994).

  47 fixed-term appointment AA/4 fixed-term appointment AO (1995).

  Income Tax
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish estimates of the revenue cost of (i) allowances set against income tax and (ii) reliefs set against income tax for(a) the top 1 per cent, of taxpayers, (b) the top 5 per cent., (c) the top 10 per cent., (d) the top 25 per cent., (e) the top 50 per cent., (f) the top 70 per cent, and (g) all taxpayers. [23348]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Estimated full-year revenue costs at 1995–96 income levels are in the table. Separate costings have been produced for allowances and reliefs. The combined cost of both allowances and reliefs would be greater than the
  470
  sum of the individual figures. Since 1979, income tax rates have been lowered and real incomes have increased by 40 per cent.

  Cost of Allowances and Reliefs

  Group of taxpayers

  Allowances £ billion

  Reliefs £ billion

  Top 1 per cent.

  0.4

  0.7

  Top 5 per cent.

  2.1

  1.9

  Top 10 per cent.

  4.1

  2.9

  Top 25 per cent.

  8.3

  4.6

  Top 50 per cent.

  15.0

  6.5

  Top 70 per cent.

  20.3

  7.3

  All taxpayers

  27.8

  7.7

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish a table showing the increase in income tax in 1995–96 compared with the 1992–93 indexed regime broken down into the top 1 per cent., top 5 per cent., top 10 per cent., top 50 per cent, and bottom 50 per cent., showing the total increase and the average loss. [23351]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Provisional estimates are given in the table. These figures reflect a larger working population and the fact that more people are better off—real incomes have grown by 40 per cent, since 1979—both largely due to economic growth.

  Total increase and average increase in 1995–96 compared with 1992–93 indexed regime.

  Group of taxpayers

  Total increase in income tax £million

  Average increase in income tax £

  Top 1 per cent.

  190

  740

  Top 5 per cent.

  910

  710

  Top 10 per cent.

  1,540

  600

  Top 50 per cent.

  3,390

  260

  Bottom 50 per cent.

  1,120

  90

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), of 1 July 1993,Official Report, columns 598–600, providing estimates for 1995–96 and 1996–97 of the revenue yield of introducing upper limits for tax allowances and reliefs, and the number of individuals affected. [23522]

  Sir George Young [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Since the married couple's allowance and mortgage interest relief are now given at a rate of 15 per cent., the terms of the original question are no longer meaningful.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate, on the same basis as in his answer to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) of 30 November 1993,Official Report, columns 385–86, (a) the total income, earned and unearned, (b) the total national insurance contributions and (c) the total income tax paid by (i) the top 1 per cent., (ii) the top 5 per cent., (iii) the top 10 per cent., (iv) the bottom 50 per cent, and (v) all taxpayers in 1983–84, 1985–86, 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1995–96. [24370]
  471
  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 16 May 1995]: Final estimates for 1992–93 and provisional estimates for 1993–94 to 1995–96 based on a projection of the 1992–93 survey of personal incomes are given in the table. The estimates of total income relate to income subject to tax and exclude non-taxable income such as certain social security benefits. These figures reflect a larger working population and the fact that more people are better off—real incomes have grown by 40 per cent, since 1979—both largely due to economic growth.

  Quantile group of taxpayers Per cent.

  Total income £ million

  Income tax liability £ million

  Employees' and self-employed national insurance contributions £ million

  1992–93

  Top 1

  29,300

  9,500

  300

  Top 5

  72,000

  19,800

  1,600

  Top 10

  108,100

  26,500

  3,100

  Bottom 50

  96,900

  8,000

  4,000

  All taxpayers

  373,700

  60,700

  16,300

  1993–94

  Top 1

  30,000

  9,800

  300

  Top 5

  74,300

  20,500

  1,700

  Top 10

  111,700

  27,600

  3,400

  Bottom 50

  97,300

  8,200

  3,900

  All taxpayers

  382,800

  63,200

  17,200

  1994–95

  Top 1

  31,800

  10,700

  400

  Top 5

  78,300

  22,600

  1,900

  Top 10

  117,500

  30,400

  3,900

  Bottom 50

  99,400

  9,000

  4,400

  All taxpayers

  398,500

  69,000

  19,900

  1995–96

  Top 1

  33,700

  11,400

  400

  Top 5

  82,700

  24,100

  2,000

  Top 10

  124,400

  32,700

  4,100

  Bottom 50

  104,300

  9,800

  4,500

  All taxpayers

  420,900

  74,600

  20,800

  Gross Domestic Product
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has of the total gross domestic product for 2000–01. [25676]

  Mr. Aitken
  For projections of growth in total gross domestic product up to 1999–2000, I refer the hon. Member to the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96", table 3A.2, a copy of which can be found in the House Library.

  PA Consulting Group
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidelines he has issued to other Government Departments in relation to the use of PA Consulting Group, pending the outcome of the tax compliance inquiries by the special compliance office of the Inland Revenue; and if he will make a statement. [23869]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 15 May 1995]: The tax affairs of this company are, like those of all taxpayers, protected by strict rules of confidentiality.
  472
  Analyses for the earlier years are not available, but extensive analyses of the distribution of income and income tax are published as follows:

  Year

  Publication

  1983–84

  The Survey of Personal Incomes 1983–84

  1984–85

  The Survey of Personal Incomes 1984–85

  1985–86

  Inland Revenue Statistics 1988

  1986–87

  Inland Revenue Statistics 1989

  1987–88

  Inland Revenue Statistics 1990

  1988–89

  Inland Revenue Statistics 1991

SCOTLAND

  Agricultural Colleges
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the development, funding and future of the Scottish agricultural colleges. [24085]

  Sir Hector Monro
  The three former Scottish agricultural colleges at Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Auchincruive were merged into a single Scottish Agricultural College in 1990. The administrative and financial relationship between the college and the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department is set out in a memorandum of understanding, which recognises that the board of the college is solely responsible for the conduct of its business. It also places a requirement on the college, in line with the Government's policy, to find an increasing proportion of its funding from sources other than SOAFD, and I have no plans to change the present policy. In 1995–96 the grant in aid from SOAFD to the college will be £19.7 million.

  Drug Dealers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what powers are available to local authorities, housing associations, housing co-operatives and the private rented sector to evict people convicted of drug dealing and drug-related offences; what plans has he to introduce further measures; and if he will make a statement. [24093]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to him on 8 March 1995,Official Report, column 227.

  I have no plans to introduce further measures specifically in relation to people convicted of drug dealing and drug-related offences, but I am issuing a consultation paper to local authorities and other bodies seeking their views on the introduction of probationary tenancies to help to deal with anti-social behaviour more generally.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what measures he plans to introduce to support the chief constable and officers of Strathclyde police in their efforts to bring drug dealers, money lenders and professional intimidators to justice; and if he will make a statement; [24133]

  (2) what further measures he plans to deal with drug dealing and illegal money lending; what plans he has to introduce any pilot measures in the Paisley area; and if he will make a statement. [24058]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Decisions about tackling drug dealing and illegal money lending and about bringing professional intimidators to justice are operational matters for the police. My right hon. Friend will continue to seek to ensure that the police have adequate resources and equipment to tackle the full range of policing requirements for which they have responsibility.

  Braille Ballot Papers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce Braille ballot papers for local elections in Scotland. [24109]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no plans to do so.

  Buses
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce measures to ensure that deregulated bus companies are required to provide local services until at least 10 pm; and if he will make a statement. [24057]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce measures to regulate service provision. It is for bus operators to decide, on the basis of commercial viability, which services will be provided. Local authorities may, however, subsidise routes which

  Local Authority1

  Scottish Homes2

  Housing Associations3

  Housing Co-operative3

  Private Rented4

  Owner Occupied4

  Owner Occupied4

  (i) Renfrew

  27,524

  4,391

  2,262

  0

  2,088

  42,221

  (ii) Eastwood

  1,602

  10

  95

  0

  654

  20,475

  474
  they consider are socially necessary, including off-peak and late-night services.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of deregulated bus services in Scotland, particularly in relation to evening and late-night services; and if he will make a statement. [24056]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  An independent study of the effect of privatisation and deregulation on the former Scottish Bus Group companies was commissioned by the Scottish Office from the transport operations research group at Newcastle university. The TORG report was published in 1993 and concluded that deregulation of the bus industry in Scotland has stimulated competition, increased efficiency and made more cost-effective the provision of socially necessary services, including off-peak and late-night services.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest assessment of the impact that the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1994 will have on the occupation of office buildings in each Scottish region post-1996; what assessment he has made of the effect on property prices in each region; and if he will make a statement. [24061]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend will be issuing shortly for comment a draft property transfer order which will set down broad guidelines for the transfer of property to the new councils. Only when the councils work through that process will it be possible for them to assess the extent of surplus property and possible ramifications for the property market.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of compulsory redundancies during the transition from the current local government structure in Scotland to the new unitary authorities; and if he will make a statement. [24094]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Government have not made forecasts about the number of compulsory redundancies arising from the move to single-tier councils. Decisions on management of the local authority work force and new staffing structures will be the responsibility of the new councils, but the Government hope that most, if not all, changes can be managed by means of early retirements, voluntary severance and the retraining of existing employees.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) local authority, (b) Scottish Homes, (c) housing association, (d) housing co-operative, (e) private sector rented and (f) owner-occupied homes, are contained within the boundaries of (i) Renfrew district and (ii) Eastwood district; and how many will be contained within the boundaries of the new unitary authorities of (1) Renfrewshire and (2) East Renfrewshire, based upon current figures. [24095]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The available information is set out in the table:
  475

  Local Authority1

  Scottish Homes2

  Housing Associations3

  Housing Co-operative3

  Private Rented4

  Owner Occupied4

  (1)Renfrewshire

  24,410

  3,339,

  2.020

  0

  1,967

  36,920

  (2)East Renfrewshire

  4,716

  1,062

  337

  0

  775

  25,776

  Notes:

  1 Source: The Scottish Office. Estimates at 30 September 1995.

  2 Source: Scottish Homes. Figures at 1 May 1995. Estimates for Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire calculated using breakdown in 1991 census of population.

  3 Source: Scottish Homes. Figures at 31 March 1995. Estimates for Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire calculated using breakdown in 1991 census of population.

  4 Estimates based on 1991 census of population.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the number of job losses created by the provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1994; and if he will make a statement. [24098]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Government have estimated that the move to single-tier local authorities will result in a reduction in posts in a range between 220 and 1,800. The eventual number of jobs in the unitary councils will, however, depend on decisions taken by them in the light of the services to be provided.

  Railway Stations (Disabled Access)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of ScotRail, Railtrack and Strathclyde regional council to discuss the provision of disabled access to (a) Johnstpne High station, (b) Gilmour Street station in Paisley and (c) Milliken Park station in Johnstone; and if he will make a statement. [24121]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet representatives of the organisations listed to discuss the specific issue of disabled access to stations in Paisley and Johnstone. I understand however that plans have been advanced to provide disabled access to Gilmour Street station and further improvements at Milliken Park. Johnstone High station already has disabled access facilities.

  Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has issued to health boards in Scotland relating to the diagnosis, recognition and treatment of myalgic encephalomyelitis; and if he will make a statement. [24075]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As a matter of principle, the Government do not issue clinical guidance, since that is the responsibility of the medical profession.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will support the campaign to make the people of Scotland more aware of myalgic encephalomyelitis, if he will increase official recognition of the disease; and if he will make a statement. [24099]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  We recognise myalgic encephalomyelitis as a potentially debilitating and distressing complex, and would support informed efforts to raise awareness of the condition, which is increasingly being referred to as chronic fatigue syndrome.

  We have awarded the ME Association a three-year core grant under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act
  476
  1978. One of the association's main aims is to increase public awareness of the condition.

  Paisley Pattern Design
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the chairman of Scottish Enterprise to discuss the potential of the Paisley pattern design in the economic regeneration of Renfrewshire; and if he will make a statement. [24135]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend meets the chairman of Scottish Enterprise regularly to discuss a range of issues.

  Local economic initiatives generally fall to be pursued by the local enterprise companies. While my right hon. Friend is aware of the planned initiative by Renfrewshire Enterprise and Renfrew district council to promote for economic development purposes the link between the Paisley pattern design and the town of Paisley, he has no plans at present to discuss these with the chairman of Scottish Enterprise.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what policy his Department has put to the working groups on the Latham report as to the desirability of a single exclusive register for public sector work. [24357]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office Environment Department has expressed no policy view to the working groups as to the desirability of an exclusive register. It is participating in the Capita Management Consultancy Ltd. study and will consider the results before reaching conclusions.

  Flood Prevention
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will introduce a flood prevention Bill for Scotland. [24067]

  Sir Hector Monro
  There are no plans to introduce such a Bill. The powers available to local authorities under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 are already sufficient to enable authorities to act in the public interest.

  Johnstone
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit Johnstone to assess the success of the multi-agency investment in Houston square in the town's main shopping centre; if he will also visit derelict buildings in high street, Johnstone, to assess how this multi-agency approach to investment could be extended; and if he will make a statement. [24071]
  477
  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit Johnstone. He is aware, however, of the Houston square project in Johnstone which is due to be completed shortly and has been financed by Renfrewshire Enterprise, Renfrew district council and the European Commission. The need for further investment in Johnstone is, in the first instance, a matter for the local agencies concerned.

  Law Reform
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will introduce a bill which brings forward further measures to outlaw and punish (a) illegal intimidation and harassing of potential witnesses, (b) illegal possession of shotguns, (c) illicit drugs dealing and (d) illegal money lending. [24131]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to introduce such a Bill.

  A combination of Scots common law offences and a wide range of statutory measures ensures that all these activities are already illegal. The maximum penalties available for these common law and statutory offences enable the courts to punish severely those who are convicted of serious offences.

  Illegal Money Lending
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, what are the maximum penalties for those convicted of illegal money lending; what plans he has to stiffen the maximum sentences; and if he will make a statement. [24091]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The penalties would depend upon the specific charges brought and proved and whether the case was prosecuted summarily or on indictment. These are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.

  Solicitor-General for Scotland
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what parliamentary facilities are available to a Solicitor-General for Scotland who is not a member of either House of Parliament; if a holder of this position in such circumstances benefits from the use of a ministerial car; what is his annual salary; how it relates to ministerial salaries, how it is voted by each House; and if he will make a statement. [24115]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The privileges accorded to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, when not a member of the House of Commons, are as follows:

  (a) Access to the Members' Lobby

  (b) Admission to a seat under the Gallery

  (c) Access to:

  (i) The Strangers Dining Room

  (ii) The Churchill Room

  (iii) The Strangers' Bar;

  A holder of this position has the use of a ministerial car shared with the Lord Advocate.

  The salary of the Solicitor-General for Scotland with effect from 1 January 1995 is £47,697. It is a ministerial salary which is voted as part of the total expenditure of the Crown Office, Procurator Fiscal Service and Lord Advocate's Department.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the(a) name and (b) period of
  478
  office of Solicitors-General for Scotland since 1965 who have been members of neither House of Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [24114]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is as follows:

  Name

  Period for which Solicitor-General not a member of either House

  Henry Stephen Wilson

  1965–67

  Ewan George Francis Stewart

  1967–70

  David William Robert Brand

  1970–72

  William Ian Stewart

  1972–74

  John Herbert McCluskey

  1974–76

  Peter Lovat Fraser

  1987–89

  Alan Ferguson Rodger

  1989–92

  Thomas Cordner Dawson

  1992–95

  Donald Sage Mackay

  1995–

  Ombudsman
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how hon. Members and individual members of the public should refer cases involving Scottish Homes and housing associations for consideration by the appropriate ombudsman. [24078]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Details of how hon. Members and individual members of the public refer cases to the parliamentary ombudsman, the local government ombudsman and the housing association ombudsman are set out in information leaflets which give guidance on the procedure to be followed when lodging complaints, including those against Scottish Homes and housing associations. Copies of these leaflets are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Windyhill Farm, Elderslie
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current position on the proposal by Scottish Aggregates to turn Windyhill farm, Elderslie into a quarry; and if he will make a statement. [24086]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Reporter is presently considering comments received from parties in regard to part 1 of her report containing the summary of evidence and her findings of fact. The revised part 1 will shortly be re-circulated to parties. Thereafter, the Reporter will complete her report with recommendations and submit it to my right hon. Friend. A decision on this application is expected in late summer.

  Polling Station Ramps
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his latest estimate of the amount expended in the 1995 local elections in Scotland on the provision of temporary ramps for access to polling stations; what assessment was made of the comparative cost and cost benefit of providing permanent ramps instead; and if he will make a statement. [24110]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Grants are not made towards the cost of temporary ramps for use at local government elections. However, grants are available towards the cost of temporary ramps to be used at parliamentary and European parliamentary elections. A
  479
  total of £11,914 has been paid in the last three financial years. Temporary ramps purchased for parliamentary and European parliamentary elections can be made available for local government elections and for other purposes by arrangement with the returning officer. Grants are not available towards the cost of building permanent ramps.

  Foxes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many fox destruction clubs or societies are registered in Scotland; what is the level of assistance they currently receive; what guidelines he issues on how these societies destroy foxes; what guidelines he has issued on the number of foxes to be destroyed; how the fox population is assessed; and if he will make a statement. [24126]

  Sir Hector Monro
  Grants are paid to 29 societies or clubs throughout Scotland to meet 50 per cent. of the approved cost of carrying out systematic fox control within a clearly defined area of adequate size. Grants amounting to £68,000 were paid in 1994–95. Records are not kept of clubs not in receipt of grant.

  Foxes may be killed legally by shooting, snaring or cage trapping followed by humane dispatch. The Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department does not advise on the number of foxes to be destroyed. The fox is not an endangered species and there is no reason to engage in regular surveys.

  Scottish Council for Spastics Centre
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will visit the residential centre operated by the Scottish Council for Spastics at Wallace court in Elderslie to assess the value of such initiatives. [24134]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit the centre. However, the Government fully recognise the contribution made by the council in meeting the care needs of people with cerebral palsy and other disabled people with similar needs.

  Argyll and Clyde Health Board
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many complaints were received by Argyll and Clyde health board in each year since 1980 until the latest year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [24159]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not available for the full period requested. Information about complaints has been collected centrally since January 1993. The number of complaints received by Argyll and Clyde health board for the period 1 January 1993 to 31 March 1994 and the nine months to 31 December 1994 is as follows:1 January 1993–31 March 1994: 263
  1 April 1994–31 December 1994: 75

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which facilities, units and buildings within the area of Argyll and Clyde health board have not been transferred to NHS trusts; which of these are seeking, or are likely to seek, trust status within the next year; and if he will make a statement. [24124]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no remaining facilities which the Argyll and Clyde health 480
  board either requires or intends to transfer to NHS trusts in its area.

  Play Areas (Safety Surfacing)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [24090]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend has not issued any guidelines on the provision of safety surfacing for play areas. However, local authorities should be aware of the new British standard on impact-absorbing playground surfaces which came into effect on 31 August 1989. On the question of special financial provision, there are no plans to target resources in this way. Local authorities have complete freedom to determine their own priorities from within the total resources available to them. It is therefore for individual local authorities to consider whether safety surfacing of play areas is a priority and, if so, to direct the necessary resources towards it.

  Dykebar Hospital, Paisley
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discusses the future of Dykebar hospital, Paisley with representatives of(a) Argyll and Clyde health board and (b) Renfrewshire Healthcare trust; and if he will make a statement. [24106]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State meets the chairmen of health boards and NHS trusts in Scotland from time to time when he discusses a range of matters.

  The future of Dykebar hospital will be considered in the context of Argyll and Clyde health board's community care plan which is still in preparation. Once finished, the plan will be subject to extensive public consultation.

  Security Companies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce a licensing scheme for security companies; and if he will make a statement. [24157]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so, but he will be considering the position on the publication of the report of the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry into the private security industry in England and Wales. This report is expected shortly.

  NHS Acute Beds
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed with any member or official of the Greater Glasgow health board the acute bed strategy; what changes he suggested; and if he will make a statement. [24040]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right Friend has been kept informed by the health board as its strategy has developed. Public consultation on the acute elements of the board's strategy ended on 30 April; consultation on the maternity services elements is still under way. I expect
  481
  the health board to submit its proposals formally for my right hon. Friend's consideration once it has considered the response to the consultation exercise.

  Mortgage Repossessions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many court actions relating to mortgage repossessions in Paisley were heard in Paisley sheriff court in each year since 1980; and if he will make a statement. [24068]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Comprehensive information is not available in the form requested, but 206 such actions were initiated at Paisley sheriff court in 1994 and decrees in absence were granted in 188 actions at the court during the same 12-month period.

  Operation Dragon
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on Operation Dragon in Strathclyde. [24084]

  Lord James Douglas Hamiliton
  My right hon. Friend fully supports the chief constable of Strathclyde police in mounting of Operation Dragon which is well organised and well resourced. The objective of the operation is to curb the recent outbreak of violent crime and to enable the police to identify and arrest those responsible. A number of arrests have been made and the police have recovered a number of shotguns and ammunition, handguns and replica handguns. The operation is continuing.

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the maximum penalities for those convicted of the illegal dealing in the drug temazepam; what plans he has to stiffen such sentences; and if he will make a statement. [24092]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Offences under Sections 4(3) and 5(3) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in relation to the supply of, or intent to supply, class C drugs, including temazepam, carry a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment and/or a fine of up to £2,500 when tried on indictment.

  The maximum fine for these offences was increased from £500 to £2,500 as recently as February of this year, when the relevant section of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 came into effect. There are no present plans to increase further the maximum penalties available to the courts for such offences.

  Returning Officers
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the amount paid or payable to each returning officer in Scotland at the 1995 local elections; what out-of-pocket expenses had to be met from these payments; what was the level of payment to each other grade involved in these elections; and if he will make a statement. [24108]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not collected centrally. Returning officers' fees and expenses and other costs relating to the conduct of local government elections are met by the local authority. A total of £5 million was, however, made available 482
  exceptionally by the Scottish Office to regional councils to cover the cost of the elections to the shadow councils in April.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current and specific remit of the national housing agency, Scottish Homes. [24116]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 established Scottish Homes and gave it a wide range of functions and powers to promote housing in Scotland. Scottish Homes' current aim, which reflects the Government's objective for housing in Scotland and is endorsed by my right hon. Friend, is to ensure the quality of housing and variety of housing options available in Scotland are substantially improved. It has six specific main objectives to achieve this aim. These were set out in Scottish Homes' recently published strategic plan for the period up to 1997–98.

  Electricity Prices
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his oral statement of 9 May,Official Report, column 565, if he will break down into its constituent parts the components of his forecast of an 8 per cent. fall in electricity prices in Scotland with particular reference to savings accruing from the ending of the nuclear premium. [24146]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The premium element in the price which Scottish Nuclear receives for its output from Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric under the nuclear energy agreement began to reduce in 1994–95. It was due to end entirely in 1998–99. The Government have now decided that the remaining element of the premium will not continue until 1998; instead it will be ended at the point of privatising Scottish Nuclear's two advanced gas-cooled reactor stations. It is proposed that changes will be made in the supply price control to ensure that the savings to Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric will be passed through to Scottish franchise customers. The Office of Electricity Regulation has calculated that the removal of the premium between 1994–95 and 1996–97 will result in franchise electricity prices in Scotland reducing by around 8 per cent. in real terms over that period.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the net effect on electricity bills per household in Scotland of the premature abolition of the nuclear premium under the Government's plans to privatise the nuclear industry. [24502]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The premium element in the price which Scottish Nuclear receives for its output from Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric under the nuclear energy agreement began to reduce in 1994–95. It was due to end entirely in 1998–99. The Government have now decided that the remaining element of the premium will not continue until 1998 but will be ended at the point of privatising Scottish Nuclear's two AGR stations. At that time, changes will be made in the supply price control to ensure that the resultant savings to Scottish Power and Hydro-Electric are passed through to Scottish franchise customers. The Office of Electricity Regulation has
  483
  calculated that the removal of the premium between 1994–95 and 1996–97 will result in franchise electricity prices in Scotland reducing by around 8 per cent. in real terms over that period, of which around 3 to 4 per cent. will be delivered in 1996–97.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Derek Bentley
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will review the release dates set by his predecessors for papers in the Derek Bentley case to conform fully with subsequent legal rulings on the obligations of the Home Office to disclose information; [24910]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the report submitted to his Department by the investigating officer on behalf of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis regarding inconsistencies in the evidence, including evidence not available to the court or the public, relating to the case of Derek Bentley. [24936]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his question of 18 May, at columns 363–64.

  Probation Services, Mid Glamorgan
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of the newly formed unitary authorities will have responsibility for the provision of probation services currently provided by officers of Mid Glamorgan county council in(a) the Rhymney Valley, (b) Merthyr, (c) Aberdare and (d) Porth (e) Bridgend. [25050]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Local authorities contribute to the costs of, but do not have responsibility for, the provision of probation services. Such services are provided by probation committees. The Mid Glamorgan probation committee is responsible for the provision of services in its area. On 16 May, our intention to make changes to the Mid Glamorgan probation area was announced, and I refer the hon. Member to the answer

  Table 7.3: Receptions into prison in default of payment of a fine: by period and sex, 1974–84

  Number of persons

  Period imposed in default

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  Males

  Up to and including 1 week

  1,000

  1,032

  1,015

  1,526

  3,606

  3,624

  3,210

  3,670

  4,052

  3,726

  3,576

  Over 1 week up to and including 2 weeks

  1,875

  1,751

  1,705

  1,660

  2,937

  3,101

  2,731

  3,801

  4,468

  4,183

  4,480

  Over 2 weeks up to and including 1 month

  3,487

  3,669

  3,646

  3,371

  4,494

  5,208

  5,011

  7,425

  9,283

  9,086

  8,154

  Over 1 month up to and including 2 months

  3,215

  3,749

  4,208

  4,113

  2,710

  2,689

  2,629

  3,583

  3,867

  3,517

  3,099

  Over 2 months up to and including 3 months

  1,959

  2,799

  3,645

  3,617

  1,304

  948

  927

  1,063

  1,070

  966

  684

  Over 3 months up to and including 6 months

  516

  717

  903

  838

  467

  484

  434

  474

  391

  406

  258

  Over 6 months

  62

  85

  73

  59

  29

  38

  34

  30

  37

  36

  24

  Total

  12,114

  13,802

  15,195

  15,184

  15,547

  16,092

  14,976

  20,046

  23,168

  21,920

  20,275

  Females

  Up to and including 1 week

  71

  41

  55

  89

  249

  223

  230

  214

  252

  289

  439

  Over 1 week up to and including 2 weeks

  87

  112

  106

  144

  213

  263

  236

  287

  323

  314

  376

  Over 2 weeks up to and including 1 month

  233

  262

  247

  273

  280

  306

  331

  425

  530

  499

  485

  Over 1 month up to and including 2 months

  64

  122

  184

  188

  100

  119

  123

  136

  157

  165

  149

  Over 2 months up to and including 3 months

  44

  63

  109

  132

  41

  31

  33

  33

  39

  40

  33

  484
  given to the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hendry) of that date, at columns 189–90.

  Probation Service, South Glamorgan
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the total grant given by his Department to South Glamorgan probation service this year and each of the last three years in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms. [25602]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Information is given in the table.

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Cash terms

  2,642,191

  2,785,037

  3,038,229

  2,018,655

  Real terms

  2,642,191

  2,702,345

  2,890,215

  2,781,206

  The figures are in terms of specific grant cash limits. In addition to the cash terms figure shown for 1995–96, a further £202,486 is added to support probation service partnerships with the independent sector previously funded by the Home Office.

  Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were imprisoned because of default on fines levied by the courts in the last year for which figures are available, and in each of the previous 20 years. [25318]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many people were imprisoned because of fine default on fines levied by the courts in the last year for which figures are available, and in each of the previous 20 years.
  Provisional information shows that 22,400 persons in 1993 and 22,700 persons in 1994 were received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales for fine default. Information for earlier years is published in "Prison Statistics, England and Wales" (Table 7.1 of the 1992 edition, Cm 2581), an extract of which is attached.

  485

  Table 7.3: Receptions into prison in default of payment of a fine: by period and sex, 1974–84

  Number of persons

  Period imposed in default

  1974

  1975

  1976

  1977

  1978

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  Over 3 months up to and including 6 months

  8

  12

  14

  27

  9

  9

  7

  10

  21

  12

  4

  Over 6 months

  1

  3

  1

  3

  3

  1

  2

  2

  2

  2

  —

  Total

  508

  615

  716

  856

  895

  952

  962

  1,107

  1,324

  1,321

  1,486

  Males and females total

  12,622

  14,417

  15,911

  16,040

  16,442

  17,044

  15,938

  21,153

  24,492

  23,241

  21,761

  Source:

  Extract from Prison Statistics England and Wales.

  Table 7.1: Population, receptions and estimated average time spent in Prison Service establishments: by sex, 1982–92 England and Wales

  Fine defaulters

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  Population at 30 June

  All fine defaulters

  909

  900

  792

  563

  511

  626

  576

  484

  466

  409

  382

  Males

  871

  854

  752

  540

  491

  598

  549

  460

  441

  397

  359

  Females

  38

  46

  40

  23

  20

  28

  27

  24

  25

  12

  23

  Total sentenced population

  36,000

  35,438

  35,496

  37,344

  36,450

  39,303

  38,548

  38,013

  35,220

  35,114

  35,564

  Fine defaulters as a percentage of total sentenced population

  2.5

  2.5

  2.2

  1.5

  1.4

  1.6

  1.5

  1.3

  1.3

  1.2

  1.1

  Population serving sentences of imprisonment of 6 months or less1

  5,588

  6,006

  6,205

  6,285

  4,787

  4,856

  3,563

  3,744

  3,238

  3,650

  3,621

  Fine defaulters as a percentage of population serving sentences of imprisonment of 6 months or less

  16.3

  15.0

  12.8

  9.0

  10.7

  12.9

  16.2

  12.9

  14.4

  11.2

  10.5

  Receptions

  All fine defaulters

  24,492

  23,241

  21,761

  20,493

  19,159

  18,723

  16,817

  16,985

  16,659

  18,973

  19,826

  Males

  23,168

  21,920

  20,275

  19,108

  18,084

  17,804

  15,881

  16,117

  15,814

  17,997

  18,782

  Females

  1,324

  1,321

  1,486

  1,385

  1,075

  919

  936

  868

  845

  976

  1,044

  All receptions under sentence

  94,377

  93,414

  92,810

  96,189

  86,153

  86,358

  81,836

  76,430

  67,510

  72,313

  69,832

  Fine defaulters as a percentage of all receptions under sentence

  26.0

  24.9

  23.4

  21.3

  22.2

  21.7

  20.5

  22.2

  24.7

  26.2

  28.4

  All receptions under sentence of imprisonment of 6 months or less1

  52,195

  51,415

  50,242

  49,287

  43,109

  41,446

  39,391

  42,209

  36,813

  41,245

  40,509

  Fine defaulters as a percentage of all receptions under sentence of imprisonment of 6 months or less

  46.9

  45.2

  43.3

  41.6

  44.4

  45.2

  42.7

  40.2

  45.3

  46.0

  48.9

  Average time served (days)2

  Males

  14.1

  14.1

  12.9

  11.3

  10.9

  10.9

  9.9

  8.1

  7.0

  7.5

  37.3

  Females

  11.0

  10.1

  8.7

  8.1

  7.9

  8.4

  7.1

  6.0

  6.0

  6.8

  36.8

  1 Excludes detention centre trainees; includes youth custody trainees and persons sentenced to detention in a young offender institution.

  2 Excluding those remaining in custody as fine defaulters on completion of a custodial sentence for criminal offence.

  3 January to June.

  Source:

  Extract from Prison Statistics England and Wales.

  Jewish Burial Ground, London
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he gave approval for the removal of bodies from the Jewish burial ground at Kingsbury road off Balls Pond road, London N1; and what representations he has received about this. [25404]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  The Secretary of State's directions with respect to the removal and reinterment of human remains interred in the Jewish burial ground at Kingsbury road, London N1 were given on 13 October 1994, in accordance with the provisions of the Disused Burial Grounds (Amendment) Act 1981. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has since received four letters of representation on the matter. His involvement is limited to ensuring that the removal and reinterment of human remains are carried out with due care and attention to decency. Before any removals can take place, the applicants will be required, under the 1981 Act, to advertise their intentions in the local press, and by 486
  notices posted at the burial ground, so that interested parties may have the opportunity to object to the proposals.

  Consultancy Costs
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the level of expenditure on consultancy by (i) the Home Office and (ii) agencies for which the Home Office is responsible for(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) the projected figure for 1995–96. [25522]

  Mr. Howard
  Information on the level of expenditure for consultancy contracts let by the Home Office, and agencies for which the Home Office is responsible, during the period specified is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Majority Shareholdings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list those companies in which the holder of his office is a majority shareholder which(a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the past five years. [25715]

  Mr. Howard
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department is not a major shareholder in any company, nor has he held a majority shareholding in any company which has been wound up in the past five years.

  Mr. Richard Linford
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment was made by(a) Essex police and (b) the Prison Service of Mr. Richard Linford's psychiatric condition prior to his imprisonment. [24691]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what assessment was made by Essex police and the Prison Service of Mr. Richard Linford's psychiatric condition before his imprisonment.
  Mr. Linford was remanded in custody by Chelmsford Magistrates Court on 28 November 1994. The Prison Service did not, therefore, have any opportunity to assess his psychiatric condition prior to his reception into its custody. The matter of what assessment was made of Mr. Linford's psychiatric condition by the police prior to his reception or by the Prison Service after his reception into prison will be one of the questions to be examined in the course of the independent inquiry the Prison Service is jointly commissioning with North Essex Health Authority and Essex Social Services into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Christopher Edwards.

  Secure Mental Hospitals (Manslaughter Detainees)
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 554, what proportion of patients with secure mental hospital orders for manslaughter has been given any kind of leave of absence it the last 10 years. [25157]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  This information is not available.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 554, in which secure mental hospitals each of the patients who pleaded guilty to manslaughter was detained. [25134]

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

  List of hospitals to which each of the patients who were convicted of manslaughter and given a hospital order were initially admitted (1985–94)

  Hospital name

  Admissions

  Broadmoor

  67

  Rampton

  60

  488

  List of hospitals to which each of the patients who were convicted of manslaughter and given a hospital order were initially admitted (1985–94)

  Hospital name

  Admissions

  Ashworth

  158

  Arnold Lodge

  2

  Bexley

  3

  Calderstones

  1

  Camlet Lodge

  2

  Cane Hill

  1

  Caswell Clinic

  2

  Central Hospital, Warwick

  2

  Claybury

  1

  Clent Unit

  1

  Doncaster Gate

  3

  East Glamorgan

  1

  Edenfield Centre

  1

  Fairmile

  1

  Friern

  1

  Goodmayes

  1

  Hackney

  6

  Knapsbury

  2

  Kneesworth

  2

  Knowle

  2

  Langdon

  1

  Long Grove

  2

  Maidstone

  2

  Mapperley

  1

  Moorgreen

  1

  Newton Lodge

  1

  North Wales Hospital

  2

  Northern General, Sheffield

  2

  Northgate

  1

  Norvic Clinic

  2

  Pastures

  1

  Pen y Fai

  1

  Poole Hospital

  5

  Prestwich

  5

  Rainhill

  1

  Reaside

  10

  Roundway

  1

  Runwell

  3

  Scott Clinic

  5

  Severalls

  1

  St. Bernard's, Ealing

  12

  St. James'

  1

  St. Augustine's

  1

  St. Nicholas, Newcastle

  1

  St. Francis, Hayward's Heath

  2

  St. Andrew's, Northampton

  1

  Stanley Royd

  2

  Storthes Hall

  1

  Three Bridges

  4

  Towers

  2

  Trevor Gibbens Unit

  1

  Waddilove's

  1

  Warlingham

  1

  Whittingham

  1

  Winterton

  1

  1 Moss Side and Park Lance merged to become Ashworth in February 1990.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation is required by his Department before people being detained in secure mental hospitals after conviction for manslaughter with diminished responsibility are released into the community. [23526]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: Where such a person is subject to both a hospital and a restriction order, the powers of the responsible medical officer to grant leave to, or discharge, the patient may be

  489
  exercised only with the consent of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Discharge may also be directed by a mental health review tribunal. In considering whether it is safe for a restricted patient to be granted leave or discharged, the Home Office takes account of all relevant information including reports by the responsible medical officer and members of the care team.

  Abdelaziz Bouteraa
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assurances his Department has sought regarding the proposed release into the community from Chase Farm hospital of Abdelaziz Bouteraa. [23520]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 10 May 1995]: I am not aware of any current proposal to discharge Mr. Bouteraa from hospital. Mr. Bouteraa has overstayed his permitted leave to remain in the United Kingdom and has been served with a notice of intention to deport him. He has appealed against this decision to the independent appellate authorities. His immigration status will be reviewed in the light of his medical condition and the outcome of appeal proceedings.

  Disclosure Demands
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 16 May,Official Report, columns 167–71, if he will list the criminal cases drawn to his attention which had to be abandoned due to unreasonable demands by defence lawyers for disclosure. [25260]

  Mr. Howard
  Paragraph 15 of the consultation document which I published on 16 May lists examples of cases drawn to my attention which have been abandoned following a court ruling on the disclosure of sensitive material.

  Prison Staff
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of prison staff on the accelerated promotion scheme are women. [25150]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of women on the Prison Service Accelerated Promotion Scheme.
  There are, at present, 89 members of the Prison Service on the Accelerated Promotion Scheme, 34 of whom are women.

  Remand Prisoners
  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many remand prisoners in England and Wales had been in custody for(a) up to three months, (b) from three to six months, (c) for six to nine months, (d) from nine to 12 months and (e) more than 12 months, on the latest date for which information is available. [24373]
  490
  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Gerald Bermingham dated, 22 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many remand prisoners in England and Wales had been in custody for (a) up to three months, (b) from three to six months, (c) from six to nine months, (d) from nine to 12 months and (e) more than 12 months, on the latest date for which information is available.
  The latest available provisional data for England and Wales is for 31 December 1994 and is shown in the attached table.

  Remand prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales by length of time since first reception1 on 31 December 1994

  Time since first remand

  32 December 19942

  Less than 3 months

  6,660

  More than 3 months, up to and including 6 months

  2,660

  More than six months, up to and including 9 months

  940

  More than 9 months, up to and including 12 months

  840

  Over 12 months

  320

  11,420

  1 Awaiting trial or sentence. Time since first reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment. This includes any intervening time spent on bail, but excludes time spent in police cells beforehand.

  2 Rounded estimates which therefore may not add to the totals.

  Mr. Bermingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the remand population in England and Wales for the latest available date. [24372]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Gerald Bermingham, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the remand population in England and Wales for the latest available date.
  The latest available figure is for 28 February 1995, when there was a total of 11,970 prisoners on remand in England and Wales, including 124 being held in police cells.

  Crack Cocaine
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been cautioned for possession of crack cocaine in each of the last five years. [24011]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Home Office records show that one person was cautioned for possession of crack cocaine in 1990. Three persons were so cautioned in 1991, and 14 persons in 1992. Information for 1993 is not available separately and that for 1994 is not yet available.

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which police stations have
  491
  cautioned persons in respect of possession of crack cocaine in 1994. [24013]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Information regarding individual police stations is not collected centrally. The only readily available information regarding cautioning for possession of crack cocaine relates to the years 1990 to 1992 and shows that all but two of the 18 cautions administered during that time were given by the Metropolitan police.

  Women (Sentences)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the sentenced female population in England and Wales on the latest date available, broken down by type of offence, length of sentence and previous convictions. [24269]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the sentenced female population in England and Wales on the latest date available, broken down by type of offence, length of sentence and previous convictions.
  The latest date for which figures are available is 28 February 1995. Figures for female population on this date by type of offence and length of sentence are contained in the attached tables.
  The latest available published information on the previous convictions of females was given in "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1992" Cm 2581, Table 5.2, an extract of which is attached.

  Table 5.2: Population in Prison Service establishments under sentence on 30 June 1992: by offence group and previous convictions1 England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Offence group

  All adult females

  Number of preivous convictions2

  nil

  1–2

  3–5

  6–10

  11 and over

  Violence against the person

  158

  60

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Rape

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Other sexual offences

  7

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Burglary

  40

  10

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Robbery

  37

  —

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Theft and handling

  172

  30

  40

  30

  40

  40

  Fraud and forgery

  52

  20

  10

  10

  10

  10

  Drugs offences

  245

  130

  30

  30

  30

  30

  Other offences

  143

  60

  20

  20

  20

  20

  Offence not recorded

  160

  50

  30

  30

  30

  30

  Offences with immediate custodial sentence

  1,016

  360

  160

  160

  160

  170

  Source:

  Extract from: "Prison Statistics England and Wales 1992", Cm 2581.

  1 Estimated using self-reporting of previous I criminal history in the national prison survey 1991 and the distribution of previous convictions in the 1991 prison population. Excludes fine defaulters.

  2 Rounded estimates to the nearest 10, which therefore may not add to the totals.

  Female Prisoners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what additional cell and bed space had been made available during the last six months in each female gaol in England and Wales. [24273]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison
  492

  Female sentenced population, England and Wales, on 28 February 1995, by type of offence:1 2

  Offence group

  Violence against the person

  268

  Sexual offences

  11

  Burglary

  51

  Robbery

  93

  Theft and handling

  251

  Fraud and forgery

  92

  Drugs offences

  330

  Other offences

  124

  Offence not recorded

  163

  Total

  1,383

  1 Excludes fine defaulters.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Female sentenced population, England and Wales, on 28 February 1995, by length of sentence1 2

  Sentence length

  Up to and including 3 months

  94

  Over 3 months and up to 6 months

  146

  Over 6 months and up to 12 months

  198

  Over 12 months and up to 18 months

  127

  Over 18 months and up to 3 years

  279

  Over 3 years and up to 4 years

  125

  Over 4 years and up to 5 years

  102

  Over 5 years and up to 10 years

  178

  Over 10 years and less than life

  26

  Life

  106

  Total

  1,383

  1 Excludes fine defaulters

  2 Provisional figures.

  Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the additional cell and bed space made available during the last six months in each female prison in England and Wales.

  493
  Establishments that have provided additional cell and bed space during the last six months are given in the table below:

  Certified Normal Accommodation (CNA) available for use in Female Prison Establishments in England and Wales on 30 November 1994 and 28 April 1995

  CNA in use

  Increase

  Establishment

  30 November 1994

  28 April 1995

  New Hall

  169

  207

  +38

  Risley

  132

  154

  +22

  Winchester

  0

  60

  +60

  Total

  1,948

  2,068

  +120

  Note:

  Cell and bed space in all other female establishments has remained unaltered in the last six months.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the female prisoner

  Table 6: Population in Prison Service establishments under sentece on 30 June by sex and offence group. 1989–94 England and Wales

  Number of persons

  Sex and offence group

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  19941

  MALES

  Offences with immediate custodial sentence

  Violence against the person

  8,449

  7,477

  6,945

  6,893

  7,273

  7,600

  Rape

  1,343

  1,441

  1,508

  1,582

  1,593

  1,650

  Other sexual offences

  1,639

  1,577

  1,585

  1,564

  1,572

  1,650

  Burglary

  7,038

  5,885

  5,082

  5,349

  4,690

  5,100

  Robbery

  4,151

  4,052

  3,990

  4,174

  4,856

  5,040

  Theft and handling

  4,073

  3,042

  2,910

  2,910

  2,578

  3,030

  Fraud and forgery

  937

  795

  791

  800

  826

  890

  Drugs offences

  2,896

  2,829

  2,584

  2,899

  2,900

  3,140

  Motoring offences

  902

  659

  861

  967

  1,045

  1,510

  Other offences

  3,225

  2,621

  2,311

  2,490

  2,248

  2,290

  Offence not recorded2

  1,621

  3,148

  5,002

  4,402

  1,794

  2,060

  All offences

  36,274

  33,526

  33,569

  34,030

  31,375

  33,970

  In default of payment of a fine

  460

  441

  397

  359

  522

  510

  All males all offences

  36,734

  33,967

  33,966

  34,389

  31,897

  34,480

  FEMALES

  Offences with immediate custodial sentence

  Violence against the person

  218

  201

  189

  184

  216

  270

  Rape

  7

  3

  1

  2

  1

  1

  Other sexual offences

  16

  8

  15

  8

  14

  10

  Burglary

  68

  51

  39

  51

  39

  40

  Robbery

  82

  51

  46

  56

  77

  90

  Theft and handling

  230

  203

  175

  190

  207

  230

  Fraud and forgery

  63

  50

  42

  53

  64

  70

  Drugs offences

  317

  318

  272

  259

  308

  320

  Motoring offences

  2

  5

  2

  3

  7

  20

  Other offences

  174

  207

  174

  155

  118

  120

  Offence not recorded2

  78

  131

  181

  191

  74

  100

  All offences

  1,255

  1,228

  1,136

  1,152

  1,125

  1,270

  In default of payment of a fine

  24

  25

  12

  23

  24

  20

  All females all offences

  1,279

  1,253

  1,148

  1,175

  1,149

  1,290

  All males and females

  38,013

  35,220

  35,110

  35,564

  33,046

  35,770

  1 Provisional rounded estimates. Components may not add to totals because they have been rounded independently.

  2 Includes 30 court martial prisoners for 1989 with "not recorded", from 1990 court martial prisoners are included under the appropriate offence.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female prisoners were received on remand during 1993 and 1994; and how many were eventually(a) given a custodial sentence, (b) given
  494
  population in England and Wales on the last day of April in 1994, 1993, 1992 and 1991 broken down by category of offence. [24268]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the female prisoner population in England and Wales on the last day of April in 1994, 1993, 1992 and 1991 broken down by category of offence.
  The available information relates to the sentenced female prison population on 30 June each year. This information was published on 27 April 1995 in a Home Office Statistical Bulletin entitled "The prison population in 1994" (table 6, Issue 8/95), an extract of which is attached.

  a non-custodial sentence and (c) acquitted or not proceeded with. [24271]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison
  495
  Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about how many female prisoners were received on remand during 1993 and 1994, and how many were eventually (a) given a custodial sentence, (b) given a non-custodial sentence and (c) acquitted or not proceeded with.
  Information on the number of females received on remand into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales in 1993 and 1994 is shown in table 1, attached. Information on the court outcome is only available for 1993 from court remand statistics and is given in table 2.

  Table 1: Receptions1 into Prison Service establishments of untried and convicted unsentenced female prisoners in 1993 and 1994

  Females

  19932

  19942

  Untried prisoners

  2,647

  2,891

  Convicted unsentenced prisoners

  1,505

  1,728

  All remand prisoners

  3,322

  3,679

  1 The figures for "all remand" record once only a person received as an untried prisoner who is subsequently received also as a convicted unsentenced prisoner.

  2 Provisional figures.

  Table 2: Final court outcome for females remanded in custody at some stage in magistrates' court proceedings1 in 1993 England and Wales

  Females

  Estimated percentages

  Final court outcome2

  Acquitted not proceeded with etc.

  21

  Non-custodial sentence:

  53

  Community sentence3

  26

  Fine

  10

  Absolute or conditional discharge

  12

  Other non-custodial sentence

  5

  Custodial sentence

  26

  Total

  100

  1 Includes persons remanded in custody by magistrates during proceedings or on committal.

  2 Includes estimated outcome at the Crown Court for those Committed for trial or sentence.

  3 Includes CSO, probation, supervision orders, attendance center orders.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the female prison population in England and Wales on 28 April broken down by category of prisoner.

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the female prison population in England and Wales on 28 April broken down by category of prisoner.
  The latest available information is for 28 February 1995 and is given in the attached table.

  496

  Female population in Prison Service establishments and police cells on 28 February 1995 by type of custody

  Type of custody

  Number

  Remand prisoners

  Untried

  346

  Convicted Unsentenced

  165

  Sentenced prisoners

  Young Offenders

  189

  Adults

  1,194

  Fine defaulters

  10

  Non-criminal prisoners

  26

  Total in custody

  1,930

  Transsexual Prisoners
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines relate to the type of prison establishment to which transsexual offenders are committed; and if he will make it his policy to house pre-operative transsexuals in the gaols of their new gender if they have had two or more years of hormone therapy. [23853]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the guidelines which relate to the type of prison establishment to which transsexual offenders are committed.
  The particular difficulties experienced by transsexual prisoners have always been accepted by the Prison Service, which recognises it has a duty of care towards those committed by the courts, while at the same time having to take account of a prisoner's legal gender, as currently determined by a prisoner's birth certificate—a document at present understood in law to be immutable.
  It is well understood that where transsexual offenders are concerned, a wide and complex range of physical, presentational, and psychiatric needs exist. For this reason the Prison Service adopts, in practice, a pragmatic approach once a full physical and psychiatric assessment has been made and the help of any specialist psychiatrist already involved in that individual's care before imprisonment has been sought. In virtually all such cases, the initial placement of an offender will correspond to his genetic gender and birth certificate: definitive location will be arranged only after careful, and often necessarily lengthy, assessment.
  Following assessment, the principal issues which the Prison Service takes into account when considering allocation are the anticipated reaction of other prisoners and the difficulties likely to be encountered by a transsexual who may be allocated to an establishment which he/she considers to be inappropriate. While it is important that such prisoners should be offered, and avail themselves of, as wide a regime of activities as any other prisoners, in our experience many will request (and manage best) under the protection afforded by Prison Rule 43. A proportion will prefer to remain in the Prison Health Care Centre.
  In view of the fact that in many instances gender dysphoria is only one facet of a very complex set of personality difficulties, it would be impractical to seek to prescribe anything other than these general guidelines for the management of transsexuals. By their nature, each particular individual will require a solution specific to himself/herself at that particular time in his/her history.

  Temazepam
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to ensure
  497
  that imports of the drug temazepam are intended for legitimate prescribed use within the United Kingdom; what plans he has to introduce further measures; and if he will make a statement. [24118]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Controls on the licit trade in temazepam are contained in schedule 4 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 1985. Imports and exports are not controlled, but records must be kept. The supply of the drug, whatever its source, is subject to authorisation, and records are required to be kept for two years. The possession of the drug in non-medicinal form, which is the form in which most importation takes place, also requires authorisation. It is permissable to import temazepam for further processing and re-export.

  The Government are continuing to give careful consideration to the recommendation that temazepam be moved from schedule 4 to schedule 3 to the regulations; this would introduce, among other things, a licensing requirement for imports and exports.

  Postal and Proxy Voting
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which newspapers, magazines and periodicals will be used in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland during the period before the next general election to advertise postal and proxy voting; what assessment he has made of the coverage that these have across all parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [24069]

  Mr. Howard
  In England and Wales, advertising giving details of absent voting procedure will be booked in all national daily and Sunday newspapers and in some ethnic minority language newspapers. A television advertisement will be transmitted in England and Wales, two days in advance of the press advertising to alert the public to the press campaign. Electoral registration officers in England and Wales will be provided with artwork for use in local advertising that they might wish to book.

  The Central Office of Information estimates that the national newspaper advertising will be seen by 75 per cent. of the adult population throughout England and Wales.

  Advertising in Scotland and Northern Ireland is arranged by the Scottish Office and the Northern Ireland Office.

  Anabolic Steroids
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made towards banning the supply of anabolic steroids; and when he intends to introduce legislation. [24136]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs agreed on 11 May which substances to recommend for control, and we hope to bring forward the necessary draft modification order to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 shortly.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use his department makes of hand-held and car-based mobile telephones; what were the costs for each financial year of those services since mobile 498
  telephones were first introduced to his department; and how many mobile telephones are currently in use. [23449]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: There are about 1,400 mobile telephones in use in my department, including the executive agencies. Fewer than 50 of these are installed in cars. Mobile telephones are used mainly by operational staff in HM Prison Service and HM immigration service who need to maintain immediate contact with their offices or other officials. Current costs were about £580,000 in 1994–95 and about £495,000 in 1993–94. Figures for capital costs and for previous years are not available.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his department has taken to prevent the cloning of telephones being utilised by his department; and if his department has discussed this matter with any official agencies. [23455]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: The cloning of analogue mobile telephones can be detected, but not prevented. Cloning will cease to be a problem as my Department changes from analogue to digital telephones over the next three years. There have been no discussions, other than with the mobile telephone operators.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what cost his department has incurred during the last 12 months as a result of cloning of mobile telephones being utilised by his department, with particular reference to the making of unauthorised calls. [23489]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: None. Any such costs have been borne by the mobile telephone operators.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mobile telephones being utilised by his Department have been cloned during the last 12 months. [23427]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: Twelve.

  Prisons (Racial Discrimination)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) prison staff and (b) prisoners have been charged with offences under race legislation in each of the last five years; [23086]

  (2) how many representations he has received on racial discrimination against prisoners in prison work in each year since the case of Alexander v. Home Office 1987. [23084]

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

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about race relations in prisons.
  There are no records of any representations having been made to Ministers on racial discrimination against prisoners in prison work since the case Alexander v Home Office 1987. However, there have been approximately 55 official complaints made by prisoners to prison staff of racial discrimination on prison work since 1987.
  Information on the number of prison staff and prisoners that have been charged with offences under race legislation in the last five years is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Christopher Edwards
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement into the killing of Mr. Christopher Edwards by Mr. Richard Linford in Chelmsford prison on 28 November 1994; [24688]

  (2) what warnings Chelmsford prison received to the effect that Mr. Richard Linford was potentially dangerous; and on what basis he was placed in a cell with another inmate; [24689]

  (3) if he will list those prison service procedures which have been reviewed and changed since the killing of Mr. Christopher Edwards in Chelmsford prison; and if he will make a statement. [24690]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answers 18 May 1995]: Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the death of Mr Christopher Edwards in Chelmsford prison on 28 November 1994.
  The internal investigation conducted by the Prison Service into the circumstances surrounding the death concluded that existing
  500
  procedures at Chelmsford prison had been followed satisfactorily. There was no evidence on which to recommend changes in procedures.
  In view of the wider issues raised by the case, the Prison Service is jointly commissioning an independent inquiry with North Essex Health Authority and Essex Social Services. All the matters which you raise will be considered in the light of the findings of this independent inquiry.
  I will write to you again when the terms of reference have been agreed, with details of members of the inquiry panel.

  Prison Proposals
  Mr. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the cost of building and running a super-max prison of the kind the Director General of the Prison Service is currently visiting in the United States of America. [22311]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 May 1995]: Although some early work has been done on possible construction costs, specific estimates can be prepared only when we know more clearly the requirement for such prisons, how many prisoners they might hold, their location and likely regime. I shall also want to consider the views of Sir John Learmont, who will report shortly on his wide-ranging inquiry into prison security.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
The Earl of Derby The Earl of Derby— Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Aviation Agreement with USA: EC Proposals
Lord Brabazon of Tara Lord Brabazon of Tara asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the proposals of the European Commission to negotiate a Europe-wide "Open Skies" aviation agreement with the United States of America.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, we believe that it is in the best interests of the United Kingdom for the Government to conduct air services agreements on a bilateral basis with the United States of America.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. Does he not agree that it is premature for the Commission even to consider conducting bilateral negotiations with anyone until we have complete liberalisanon in Europe and any airline is allowed to fly on any route, as happens in the United States; until all European airlines are in the private sector, and therefore have to stand or fall on their own financial performances, and could go bankrupt or be taken over, as is the case in the United States; and until such time as the Commission develops some expertise in that very complicated area, which it does not have at present? Does my noble friend agree that those and many other criteria must be fulfilled before that is even a possibility?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the Community should focus its efforts on those areas. But I believe that for the foreseeable future our interests are best served by bilateral negotiations carried out directly by the two governments.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does that reply mean that the Government do not envisage the Commission being able to enforce its competition policy for the foreseeable future? Is the Minister aware that the Commission seems to have a marked disinclination to deal with the subsidies paid to Air France, Olympia and Iberia Airlines?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is why the United Kingdom Government have taken the strong action that they have with regard to Air France subsidies. We believe firmly that under Community law member states remain free to negotiate air services agreements with third countries, including the United States, on a bilateral basis.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, will my noble friend forgive my ignorance and tell me exactly what is an "Open Skies" agreement and how that differs from a "Closed Skies" agreement?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, an "Open Skies" agreement is a liberal agreement and any ether one is not.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to say something about the current negotiations with the United States in relation to our bilateral agreement? Is it right that the United States has still not given any undertaking about restrictions on investment by European companies and that that is a critical element of any real movement in the negotiations currently taking place? Does he agree also that, as in Europe today, there should be encouragement to loosen those restrictions on foreign investment in US airlines and enable this to represent up to 49 per cent. of a US airline?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that there is still a considerable way to go before there is a fully liberal agreement with the United States. But we are making progress. As the noble Lord knows, we have been in negotiations with the Americans and I hope that an agreement will be concluded shortly.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, how on earth is the Commission supposed to negotiate an "Open Skies" agreement when it has done nothing about the state subsidies and rampant anti-competitive practices taking place in the airlines in Europe?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the important point is that we are taking action on that. My noble friend is quite right that there are very real difficulties in relation to state aid and in all areas of air transport policy within the Community. That is why we believe that it is in the best interests of the United Kingdom that our Government should be able to negotiate bilaterally with a foreign government—in this case the United States.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will my noble friend stiffen the Government's response a little in relation to this proposal by saying that under no circumstances whatever while this Government or this Prime Minister are in office will the Commission be allowed to interfere in what is a matter between this country, this sovereign nation, and the United States?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we have already shown our resolve in this matter. We have already put down our marker by taking the very strong action that we have in regard to Air France subsidies. I have given a very stiff answer to the noble Lord and to the House, and it needs no further stiffening.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is a very serious problem for the United Kingdom? I believe that there is as much traffic between the United Kingdom and the United States of America as there is between the total of France, Germany and Holland combined and the United States of America. Therefore, it is our industry that would suffer should there be Commission interference.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that this area is extremely important for the United Kingdom. We already have a very strong airline industry; indeed, the strongest in Europe in terms of the amount of traffic carried between the Community and the United States. That is why it is vitally important that any deals secured are in the best interests of this country.

Ambassadors' Pay
2.45 p.m.
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they are calling on business men, rather than any other sector of the community, to advise them on individual ambassadors' pay.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the private-sector members of the Remuneration Committee will bring a number of relevant qualities to their task, including understanding of the work of our missions abroad.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that relations between countries are complicated, broad and manifold and that the ambassador of one country to another should be charged not only with improving commercial relations but also with the political, scientific, cultural, military, social, financial and sporting relations between the two countries? Why have the Government chosen only to have business men help them set the rates of pay and not people from all those other walks of life as well?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that I am surprised both by his Question and by his supplementary. I say that because, on 9th May, the noble Lord tabled six Written Questions on the subject and was given six very expensive Written Answers. As the noble Lord already knows, the important point is what qualities, including experience in setting public and private sector pay, those people can bring to bear. We are confident that Sir Denys Henderson, Sir Michael Perry and Mr. Allan Gormly have the necessary qualities. Perhaps the noble Lord should look again at the Written Answers.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister agree that increasing emphasis has been given in recent years to the role which the Diplomatic Service can play in promoting and protecting our commercial and economic interests overseas? Does the Minister also agree that it is, therefore, entirely appropriate that the business sector, which probably has a better opportunity than any outsiders to observe the effectiveness and performance of Her Majesty's Missions abroad, should be on the Remuneration Committee?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wright, should know the answer, if anyone does. However, I should tell him that, although the promotion of British commercial interests is a key objective, it does not follow from the appointment of eminent business men to the Remuneration Committee that Britain has only business interests abroad. Indeed, the noble Lord has enumerated some of the other interests.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Baroness give the House an assurance that the chairmen of privatised industries are excluded from that task?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, it entirely depends on their qualifications.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say whether any members of the committee will be spending, by way of market testing, a year with their families in one or two of the more salubrious posts, such as Angola or Rwanda? I believe that that might be a helpful contribution.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend, I am sure that most of your Lordships would share with me the wish that we should be proud of our embassies and of the jobs that they undertake. There are parts of the world where it is uncomfortable and often dangerous. I should remind the House of the murder of the husband of the late Lady Ewart-Biggs for one; indeed, other Members of the House have also suffered in a like way. Our Foreign Service is the envy of the world.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, whatever Answers may have been given, expensive or otherwise, to the Written Questions tabled by my noble friend, is there not a serious issue of principle involved? Is not the whole concept of performance related pay for top officials in the public sector utterly absurd? Surely all 11 of the occupants of those top FCO posts should be carefully selected and capable of performing at the highest level on an agreed public sector salary. Does the Minister accept that the notion that they need performance related incentives at that level is thoroughly objectionable? Further, can the Minister indicate how any committee of business men—or, indeed, anyone else for that matter—will be able to measure accurately their performance and then link it to pay accordingly?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we believe that, taken together, the factors listed in the terms of reference, including the level of responsibility, performance and experience, will provide the Remuneration Committee with a sound basis for making proposals. I should also point out that the purpose of the committee is for the private sector members to make proposals to the Secretary of State on the pay of individual Grade I ambassadors, save in so far as their pay is determined by the terms of an individual appointment.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that there seems to be a slight misconception as regards the definition of "business man"? The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, rattled off a large string of other activities. Does not my noble friend agree that all of these are in themselves also businesses and therefore run by business men?
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords. But business is not their only occupation.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that if these business men apply the same principles—if that is what you call them—to the determination of the pay of ambassadors as they do to setting their own remuneration, it is likely to be a rather expensive exercise for the taxpayer?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that as it is in fact the profitable activity of business and industry which produces the taxes which pay the salaries of all the service sections of our economy, including the Foreign Office, the Government have got it entirely right on this occasion?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that with the break-up of the Soviet empire there are now a great many more ambassadorial posts in the Diplomatic Service? Is it not very important to look for younger people in the Diplomatic Service with good ideas and enterprise to fill these posts?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I believe that is happening.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help us just a little. What on earth is the point of this exercise as regards senior ambassadors? Is it seriously believed by the Government that if one has a performance related exercise our ambassadors will do the job better in future than they have done in the past? Is that not somewhat degrading as regards the Government's opinion of those people?
Baroness Trumpington: No, my Lords. The committee, with a private sector majority, will help ensure maximum objectivity in recommendations put to the Foreign Secretary.
Lord Richard: My Lords, what does maximum objectivity mean in this respect? What on earth are the Government playing at here?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I happen to like those words.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that I may have been in order to put down an Oral Question on the same subject as that on which I have put down numerous Written Questions, first, because I was not satisfied with the Answers to the Written Questions and, secondly, because I thought it would be a good idea for everyone to have an opportunity to comment on this, which they have?

Carers
2.52 p.m.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore Lord Constantine of Stanmore asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the total number of registered carers at present; what percentage of these are paid out of public funds on a regular or casual basis; and what is the total cost to public funds per annum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, there is no nation al register of carers providing informal care for relatives and friends. We do not know
796
how many carers receive money from public funds, but a wide range of benefits are available to them depending on their individual circumstances, including Invalid Care Allowance and Income Support.
Lord Constantine of Stanmore: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware —I am sure she is—of the recent BMA report which was published in February of this year which deals with carers? The report claims that 6.8 million unpaid carers are at the present moment saving the Government £33.9 billion.
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. We are indebted to those who take on these responsibilities for very little financial reward.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does my noble friend consider that it would be right if the Government had better assessments of the numbers involved and the degree to which they are saving public expenditure? Would it not also be right if something more could be done to support those carers, not least by providing training for carers, whether it is a case of those who wish to be professional carers or those who are caring for relatives within their own families? Nothing else that we do for the disabled in particular is of much use if there is not a carer to help a disabled person get out to take advantage of what is being done for him or her in the community at large.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government are considering whether we ought to have a register of informal carers. That is something that is being looked at at the moment. With regard to support for carers, we are publishing today the survey that took place of last year's activities. The number of hours of home help and home care which was provided increased by 24 per cent. The figures suggest a more intensive service in that the proportion of households receiving more than five hours per week has increased, while the proportion of households receiving a single visit or a visit of under two hours has decreased. The provision of meals at home and luncheon clubs has also increased, as have places provided at day centres. All these activities help carers. My noble friend has made a good point on training, and that is certainly something that we shall consider.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, one of the most important things for carers is the; availability of respite care so that they can have some time off. To what extent have the possibilities of obtaining respite care increased in the past few years?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, our surveys show that local authorities are providing more respite care. That is not surprising because last year we invested £20 million in this particular service, and this year the sum has gone up to £30 million.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us what progress has been made in making money available to carers so that they can buy the services they want rather than depending on local authorities to provide them, and in that way obtain more precisely what they individually need?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, direct payments to carers is a subject that has been discussed in a White Paper. It is certainly something that the Government support, and it is a measure that we shall be introducing in due course.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am slightly surprised she has not mentioned the Carers (Recognition and Services), Bill, which was given a Second Reading in your Lordships' House last week? That was a Private Member's Bill introduced in another place by my honourable friend Mr. Malcolm Wicks. I am glad to say that the Government have given a great deal of support to this Labour Party oriented policy.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness and I are at one on this.

History Teaching in Schools
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the teaching of history in schools.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we should never be satisfied. Our aim is constantly to improve the quality and relevance of teaching for all pupils in all our schools based on the national curriculum, testing and assessment, Ofsted inspections and the work of the Teacher Training Agency.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that robust reply. Is my noble friend aware of the survey reported in the Sunday Times on 30th April which stated that of 1,600 state pupils aged 11 to 14, over a third did not know who Winston Churchill was and over two-thirds did not know what the Holocaust was? Does my noble friend agree that that is serious? We have clearly failed to give a large number of our children a proper historical understanding of recent events and of the leaders who have shaped our national history. Without that understanding, they cannot really appreciate the basic freedoms we now enjoy or indeed the sacrifice which so many people made to achieve those freedoms.
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords. I entirely agree with my noble friend. She will be comforted to know that both Winston Churchill and the Holocaust are clearly covered in the new national curriculum, and we hope that children who have been through the process of learning in our primary schools now, as opposed to the way it used to be, will come out with a strong historical understanding. I entirely agree when my noble friend says that we need knowledge of individuals in history. We need our heroes and our villains. We need to understand what our mistakes and triumphs have been in the past; they are part of what makes us a nation.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, particularly in connection with teaching our children modern history, will the Government take all possible steps to make quite sure that modern history teaching includes a factual
798
account of the way in which the British people were misled in 1972 and 1975 over the terms of entry into the European Community?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as defined in our schools, 1972 is not yet history.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister have any information about education authorities taking into consideration what is called "situated perspective"—that is, the way in which so many historians can differ according to their opinions, political opinions and the market they are writing for when they are producing history?
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords. To my mind one of the most interesting and important changes in the way history has been taught over the past 30 years is that it now includes an important element of critical understanding: looking at sources and at evidence and making one's own judgment based on those and understanding that, certainly in history and perhaps in current newspapers, most of what is written is biased.
Lord Annan: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is important for children between the ages of 9 and 14 to learn about the passage of time? In our youth that used to be done by learning the dates and names of the kings of England. That was a way of acquainting oneself with the great passage of time in history. Does the noble Lord also accept that it is important not to study social and economic history too early and that before the age of 14 children need to gain a perspective of the panorama of history? Does he agree that that is what history, the story—which used to be our island story—is all about?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord is a very persuasive advocate for the points that he mentioned, and I agree with him entirely. I hope that he will agree that the national curriculum, as it is now, supports most of what he said.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, will the Minister tell us how he reconciles his statement that the new national curriculum will remedy the serious deficiencies of knowledge identified by my noble friend Lady Cox with the letter sent to schools by his own advisers, Sir Ron Dearing and Mr. Christopher Woodhead, in November last year which says that the teaching of landmarks in British history will be very much up to individual schools? Does the Minister not agree that there is a contradiction between what most of us in this House would regard as the kind of history that ought to be taught in schools and the signals constantly being sent out by the Government's own advisers? How does he propose to overcome that contradiction?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have not seen that particular letter, but I have studied what the national curriculum has to say. It sets out clearly in considerable detail some of the main elements of our national history which have to be taught to children. I cannot reconcile what I know of the national curriculum and the way it is taught with the picture my noble friend has painted of the way history is taught in schools today. I shall certainly look at that letter and shall write to my noble friend when I have had a chance to do so.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the national curriculum also includes the holocaust of 1915 in which 1.5 million Armenians perished at the hands of the Turkish authorities, a terrible holocaust of which we have just commemorated the 80th anniversary?
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords, it does not. Nor does it include many other examples of such events from past and recent history. But teachers are encouraged to draw on current events and on events in recent history to illustrate the lessons that may be drawn from the particular events which have to be taught under the national curriculum.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people have the disadvantage of growing up thinking that what happened before they were born does riot matter a bit? Does he agree that if they grow up with that attitude they lead incomplete lives, and therefore we should promote the notion that has been expressed in your Lordships' House this afternoon that everyone should learn all about the great events of the past?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely agree.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the recent Ofsted report states that resources for history in primary schools were rarely adequate and books were often bought only in single copies to provide teachers with ideas? Does he recall that in several debates in recent years we on these Benches have told the Government repeatedly that too many schools have too few books? Why was not that disgraceful state of affairs remedied years ago?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, if the noble Lord will question Ofsted further, he will find that it considers the improvements made in the teaching of history in primary schools one of the great triumphs of the national curriculum. There have been enormous improvements. If there is further to go and there is more to be done, I am delighted that Ofsted is in place to identify the needs.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does that mean that the standards were even lower earlier in the 15-year period in which this Government have been in power and are now slightly better?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, 10 years ago there were primary schools where the teaching of history was almost absent.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that our history is part of us, just as we shall one day become part of it, and that it is just as important to know what has been as to know what is, so that we shall know what will be?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am aware that if the party opposite were to gain power I might be history.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of what may be another Ofsted report which criticises the teaching of history in many if not most of our schools as:
"only indirectly related to the study of history"?
800
Does my noble friend not agree that this is yet another tragic example of the triumphant "long march through the institutions" perpetrated by the gender, race and class brigade so often favoured in the past by the Benches opposite?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, again I am afraid that I do not recognise the description of current history teaching in schools in the words quoted by my noble friend. I shall be delighted to talk over the matter with him in detail; but I do not agree with what he said.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the teaching of history in schools now take us right up to 1995?
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords. I regret that I forget the exact cut-off date, but there is a cut-off date between history and current affairs.

Business
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Inglewood will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on competitiveness.

Disability Discrimination Bill
3.1 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is the first comprehensive measure to tackle discrimination against disabled people ever brought before Parliament by a British Government. This is an historic day for disabled people, and I should like to start by paying tribute to those noble Lords whose efforts have in no small measure ensured that this day has arrived. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and many other Members of your Lordships' House who are in the Chamber this afternoon have kept the flag flying over many years. Their experience and expertise will be of incalculable value when we come to examine the Bill in detail. I should also like to pay tribute to the many organisations of and for disabled people which have argued so persuasively for anti-discrimination legislation.
The Bill will provide: a right for disabled people not to be discriminated against in employment and a duty on employers to make reasonable adjustments to working practices or the working environment where that would help to overcome the practical effects of a disability; a right of access to goods and services which will make a refusal to serve a disabled person unlawful and require service providers to make reasonable adjustments to their services to make them more accessible; and the establishment of a national disability council to advise the Government on their strategy for eliminating discrimination against disabled people.

801
The Bill is the most tangible evidence yet of the Government's commitment to disabled people, a commitment which over the past 15 years has done much to help them live with dignity and independence. Over time it will bring about dramatic changes involving millions of people in taking positive action. Its effects will be felt across the board and in all aspects of life.
However, the Bill ensures that the move to a more accessible environment will not place undue burdens on those who will be responsible for delivering its provisions. In forming our proposals, we have taken account of the understandable concerns of the business community that the legislation should not be unrealistically ambitious or unnecessarily prescriptive. Most importantly, employers and service providers are entitled to know what is expected of them. The Bill shows that the Government are prepared to face up to this responsibility, and it has been drafted to provide for maximum certainty.
Nowhere is the need for certainty of approach more apparent as in Part I of the Bill where we define what we mean by "disability". Our aim has been two-fold—to produce a definition which covers those people who would be regarded generally as disabled and, at the same time, to produce one which can be easily understood by ordinary employers and service providers and, of course, by disabled people themselves.
For the purposes of the Bill, a person is disabled if he or she has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his or her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. A definition of "long-term" is included in Schedule 1 as is a list of the areas of activity. The Bill also provides authority for us to issue guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining whether an impairment has a substantial adverse effect and whether it has long-term effects.
While the definition covers people who are disabled in common sense terms, we have also ensured that people with progressive conditions are covered from the first point at which they develop effects on day-to-day activities, however slight, and that people are covered who have impairments where the effects fluctuate or recur. We have ensured, too, that people with severe disfigurements are covered.
A line has to be drawn somewhere. Clearly, people with merely a "reputation" of an impairment are not "disabled" in any common use of the word and, in our view, should not be covered. But we have recognised the serious concern about discrimination against people who have had a disability but have recovered. After very careful consideration we accepted that the Bill should confer protection against discrimination for people who have had a disability that met the Bill's definition. The Government will bring forward amendments to give effect to this during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House.
Part II of the Bill deals with the new employment right. Employers have done much in recent years to improve the employment prospects of disabled people. But it has become increasingly clear that the current regulatory system—the "quota scheme"—which sits alongside and complements their initiatives, has not been working as
802
originally intended. It is widely accepted that it fails to meet the needs of disabled people. Only a third of those in the workforce eligible to register do so—about 1 per cent. It is consequently impossible for all employers to meet a 3 per cent. quota. And the concept of a quota is outdated. Many disabled people think that the whole approach stereotypes and stigmatises them.
So the Bill will repeal the quota scheme and introduce instead a statutory right of non-discrimination against disabled people. For the first time it will be unlawful for an employer to treat a disabled person less favourably than he would treat others without good reasons. Employers will also be required to make reasonable adjustments to help overcome the practical effects of disability where not to do so would result in less favourable treatment. The factors which a tribunal would take into account in determining reasonableness include issues such as the cost and benefits of making an adjustment. A statutory code of practice will be produced, which will be the subject of consultation before the new right is commenced, to give practical guidance on various points in the legislation.
However, we think it self-evident that compliance with this Part of the Bill, particularly the provisions on reasonable adjustment, will be more difficult and burdensome for small firms. Very small firms are much less likely to have the specialist personnel to help them get to grips with the new requirements, or to obtain and consider the advice they need about the adjustments that can be made in particular cases.
The new duties will not therefore apply to employers with fewer than 20 employees. I should say that the Government take great exception to the allegation that this exemption shows that they are content to see small firms treating disabled people unfairly. We oppose unfair discrimination in any form. In fact, many small firms already employ disabled people and we shall encourage them to follow the guidance in the new code of practice. We will consult small firms organisations in drawing it up. Small firms will also continue to be able to get help from the Employment Service.
But we need to strike a fair balance between what it is reasonable to require on behalf of disabled people and the need to avoid imposing a disproportionately onerous requirement on the employer. We must avoid steps which could constrain the growth and prosperity of new and small firms, which are so essential to the creation of job opportunities. It is important to note that even with this exclusion, 80 per cent. of employees will still be covered by the Bill.
However, as has been stated in another place, we recognise the strength of feeling on this issue and have given an undertaking that an amendment will be tabled to the effect that within five years the Government will review the operation of the relevant employment provisions in relation to small firms. Further, the power within the Bill which enables the Secretary of State to vary the threshold number will now operate in a way that will make it possible to lower it below 20 but never to raise it above.

803
The right of access to goods and services as set down in Part III of the Bill ensures that it will be unlawful to refuse to provide goods or services, or treat people unfavourably, solely on the ground of their disability.
The new right imposes four broad duties on service providers. First, it will be unlawful to refuse service to a disabled person for a reason which relates to that person's disability. Secondly, there will be an obligation to adjust policies, practices and procedures where these make it Impossible, or unreasonably difficult, for a disabled person to use a service. Thirdly, there will be a duty to provide auxiliary aids, such as induction loops for people with hearing aids. Lastly, there will be a duty either to remove physical barriers or provide the service by a different means.
The Government recognise that some of these stipulations are more stringent than others—the order in which I listed them perhaps a reflection of the difficulties and expense which businesses might face. Therefore, we have made it clear that the duties will be introduced at different times over the coming years—the requirement to make physical adjustments being introduced last, after perhaps 10 years. That will give businesses time to prepare.
But before long those measures will start to bring about the accessible environment which we all wish to see. Your Lordships will have deduced from the fact that there are four duties on service providers that accessibility is not just about building construction and design, although those factors are important. It is also about the production of written material in large print; it is about the installation of induction loops for hearing aids in theatres; it is about the prohibition of "no-dogs" policies in restaurants so that blind people with guide dogs are not excluded. In fact, it is about tackling the thousand and one ways, perhaps insignificant and unnoticed by the rest of us, in which society makes life difficult for disabled people. We will not be able to change the world overnight, but this Bill will stand as a significant landmark on the road to an accessible environment.
I alluded earlier in my speech to the all-embracing nature of the legislation. However, there are two areas which, as the Bill now stands, are excluded from the general right of access to goods and services where, in the Government's view, special factors require a different approach to questions of accessibility. I refer to transport and education.
We have made clear our commitment to achieving fully accessible transport—a key element for enabling disabled people to become fully integrated within society. Improved access to goods and services is of little use to someone who cannot get on the bus to the shops.
We have, however, also made it clear that we believe that progress towards accessible public transport is best achieved by targeted action rather than by any kind of blanket legislation. Different modes of transport inevitably require different access solutions. A simple application of Part III to transport vehicles is not therefore appropriate.
However, the Government will be bringing forward amendments to give a statutory basis to their policy of incremental development. The amendments will allow the Government to set minimum standards of accessibility
804
in new land-based public transport vehicles. This new power will provide the flexibility required to tailor access solutions to the widest range of transport modes while recognising the operational issues associated with each one. This measure builds on the huge progress that has already been made in making the transport network more accessible—progress which is critical if disabled people are to have the maximum amount of mobility. It is a development which I know your Lordships will warmly welcome.
I should like to turn now to education. The Education Act 1993 was a major advance which set the right framework for meeting special educational needs. We have already announced measures which build on its provisions: the Further and Higher Education Review and the Schools Access Initiative. A consultation document was recently published on how the access initiative might operate, and it was announced that in the region of £10 million would be made available to encourage imaginative projects aimed at increasing accessibility to mainstream schools. We are currently analysing the responses received; it is fair to say that the proposals have been warmly welcomed by local education authorities and voluntary groups alike.
But we have consistently set out the clear rationale for not applying Part III of the Bill to education. We are concerned to avoid measures which would perhaps conflict with the carefully balanced provisions in recent education legislation which was so warmly welcomed by your Lordships. However, your Lordships will be aware that we propose to table a number of amendments which will quash any possible fears that by not covering education we are undermining the importance of education.
The 1993 Education Act established a new appeals mechanism and makes schools more accountable than ever by requiring them to report on their special educational needs policies. Our proposed amendment will build on those provisions and strengthen the hand of parents whose children do not have a "statement" when they are choosing a school.
Similarly, the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 established a comprehensive framework for meeting the requirements of students with disabilities. The further education funding councils are under a duty to take into account the needs of students with learning difficulties and disabilities and have demonstrated their commitment in this area. We have proposed amendments to strengthen the current legislation by requiring colleges to focus on how they meet the needs of students with disabilities and publish clear statements of their provisions in these areas. In higher education also we propose to seek a power which would enable higher education institutions to be required to provide more information on their policies towards students with disabilities, thus giving the funding councils the ability to assess the provision which exists in the sector.
Part III of the Bill further allows for arrangements to be made to provide advice and assistance to people, with a view to promoting the settlement of disputes arising under the new right of access to goods and services, and Part IV

805
of the Bill will create the national disability council. In making these provisions separate we have recognised that there are two distinct functions to be carried out.
First, we have recognised that disabled people will need advice on how they can secure their new rights. This is why we propose a national advice and support service—one that is accessible and knowledgeable and which will promote the resolution of disputes wherever possible before litigation becomes necessary. Should an acceptable solution not be reached, the support service will be able to provide advice on the redress available through the county courts. This service, however, will not be best placed to offer advice to government on measures relating to the elimination of discrimination, or to prepare the codes of practice, that disabled people and businesses will need to understand the new legislation.
The national disability council will fulfil this second requirement. It will be able to call on the experience and advice of its members, as well as consult other bodies either established to advise on disability, or able to provide specialist advice in a particular area. It will be able to request that research be undertaken, and the information collected by the advice and support service will be available for its consideration.
The work of the national disability council will be complemented by that of the National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities who will continue to advise the Secretary of State for Employment on issues relating to employment. However, the national disability council has a much broader remit which will empower it to give advice to government, on its own initiative, on a very broad range of issues related to discrimination and to recommend the measures necessary to make further progress.
For example, if the national disability council were to find that disabled people were experiencing problems in obtaining their rights in a particular area, it could make recommendations to the Government about how these problems could be overcome. The flexibility provided in all parts of the Bill by regulation-making powers will allow the Government to tailor the legislation so that it works for disabled people, not only in the near future but in the long term as circumstances and technology change. This will mean that the national disability council has a vital role to play in ensuring that the legislation continues to meet the policy intention.
The national disability council will also be responsible for providing codes of practice giving guidance to disabled people and business on what is required by the legislation. This will be an important task. Given the wide-ranging nature of this legislation, the varied nature of the businesses covered, and the differing needs of people with particular disabilities, it will no doubt mean tackling a number of complex issues where practical, clear advice will be of great value to all concerned.
The national disability council will also be able to work with business, in the same way as the National Council on Disability in America does, and provide a lead in persuading industry to take account of, and provide for, the needs of disabled people. This would be particularly
806
useful in the area of accessible design and packaging of products which cannot be dealt with in rights-based legislation.
The national disability council will be a powerful voice for disabled people. At least half its members will be disabled people, or parents or guardians of people with disabilities. It will be able to provide influential policy advice and practical guidance in the form of codes of practice. The advice and support service will provide disabled people with local, accessible help. This two-pronged approach will prove the most effective way of ensuring that disabled people can secure their rights, that business understands and meets its responsibilities, and that the legislation achieves our aim of bringing an end to discrimination on the grounds of disability.
I have described the effect of the Disability Discrimination Bill at some length. Although I am grateful for noble Lords' patience, I make no apologies for the time I have taken in introducing what is the most comprehensive package ever to be brought forward by any government to tackle discrimination against disabled people. For the first time, it will be unlawful for employers to treat a disabled person less fairly; for the first time, disabled people will have a right not to be denied access to goods and services solely on the grounds of their disability; and a national disability council will be established to keep the issue of discrimination under review and to advise the Government. Only the churlish would dissent from the view that this Bill marks an historic advance for disabled people in this country—an advance which marks Britain out as a world leader in tackling discrimination.
The Government have set themselves one central objective—the elimination of discrimination against disabled people. That aim cannot be realised overnight, as disabled people themselves recognise. But the Disability Discrimination Bill marks the boldest move forward which any government have yet proposed.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
3.28 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am sure that the entire House is grateful to the Minister for such a clear introduction to the Bill.
This is so nearly a good Bill. It is a Bill that was shaped by the events of last summer when, to thwart the Berry Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, the Minister got his friends to put down amendments for him, denying that they were his and then admitting that they were. Then, when they were accepted by the Bill's sponsor in order to get the Bill through, he talked out his own amendments in order to defeat the Bill. In the process, we lost a good Bill then and, sadly, we also lost a good Minister who had fought for disabled people when they did not have the support that they have today.
Such was the anger of Parliament and of disabled people that the Government finally conceded—after 13 years and 13 private measures—that education and persuasion were not enough. After consultation, they

807
brought forward this Bill. It is still not about rights due. It is, however—and this we appreciate—about ending wrongs done.
It is so nearly a good Bill. It makes it illegal, as the Minister said, for larger employers to discriminate unreasonably against disabled people when their disability is not relevant to the job. We do not ask that blind people become bus drivers. But we all know that three times the number of disabled people are likely to be unemployed and six times as many are denied an interview for a job. We all know of cases of discrimination. For instance, there was the woman with MS who took a fortnight off work because she was sick, and was sacked. She was sacked for having 'flu! We all know of employers who insist that a driving licence is essential for a desk job, or that the ability to walk long distances is essential for a professional job. Or we have heard of the hearing-impaired but skilful typist who failed her interview test because the interviewer insisted on dictating to her with his back to her so that she could not pass. These practices will not stop, but they will become illegal. No longer, under the goods and services provision, will pubs and cinemas refuse to admit, waiters refuse to serve, taxis refuse to pick up or insurance companies refuse to insure. Again, those practices will not stop; but they will be illegal. Therefore this is nearly a good Bill.
However, I suggest to noble Lords that the Bill is not good enough, and for three main reasons. First, it is unduly restrictive about whom it defines as disabled. Secondly, it is unduly lax about which organisations it exempts from conforming to the legislation. Thirdly, and above all, although the Bill has the power to make discrimination illegal, it has no power to prevent it because it lacks an enforcement agency.
Perhaps I may enlarge on those three points. First, the Bill is unduly restrictive in its definition of disability. The Minister very helpfully gave us the definition based on paragraph 1 of the first schedule. Under the Bill, a disability must be a long-term, clinically well-recognised condition that substantially and adversely affects day-to-day normal activities. In other words, if a person has a disability that falls outside the definition in the Bill, even though it gives rise to discrimination, there is no redress. Therefore courts will have to take difficult decisions about diagnosis, definition and prognosis. For example, a condition that is not medically so well recognised, such as ME, and, according to MIND, most mental disorders, will not fall within the law. A person who is discriminated against on those grounds will have no redress. Likewise, if a disability exists that gives rise to discrimination, but the person himself can manage his day-to-day activities—as, for example, in cases of controlled epilepsy, HIV, some forms of multiple sclerosis, or mild cerebral palsy—there will be no redress.
Equally, if a person does not have a disability but the employer incorrectly believes that he has had one, or has one—for example, a mental health problem—and he proceeds to discriminate against that person, there is no redress. If an employer is right in thinking that someone has a severe disability which under the terms of this Bill disables that person, he may not discriminate against him. But if someone has a disability that is not covered by this Bill, the employer may discriminate against that person.
808
If a person does not have a disability but the employer believes that he has, and discriminates against him, that person, too, has no protection.
Why is the definition of disability so narrow? It is narrower than it is in mental health legislation. Someone can be compulsorily sectioned on grounds of mental disorder which is nonetheless not regarded as a severe enough disability to merit protection under this legislation. Equally, someone can be awarded the new incapacity benefit, which is very restrictive, because that person is disabled. Yet if he sought work, he would not be regarded as sufficiently disabled to merit protection under the Bill. If someone has been sectioned in the past, or has been awarded invalidity or incapacity benefit in the past, and the employer discriminates against him, that person will have no redress. That definition excludes too many people. In Committee we shall hope for a more inclusive definition of disability.
The Bill is too restrictive in its definition of disability, and therefore in the grounds on which a person may seek protection against discrimination. But, secondly, it is also too lax in terms of the organisations that it exempts, and in particular firms that employ fewer than 20 people. As the Minister rightly said, small firms employ some 20 per cent. of the labour force. But they represent something like 96 per cent. of all businesses in this country. They are the fastest growing sector of the economy. In rural areas very few businesses employ more than 20 people. So in the countryside virtually no employer be required to come within the framework of this Bill.
Where does the figure of 20 per cent. come from? It is a hangover from the 3 per cent. quota system, under which 3 per cent. of a workforce represents less than one full-time employee. Yet that percentage has been imported unnecessarily into the Bill. Do we need it? No Member on any side of this House wants to see unacceptable burdens placed on small businesses which jeopardise their financial survival. Small businesses are our seed-bed of the future. Yet the American experience shows that the costs of making even small businesses accessible to disabled people are trivial. In the United States two-thirds of all companies were made fully accessible to disabled people at a cost of less than 500 dollars. But in any case, this Bill contains a crucial provision that the Minister was right to emphasise. For all businesses and organisations, including small businesses, any such adaptions must be done at reasonable expense. So any small business faced with a cost that was considerable or substantial would not have to carry out such adaptions. They do not need the belt-and-braces protection on grounds of both numbers and reasonable cost. Why, then, should the rights of a disabled person depend not on their disability but on who is their employer? In Committee, we shall seek to follow up the Government's hint to us about revising the figure and will try to bring it down to 15, or even 10, over a phased-in period.
As the Bill stands, therefore, it is nearly a good Bill. It protects some disabled people against some discrimination. But ultimately it is not good enough. I come now to my final criticism. We do not believe that it will work, because it contains no power that will make it work. It sets up no central authority to enforce it. The Bill will make

809
discrimination illegal, but it will not prevent it happening. It will forbid discrimination, but it will not end it. We have been here before. Some 200 years ago, Sir Robert Peel's father led the Conservative Party in trying to bring about protection for factory children. It took 30 years, 10 Bills and four Acts. Not until a factory inspectorate was appointed, were the provisions to protect such children enforced and the legislation made to stick. Law that is not enforced is not observed. Law that is not observed brings all law into disrepute.
For this legislation to be observed and enforced we need, in the words of the Employers Forum on Disability a single, central, authoritative body with statutory powers—and for three reasons. First, we need such a body because, without it, the Bill adds a second advisory council to an existing advisory council, and both will run in tandem, provided that they pedal in the same direction. We already have a national advisory council for the employment of disabled people reporting to the Secretary of State for Employment. It has fewer than three staff, and I suspect that most of us have never even heard of it. The national advisory council in the Bill will be a second advisory body, this time to the Secretary of State for Social Security, with a budget of £250,000 and five staff, for most of everything else, when even to administer the present quota system takes £2 million. So that means two bodies, both advisory, one for employment and one for everything else. As the Employers Forum on Disability says:
"This legislation must send a clear signal to employers that disability discrimination is just as important as race and gender and that they should manage it accordingly. It will be very difficult for such clear messages to be effectively delivered by two sets of civil servants reporting to two different Ministers, advised by two different councils, using two separate drafted codes of practice, enforced by two different legal authorities and supported by two different local advisory arrangements".
Not surprisingly, says the Employers Forum on Disability, we need one central authoritative body, not two advisory councils. We need it not only for clarity but also for two other reasons.
Secondly, we need it for the sake of employers. Many of your Lordships will know far more about this matter than I do, but I hope that the House will agree that I present the employers' case fairly. Employers want to know what the law is, where they stand and what they must do to conform to the law. When, for example, the EOC investigated employment agencies, within five days 250 agencies telephoned, anxiously seeking to conform to the law. They did so quite voluntarily. Similarly, in this field, employers have made it clear—it is in their responses, summarised in the Government's Red Book and elsewhere—that they too want an independent impartial body with powers to give advice, information and guidance; powers to receive, investigate, conciliate and, if necessary, prosecute complaints; and with powers to initiate the test case—for example, on controlled epilepsy—so that we do not get a dozen cases being tested at the same time in a dozen different courts with perhaps a dozen conflicting outcomes.
Employers, we are told, do not want law by litigation. That is what this Bill will do. Employers want to know where they stand. That is why the CBI and virtually every
810
major company want the equivalent of a statutory commission. From the Bank of England to Boots to BT to Esso to Grand Met to GRE to ICI to Sainsbury's to Kingfisher to Marks & Spencer to Macdonald's to the Pru to Northern Electric to Shell to Unilever to W.H.Smith—they all want a statutory commission. They ask for it. On this side of the House we do not seek to impose it upon them against their wish. They want it. Disabled people want it. We want it. Only the Government so far are denying it. I hope that we can remedy that in Committee.
The third and final reason why we must have a central authoritative body with powers is on behalf of disabled people themselves. It is not just for employers and not just to clarify the law; but for disabled people. The Minister told us again today that disabled people will be able to enforce their employment rights through industrial tribunals and the rights to goods and services through the county courts. About whom are we talking? We are talking of a disabled person, who is perhaps solitary and isolated, not very fit and well, without a trade union behind him or the CAB (because it has washed its hands of this side of things), certainly poor, without a solicitor and without access to legal aid, pursuing a powerful employer through the legal system, knowing that, even if he has the moral strength to do it, he will in future never again get a job because he will be labelled as a troublemaker.
Is that what we want? Surely, disabled people, even more than women or ethnic minorities, need a strong friend—a commission, which can remove their personal need to fight through the courts and establish the clarity of a test case; a body whose very intervention can bring the conciliation which we should all prefer and which would discourage frivolous claims. Why should disabled people have less power to enforce their rights and less power to obtain their due than any woman or any member of an ethnic minority? On simple grounds of fairness and decency, they are entitled to a commission.
Without such a body the Bill will not work. It will outlaw discrimination but it will not stop it happening. It will offer to disabled people rights which cannot be enforced. It will impose duties on employers and traders which are not enforceable.
Many years ago, Martin Luther King said:
"Reality cannot be legislated, but behaviour can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless".
Yes, but it will only happen if the Bill has a commission to enforce it. That will be for your Lordships to decide over the course of the Committee and Report stages. If so, we can send from this House a Bill of which we are all rightly proud. In the process we shall have made a Bill which is nearly good enough into a Bill which is truly good enough and which brings credit and honour to us all.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Addington has asked me to express his regret that he is unable to take part in this debate on a subject in which he takes a keen interest. He has a complete alibi. I believe that he is playing rugby football in South Africa.

811
Like the noble Lord the Minister, I pay tribute to the Members of this House who campaigned long and hard for effective legislation on this subject. We on these Benches warmly welcome the Government's recognition, however belated, of the need for legislation to tackle discrimination against disabled people so as to enable them to play a full part in national life and fulfil their individual talents. The effective legal protection of the fundamental human rights to equal treatment on personal merit without unfair discrimination on any ground is a central part of our commitment to liberal democracy. The disabled surely deserve the strong legal protection that Parliament has given to the victims of other forms of unfair discrimination so that they too may live and work in dignity without being unfairly handicapped by practices and procedures which disable them still more.
Most regrettably, however, although we enthusiastically support the Bill's declared aims, we can only give a small cheer for this measure. I hope that the Minister, when he has heard me, will not regard my speech as churlish. The reason why we can only give a small cheer is because of the narrowly restrictive, obscure and legalistic way in which the Bill has been drafted and the impracticality of its key clauses.
I shall do my best, lawyer though I am, to explain in non-technical and non-legalistic language something of what is wrong with the Bill. To put it in a nutshell, first, the key definition of what constitutes unlawful disability discrimination is very narrow and outmoded. Crucial issues about what is and what is not unlawful discrimination are left to be decided by Ministers, without effective parliamentary scrutiny—a matter on which we await with interest a report from the Select Committee for the scrutiny of delegated legislation. The Bill will be immensely difficult to interpret and apply, whether by the disabled, or by employers and others on whom the Bill places legal obligations. The well established body of case law, so carefully built up for 20 years under the sex discrimination, race relations and Northern Ireland fair employment legislation, will be of little help because this Bill introduces cumbersome concepts that are alien to our existing well tried code of anti-discrimination law. The enforcement of the Bill's provisions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, pointed out, will be as weak as water because the national disability council will lack the necessary minimum powers that Parliament has already given to the equal opportunities commissions, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland. If the Bill is enacted in this form, I am sorry to say that the victims of disability discrimination will therefore be much less effectively protected than the victims of discrimination on grounds of sex, race, religion or political opinion.
The principles on which anti-discrimination laws have been built in this country—and in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States as well as under European and international law—are widely recognised. The first principle is that the concept of unfair discrimination must cover not only cases in which the discriminator is badly motivated but also cases in which the discriminator is well motivated but where the effects of his practices have a disproportionate adverse impact on particular groups and have no objective justification. That is the key concept of
812
indirect discrimination which has been included in our laws tackling sex and race discrimination for 20 years. It was a Conservative Government who added that concept of indirect discrimination in the Northern Ireland fair employment legislation in 1989, to tackle religious and political discrimination. The concept of indirect discrimination is also included, for example, in Australian legislation following from our own British statutes.
Unfortunately, the definition of unlawful discrimination, both direct and indirect, is much narrower in this Bill than in our existing laws. The meaning of "discrimination" in Clause 4 is confined to cases where an employer treats someone less favourably for a reason which relates to the disabled person's actual disability, which is narrowly defined in Clause 1. It does not cover the common example where an employer treats someone less favourably, not for a reason which relates to actual disability but because the employer wrongly assumes that that individual is disabled and therefore not suitable for the job. That is one way in which the concept of discrimination is too narrow. A black person or a woman is protected against discrimination based on characteristics attributed to them on the basis of broad stereotypes or generalisations. But under this Bill a disabled person can complain only of discrimination relating to actual rather than assumed disability—what the Minister referred to as a "reputation" for disablement; a reputation that may be entirely unjustified and which would be entirely unfair to act upon.
Clause 5 also marks a major departure from our existing legislative code by introducing the curious concept of justifiable direct discrimination which focuses on the employer's state of mind—that is, his opinion that one or more of the conditions mentioned in Clause 5(4) are satisfied and on whether it is reasonable for the employer to hold that opinion. By contrast, existing legislation does not focus on the employer's state of mind. It forbids less favourable treatment whenever an individual's sex, race, political opinion or religious belief has significantly influenced the employer's decision as a matter of objective causation and however worthy the employer's intentions. That was established in the case law of this House in the Equal Opportunities Commission v. Birmingham City Council case, reaffirmed in James v. Eastleigh Borough Council.
Those and other radical departures from the existing anti-discrimination code are certain to give rise to costly and protracted litigation and much avoidable uncertainty. That would be for the benefit of no one except some members of my profession—the legal profession—for whom this will truly be a disability litigation Bill of immense advantage.
Clause 5 also departs from the existing legislative code by excluding the usual and widely recognised definition of indirect discrimination—the equal rule with unequal impact or effect such as a height requirement which is not necessary to enable an employee to do the job, and which hits disproportionately at women or Asian workers. What the Bill does instead is convoluted and weak. One needs more than algorithmic diagrams to find a way through this bewildering maze. The Bill creates a duty under Clause 6 for employers to make adjustments to their arrangements and premises which would place disabled people at a

813
substantial disadvantage in comparison with those who are not disabled. That rightly recognises the need to tackle the major problems of indirect discrimination against the disabled.
Clause 6(5) then immediately creates an exception where the employer does not know, and could not reasonably be expected to know, that the complainant has a disability and is likely to be placed at a substantial disadvantage by the employer's arrangements or premises. Once again the state of the employer's mind is brought into the Bill by way of defence when the whole point about the concept of unlawful indirect discrimination, learnt 20 years ago, is that it is designed objectively to tackle practices, procedures and systems which have been designed and operated from the best of motives, but which unintentionally put groups of people at a substantial disadvantage and which are not objectively justifiable.
Another basic and universally recognised concept of discrimination law is that all exceptions to the principle of equal treatment should be kept to the minimum necessary to avoid undermining the principle itself. That has been repeatedly put into our existing laws, which are usually—not always, but usually—careful to define the circumstances in which what would otherwise be unlawful direct discrimination, is not unlawful; for example, an exception because an individual's gender is a genuine occupational qualification for a specific job because of the job's essential nature.
By contrast, this Bill embodies a series of sweepingly broad absolute exceptions; for example, for employers with fewer than 20 employees, for prison officers or for firefighters. Those blanket exceptions make it unnecessary for employers to ensure that they look closely at the physical and mental requirements needed for specific jobs—the touchstone of any anti-discrimination law worthy of the name.
The Bill is riddled with vague, slippery and elusive exceptions making it so full of holes that it is more like a colander than a binding code. Suppose, for example, that a disabled person is treated less favourably by the employer than others without that disability. To decide whether the employer acted unlawfully we must discover whether he failed to comply with the duty imposed on him by Clause 6. That provision contains examples of steps which an employer may have to take in relation to a disabled person to comply with the employer's statutory duty. However, the employer is under no duty if he falls within Clause 6(5). The circumstances in which an employer may or may not be in breach of duty are not to be found on the face of the Bill, but are to be prescribed by regulations under Clauses 6(7), 6(8) and 6(9) subject only to parliamentary approval by negative procedure. If the employer is found to be under a duty imposed by Clause 6, then the next question which must be asked under Clause 5(2) is whether he has complied with the duty. If he has not complied, then the tribunal has to determine whether it would have been reasonable for the employer to believe, at the time of the treatment in question, that even if he had done so the treatment would have been justified.
814
The search for a practical and foreseeable answer to that hypothetical question is indeed a daunting task. The unfortunate complainant who has recourse to law will find that this is a game of snakes and ladders with plenty of snakes and very few ladders. Nor is that all. In deciding whether the treatment would have been justified, the tribunal will have to consider the four conditions mentioned in Clause 5(4). But, under Clause 5(5), regulations may again be made providing for other circumstances in which an employer is to be taken to be justified in treating a disabled person less favourably. Once more those regulations are subject only to negative procedure.
If the employer is not in breach of the Clause 6 duty, then the employer has a defence under Clause 5(1), if he reasonably believed that one or more of the conditions in Clause 5(4) were satisfied. I agree with the Minister that employers are entitled to know what is expected of them: to reasonable legal certainty. I feel great sympathy both for employers and for disabled people because they simply will not be able reasonably to foresee in what circumstances there will or will not be legal liability when they gaze into these opaque obscure clauses. I also have great sympathy for the tribunals and the courts which are meant somehow to make sense of this inaccessible and indigestible verbiage.
I have referred only to the employment provisions, but what I have said applies equally to other areas dealt with in Part III. Before the tribunal or court decides whether a complainant is the victim of unlawful discrimination in employment or elsewhere, it must first decide that he or she is a disabled person within the crabbed definition in Clause 1, read with the morass of technical detail in Schedule 1.
For that purpose Clause 2(3) requires the tribunal or court to take into account any relevant guidance issued by the Minister about whether an impairment has a substantial adverse effect on someone's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, or whether such an impairment has a long-term effect. The guidance may therefore have a quite crucial influence on whether the complainant has any basis for bringing a complaint at all; yet the Government have decided—I know of no precedent for this whatever—that no parliamentary approval is needed for this legally relevant guidance, not even by means of negative procedure. All that Clause 2 requires is that the Secretary of State must consult whoever he likes, and that he lays a copy of any guidance issued before this House and another place. Because the guidance is not legislation, it is not even referred to in the memorandum which the Government have given to the Select Committee on the Scrutiny of Delegated Powers. It is not legislation, but it will have important legal consequences.
Twenty years ago, the government of the day were much more respectful of ministerial accountability to Parliament and of the need to ensure that the process of law-making complied with the law and conventions of the constitution. The Sex Discrimination and Race Relations Acts, to whose fashioning I am proud to have contributed, required the Secretary of State not only to consult the EOC and the CRE but also to proceed by way of

815
affirmative procedure before amending key exception clauses. We at that time properly respected the principles of legal certainty and of the rule of law.
I agree with the trenchant criticism made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the absence of any enforcement agency similar to the EOC, the CRE or the Fair Employment Commission for Northern Ireland. The national disability council will be a pathetically powerless quango, not worth setting up in my view. Unlike the existing commissions, it will not be able to investigate individual complaints or give legal advice and other assistance to individual complainants in test cases or where they are specially vulnerable. The council will not he able to investigate suspected unlawful practices and procedures, to issue non-discrimination notices or bring enforcement proceedings.
The council will have only two functions: advising the Secretary of State and, if asked by him, preparing draft codes of practice. This quango will have no teeth, and even its freedom to advise is quite extraordinarily to be fettered. It is to advise only the Secretary of State—not Parliament and not the public—and, for reasons that wholly escape me, Clause 23(9) forbids the council to advise on its own initiative on whether specified existing measures are likely to reduce or eliminate discrimination against the disabled. I can only assume—I hope that this is not an unworthy thought—that the Government fear the advice which even this attenuated and diminutive body is likely to give on this important subject and must therefore ask Parliament to prevent the council from giving such unwelcome advice.
I recognise that it would be unrealistic for the House to refuse to give this measure a Second Reading and to ask the Government to come back with something closer to the admirable Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (No.2) Bill introduced by the noble and indefatigable Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, almost a year ago. I think that the present Bill is very seriously flawed, but its defects could be cured by appropriate amendments. I very much hope that the Government will listen with an open mind to constructive proposals to improve the Bill, so that it becomes readily intelligible, workable and reasonably certain in its operation, and so that it is able to be enforced in practice for the benefit of the whole of our society.

Competitiveness
4.4 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"A year ago, the Government published the White Paper, Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win, the first comprehensive audit of the UK's industrial and commercial competitiveness. That White Paper was widely welcomed by business. Today, we publish our second report on competitiveness.
"This year's White Paper is designed to report on changes in our performance over the past year; to describe the action government have taken to improve
816
UK competitiveness over that period; and to set out our plans for further progress, making a number of significant announcements today. The White Paper contains new, more extensive analysis of our competitive position. It looks at the competitiveness of key sectors, at regional developments and to the future, as well as reporting on changes in our performance over the past year in each of the main factors of competitiveness we identified last year. It reports in detail on the progress the Government have made in fulfilling the commitments—well over 300 of them—in the 1994 White Paper. It shows promises kept and action taken. For the future, it contains 70 new initiatives and commits more than £240 million extra, of which £165 million is additional government expenditure.
"In addition, my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is announcing today, in response to a question from my honourable friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, that he is publishing the report of the Technology Foresight Steering Group and the 1995 Forward Look of Government Funded Science, Engineering and Technology. He is also publishing the Efficiency Scrutiny's report on resource management systems in government. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is today publishing a White Paper on Public Procurement. And when the markets open tomorrow morning, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage will be announcing the Government's conclusions on media ownership issues, followed by a Statement to this House in the afternoon.
"Madam Speaker, this White Paper reports good news. Last year, output rose by 4 per cent., manufacturing productivity by more than 4 per cent., exports by 11 per cent.—increasing our share of world trade—and unemployment fell by 300,000. In the last quarter of the year, investment surged by 8 per cent. and is set to increase still further this year. The balance of payments deficit fell sharply and underlying inflation was at the lowest sustained level for 30 years.
"This year-on-year performance is impressive. It maintains the turnaround in our economic performance started in 1979. But the competitiveness agenda is ongoing and long-term. Our task is to reverse more than a century of relative decline.
"Last year's White Paper showed how, during the 1980s, we stopped falling behind the rest of the world. We closed the productivity gap with our main competitors, put strikes into the history books and stabilised the decline in our share of world trade in manufacturing.
"Today's White Paper takes the analysis forward. Overall manufacturing productivity is now close to that in Germany and France and continues to catch up the United States and Japan. At the same time, British companies have regained their reputation for world-class quality in manufacturing and services.
"The competitiveness of the UK economy is nowhere better illustrated than in our ability to attract inward Investment. The UK accounts for one-third of all inward investment in the European Union—

817
investment worth more than £130 billion; investment which has created and safeguarded nearly 700,000 jobs since 1979.
"Our exports too are a huge success. They reached record levels last year, and the CBI reports that orders are growing at their fastest ever rate. Last year, Ministers led more than 80 trade promotion missions, accompanied by more than 1,000 business people, to more than 50 countries. I am delighted to tell the House that the businessmen who accompanied me to China last week were able to strike deals totalling more than £1 billion.
"Madam Speaker, I said that competitiveness was ongoing. This White Paper makes clear our determination to seek continued improvement. Improvement in management—we have as many world-class firms as Germany, but we have a higher proportion of poor performers. Among a raft of new measures to help companies, particularly small and medium-sized ones, learn from the experience of the best, the Government will make available nearly £100 million extra through Business Links for locally designed business development programmes. Improvement in exports—despite the success I have just described, only 100,000 of our 2.8 million UK firms export. We can do better. We are therefore setting out today a target of introducing 30,000 new exporting firms to foreign markets by the year 2000. To achieve this, my department will spend nearly £40 million extra on support for exporters over the next four years. In addition, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has already announced a significant strengthening of its support for commercial work overseas, involving over 100 new commercial officers, particularly in key emerging markets.
"Improvement in education and training: this Government's reforms—the national curriculum, publication of schools' performance, devolution of management to local level—have already transformed our education system. One-third of our young people now go on into higher education.
"But there is no room for complacency. Our aim is for Britain to have the best qualified workforce in Europe. The White Paper sets the steps we are taking to achieve that aim. Today, the Government are endorsing new targets for achievement in education and training drawn up by the National Advisory Council for Education and Training Targets. These set new, challenging standards. To ensure that we meet them, we will conduct a major review of our education and training effort, benchmarking it against our leading competitors and identifying where improvement is necessary.
"Improvement in innovation: we match the best in inventiveness but not in bringing products to market. Some of the best ideas are born here. We must make sure more are exploited here. To help, the Government will spend an extra £70 million over four years to support innovation and technology. In addition, today's report on the technology foresight programme identifies areas which we need to develop in order to
818
stay in the top league of industrial nations. The Government's initial response is given in this year's Forward Look. Foresight will influence spending priorities in government and the universities. The Government will also encourage industry to respond through a foresight challenge, which will provide £80 million for collaborative projects over the next three years, half from industry, half from government.
"Madam Speaker, British businesses have already benefited from the huge structural reforms undertaken by this Government since 1979. We shall build on our programme of radical reform. Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear are to be privatised; the gas supply industry is to be liberalised; and I am announcing today over 100 deregulatory proposals on which we shall take early action and new measures to make enforcement procedures more business friendly. In terms of regulations alone, over 1,000 have now been identified for amendment or repeal.
"Madam Speaker, the White Paper today adds up to a comprehensive agenda for action: action which will help business extend its growing success: action to improve the support which government can give to the wealth creating sector: action to equip our companies with the skills, resources and entrepreneurial drive to challenge the best in the world in the century ahead.
"Madam Speaker, I commend this White Paper to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.12 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place. Perhaps I may also say how much I agree with him and the Government about the importance of competitiveness, which is not an issue before us, and how much I look forward to reading the White Paper. I cannot comment on it because I have not seen even its cover let alone the whole document.
I make my usual complaint in responding to Statements. Once again, we shall have a White Paper of, I would guess, considerable importance, as we did last year. Again, as last year, we shall not see it in time to talk about it on this occasion and there will be no time in the succeeding 12 months to debate it. Unless my memory fails me, we have not debated last year's White Paper and there is no reason to believe that we shall debate this one. It is boring, but I have to make the remark that your Lordships' House contains so many people with knowledge, understanding and experience of these matters. It is a gross waste of parliamentary time that we have no opportunity whatever to hear the business men in your Lordships' House speak on competitiveness or others of us who believe that they know something about the subject. The noble Lord is aware that I always make this complaint. When we exchange places in the not too distant future and introduce our White Papers, no doubt he will be making exactly the same complaint. I hope not.
As I say, we believe that competitiveness is important. We should not misunderstand the concept. We are talking about the ability of British firms to compete. We often refer to UK competitiveness, but the UK is not an entity

819
in that sense; it consists of firms that do these things. We are concerned as to how well they can compete with their foreign counterparts. There is nothing between us on that. Again, there is nothing between us on the fact that our economic future depends on all the activities in which we engage. It is partly true of manufacturing, but it is also true of the service sector. It is, of course, important that we are efficient in the private sector, but as the Government themselves have recognised, it is important that we are also efficient in the public sector.
I believe that the only reason why we emphasise manufacturing is that, for technical reasons, it is the area in which innovation and technical progress are most likely to occur. It is where we get the economies of large-scale production on which our standard of living depends so much. Overwhelmingly we emphasise manufacturing because as we grow generally we demand manufactured goods. To a considerable extent it would be better for balance of payments purposes if we made them here rather than running an enormous manufacturing deficit on the foreign account. We all know that the essence of our history is that until very recently we ran a manufacturing balance of trade surplus. It is the unique achievement of this Government that in the course of their activities they have generated a manufacturing deficit. We still hope that that will be reversed.
I believe that we also agree that the way in which we wish to be competitive is by improving efficiency. What we do not wish to see happen—but regrettably it has been happening continuously since this Government came to power —is the opiate of sterling devaluation to be the way in which we have to compete with our foreign counterparts. It is true that sterling has been devalued continuously since this Government came to power.
So much for background. I have a number of questions and comments on the White Paper. One thing missing from it, which I hope is an oversight, is that in last year's White Paper the Government emphasised partnership. They referred to the partnership between government and business. In this Statement the word "partnership" does not appear. It is overwhelmingly right that we view our problems in terms of partnership.
I assume that the second omission is also an oversight. In the White Paper—I am sorry, I keep referring to the "White Paper" when I mean the Statement, because I have not seen the White Paper—the words "European Union" do not appear once. Is there some reason why there is no European dimension in the Government's mind to the competitive question, either positively or negatively, depending where one stands on these debates? I should have thought that it would have been central to any view that the Government took about the future of our economic performance to say something about our relationship with Europe, but the words do not appear.
I say with regret that parts of the Statement seem to be rather party political. I cannot imagine why the right honourable gentleman in another place felt that he needed to be party political. As is my practice, I shall not make any party political remarks at all. One has worries about the detail. For example, the Statement refers to an improvement in the balance of payments deficit and says that it "fell sharply". In fact, the largest cause of that had nothing to do with competitiveness, but was due simply to
820
the improvement on the invisibles account which resulted largely from the devaluation of sterling following our debacle in leaving the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. Why has that not been mentioned?
The Statement refers to exports being a huge success. I do not believe that it is helpful to rational argument to say that exports reached record levels last year and somehow not remember to add that imports also reached record levels. If one is a sign of how well we are doing, presumably the other is a sign of how badly we are doing. Why do the Government find it impossible to present a balanced view?
Speaking as an economist, there is one thing that I do not understand and perhaps the noble Lord can explain it to me. The Statement says:
"The competitiveness of the UK economy is nowhere better illustrated than in our ability to attract inward investment".
I have heard that statement from the Government Benches previously, but no one has ever said why that is such a good measure. In particular, given the enormous scale of UK outward investment, which is inward investment for those to whom we send it, why is not that a measure of our lack of competitiveness? Why is there such asymmetry? There could be political reasons for that, but I could not possibly allow such remarks to cross my lips.
I turn now to one or two other matters on which I agree with the Government although I am slightly at a loss about the leverage in terms of government action. To start with, I did not know that only 100,000 of our 2.8 million firms export, so that is a fact of enormous interest to me. Have the Government conducted any studies to tell them why only 100,000 of our firms export? That figure does not seem a lot to me. I agree that we could do better, but have we done the work to tell us how to do better? I should be interested to know.
For donkeys years we have been making the point about investing in education and training. We have done so independent of party and have always said that there is no room for complacency. I should like us to have the best qualified workforce in Europe, but the fact is that we have one of the worst qualified workforces and, after 16 years of this Government saying that we must do something about it, I am bound to say that setting targets and setting challenging standards is not necessarily the best way to achieve that. I should have thought that we needed something specific by way of action rather than remarks such as, "We shall conduct a major review" et cetera, et cetera. I am getting quite fed up with Statements that refer to "major reviews".
I am in overwhelming agreement with the Government about the fact that we are remarkable as inventors. Our achievements in fundamental science stand second to none. We have said for many years that we are great on the ideas side, but bad on the applications side. I do not see in the Statement—but again, perhaps the White Paper will tell me—anything to tell us precisely what we are going to do about that.
I should like to make just three or four other remarks and then I think that that will be enough from me. The Statement refers to Nuclear Electric and Scottish Nuclear being privatised. I am slightly surprised that the Statement does not say what the nuclear power White Paper says,

821
which is that we shall have no more nuclear power stations. That would be a much more interesting proposition than a Statement about privatisation.
The Statement refers to deregulatory proposals, of which there are 100, although 1,000 more regulations are identified for amendment or repeal. Am I right that the Government propose to deal with that by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act which Parliament passed last year? I should be interested to know how many of the 1,000 regulations that we are to get rid of were introduced by this Government. Does that simply represent a change of mind on such matters?
There is not a word in the Statement about what was called the Private Finance Initiative. Are we to be told something about that in due course? That is an important point.
Finally, are we to have such a White Paper every year? Is this to be the Department of Trade and Industry's equivalent of the Budget Statement? Let me add that if that is the case, I strongly approve. I think that we should have such a Statement. However, it ought to be akin to the Budget Statement and state, "We said this last year. We said that we would do certain specific things last year. These are those that we have done". It should also state, "These are the ones that we have not done". In other words, if we are to have such a Statement every year, rather than have a new lot of blab to replace last year's blah, I should like to have some practicalities so that we know how we are getting on. It may well be that all that information is in the White Paper and that I shall have an opportunity to read it. However, I shall then be frustrated because I shall not have an opportunity to talk about it.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for repeating the Statement. Again, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston—I shall not repeat everything that he said, partly because I do not agree with all of it—I regret that we have not had an opportunity to see the White Paper. It is disgusting that we should have a Statement about a White Paper which obviously contains matters of the greatest importance when we cannot see that White Paper and do not have any reasonable prospect of being able to discuss it for some considerable time.
I was also depressed to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Peston, if I heard him correctly, that similar confusion is likely to arise if and when we get a Labour Government. He said, "No doubt we shall have the same sort of trouble". I do not think that that message was conveyed as the noble Lord had intended that it should be—
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene. It was just me behaving badly as always and allowing my normal cynicism to overcome me. I am sure that the next Labour Government will be so perfect that one need have no worry about anything.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I now understand that the noble Lord was, and is, simply joking.
The Statement contains a great deal of information about information that we are likely to receive in the future rather than about information that we are receiving this afternoon. A plethora of White Papers is apparently
822
to come to us, falling like confetti. I am particularly interested in the one that I see we shall receive tomorrow about the Government's conclusions on media ownership issues. Plainly, we are not talking about that today although the subject has been mentioned. It is a matter to which a great many of us attach the greatest possible importance. We hope that when we get that White Paper it will be in such a form so as to enable these Benches, who have expressed a great deal of concern about the matter, to give it more wholehearted agreement than we are able to give to this afternoon's Statement.
The Statement contains a great deal of trumpeting about the Government's successes. It would be churlish not to agree that there have been successes—of course there have—and some progress, which we welcome. However, I think that the Government are overdoing their claims a bit when they talk about how great things have been. Indeed, I should like to raise certain qualifications. We are told, for example, that we have stabilised our share of world trade. Since it fell to 6 per cent. of overall world trade, merely stabilising it at 6 per cent. is not exactly a reason for running up the flags, as it were, although that is, of course, a great deal better than seeing our share fall further and further, as happened under previous Administrations.
In the same way, the Government claim great credit for having, as they put it,
"put strikes into the history books".
But the statistical evidence shows that strikes always diminish markedly when there is a high level of unemployment. Instead of being quite so complacent about the disappearance of strikes what is the Government's thinking, and is it discussed in the White Paper, about the kind of industrial relations system that they would like to see and will help to bring into being as the economy improves and as unemployment falls? We know that the Government want both of those things to happen but, in the circumstances, questions of industrial relations are bound to arise which require the kind of proper trade union representation to which the Government appear to have paid no attention whatsoever in the past. We would hope to see such a matter discussed in any consideration of the sort of industrial system that we should have in this country and to which we are all looking forward.
The Government also refer to the increase in investment. However, I am sure that they will agree that, although there has been an increase, we are still far behind the level of investment that we need. Does the noble Lord agree—is it in the White Paper?—that any future recovery must be not a consumer-led recovery but an investment-led and export-led recovery? I do not know whether that is discussed in the White Paper, but I very much hope that it is.
The Statement also points out that there is a great need to improve the performance of the many firms which are not contributing at all to the export drive. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, pointed out that only 100,000 of our firms actually export. A great many of the firms which are not competing are small firms. Small firms have a bad record for exports. On the other hand, we know that the future recovery is likely to be accompanied by an increase, rather than a decrease, in the number of small firms and

823
that the position of the larger firms is not likely to improve. That being so, is there not far more urgency needed than has been expressed in the Statement today to do something about the position of small firms? That ties in closely with the issue of education and training.
We have talked boringly often from these Benches about the importance of education and training. The Statement said that the Government hoped to bring it up to be the best in Europe—that must be a joke. We are so outstandingly the worst among the industrialised countries of the European Union that the prospect of bringing it up to the best is, of course, a pious hope. It does not represent anything remotely like reality. It is not just that we have failed, we still are failing. I agree that the situation has improved, and that nothing was done by the Government's predecessors.
Although we are improving the position of young people, what are the Government doing about the grossly undertrained and underskilled adult labour force which, after all, still makes up the great mass? There must be improvement there. Nothing short of a dramatic increase in effort and resources to change that position will have any substantial effect.
The Government talked about the importance of applied research. While of course we agree with the importance of applied research, we must underline the fact that applied research cannot be successful unless there is a corresponding increase in basic research. Applied research draws on the discoveries of basic research. To emphasise applied research while neglecting basic research is to take the all to short-term view which has characterised so much of what has been done by the Government.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for the general agreement that they have given to the White Paper and what we are endeavouring to do. That is satisfactory. It is satisfactory not least from the country's perspective. I am delighted that the Benches opposite find that the White Paper is something with which they can agree. As I said, it is good for the country and it appears also to be good for the Labour Party. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that the next Labour Government would be perfect. In this fallen world, nothing is perfect, so that puts a timescale onto this.
Reference was made to debating the White Paper in more detail on another occasion. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that he did not have a good opportunity to debate the previous White Paper. A debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Prior covered much of this area. There will be opportunities through the usual channels if that is what is wanted.
A number of points were made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. One of them related to manufacturing research and the relationship to applied research, and so on. It is important that we focus on the announcement about the Foresight Programme being made today by my honourable friend Mr. David Hunt. The point of the Foresight Programme in its new manifestation is that the Government will co-ordinate a national programme to spread awareness of Foresight findings between industry and technology. It is intended to retain the existing
824
Foresight panels to disseminate and promote implementation of their findings and to do that on a sector-by-sector basis.
There will be a first progress report on the implementation of Foresight at the end of the year. There will be a new link programme sponsored on Foresight priority areas following a combined DTI/Office of Public Service and Science commitment of an additional £6 million for 1995–96. A second Foresight link programme on recycling technologies to reduce waste in manufacturing industry is launched today.
In addition, there will be a launch of a major information society initiative to encourage business to develop products and services for the information society. One of the key messages from Foresight is that it is rapid development in information and communication technologies which will create many opportunities. It is an important development that is being announced today. It will be for the benefit of everyone in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, said that partnership was not mentioned in the Statement. I can assure him that it is mentioned on a considerable number of occasions in the White Paper.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I take it from what the noble Lord is telling me that he has a copy of the White Paper?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, yes, and I have read some of it—that part.
Equally he said that there was no specific mention of Europe in the Statement. Not merely is our economy integrated into that of Europe, but Europe has a role to play throughout this country's entire commercial sector. We cannot analyse Britain's economic performance without also having a proper analysis of its place in Europe. In that context, it is also important to be aware that we are not merely in Europe, we are also part of the global economy. It is important that our industry is competitive in the world at large—the Far East and the emerging markets, and wherever they might be.
As the noble Lord said, we are the most successful member state in the Community in acquiring inward investment, because this is the country to which enterprises outside the Community wish to come to trade within Europe. That is for a variety of reasons to do with our labour market, and so on and so forth.
The noble Lord asked about outward investment. The world is a large place. There are many markets in it. We as a nation have been exploiting the opportunities that exist to be exploited. We have a proud record in that regard. Of course they are not alternatives. They are complementary aspects of a sound economy.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness talked about the number of firms that are exporting. They asked why there are only 100,000. In any economy there will be a considerable number of small firms. After all, most firms are small firms which, by their very nature, will not be exporters. For example, the people who cut my hair are unlikely to be in the export business, but they count as a firm for the purpose of the figures.
The Government propose to have 30,000 more firms exporting by the end of century than there are now. That will be to everyone's advantage. Just because a firm is small does not mean that it cannot export.

825
Some questions were asked about education and training. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was frankly being a trifle disingenuous in her comments about the labour force and training in this country. Is she trying to tell the House, for example, that training in this country is less good than it is in Spain and Greece?
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I was talking about the major industrialised countries in the European Union—Germany and France, in particular. The noble Lord will realise that at the end of the 1970s we had turned out over 40 per cent. of our youngsters into jobs or into unemployment with no training. In Germany they were training 91 per cent. We were training fewer than half. That is why we are so behind. That is why my criticisms were justified.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining her comment. The problem that we found when we came into office at the end of the 1970s has been the driving force behind our wish to improve training in this country so that we ultimately achieve our target of having the best trained workforce in Europe. By definition, that will probably take a generation to achieve. As I said, new targets have been announced today by NACET to try to improve that process and to get us to where we eventually want to be, both in terms of young people's training achievements and life time training achievements.
The noble Lord, Lord Peston, asked whether this White Paper was going to be an annual event. It is intended that the publication of a competitive White Paper will be an annual occasion. We expect there to be a similar publication at approximately this time next year.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it follows logically that we should, as a matter of course, debate such a White Paper as we would a Finance Bill or something like that? It should not be left to a Back Bench debate or the usual "usual channels" remarks, or anything of that kind. It should be built into our procedures.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I have heard the noble Lord's comments.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Government and in particular to the firms concerned on their achievement of increased exports although I must say, having been in Europe during the past two weeks, it would be difficult not to export with the currency devalued to the extent that the pound has been devalued in relation to the Swiss franc, the deutschmark and so on. Nevertheless, exporting is a difficult business and some of our firms are remarkably good at it. I do not see any reference in the Statement or in the document, of which I have a copy, to the other side of the balance of payments. I refer to import saving. That seems to me just as important economically as export performance. Perhaps the Minister will say a few words about the absence of any reference to import savings.
Perhaps I may quote one example which will be familiar to the Minister. The total import bill for timber and timber products is £6.3 billion per annum. There is a
826
vast opportunity for import saving. However, the Government have cut the planting programme of the Forestry Commission from 20,000 hectares only a few years ago to fewer than 1,000 hectares this year. It occurs to me that in addition to the emphasis placed on exporting, the Government should look very seriously at the areas which exist for import saving.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, for that intervention. Of course, he is a well-known authority on forestry matters which are slightly wide of the subject we are debating. However, two points seem to arise from what the noble Lord said. First, if it is relatively easy to export because of the value of the pound, conversely it will be equally difficult for those abroad to import. That provides a wonderful opportunity for British business to reclaim part of the domestic market which may have been lost in earlier times.
That is the corollary to my second point. A successful exporting firm will be in a very good position, by definition, because it is competitive, to compete with those with whom it is competing abroad within its domestic market. We return to the general proposition that in a competitive world the ability to compete is the crucial factor and it matters not whether the competition is abroad or at home.
The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made some comments about the proportion of world trade. It is crucial to remember that world trade is increasing and in such a world, if one manages to retain one's proportion of world trade, one is significantly increasing the amount of exports. Therefore, one must not be misled by the figures.
The noble Baroness continued with some remarks which related to labour relations. The Government are clear in that regard. We believe that the best interests of the British people depend on having a flexible labour market. We do not believe that the kind of continental corporatist tradition of labour relations is to the benefit of the British people. We have turned our back on going down that road because, when looked at in the round, we do not believe that that delivers what is best for us.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke about a consumer-led recovery being desirable and added that we did not want some kind of artificial boom leading us out of recession. It is of enormous credit to the Government that time and time again they have resisted that temptation. I sense that much of the criticism levelled at the Government is out of frustration because we have adopted those wise and sensible policies which are delivering probably the most satisfactory economic conditions we have seen in this country since the end of the war.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend give a firm undertaking that there will be a full opportunity for this House to debate the Statement in a full-length debate? I ask him not to reply by saying that that will be arranged by the usual channels because many of us have absolutely no confidence in the attitude of the usual channels to debating such matters. We want an undertaking from the Government that that will be done.

827
Also, I invite my noble friend's attention to the fact that, no doubt because of the intervention of the noble Lord opposite, the timescale for questions on this Statement has started to run, although I thought he had not finished his remarks to the Front Bench spokesmen until just now. Therefore, I hope that there will be a full opportunity within the very limited 20 minutes permitted under Standing Orders for questions to be raised with him. Will he please give a clear undertaking that we shall have an opportunity to debate in full this Statement because of its very great importance?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as regards the second point, when I responded earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Peston, we were still dealing with the Front Bench element of the discussion. I note what is said on the clock but I do not believe that we have embarked on the second phase of the debate.
As regards the first point made by my noble friend, I am not in a position to give the reply my noble friend seeks; in the Latin maxim nemo dat qui non habet. However, I have sitting beside me my noble friend the Leader of the House. I have no doubt that he heard everything my noble friend said and will ponder on it very carefully.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, while joining other noble Lords in welcoming the general thrust of the Statement, I feel sure my noble friend will not be surprised if I press him further on a point put by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, which is the relationship between our membership of the European Communities and our national competitiveness. If I may, I will also put a suggestion to him in the field of education which I fancy he may find a little more helpful.
On the matter of our membership of the European Communities which, as many of your Lordships will know, some of us regard as the least competitive aspect of the national scene, is my noble friend aware that the three leading trade associations in this country have recently expressed considerable doubts about our continued membership of the. European Communities precisely on the basis of the lack of competitiveness which it forces upon us? For instance, is my noble friend aware that the Federation of Small Businesses has just conducted a survey among its members in which some 70 per cent. of them opined that membership of the European Communities had led only to increased red tape and cost, and less than 6 per cent. opined that it had led to an increase in business opportunities for their members? Bearing in mind everything that has been said about small businesses and their acknowledged importance to the economy, I would be very interested to hear any comments my noble friend may have on those facts.
Likewise, he will doubtless be aware that the Institute of Directors is getting steadily more realistic and therefore more sceptical about our membership of the Communities. I have no doubt that my noble friend may quote in reply the recent survey conducted by the CBI but he will be aware that the interpretation of that survey is highly controversial.
Finally, on this aspect, I thought I heard my noble friend say that we cannot analyse Britain's place in the world economically and commercially without analysing the benefits of our place in Europe. If that is so, did I
828
understand him to say that a cost-benefit analysis, which as far as I am aware has not been attempted by the Government, is to be undertaken? If so, will it be objective because if it were, it would be very welcome to all of us?
I welcome the statement by my noble friend that the Government are to conduct a major review of our education and training effort, benchmarking it against our leading competitors and identifying where improvement is necessary. My noble friend joined the general consensus that the fact that a third of our young people go on to higher education and training is a good thing. But I have to ask my noble friend: is it? Is he convinced of the quality of our higher education and training? He will be aware that there are considerable question marks at the moment on our vocational education and training. Can I therefore recommend that the Government look at the amendments I tabled consistently throughout the progress of the 1992 higher education Bill and possibly bear those amendments in mind, which were not put to the House and were not carried, when they conduct this major review, which I am sure we all welcome on these Benches?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his remarks about the training and especially those welcoming the advent of the bench-marking initiative. One of the reasons why we are taking so much trouble in the matter is that, in order to achieve the best trained workforce in Europe, we are concerned that we actually get there. While it is not perfect, we believe that we are on the right road to achieve that aim.
My noble friend raised the point about the relationship between this country's economy and that of the European Union. He also asked whether we were concerned about competitiveness within the Union. That is not merely causing anxiety to those in this country, but also to those abroad. One has only to look, for example, at the conclusions of the Essen Summit or study some of the recent remarks made by M. Santer to realise that. It is crucial to be clear on the matter.
There is a difference between membership of the European Union and the single market, though that is undoubtedly a good thing. For example, as my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said relatively recently, an estimated 2.5 million jobs in this country are dependent on British membership. The fact is that some characteristics of the way that the European Community works could be damaging. It is because we are worried in that respect that we have not participated in the social chapter of the Maastricht Treaty. At the end of the day, the European Union now takes 60 per cent. of our visible exports, compared with 40 per cent. in 1973. I should like to make just one small point. It is intended that this question session should be short. It is not an occasion for making too-developed speeches.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, in declaring that I am a companion to the Institute of Exporters I support the moves to create a new, national export training centre in north Nottinghamshire. It appears that the White Paper accepts that professional education and training of exporters is not just necessary but that it is vital for the future economic health and well-being of the United

829
Kingdom. I add my support to that already expressed. Further, will the Minister please emphasise to his right honourable friend the cross-party call for clear government initiatives to support such a critical area?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we recognise the points made by the noble Viscount. For example, that is why we have announced today that we are introducing what is known as "Export Challenge" which is designed to part fund innovative projects with trade associations. Ten successful associations will receive awards this year of up to £50,000 each. I referred earlier to the aim of 30,000 new exporters to foreign markets by the year 2000. Moreover, we are proposing to announce today our intention to introduce export vouchers which will be for use by small and medium-sized enterprises through business links to enable them to obtain advice for export services. I also made reference to the increased support for exporters jointly by the DTI and the Foreign Office. All those projects are intended to assist in that direction.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I rise to express support for the request made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, for a special debate to be organised by the Government through the usual channels. I also have two questions for the Minister. First, in preparation for that debate, will the Government make public the authentic statistics which they have in their possession relating to the degree of import penetration into the United Kingdom? That is a very important consideration in economic terms regarding the degree to which our home industries are now capable of satisfying domestic demand, even at its reduced level. In any event, it is a most important series of statistics, without which we cannot make objective judgments.
Secondly, I should like to endorse the request by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch; namely, that the various statements about the benefits, or otherwise, of our membership of the European Community as it stands, as distinct from what it was meant to be, are also extremely important. I believe that we ought to have, on the lines proposed by the noble Lord and in good time for any debate we may have, a cost benefit analysis of exactly how much we gain and how much we lose as a result of our membership of the Community as it now is as distinct from what it was meant to be.
It may well be that statistics are not available except to the nearest £1 billion or even £2 billion. But, in so far as they are available, they ought to be capable of statistical quantification and presentation to the House and to the country so that, within the context of the 235-page document, at a cost of £19.50, we are capable of making an informed and, I sincerely hope, objective and impartial examination of such matters to the benefit not only of your Lordships' House but also the country at large.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. So far as concerns statistics, I believe that it would be appropriate if the noble Lord were to table a Question so that we may endeavour to do our best to make available the information he requires.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to that immediately. Whenever I table such Questions, the invariable reply is that the information cannot be obtained, save at a disproportionate cost.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, if that is the reply the noble Lord has received, then that would appear to be the case. I do not feel that I can very usefully add a great deal more in that respect. So far as concerns any analysis, it is appropriate to consider both the information and the techniques used to analyse what one has. On many occasions, that can be rather subjective. Needless to say, the Government always endeavour to do that in the most appropriate manner.
Lord Ewing of Kirkwood: My Lords, as the Minister knows, I am an innocent in such matters. However, my parliamentary experience in another place reminds me that when so many White Papers, and so on, appear—for example, the White Paper announced by Mr. Michael Heseltine, Statements, the launch of initiatives by Mr. David Hunt today, and, as we understand it, another White Paper to follow tomorrow—that is usually followed fairly quickly by a general election. When is the date?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, even if I had any idea about that, I would not be in a position to divulge the information to your Lordships.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with the leave of the House, as there are either two minutes or seven minutes left on the Clock—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: It is a question of whether we started at zero or minus five. Does the fact that my noble friend the Minister was not able to answer my brief questions on the Federation of Small Businesses and on the Institute of Directors underline the point made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that we should really have time for an adequate debate on the subject?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I believe that I have already dealt with that point satisfactorily.

Disability Discrimination Bill
4.58 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich: My Lords, one of the many groups which exist for the support of disabled people, and largely consisting of disabled people, is CHAD which stands for Church Action on Disability. It is an ecumenical and also an educational group. CHAD publishes a leaflet which spells out in sketch form various people suffering from different disabilities which we can ourselves imagine and identify. The leaflet's caption reads:
"Join us in ensuring that no one in your congregation is handicapped".

831
It draws the neat distinction between disability and handicap. The disabled have enough difficulty coping with the problems which life has dealt out to them without having to contend with the handicaps which society deals out to them.
It is, therefore, with great warmth that I also welcome the Bill. I congratulate the Government on the work that has been done on bringing the legislation this far. Any criticisms which I may make of the Bill as it stands at present are only intended, I hope, to improve the Bill and to make it effective.
I wish to focus on four areas in the Bill as it stands. The first is education. I realise that there are arguments for excluding education from the Bill. However, I do not understand the power of those arguments, particularly when one bears in mind—if Scope's figures are correct—that 65 per cent. of primary schools and 55 per cent. of secondary schools have no suitable toilets for disabled students. That hardly seems to me to bear out a view that nothing at the moment needs to be inserted in the Bill on educational grounds. However, my concern about education goes wider than that.
If one sets aside the small percentage of those who discriminate against others on sadistic grounds, discrimination by and large is due to ignorance and to a lack of social awareness and social knowledge. The education field is, above all, the field where citizens of this country are able to sit, work and study alongside other citizens of this country who suffer from various disabilities. My own two boys were educated, at primary level, at a school which had a firm policy of accepting one, if not two, children suffering from a disability in each class. The children who were disabled benefited from that, and so did the children who were not. To sit alongside and to work alongside disabled students and to realise that it is the student who is sitting beside one who one addresses and not the person who pushes the wheelchair, and that when the student beside one inadvertently dribbles one's reaction is not to withdraw in horror but to move forward with respect, and to offer care and support, is something which has borne fruit in my own sons and in many other students who attended that school.
I believe that the Government should be striving vigorously to include education in the categories referred to in the Bill in order to ensure that that wider element of education is right to the forefront. If that is a valid argument for education, it is also a valid argument for the second point I wish to stress, and that is the power of the controlling body. I do not mind whether it is called a council or a commission; what I care about is whether it has teeth. I do not believe that at the moment it has. One of the teeth which it has to have must be education. To bring a test case, as our commissions can, is of great significance to everyone, and not only to those who are involved in the test case. It is an educational experience which draws attention to a need and has widespread effects beyond itself. I would therefore support the argument that we have already heard; namely, that we need a body with more power, which is more able to be pro-active and which is more able to effect what I believe to be the main intention of the Bill. I have doubts at the moment whether that can be implemented in practice.
832
My other two concerns relate, first, to the definition. I appreciate that to define "disability" is a difficult task as this is a difficult area. I am glad that I am not a lawyer who has to do that. However, I believe that the definition at the moment is too restrictive. In his introduction the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, said that people with a reputation for disability are not disabled. That, clearly, is true on occasion. However, what is also true is that those people so identified are discriminated against. I believe that we must place more stress on discrimination as well as on disability.
My other point relates to the position of firms which employ fewer than 20 people. I am a rural Bishop and my diocese is the county of Suffolk. If, at the moment, 96 per cent. of firms nationwide are to be excluded by the Bill from the provision we have discussed, I would guess that a figure more like 99 per cent. of firms in rural areas would be excluded. That seems to me to be quite intolerable. I understand the Government's concern that small businesses should not have undue impositions placed upon them but the figures I have show that 60 per cent. of firms who employ fewer than 10 people already employ a disabled person. If that is so, or even if the figures are anything like that, I believe that the Government's caution on this matter is misplaced.
My concern—and I am sure this is the concern of the House—is that this Bill, which is admirable in many ways, should be able to be implemented and to bring forth the fruits that we all desire. That is why I wish to return to the point that I made at the beginning of my speech but from another angle. Frances Young is an academic and a theologian; she is also the mother of a severely handicapped son. In her book Face to Face, which she wrote when the terms that were used were rather different and the word "handicapped" was used of people rather than of the pressures under which they are put, she stated,
"Handicapped people remind us that life is not all go-getting and individual achievement. There are more fundamental human values. Handicap demands mutual support, a sense of communal sharing. Handicap fosters compassion and helpfulness, care and concern. It challenges our selfishness and our ambition and sectional loyalties. Society needs handicap".
5.6 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Minister for the clear manner in which he introduced this Bill. The House will know that I welcome the Government's initiative because I made that clear in the debate which I initiated on 14th December last on disablement. That should have been no surprise to your Lordships as I have consistently over the past 30 years in both Houses of Parliament expressed the opinion that this is a subject so wide and complex that the resources of government departments are needed to provide workable and effective measures.
I was advocating this when I was speaking on Private Members' Bills, including two of my own, one introduced in each House. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to the past 13 years. I was successful in a ballot in another place in 1968 and introduced a Private Member's Bill then. I cannot refrain from adding—noble Lords opposite will expect me to say this—that it was voted down at Second Reading with a Government Whip applied. The

833
Government was a Labour Government. That was a stark illustration that successive governments have always found it difficult to accept proposals, however mild. That Bill of mine was extremely mild and inexpensive.
Governments have also found it difficult to formulate legislation of their own. I recall that my second Bill went through all its stages in this House in the mid-1980s. I applaud—and I feel I am entitled to applaud most loudly —what the Government have now undertaken. As I had hoped, the Bill largely depends on reasonableness. Reasonable adjustments are to be the aim. In the equivalent American legislation—Americans with Disabilities Act—the words "reasonable accommodations" are used; but in both the British and American legislation the intention clearly is to avoid unnecessary confrontations and to reduce litigation to a minimum. I hope in that respect the apprehensions expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, can be allayed in the course of the Bill or by any changes that are made. In his speech he demonstrated how complicated legislation on discrimination in this field has to be, including definitions. Of course definitions were much easier in the cases of gender and race. No doubt that was one of the factors which made it so difficult in the past for governments to introduce a Bill of this kind.
I turn to Part II of the Bill, on employment. As my noble friend said, the quota scheme had become unworkable. A 3 per cent. quota was impossible to implement when only about 1 per cent. of the working population were registered as disabled. Either the registration system had to be radically changed or it had to be replaced. The 1944 Act, which introduced the quota system 50 years ago, was intended for the war disabled, most of whom were in their twenties. I was one of them. They are now past the retirement age, so the original purpose of the quota scheme no longer exists.
The 3 per cent. quota did not apply to establishments employing fewer than 20 people. That was because unreal situations would have arisen and small firms would have been expected to employ 0.6 or 0.3 of a person.
With the new system, it seems a pity to retain that exemption for small firms as proposed, although the numbers employed by those smaller firms is only 15 per cent. of the workforce. Of course we must not impose crippling financial burdens on smaller firms, which are important sources of new jobs. However, could not the provisions requiring reasonable solutions which occur throughout the Bill take into account the difficulties of an individual small firm so that it is not expected, in certain circumstances, to do exactly the same as a large firm? I should have thought that that was part of the reasonableness that we hope will be the basis of the Bill.
As the smaller firms were not included in the quota system, I believe that the application of the Bill to small firms should be phased in rather than brought in at the outset. They have not been used to a quota system. I was glad to hear my noble friend say that in any event it was intended to review the position after five years.
Because there is a power in the Bill to reduce the figure of 20 by regulation, it is my hope that there will be a gradual reduction and eventually we shall reach the figure nought. Incidentally, the CBI and the Employers Forum
834
on Disability are both in favour of small firms being included in the Bill, but again with enough time given to allow them to adjust to the new system.
I also believe that, outside the Bill, the Government could introduce or encourage achievement awards for small firms, rather like export awards. Those who succeed in employing disabled people after making special arrangements would receive an award. That would win them prestige in their own local areas.
I now turn to Part III of the Bill relating to goods and services. Many more disabled people will be affected by this part of the Bill than by Part II, which relates to employment. The provisions relating to employment apply to disabled people of working age, from 16 to retirement. Therefore, we ought to consider the numbers affected by the Bill as a whole. The 1991 census provided the most valuable information so far, including the figure, which has been quoted often, of 6.5 million disabled people. That is the total, covering every kind and degree of disability from slight disablement to those who are completely incapacitated. One in nine of our population is in that category of disabled.
However, over 5 million of the 6.5 million are past retirement age. Most were not disabled in earlier life. The population is steadily getting older and we shall have a larger percentage of our population in the upper age brackets as the years go by. Disabilities which arrive with old age must be included in measures for goods and services, as for the younger disabled. Therefore, we are dealing with a much larger proportion of the population than with Part II of the Bill.
In contemplating the figure of 6.5 million it is worth noting that the estimate of people permanently in wheelchairs is half-a-million, which is one in 112 of the population. To summarise, one in nine of the entire population is estimated to have some form of disability, if only slight, and one in 112 of the population is a regular user of wheelchairs. Those figures help to clarify the size and nature of the problems which will arise under the Bill.
I am glad that there is emphasis in the Bill on the availability of advice, both to disabled people and employers, on the interpretation of the new system and its translation into action and expenditure. There appears to be a gap in relation to advice to disabled people on goods and services under Part III. I understand that the Government had hoped that the citizens advice bureaux offices would accept that role, with increased subsidy. I also understand that the CABs have declined to accept that role. In that case, where will the disabled person, especially the elderly disabled person, be expected to turn for advice on Part III of the Bill?
I have another question which I hope my noble friend will be able to answer today. It is not clear how much of the new system the proposed national council will be concerned with. It seems from Clause 23(2) that the council can offer advice on its own initiative on any matter relative to discrimination or arising from the Bill when it is enacted. However, there is a rumour that the council will not be expected to advise on Part II relating to employment or will be limited in that field. I shall be grateful for clarification about that point and on whether there are other areas of the Bill which will be outside the council's remit.

835
Having been raising this subject in Parliament for the past 35 years, it would be churlish of me not to applaud the Government warmly for tackling this very difficult task. I entered another place in 1959, several years before some other fellow campaigners were elected and became Members. Being war-disabled myself, I became acutely aware in the early 1960s that many disabled people in the country who were disabled from other causes were being overlooked and were not then properly provided for in our social security system. There have been many changes, and the introduction of allowances and benefits, since then.
I strongly support the Bill, looking forward to the promised government amendments which it was announced in another place would be introduced here, and also to other possible additions and improvements to the Bill.
5.18 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I too welcome the Bill. I welcome the sympathetic way in which the Minister introduced it. I do so because it signifies how far we have come not only in the 35 years during which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has been campaigning but also since 1992 when I first introduced into this House the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) (No. 2) Bill. At that time, and even last year when my noble friend Lord Ashley introduced a similar Bill, the Government were not convinced of the need for comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation. They thought that only specific and targeted legislation would assist progress. We have had an indication in the Minister's speech this afternoon that the Government are still thinking in terms of targeted legislation, but at least they have acknowledged the need for a comprehensive Bill.
The fact that we have made such progress is, I believe, due to the determination and persistence of disabled people themselves who through their appropriate organisations have campaigned energetically for such legislation. I should like to pay tribute to them for that. However, I share their disappointment that the Bill does not go far enough. What people with a disability want is the right not to be discriminated against because of that disability, the right to be socially accepted, the right to be able to lead a full and active life within the constraints of their disability, and a proper framework to ensure that those rights are realised. We have to ask whether the Bill provides that. I rather fear that the answer is no.
The organisations representing disabled people are asking for a number of changes, many of which have been referred to this afternoon. They are concerned about the narrow definition of disability, the absence from the Bill of provisions relating to education and transport, the exemption regarding small employers employing under 20 people, and the absence of a commission with real power. I, too, am concerned about that matter; I wish to come back to it in a moment. I am also concerned that there is not a proper reference to and definition in the Bill of direct and indirect discrimination. I suggest that such a reference would make unnecessary many of the complicated clauses to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, referred. That would also eliminate the
836
need for many of the regulations which the Minister proposes to introduce. I hope that we shall return to the issue at a later stage.
At Committee and Report stages, we shall refer to the amendments which the Government propose to make. However, to date the Government have indicated no recognition of the inadequacy of their proposals in the establishment of a disability council with powers. I believe that that issue is absolutely crucial to the whole success of the legislation. I say that on the basis of my experience as the first chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission relating to the Sex Discrimination Act. During the first year of the EOC's life—indeed during the first few months—we were absolutely overwhelmed by something like 10,000 complaints from individuals who wanted help and advice on what they felt was sex discrimination. That soon made the commission realise that there was a real need to establish priorities—in terms of testing the extent of the Bill and the application of indirect discrimination, and in trying to establish equal opportunity policies.
The Government claim that there is a difference between discrimination on grounds of disability and discrimination on the grounds of sex and race. They state as one of the reasons that there are so many different forms of disability. That, of course, is quite true. However, I draw the opposite conclusion. The complexity of the issues underlines the need for a central body responsible for administering and enforcing the law, and employing a central strategic approach to enforcement and promotion of equal opportunities.
This is a complicated Bill. I believe that we need a simple and clear mechanism for ensuring, first, that individuals can obtain their rights under the law; and, secondly, that employers and providers of facilities and services are assisted in understanding their responsibilities and safeguards.
What the Minister outlined this afternoon about the various organisations and mechanisms available provides a complicated picture, with divided responsibility instead of responsibility lying with one authority to undertake enforcement and interpretation.
I hope that we shall put forward amendments which will provide some of the following. First, we need to establish an independent statutory commission resourced by the Government as are commissions such as the EOC and the CRE. Secondly, we need a commission able to advise and financially assist key cases. We do not want the tribunals clogged up with individual cases. I am not sure that the tribunals would be so clogged up because unless there is a body which is responsible for helping and advising individuals, very few cases will come through. But we do not want to duplicate cases. I suggest that we need to identify key cases which will establish certain trends so that the commission can give authoritative advice both to applicants and respondents who seek help under the Bill.
Thirdly, we need a commission with powers to take action against persistent offenders. Again, I believe that we can turn to the experience of the CRE and the EOC to demonstrate that one cannot do everything through individual cases. It is a slow, long process. Once a type of

837
discrimination has been established, it is important to have a body which ensures that a range of such cases is dealt with.
Fourthly, we need a commission able to operate in all areas of the Bill. That is the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government propose—it is how I understand the Bill—that Part II of the Bill (relating to employment) should be excluded from the scope of the disability council. Access to employment is absolutely fundamental to an independent life for disabled people. It is one of the most important areas of the Bill and certainly needs to come within the ambit of a commission or a council.
Fifthly, I envisage the need for a commission able to draw up codes of practice on the basis of experience that it has acquired. I fail to see why it is necessary for the Secretary of State to have to advise the commission to draw up codes of practice. That surely should be the commission's own responsibility. Finally, I see the need for a commission able to advise on good practice in the whole area covered by the Bill, through educational activities and publicity. That is crucial to a successful Bill.
What do we have instead of an independent commission? We have a proposed council which it seems to me will be responsible only to the Secretary of State. It appears that it will have little or no responsibility in the crucial area of employment. That will not help anyone.
I fear that if we are not careful, we will be on the way to passing a law which will not be enforced. Like the 3 per cent. employment quota of the 1944 Act, it will be observed more in the breach than in the implementation. That is not what the 6 million disabled people in the country are asking for. Having gone thus far and achieved general agreement on the need for a comprehensive Bill, I hope that we shall be able to proceed through the next stages with co-operation on all sides in strengthening the Bill and making it the kind of legislation for which disabled people ask.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, like certain noble Lords, not forgetting disabled people themselves and their organisations, as well as other voluntary bodies, including MENCAP—and here I must declare a personal interest as that body's chairman—I welcome the Bill. Those of us who optimistically hung an empty pillowcase at the end of the bed on Christmas Eve and found, when we woke, only a full stocking instead, were still pleased but anxious for more.
The Bill represents a significant shift on the part of Her Majesty's Government in regard to discrimination about disabled people. Your Lordships' House has signalled its support for anti-discrimination measures on more than one occasion. Many noble Lords were at the forefront of the public outcry last year when the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill was talked out in another place. It is therefore both welcome and encouraging to have the opportunity to debate a Bill brought before your Lordships' House by the Government, in recognition of
838
the case made so passionately by disabled people and their organisations, sometimes disparagingly dismissed as the "disability lobby".
MENCAP is one such organisation, for and increasingly of disabled people. MENCAP was founded in 1946 to campaign for people with learning disabilities and their families. Over the years, that has involved pressing successive governments for legislation in the areas of social security benefits, education, housing, employment and the establishment of a wide range of services enabling people with learning disabilities to live decent lives in the community as full citizens. We have become convinced, however, that true citizenship cannot be achieved without some form of civil rights legislation. Getting an education, a home of one's own, perhaps a job—those crucial steps in achieving independence and self-respect—are wholly undermined if society still permits a person to be denied access to public services and facilities because of his or her disability.
Let me be clear, this is not a debate about bedtime theories or about laws to be invoked on the odd occasion. Discrimination is a live, daily issue for people with learning disabilities. Last month, MENCAP was contacted by a Rotherham man who had tried to visit his local pub with two friends. The landlord refused to serve them because they have learning disabilities. He said, "We've had trouble with mental people before". Just this morning I was told about a man with learning disability who lives alone in a council flat in central London. He loves his home and is very proud to have achieved independence, but he is terrified. The teenagers who live nearby are conducting a campaign of intimidation against him because of his appearance and because he is vulnerable. They bang on his windows at all hours of the night, snatch letters from his hand and tear them up, leave bikes piled across his door so that he cannot get into his flat. The housing department and the police express sympathy but say they can do nothing unless he is hurt. This is simply not acceptable in 1995. I am delighted that discrimination is at last becoming a matter of law rather than opinion.
I do not, however, wish to give the impression that the Bill, even with the concessions thus far announced, goes as far as we in your Lordships' House wish, or as far as disabled people need if they are truly to benefit from these measures. Indeed, I was afforded the courtesy of a meeting with the Minister some two weeks ago, to make him aware of my concerns about a number of shortcomings in the Bill—areas where I hope it might be possible for the Government to rethink their position. It was strangely apposite that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, learning that I was to visit the Ardnamurchan peninsula in western Scotland, advised that I visit the Sea Fish Industry Authority's experimental station at Ardtoe. This I did, and most valuable research is being performed by that government agency, to make it possible to farm white fish—namely, halibut—to put an end to all our Spanish problems. Unfortunately, there is one small difficulty: the fish can be successfully spawned, but if they are not fed a special diet of enriched plankton they remain black and white for the rest of their lives. Their natural sandy colour is denied them, although in all other respects they are as other halibut.

839
It seems to me that the Government's sea fish agency in Ardtoe, in failing to provide the fish with some essential ingredients, is rather akin to the Government themselves in not including in the Disability Discrimination Bill those ingredients which would guarantee disabled people genuine equality.
Let me highlight some of the missing component parts. In so doing, I must stress that I have consulted not only MENCAP but a distinguished campaigner with a learning disability herself, Miss Simone Aspis, who briefed me very thoroughly. I begin with employment. In common with other disability organisations, MENCAP recognises the shortcomings of the quota scheme. But, contrary to other speakers in your Lordships' House, I have to point out that MENCAP's Pathway Employment Service is able to make use of the quota, and we are not wholly averse to the positive discrimination that the quota implies. It has been a way of getting through the door of companies who had never considered employing staff with learning disabilities. There will be a huge task involved in informing employers about the new framework, the principles of reasonable adjustment and so on. From our point of view, an awful lot depends on the code of practice which we have not yet seen. Would it not make sense to leave the quota in place until the new system has bedded in? Even if that were only for a transitional period of perhaps a year, it would create a breathing space for the Department of Employment and employers' organisations to disseminate information so that employers can update their recruitment policies and, if necessary, retrain key staff in recruitment practice. Clearly, what none of us wants to see in the early years of this legislation is disabled people meeting confusion and bad practice when applying for jobs and losing rather than gaining from the changes.
It was at this stage of my speech that I was going to apologise to your Lordships for the fact that I had to leave early this evening to attend a function hosted by a large—a very large—company which has been and, we hope, will continue to be most helpful to the charity with which I am closely associated. However, such is the importance of this debate that I have notified my host that I shall be somewhat late in arriving. I am sure that he will understand, reflecting the fact that a great number of major companies are understanding and helpful to disabled people, as well as voluntary organisations. The Bill will make them even more aware of their responsibilities.
But why, then, should small companies be excluded? Many of them, too, would—indeed do—co-operate most willingly if encouraged just a little more. There is no logic in the exclusion of small firms from the Bill and no logic in fixing the magic number of 20—although I welcome the promised review. The figure 20, as we have heard, is an unfortunate hangover from the 1944 Act. It was an absurdity even in those days. I notice that the CBI agrees, too, and is more nervous about starting with this limit than removing it. A financial cap on making adaptations, and additional help from Access to Work, seems to be an eminently more reasonable approach than head-counting the workforce. There are people with learning disabilities whose employers would incur no additional costs; but this
840
arbitrary exclusion will allow small firms legally to turn them away without even considering their applications. It makes no sense whatever.
Secondly, I hope that we shall have an opportunity during the later stages of the Bill to consider the question of insurance services. MENCAP has been concerned for some years about discrimination in insurance. We established our own insurance company—at arm's length of course—because of the difficulties reported by so many of our members and by local groups. We came across companies that simply refused to cover the member of the family who had a learning disability; others wanted to charge ridiculously high premiums because of some perceived, but unproven, extra risk; and one told a family, "We don't cover mental handicap, but come back when she's better". I do not dispute the need for insurance companies to continue to be able to differentiate on the basis of risk; that is, after all, the key principle of insurance. But the many complaints received from people with learning disabilities and from their families suggest that insurance companies have no objective data about learning disability and therefore make judgments on the basis of ignorance and prejudice.
Finally, I want to address the crucial (question of the enforcement of this legislation. I know that there has been much debate about the relative merits of the proposed national disability council as against the disability rights commission set out in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Personally, I am not too concerned about the title or the exact structure of whatever body results. I am concerned that disabled people should have an effective method of seeking remedy under this legislation. I note that the official Opposition and the CBI share some common ground on setting up a commission, and I trust that the Opposition will offer appropriate undertakings about their own plans. The council that the Government have proposed can be strengthened—indeed it must be strengthened—on its way to becoming what so many want. I am encouraged by the recent suggestion that legal aid may, after all, be extended to industrial tribunals. But clearly that is not the entire solution. People with learning disability in particular will find it difficult to make complaints, fill out paper work, make representations about discrimination unless the system is clearly geared to their needs and high-quality independent advice is available. I hope that a clearer picture of the Government's plans for promoting and funding that advice will soon be vouchsafed.
We have heard that two vital components of the Bill; namely, transport and education, will be addressed during its passage through this House; and no doubt we shall look closely at what is proposed. After its return to another place, I gather that Royal Assent is likely to be forthcoming in the autumn. That will be a great moment in the history of our approach to disabled people. That history depends now to some extent on your Lordships: a footnote to history or a whole chapter. I am not alone in hoping for the latter.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am very glad indeed to be called upon to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rix. He and I have worked together for many years as officers of

841
MENCAP. The noble Lord knows, and it is right to remind your Lordships, that the mentally handicapped are the largest particular group of disabled people in the country. The noble Lord is familiar, as I am, with the great diversity of kinds of mental handicap. There are many different degrees of it. That affects people's capacity for taking on work or not being able to work at all. Some people have no physical handicap but have a slight mental handicap. Such people are employable in many capacities. I believe—and MENCAP recognises this by giving them training accordingly—that they are especially able to make their way in horticulture and farm work. Many are particularly good at looking after animals. There are other forms of manual work which are suitable for such people. On the other hand, they are not often suited to office work. We must be realistic about that.
The other day, the noble Lord and I attended the Gateway Festival and heard a mentally handicapped young woman play the piano quite magnificently and most movingly. That may be a rare condition. She was variously handicapped in other ways. But one should take note of the fact that there are opportunities for mentally handicapped people to lead useful lives; those opportunities should not be missed. One reason why I so greatly welcome the Bill is that I am confident that such opportunities will be increased.
At the other end of the scale, there are those like my youngest daughter. She cannot talk, she cannot walk unless she is held up, and she cannot feed herself. The Bill therefore has to accommodate various degrees of mental handicap. It has to be flexible, adaptable and realistic. We do no service to people who are disabled in various ways if we raise their hopes too high; for example, by using, as it were, lawyers' arguments—and such arguments have been used this afternoon—in the hope of applying to them the definitions of discrimination which apply under the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act. I was very grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for the speech he made. My noble friend has a wonderful record in this matter. It goes back 50 years. I am glad to say that my noble friend's remarks enable me to shorten my speech.
Although the Bill is long overdue, let us be thankful that it is with us. It will enable so many disabled people to live more normal and fuller lives. There is so far only one major omission; namely, the question of access to transport. However, the Government propose to deal with that. I understand that amendments will be moved in Committee. I hope that those amendments will be realistic.
Perhaps I may relate a personal experience. My severely handicapped daughter, who is 40, has to spend much of her time in a wheelchair. But she does not travel well in a wheelchair put into a vehicle. She travels most comfortably sitting in the seat beside the driver in an ordinary saloon car, as she did with me this morning. I have no difficulty getting her into such a seat. I then put her wheelchair in the back of my estate car. I simply could not get her into a modern type taxi, even when adapted for a wheelchair, without help from other people. And once she is in the taxi, because of her tendency, although strapped in, to slip down when travelling in a wheelchair,
842
that is not the solution for her. I hope that the Government will broaden their minds on this question of requiring a vast number of taxis to be adapted for the carrying of wheelchairs. By all means let some of them be adapted.
In London, I understand, by the end of the century all black cabs are supposed to be adapted for the carrying of wheelchairs. That is a policy already being implemented. But outside London I doubt whether it would be sensible. It is all right in London and other large cities where taxis are doing quite well financially. However, in small towns —the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, may agree with me—and in East Anglia, out in the wider spaces, the taxis have been having a very difficult time financially in recent years. If we require too many of them to be fitted like London taxis and adapted for carrying wheelchairs, there will not be enough taxis. That will be a great disadvantage to disabled people with various disabilities. I hope that my noble friend will persuade his friends in the Department of Transport not to be too rigid, as they have been so far, on this matter.
Perhaps I may add one other comment. We must be careful on this Bill not to do what we do too often with some legislation; namely, create an Act which is not adequately enforced. That is to raise people's hopes when, in fact, we are enacting a dead letter and wasting our own time. I go along very much with those noble Lords on both sides of the House who have asked that we should consider carefully whether the Bill will be enforceable. I am keeping an open mind as to the best method to achieve that. I simply say that I hope that we shall be careful to ensure that the Bill is enforceable. Otherwise, we shall defeat our own purpose.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, the Bill is without doubt a significant step forward and will be all the better for the substantive amendments that the Government intend to bring forward. I am glad that the Government have learnt to listen to organisations of and for disabled persons. I hope that they are still disposed to listen and make further improvements.
We shall do disabled people and their organisations no service if we pretend that we can offer them perfection at a stroke. Even so, we shall look for further instalments of progress as a result of our discussions in this Chamber. Beyond that, example and resources will be needed to complement legislative action.
I shall concentrate mainly on three areas in which I believe that the Bill needs and is capable of improvement: employment; access to entertainment and cultural venues; and access to hotels and holiday provision. Before I turn to those issues, let me express my strong support for what has been said about the need to strengthen the national disability council; and it matters not to me whether it is called a council, a commission, or whatever.
As it stands, the council has all the defects of the National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People, set up under the 1944 Act. That advisory council was given no life of its own. It was restricted to advising the Minister; it had neither the resources nor the authority to influence what happened on the job; and few people had even heard of it. We need a body which itself can

843
comprehensively provide advice and legal support to individuals and an advisory service to employers and providers of services; a body which can collect statistics and monitor the effects of the new legislation and which can, of its own initiative (as has been said earlier), undertake formal investigations.
Reference has been made by the Minister and other speakers to the fact that it has not in practice been possible to enforce the employment quota set up by the 1944 Act. That is the result partly, as has been said, of the reluctance and failure of most disabled people to register and partly of the related unwillingness of the authorities to prosecute. The right reverend Prelate reminded us that, even though the quota did not apply to undertakings employing fewer than 20 people, the fact is that 60 per cent. of firms employing up to 10 workers employed at least one disabled person and in some cases more. We should build on that and do nothing to undermine the willingness of small firms who have demonstrated their support for employing disabled persons. I am afraid that the Bill might do so.
When both the CBI and the Evangelical Alliance combine to say that in principle firms of all sizes should be covered, we ought to listen to them. It is indeed both a moral issue and an issue of a level market place. The law should not require some firms to be more moral than others. Nor should we discourage those firms which would continue to employ disabled workers if others in the same bracket have to accept an equal obligation. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy said, if a firm, large or small, has genuine difficulty in offering employment, that difficulty can be looked at objectively under the terms of the Act. But there is too much emphasis in the Bill on solving problems by excusing companies from their obligations. The Government should think rather in terms of extending the modest assistance that they are already giving to firms to enable them to provide jobs for disabled workers.
In that context, concern has been expressed in some quarters about the Bill's impact on the work of Remploy. There has always been strong cross-party support for Remploy, which was set up to provide quality jobs for disabled people. In his reply, can the Minister comment on the concerns that have been expressed and can he assure the supporters of Remploy on all sides of your Lordships' House that the future of Remploy itself will be safe under the new legislation?
Access issues are one of the most fundamental causes and manifestations of discrimination against disabled people. I welcome the provision relating to access to services, including facilities for entertainment and, implicitly, for cultural activities; but I must say that it seems odd to me as a layman—apparently it seems a little odd to the Law Society—that we should define services covered by the use of illustrative examples. Are there any precedents for that? If so, what lessons do they have for this Bill?
As has already been said, in the Bill—as elsewhere— the definition of:
"what is reasonable in all the circumstances"
will be critical. What constitutes reasonable provision will vary from one service to another. A museum, for example, would need to make very different provision
844
from an opera house. Anti-discrimination legislation in the USA has been referred to by several other contributors. Both the USA and the Australian legislation recognise the need to establish a structured framework, within which consistent decisions could be taken, which sets out the basic principles and priorities for the removal of barriers and which encourages businesses to prepare plans for the removal of barriers. It would be quite unsatisfactory to depend on individual challenges in the courts. Again, that underlines the need for a national council with powers to monitor, advise and provide support.
If the experience of voluntary initiatives is any guide, many venue owners—of cinemas, for example—will be only too ready to argue that adaptations are not necessary, are costly and are unreasonable. The escape Clause 15(4) could help obstructionist owners to avoid their proper obligations by relying on existing inadequate provisions in building regulations. So building regulations, planning policy and fire safety legislation will need to be reviewed, it is to be hoped in consultation with disability organisations, and modified to ensure that they conform to the spirit of this legislation.
On a previous occasion I referred to the work of the ADAPT Trust (Access for Disabled Persons to Arts Premises today). It would chime with the spirit of the Bill if the Government would respond to the challenge of ADAPT's initiative by incorporating in the Bill a programme for the achievement of full access to facilities such as concert halls, theatres, cinemas and museums by, say, the Millennium, putting it down in black and white. I welcome the Minister's emphasis of the fact that we are not just talking of providing ramps and lavatories for people who use wheelchairs, but of enabling visually and hearing-impaired people to enjoy theatrical performances or museums.
Perhaps I may revert to a point to which I have previously drawn your Lordships' attention. Clause 12(3) underlines the fact that the services to which its provisions apply include,
"access to and use of any place which members of the public are permitted to enter".
Can we be assured that that includes this Chamber and that wheelchair users who visit the House can look forward to seeing for the first time what is happening on this side of the Bar? Like charity, the removal of discrimination should begin at home.
The improvement of access for disabled people to hotels and holiday provisions raises many of the same issues. For a disabled person, particularly one who is heavily dependent on a carer, to get away on holiday for a week or two is a lifesaver—and a godsend for the carer. I therefore welcome the reference in Clause 12(3) (d) to,
"accommodation in a hotel, boarding house or other similar establishment".
The same points that I referred to on access to entertainments need to be looked at in that regard.
More generally, the need for this measure is illustrated by the work being done by a few organisations in this field to provide facilities for disabled people, one of which is the Winged Fellowship charity, with which I am involved. It now has five centres throughout the country which provide 6,000 holiday weeks each year to severely

845
handicapped people who would otherwise have no chance whatever of a break. Might we not envisage, as part of the Government's new and welcome approach, the establishment of a development fund which may be used to make improvements necessary to achieve the purpose of the Bill, including for example the provision of holiday facilities?
Emphasis has been made, rightly, on the monitoring of the activities involved in the Bill's provisions. I totally support what was said, but we need to go a little further and provide some modest resources in order to achieve the objectives we are setting ourselves in adopting this legislation. Therefore, while we need improvements to the Bill as it stands, at the same time we would value some tangible demonstrations that the Government intend to back it up with practical support.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Holderness: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating both my noble friend and my honourable friend Mr. Hague on their wisdom in introducing this Bill. I am bound to say that it comes as a great relief to me because I had real apprehensions about the Bill's predecessors. I hope that my remarks will not alienate me forever from the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and other noble Lords for whom I have great respect, but I believe that my honourable friend Mr. Nicholas Scott was absolutely right in resisting the civil rights Bill. During the years Mr. Scott spent in his important office I happened to see on many occasions how deeply committed he was to the welfare of disabled people. He will be warmly remembered for his achievements on their behalf, long after his opposition to the civil rights Bill (which I believe would have been a disaster for disabled people) has been forgotten.
Many, and probably most, disabled people as far as possible do not want to be thought of as different from the rest of society. They hope that able-bodied people will look upon them as normal and, if I may speak personally, it is a real joy to find one's own disability not just politely ignored, but barely noticed and anyhow thought not to be relevant. Earlier legislative attempts to help worried me by their deliberate and declared aim to set disabled people apart, to emphasise their apartness and to justify special rights for them.
This Bill has an entirely different aim of which I thoroughly approve; that is, to bring or keep disabled people within the mainstream of social and industrial life and actively to discourage employers, transport and other authorities or the providers of goods and services from making any distinction or exercising discrimination between those who are disabled and those who are able-bodied. So far so good. But the great difficulty, as I have already learnt in the one-and-a-half hours we have spent on this debate, lies in the definitions to be attached to those two important concepts, and key words in the Bill's title, "disability" and "discrmination".
As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, said, it is perfectly true that surveys, and particularly the survey he mentioned, show that the number of disabled people amount to around 7 million—some of them severely so but most very much more slight. But if one looks on
846
disability as any shortfall below complete physical ability, obviously the number will be far greater because, unfortunately, superman and physical perfection are rare. The mere fact that I wear these spectacles, in company with several million of my fellow countrymen, emphasises a part of our disability and a part of the gap between ourselves and physical perfection. I merely make that point in order to illustrate the great difficulty in defining disability. I understand that there are voices, mentioned by the noble Baroness, which would possibly complicate the issue further by urging important extensions to the present concept. I hope therefore that my noble friend will hold firm. My own preference, if the Bill is to be effective, is for as simple a definition as possible, but one that directs help towards those who suffer from a substantial handicap, physical or otherwise, which is likely to last for some time.
The other concept on the question of discrimination is one that we all understand in general. However, Clause 5, for example, illustrates some of the difficulty of its practical application. We all know that there may be 100 reasons which persuade an employer on an interviewing panel to choose one individual rather than another. Legally, as I understand it, a man or a woman may not be refused employment because of his or her race, or a woman because of her sex. This Bill broadly aims to make illegal the refusal of an individual only because he or she is disabled.
I fervently hope that the Bill will lead to the employment of more disabled people, even though from time to time it may place an extra burden on generally small, but sometimes fairly substantial, employers. But in my view there is a cogent reason, which has been touched on already in our debate, that underlies the present persistently much higher rate of unemployment among disabled people, which was an important part of the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. It is not that most employers are prejudiced against them. They are not. But there are a great many jobs in the market which are just not open to people with substantial disabilities. Although the Bill aims to increase the number of jobs that someone who is disabled can do—I fervently hope it will be successful—nothing, apart from unlikely physical regeneration, will make available the far wider choice that we should all like to see offered to those who are disabled.
My experience of the attitude of employers ever since the passage of the 1944 Act and the work, right from its early days, of the National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People, which the noble Lord, Lord Murray, mentioned, and also a short period in the old Ministry of Labour, convince me that most employers will be very favourably disposed to employing disabled people, if they can possibly do so, even at a cost to themselves, especially if they have experience of what those disabled workers can achieve.
Because of the choice of whom to appoint, and because that choice depends on so many factors, I am very worried that after the Bill is passed many disabled people will inevitably be disappointed when for completely different reasons they are not chosen for the employment they want. I hope and believe, based on some things said by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, that many fewer will be disappointed by the operation of the provisions in Part

847
III of the Bill. It is abhorrent to us, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, mentioned, that anyone disabled should face discrimination in the effort to buy goods or make use of services. But to be realistic, there are many examples of cases where it will be difficult completely to remove that discrimination.
For instance, I do not think there is any doubt that the presence of a considerable number of people in wheelchairs in one place can put a great strain on many establishments even if they have the most understanding and sympathetic management. The difficulty and expense of installing lifts capable of carrying one or several wheelchairs as well as of ensuring the complete safety of their occupants are examples of problems facing those who are most willing to provide the services sought.
In the important field of transport, which my noble friend Lord Renton mentioned, although the eventual objective must clearly be to make any journey achievable by and accessible to disabled people, a really massive replacement of unsuitable by suitable vehicles could only be made either at enormous cost or over a substantial period, which many potential travellers are bound to find frustrating. I thought that my noble friend Lord Renton put that point very clearly indeed. I also fear that unless we are realistic any attempt to hasten the process is certain to have the effect of driving out of business many small transport undertakings, especially in the rural areas, and that would certainly be of no benefit to anyone, whether disabled or not.
I wish to make two further points. First, I understand from speeches made in the debate that there may be attempts to persuade the Secretary of State to amend Clause 7(1) and apply the legislation to employers with fewer than 20 employees. That might or might not at some stage be wise, but I suggest that it would be wise to follow the lead given to us by my noble friend Lord Mackay and wait until we have a little more experience of its operation. I say that for two reasons. First, not only could the potential burden of what I think are known as reasonable adjustments bear relatively heavily on small employers but—this point is also important—the employer of a small workforce might need from time to time a small contribution of help from an individual employee beyond the original job specification and that particular service that is needed by the small employer might be outside the capability of some disabled people. On the other hand, as was suggested recently by the Royal National Institute for the Blind, there may be a case for the more immediate issue of regulation, before the five years mentioned by my noble friend, both for small and larger firms in order to deal with some small and particular problems that may arise.
My final point concerns balance. The Bill will not please everyone. All those who have listened to the debate will be clear about that. There will be many organisations for the disabled and many disabled people who would like and will demand more. However, before making demands, I hope that they will have in mind the very remarkable change in opinion that has taken place since the end of the 1939–45 war, noticeably accelerating in recent decades. Before this change, even in the 1930s when I was rather small, many people who had anything wrong with them were either hidden away or forgotten
848
about. Most of the problems we are discussing today have their origin in fear, ignorance or misunderstanding, now greatly and increasingly diminished.
There are few employers who are hostile to the disabled when they get to know them and understand their difficulties. It would be a near disaster if this more positive attitude which society now takes were to be frustrated or destroyed by unreasonable and unachievable demands that some may be tempted to make. Therefore, in wishing well to my noble friend and to my honourable friend in their efforts to improve the position of this large group of people, I hope they will resist attempts to throw this Bill off course by pressure for a more: rapid advance than the Government, employers and others can make. That, in my opinion, would be a grave disservice to the very people we are trying to help.
6.17 p.m.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of a complicated Bill. As he said, it is an historic moment. This is the first government Bill to outlaw discrimination against disabled people. I join him in paying tribute to those noble Lords who over many years have attempted to introduce similar legislation.
I shall resist the civil rights bait proffered behind me by the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, and go on to say straightaway that it is not in a spirit of churlishness that I argue that, despite some enhancement in another place and the welcome promise of further amendments, there are still serious gaps to be filled if the Bill is to eliminate discrimination successfully. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People had a very useful meeting with a handful of Cross-Benchers to discuss the Bill. I hope that we can progress with sensible and workable amendments to strengthen the Bill.
The first major gap is education. It cannot be right that all education—primary, secondary, further and higher—should be excluded from the Bill. The Minister has promised certain measures to improve educational opportunities for disabled people, and those are very welcome as far as they go. But they are all amending existing legislation, as the Minister explained. They encourage improved provision; they do not bring education within the scope of the Bill.
The Minister said that education was excluded so as not to clash with recent and very welcome education legislation. Regulations could ensure no conflict with existing legislation and provisions could be phased in slowly. Education plays a vital part in determining everyone's future life, be it for basic survival in a competitive, able-bodied society or for an enhanced quality of life doing a fulfilling and demanding job. Ending educational discrimination in schools is a key towards ending other forms of discrimination against disabled people in later life. Integrated education prepares disabled pupils for the adult world while able-bodied pupils come to understand their disabled peers.
SKILL, which is the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities, of which I am the president, believes that amendments to cover higher and further education in

849
respect of right of access to goods and services are needed. Such legislation, requiring all institutions to make reasonable —and I stress "reasonable"—arrangements and modifications would ensure a concerted and strategic approach which could be set out in regulations, which would result in better progress than under the present system which has tended to be haphazard. Some institutions do a lot to increase access for disabled students; others do very much less. Such amendments would mean that well-qualified students could no longer be turned away because of their disability. It is very welcome that the Bill covers employment. But what is the use of discrimination legislation on employment if education is not covered too? It is education at all levels which is the key to a job.
The second major omission relates to the proposed national disability council. Whatever it is called—council or commission—it needs teeth if the Bill is to work. Many noble Lords have spoken and, I am sure, will speak on this, and none more persuasively than the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood. Therefore, I confine my remarks to a couple of quotations.
Many of your Lordships may remember CORAD, the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People, which was set up over 13 years ago. It concluded that anti-discrimination legislation was essential and stated in paragraph 4.53 of its report:
"Having considered the way other anti-discrimination legislation works, particularly abroad, we recommend that there should be a regulatory body or Commission with powers to investigate, conciliate and if necessary take legal action on individual complaints of discrimination; to recommend guidelines on reasonable affirmative action required to accommodate disabled people and to promote the integration of disabled people into society. In every case where … legislation has been passed, it has been necessary to have an enforcement body".
CORAD's chairman was Peter—now Sir Peter—Large, who is a reasonable man, known to many people here. He is not given to exaggeration. Yet this is what he said in a letter of 4th February 1995 about the proposed advisory council:
"Central to the success of any legislation to eradicate discrimination against disabled people is the idea of a Commission with powers to undertake general investigations and powers to assist individual disabled people enforce their rights under the legislation".
Now we come to the proposed council:
"In comparison, the Government's proposal for an advisory council is a wheyfaced ghost of what is required. Not only does the proposed advisory council lack teeth but it also lacks a digestive system and a few other essential organs. It enjoys no life of its own. It acts only in response to the summonses of the Secretary of State".
We must give the council or commission an independent life that is worth living.
I turn briefly to employment. There is a third gap— small in comparison to the other two—but one which the Association of Disabled Professionals, of which I am a member, believes important. I refer to partnerships, which were included both in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act 1976, although in the case of the Race Relations Act only partnerships of six or more. Some firms, many quite large ones, are partnerships, and becoming a partner is a form of promotion within the firm. In such instances, discrimination on grounds of disability will block the career development of a disabled person.
850
I hope that these gaps can be filled before the Bill leaves this House. As the Minister said, it is the first time that a government Bill has been introduced to outlaw discrimination on grounds of disability. It may be many years before we have a similar opportunity. It is therefore very important to give the advisory council teeth. It is crucial to the success of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, argued very cogently in the light of all her experience.
It is equally important to bring education within the scope of the Bill. To fail to do so means perpetuating discrimination for the next generation. It will make the work of the council/commission more difficult if we do not include education in the Bill. If we fill the gaps I have mentioned the Bill will be a very welcome measure which will have a real influence on the lives of disabled people for many years to come.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, the last time I spoke on this subject it was to support the line taken by my right honourable friend Sir Nicholas Scott and the Government against the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. I echo what my noble friend Lord Holderness said about Sir Nicholas Scott. He was a great friend of disabled people. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will no doubt have his say the moment I have sat down, but I am glad that this Bill goes less far than his did. The Government's view then was that it involved enormous costs and would lead to endless litigation.
The Bill now before us tackles the first of those problems. The costs will be lower. I am not sure what effect it will have on the amount of litigation. My criticism of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, was directed at the principle of legislating against discrimination, particularly in employment. That is an important part of this Bill and my criticism still stands. It will, in my belief, be ineffective, but not for the reasons put forward by the Front Benches opposite and by other noble Lords who want more enforcement.
I work in the field of disability and nobody is more conscious than I am of the importance of employment to disabled people. Above all, it gives them financial independence and a sense of fulfilment. They also make excellent employees. My objection to legislation in this field is one of principle. We all exercise discrimination every day of our lives and no more so than in deciding who we employ. What sort of society would we have if decisions were all made indiscriminately?
What this Bill is aimed at of course is prejudice against employing people with disabilities when they are capable of doing the job. Any reasonable person would be against that, but it is difficult to legislate sensibly against prejudice. You should not, in a free society, try to legislate for what is in people's minds. The effect of this legislation will be to create a process which employers will have to follow in order to comply with the law, but it will not prevent them deciding that an able-bodied candidate, with the same qualifications, fits better into an organisation than a disabled one, if they are so minded. This must tend to make the legislation ineffective.

851
There is a natural tendency, when having been called to an interview, for people to analyse why they have not been given the job: I was the wrong colour; the employer clearly did not like women; the winning candidate was prettier than I am—a problem that I have often had. We can all be accused. Oxford and Cambridge, in which some notable Members of your Lordships' House hold distinguished positions, are accused of discriminating against entrants from public schools. All these are just examples of where people feel that they have been discriminated against.
The process of deciding whether discrimination has taken place by a process of law amounts to a policing of what is going on in the minds of those who made the decision. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, would like to see all these people hauled in front of the courts even when their motive was innocent. This Bill, brought forward in the guise of a liberalising measure, is in reality very illiberal in my view. There are noble Lords opposite who have made a name for themselves in sponsoring the rights movement. The time is coming when a longer view will be taken of what this fashionable obsession with giving people rights has achieved in practice.
In making this point, I have been asked to look at what the equal opportunities legislation has done for women in employment. It is an opportune moment to do so when some of its feminist proponents are beginning to doubt whether it has done them much of a favour.
While it can be argued that equal opportunities have increased the employment of women, it has had the unfortunate side effect of creating a pool of unemployed and discontented men inclined towards criminality. However, the insidious price women have had to pay is a loss of consideration for them as women. I fear the same result will follow this legislation towards those with disabilities.
Rights are no substitute for consideration and goodwill. A helping hand is worth more than a passport to grapple on equal terms in a rough and tumble world. Disability is a problem that has to be faced by individuals capable only of individual solutions. That figure of 6 million disabled people covers an enormous spectrum of disabilities—deaf, blind, dumb, mentally impaired and physically disabled, young and old, those born disabled and those who have suffered some accident or illness. Five hundred thousand are in wheelchairs. In their train follows another army of those who give their time, money and lives to provide practical help and solutions to improve the quality of life of those less fortunate than themselves.
It would be nice to think that the vast diversity of problems which all those people are working together to solve could be ameliorated by legislation. Those who think that it can are working to turn the Bill into a full Bill of Rights with the vast costs that that would entail, and to make it more enforceable. I believe that that would endanger the work of the voluntary sector. Imposing costs and duties on industry and the people who work in it will make it less inclined to make the voluntary contributions on which such work depends. In my view, the merit of the
852
Bill is that it could be much worse. I there fore support the Government in making sure that its scope is widened no further.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, two vivid phrases illustrate conflicting views about the Bill. One is that the Bill is, as the Minister claimed, "an historic advance" for disabled people. The other is that the Bill is "unbelievably terrible". That was said by an opponent of the Bill who is a disabled person. I say that both of those views are absolute baloney, just like the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill is "a disaster". I have never heard such a nonsensical view in all my life because that Bill is one of the finest Bills ever to come before this House. I see that noble Lords opposite are more than capable of shaking their heads, but I have no doubt that your Lordships were wise to pass all parts of that Bill. I believe that both the extravagant claims made for this Bill and the outright condemnation of it are equally misleading. This Bill is, in fact, a midget milestone on which we need to build and which requires cool appraisal and constructive improvements.
I greatly appreciate the kind personal comments about my work from the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Lester. The Minister admirably tried to portray his Bill in the best possible light. Of course, as a Minister he is right to do that, but he had an enormously difficult problem—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: He did not!
Lord Ashley of Stoke: Oh yes he did!—because the Government have produced a Bill which is tarnished by serious omissions, inviting loopholes, and a lack of enforcement procedures. I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will co-operate in strengthening the Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, who has long been involved with disabled people, has asked me to express his regret that he is unable to be present today.
Just who is the Bill supposed to protect from discrimination? Certainly not all disabled people. The definition is far too restrictive for that. The Bill omits, for example, any reference to perceived disability which affects elderly people, those with HIV, and many others. The trouble is that discrimination damages, regardless of whether the disability is real or perceived. That question of perception is very important.
I welcome the Government's undertaking to extend the provisions to those with a history of disability, but we also need to ensure that all of those with a history of mental illness are included because, regrettably, it is a stigmatising illness which leads to prejudice and discrimination in employment. The restrictive provisions which are still in the Bill will exclude many who have had a brief mental illness even though that illness can lead to a lifetime of difficulty in securing a job. Mental illness, whether for long periods or short, is very common and sufferers deserve protection just as much as those with a physical disability.
The Government should heed the clear message that unjustified discrimination is immoral. It is wrong in principle and unfair in practice. By definition, unjustifiable discrimination is unjustifiable, whatever the

853
circumstances. There can be no exceptions. Yet the Government seem intent on making exceptions—not only by limiting definitions, but by specific exclusions.
The exclusion from the employment provisions of employees in firms of fewer than 20 workers is wrong on every single count. It is deplorable to allow legal discrimination against disabled employees under any circumstances. It is anomalous when the employees of other firms are protected. It is unjust to allow discrimination according to the size of the firm, and it is false to assume that small firms are to be unreasonably burdened because the thrust of the Bill is that there should be "reasonable accommodation". So, again by definition, there cannot be unreasonable burdens. I do not see how the Minister can get round his own definitions on that—nor do I see how people can claim that there are going to be unreasonable burdens if the Bill states that there must be "reasonable accommodation".
Another significant exclusion is further and higher education. I should declare an interest, albeit an honorary one, as Chancellor of Staffordshire University. The pioneering work that has been done there shows how effectively disabled students can be accommodated to the benefit of themselves and the university.
The Government's promise of amendments to previous legislation to encourage institutions and funding councils to provide for disabled people is welcome, but still allows legal discrimination against disabled students. The exclusion of higher and further education is extraordinary. It makes sense for people to choose careers which focus on their strengths and minimise their weaknesses. We all do that, but for many disabled people, with a weakened body, that means training their intellectual capabilities. Yet we are not prepared to offer non-discriminatory education. I do not see the sense of that.
The fact that so few disabled people get higher education is itself an indication of discrimination. A shameful example is that there are only 300 deaf higher education students. Where are all the other deaf people? Ability is not the barrier; the lack of provision, the inadequate non-medical helper allowance and the fact that there is nothing for part-timers are the hurdles at which many deaf people fall. That is inexcusable and should be rectified in the Bill.
Communication is the great challenge for deaf people. If it can be achieved, their disability melts away. Technology has been of great benefit, as I know from personal experience. However, improvements to telephones may leave hard of hearing people stranded. Digital mobile telephones are now incompatible with hearing aids. Even more threatening is the development of new office systems from which hearing aid users could be excluded. If that trend is allowed to develop, it could be damaging to many millions of hard of hearing people and difficult to change. Manufacturers of new technology telephones and producers of hearing aids should realise that Parliament would never permit the long-term exclusion of hearing aid users from telephone use, in particular when it is related to employment. I hope that the Minister can give some assurances on that point at the end of the debate.
854
We need to look also at what may be lost as a result of the Bill, not what may be gained. The access-to-work provision has been extremely valuable to deaf people, providing them with communication support for interviews and in the workplace. Deaf organisations know that employers will not pay for it. Without government support, deaf people have little chance of obtaining jobs. That support must continue. I hope that the Government can also give an assurance on that matter. I hope that the Minister will be able to oblige.
Denying protection from discrimination to employees of small firms is an act of negligence; abolishing the 3 per cent. quota is an act of vandalism. The weaknesses of the quota system are familiar to us all. We are also familiar with the Government's excuses. Ministers claim that the quota system does not work because not enough disabled people register. That nonsense belongs to topsy-turvy land. Disabled people do not register because the quota system does not work, and the quota system does not work because the Government do not enforce the law. That is the reason for the failure. The fault lies not with the 3 per cent. quota system, but with Ministers. There is no point in noble Lords opposite condemning the system. They should condemn Ministers. That is about the only party political point that I shall allow myself in this short speech.
The Bill attempts a different approach. We all hope that it will work. But just suppose that it does not, how will we know that it does not? The Government, and the Minister who is so careful with his words, will surely not rely on individual evidence. That will not get us very far. I cannot believe that it is the Government's intention. Monitoring is essential, and until the Government provide a better system, we need to keep the quota system.
Another reason for retaining registration is that it provides the means of ensuring that severely disabled people obtain subsidised employment. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House an assurance that the Government still support the policy of subsidised employment for this group of disabled people. The Minister should tell the House why the Government are proposing to allow profit-making organisations to enter the subsidised employment arena. They will inevitably choose to employ the less severely disabled, creating enormous difficulties for the non-profit making organisations such as Remploy which genuinely tries to help all severely disabled people. It is under great pressure at the moment.
If the Government are planning to privatise Remploy, that will lead to even more selective and damaging practices. The best facilities, provided by public funds, will be used to generate dividends, while the rest will be scrapped. No doubt many disabled people will go with them. That is totally unacceptable to disabled people, to the disability organisations, and to many Members of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that the Government will not allow that because it will damage disabled workers.
Of course the Government's greatest single failure in the Bill is the lack of enforcement procedures such as those for race and gender, as has been mentioned. The national disability council is purely advisory. I believe that most people are law-abiding and will accept the Bill's provisions which make it unlawful to discriminate against

855
disabled people. The problem lies with those people who wish to disregard the law, They are the people with whom we are concerned. No amount of "advice" will change them. So we must have the enforcement body, which was spelt out by my noble friends and noble Lords opposite. We require a strong, well-resourced commission, and we shall be fighting for that in Committee.
I wish to conclude by saying that, as it stands, the Bill is inadequate, and we shall be suggesting sweeping, radical and detailed improvements at later stages. The splendid briefs we have received from so many organisations indicate widespread concern. This is a great opportunity to legislate for comprehensive civil rights for disabled people. Britain is no longer in the vanguard of progress, but if the Government accept the suggestions that Members of all sides will offer in Committee and on Report, I hope that we will be able to catch up with the rest of the world.
6.46 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, discrimination on grounds of disability does exist; sometimes that is a deliberate conscious process, but I believe that is rare. In my view, the main reason is the preconception that people have of a disabled person's ability.
A young woman I know well, now in her 30s, was diagnosed as having multiple sclerosis when she was 21. She is registered disabled, but is not visibly so. In employment, she has proved most capable. By experience she has learnt not to disclose her disability until offered a job. She has no problems then, as she has been chosen because she is the best person for the post. The disability is of secondary importance. Applying for almost identical posts, when she has included the medical history on her cv, she has never even been offered an interview. She needs a cooler position in the room and good light for work and those are simply provided and make normal work possible.
This Bill now enshrines the minimum standards that are already accepted as good practice by many companies and individuals. One of the strengths of the Bill is that it asks no employer or supplier of goods and services to act against his interests. No one need employ a disabled person because he is disabled. What is asked is that there should not be a blanket objection to someone because they have a disability. Many people choose not to register or identify themselves as having a disability because it can be such a disadvantage in employment terms. Many people have disabilities that are always apparent and they have no choice in the way they present themselves for interview.
Employers can be distracted or diverted by disability. They do not stop to think: is this the best person for the job? Their first impression is of the deafness, the wheelchair, or the other noticeable evidence of the disability. It may even be that due to an ill-informed or misguided sympathy they feel for the disabled person, they imagine the work to be beyond him or her.
This Bill is intended to make clear the Government's support for those with disabilities. It cannot and will not change long-standing attitudes overnight, but by having
856
a law against discrimination on grounds of disability, the Government are making a statement which will cause people gradually to think again and revise old ideas.
The process of change is never easy. That has been clear in the years since it became illegal to discriminate on grounds of sex. Women regularly point out that they have all the necessary laws against discrimination but there remains a gap between de jure and de facto, between the law and the reality.
The Bill contains substantial order-making powers. Your Lordships are increasingly wary of such powers and no doubt the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee will be looking at the powers contained in this Bill. But for myself, I believe that they are appropriate here. This is an indication of my optimism about this Bill. I believe that these powers will be used to the advantage, not disadvantage, of disabled people. This is a complex field and I hope and believe that the Secretary o I State will take the trouble to use his powers to adjust arrangements under the Bill to make the protection it offers more comprehensive as time goes by.
I intend to raise a number of matters in Committee and to seek assurances from my noble friend that regulations will cover the necessary details and that problems will be kept under review and action taken under the Act as necessary.
One of my particular concerns in the Bill centres around the problem associated with disability arising from HIV infection. The approach taken by the Bill is to define the disabled as those with a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. I have heard this characterised as a commonsense approach to disability—the disabled are those who actually have a physical or mental impairment. As I read the Bill, there is little doubt that those with AIDS and those with symptomatic HIV will be covered by the law, and I welcome that. However, I would. appreciate the Minister's confirmation on that point. The trouble with HIV is that it is such an emotive and well-publicised issue that those infected have become easy targets for discrimination. Employers, and indeed the public in general, tend to have an irrational fear of contracting the disease, even though the circumstances may present no risk at all.
It is relatively easy to test for the virus, but in most cases there is a long time gap between a positive HIV test and progress to a symptomatic HIV infection and another time gap before the development of full AIDS. For an employer or provider of services to demand a test for the HIV virus or demand answers to indicate whether or not this or, indeed, any other screening test has been taken can discriminate against the person concerned. The definition of disability would not cover a person who is asymptomatic. I see that as a real problem and hope that a solution may be found to enable the scope of this Bill to cover this very unfair treatment of people. I know that the Government encourage testing and screening for all sorts of conditions and rightly discourage any discrimination against individuals because they have wisely had diagnostic tests of any sort.

857
Under employment legislation, ill health actually making an employee incapable of work has always been grounds for "fair dismissal". But HIV is a condition that, in progressing towards AIDS, has symptoms which materially affect a person's ability to carry on his day-to-day life. At present, the best we can do for those infected with the virus is to enable them to continue a normal life, even if they have some of these symptoms. Discrimination does not help. Quite the contrary, it weakens people, makes them feel useless and a drain on society.
People with symptomatic HIV, needing help, can still make an important contribution and this Bill will benefit them by outlawing discrimination and enabling them to continue as full members of society. I suggest to your Lordships that HIV and AIDS are in that way much like other physical disabilities. If we can ensure that the Bill covers people who have those conditions, when they need protection and yet remain relatively able to make their contribution, we shall have achieved something.
Some concern was expressed in the other place that the insurance industry might be forced to insure someone beyond the actuarial realities of the insurance market. I shall seek to clarify this point at Committee stage. Actuarial reasons for refusing insurance are common enough, but it should be actuarially possible for the insurance industry to devise a satisfactory solution and it should be impossible for the insurance industry to exclude any class of the disabled simply because they are disabled.
The number of speakers in this debate today makes clear that this House considers this Bill to be an important step forward. It deals with the rights of those who need support and encouragement to play a full part in society. One person's rights are another person's responsibility towards that other person. I think we can agree that we all have responsibilities for disabled people. I welcome the Bill.
6.55 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I wish to focus my remarks on one narrow, specific but important issue. I rise to express grave concern on behalf of the licensed hackney carriage trade of the UK in relation to the serious implications and threats to that trade contained in Part III—Clauses 12 and 15—of the Bill.
Clause 12(1) provides:
"It is unlawful for a provider of services to discriminate against a disabled person—(a) in refusing to provide, or deliberately not providing, to the disabled person any service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to members of the public; (b) in failing to comply with any duty imposed on him by section 15 in circumstances in which the effect of that failure is to make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for the disabled person to make use of any such service".
Clause 15 (1) states:
"Where a provider of services has a practice, policy or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled persons to make use of a service which he provides, or is prepared to provide, to other members of the public it is his duty to take such steps as it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to have to take in order to change that practice, policy or procedure so that it no longer has that effect".
858
Many noble Lords will know that I have a long-standing interest and association with the licensed taxi trade of this country and no doubt many noble Lords present today for this Second Reading will have been on the receiving end of a number of eloquent pleas from various licensed taxi associations up and down the UK warning of the severe consequences for their trade if the measures contained in the Bill are carried out without exception and with no exemptions. They are right to be concerned for their future, and their warnings should be listened to carefully. Their comments are not the mad ravings of a small group of selfish, greedy, narrow-minded, shortsighted, money-grubbing wide-boys but the careful, logical, sensible, reasoned responses of intelligent and knowledgeable people who know what they are talking about. They bear no grudge against disabled people. They have simply not been consulted when they should have been.
Since wheelchair-accessible taxis were introduced by the two manufacturers of purpose-built cabs, the drivers, owners and operators have accumulated a wealth of knowledge which has been recorded concerning a number of occasions when the wheelchair carrying facility was asked for either through a telephone booking or a hiring in the street. In all taxi hirings during an average year, the wheelchair facility is used by only 0.01 per cent. of customers. In his excellent speech, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that one in every 112 disabled people was in a wheelchair. By any standards, that represents a very small number of the total population.
Among my many friends I am pleased and honoured to include quite a large number of taxi drivers, not just in London but all over the country. All those who drive a purpose-built taxi with a wheelchair carrying facility will tell you the same story. The facility is hardly used—perhaps once a year; sometimes not even that. They are glad to provide the service when asked to do so. But to force every single licensed taxi to be wheelchair accessible is a nonsense. It is unfair, unnecessary and extremely expensive. If implemented, even over a 10-year period as proposed, it would undoubtedly force large numbers of taxi owner drivers who drive saloon cars licensed as hackney carriages to hand in their badges.
I understand that there are several disabilities which cannot be accommodated even in purpose-built taxis. I have in mind one sufferer who wrote to a national newspaper saying that because he was unable to bend or move his neck and was confined to a wheelchair he was unable to use purpose-built taxis. However, he had found that an ordinary saloon car used as a taxi and fitted with a swivelling front seat did allow him access. What a pity to deny that man and others like him the continued use of taxi transportation by eliminating all licensed hackney carriages which do not have a wheelchair carrying facility.
As several noble Lords know, I drive a purpose-built taxi. I drive it for several reasons which are not particularly relevant to today's debate. But here I must declare an interest. It is provided for my use by its manufacturers. I do not own it. I use it to demonstrate my commitment to the licensed taxi trade in this country. I enjoy using it. However, my wife, sitting in the back, does not enjoy journeys longer than 30 minutes. It is not designed for long journeys, although I drive it all over the

859
country. My wife finds it uncomfortable because she suffers increasingly badly from arthritis and every jar and bump is painful.
Are my wife and millions of other people suffering from the same complaint to be denied the comfort of ride which only a saloon car can provide at present? Why and for what? Who wants the legislation? The wheelchair disabled? Well, provided that wheelchair accessible taxis are available and can be booked by arrangement, why cannot there continue to be a mixture of vehicles used as taxis outside London? Is that not freedom of choice? Surely it is a question of getting the mix right.
Provincial taxi drivers, particularly owner drivers, do not want to be restricted to the purpose-builts. They are inappropriate in rural settings when long distances are the norm rather than the exception, and they certainly do not suit all disabled people by a long chalk. To bring in such an unnecessary restriction would also be to put operators, drivers and owners of licensed hackney carriages at an unfair disadvantage with operators of private hire vehicles who would not be subjected to the proposals contained in the Bill. If the proposals become the law of the land it seems fairly obvious to me that there would be a large number of provincial hackney carriage badge holders who would switch to private hire in order to continue trying to earn a living. I intend to return to that topic during the Committee stage of the Bill.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, has done the House a very considerable service in illustrating how diverse are the disabilities from which many people suffer. That is why, when taking the Bill through the House, we have to ensure that, when it leaves us, it is workable for the vast majority of people with disabilities.
I should declare an interest as I work for a charity which works with and for disabled people. I earn my living through that work. However, I welcome the Bill. It is very much a step in the right direction. I also welcome the amendments that the Government already intend to make to the Bill in this House.
However, in my view, the Bill has certain flaws. The national disability council proposed in the Bill has, as other speakers have already pointed out, no power to make the legislation work. It has no authority or resources to enable it to enforce the Bill's provisions, and therefore it has no credibility. As other speakers have already said this afternoon, I consider that we need a commission with similar powers and funding to those which enforce race and equal opportunities legislation. Such a commission would need the power to obtain information and the resources to employ sufficiently committed staff. It should have the power to take legal proceedings and compel the production of information. It should also be able to home in on key areas and issues and produce authoritative guidance. Moreover, its investigations, when made public, would promote necessary change.
The Bill provides that businesses with fewer than 20 employees will be exempt from the legislation. However, as has already been mentioned, that comprises
860
some 15 per cent. of the labour force and approximately 95 per cent. of all businesses. I believe that we need to make provision as the Bill goes through its next stages to lower that limit steadily over the next few years.
The Bill provides a duty for businessmen to take reasonable steps to remove physical barriers and provide communication and other auxiliary aids. However, reasonable provision defies simple definition and will vary from business to business. I believe that a commission and its decisions would be helpful to business. I understand that many of the business organisations would also like such a commission.
Access provisions will operate within two constants—a time limit and a financial cap. Without a clear framework to answer those questions, a distant time limit and an indeterminate financial cap will do nothing to encourage businesses to do anything unless they are taken to court. The access provisions in the Bill impinge on unrelated legislation, such as building and fire regulations. When answering the debate, will my noble friend the Minister advise the House whether the Bill will be subordinate to all other Acts of Parliament, which would mean that parts of its provisions would not be made effective?
Not mentioned in the Bill is the genetic predisposition to certain disabling conditions. However, scientific advance is continuing apace. I feel that we should make provision in the Bill for the Secretary of State, by regulation, to introduce provisions at some future date when it proves to be necessary.
I have received a number of letters and correspondence on the provisions in the Bill which deal with the Armed Forces, suggesting that they should also be made liable to all the provisions. I must admit that I am not in favour of that suggestion. Anyone in the Armed Forces, no matter what his job happens to be—whether a clerk, a cook, a driver or a telephone operator—is, first and foremost, a trained fighting man and, subsequent to that, a cook, a clerk, a telephone operator, or whatever.
Finally, I give an illustration from someone who is not a lawyer of why we need to go through this Bill with a fine tooth-comb. I find it extremely odd that Clause 3(2)—as I read it—states,
"It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against a disabled person whom he employs…
(d) by dismissing him".
I do not think that is quite what is intended by the Bill. I think that added to that paragraph should be the words,
"solely on the grounds of his disability".
That is an illustration of the drafting of this Bill and of why we must be so careful at the next stages. I welcome the Bill.
7.10 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, to give his apologies to your Lordships. He would have added much sense and wise advice to the Bill. The noble Lord has spent many years using a wheelchair and knows of the numerous difficulties and extra expenses that disability brings. The noble Lord is ill in hospital, and I hope very much that he will be well enough to take part at later stages of the Bill. The noble Lord has great charm and wit, as well as experience and might even get some of his Conservative colleagues to understand the arguments.
I thank the Minister for his clear explanation of the Bill before your Lordships. This year we are celebrating the silver jubilee of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. I am also celebrating 25 years of being in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and I made our maiden speeches on the 1970 Bill. There is no doubt that this legislation has helped over the years. This year I have been disabled for 37 years. That is something I am not celebrating. As a high lesion paraplegic, paralysed from the chest down, I have come into contact with many disabled people and organisations. This year also we are celebrating the 21st year of the Spinal Injuries Association—a self-help organisation which I helped to establish with colleagues for those people who have become paralysed by damaging their spinal cords through injury or illness from the neck or back down.
To take a person with a spinal injury as an example, he or she has an obvious disability such as not being able to use his paralysed limbs and thus having to use a wheelchair. But he also has hidden disabilities such as paralysed bladder and bowels, and the risk of pressure sores due to not being able to feel. These hidden disabilities can be even more complicated. I therefore have sympathy with disability on a very wide plane. For instance, the person with epilepsy, who needs understanding when he or she suddenly has a fit, or the person with HIV, who may find discrimination from lack of understanding and compassion.
The Minister called a meeting so that he could explain the Bill to some of your Lordships. I was sorry that I was unable to attend due to speaking in a debate on rural matters, some of which have important implications for disabled people living without many services because of lack of provision in rural areas. I would have asked the Minister some questions, one of which I will ask him now. The only thing is he is not in his place! My question concerns the title of the Bill, the Disability Discrimination Bill. Does this not give the wrong message? Does it not put the emphasis on discrimination, which might seem to be promoting discrimination? Would it not be better if it was the Anti-Discrimination (People with Disabilities) Bill? I would be grateful if the Minister would explain the reasons for the title of the Bill to your Lordships. There may be a simple explanation. However, I always like to see the emphasis placed on people first, with disability being put in second place.
Over the years I have been contacted by some distraught people when they have been faced with blatant discrimination. Therefore I am sure it is time to bring in anti-discrimination legislation. However, this law should
862
be clear, and the people administering it should have training to enable them to understand the great variations that disabilities encompass across the board. One lady from Scarborough telephoned me to tell me she had taken her disabled child in a wheelchair to the cinema. A member of the staff had said, "You can't have that thing in here". An ex-miner from Wakefield, who was a paraplegic, took two newly injured paraplegic men out from hospital, for their first visit beyond the hospital gates, to a pub. When they got there the publican told them, "You will have to sit in the back room. We do not allow dogs in here, so you cannot come in".
A disabled woman came to London on her first visit to attend an interview for a Winston Churchill Fellowship. She was a large lady with a charming personality. She told us that the taxi drivers at King's Cross Station had refused to take her. Incidentally, I have just spent a few days in Barcelona attending a conference and there I found some taxis which had been adapted to take wheelchairs, similar to some of the taxis we have in London. However, the taxis in Barcelona had a ramp which pulls out from under the floor. That is quick and easy and saves the taxi driver wasting time getting ramps out of the boot and assembling them. It would be well worth some taxi firms here considering this simple and efficient ramp in use in Barcelona. Another very practical thing that I found at the hotel I stayed in was that the bathroom door was hinged so that it opened both ways. Therefore, instead of getting stuck behind the bathroom door, which so often happens, one just pushed through either way.
Many European countries are now looking at the sort of legislation which is before us now to make life more workable for disabled people. That is another reason we should get this legislation as clear and efficient as possible as other countries will be looking at what we will or will not achieve in your Lordships' House.
I hope that the Government and NGOs of and for disabled people will work also through the European Commission to get anti-discrimination legislation for all people across Europe with disabilities. I have been told that the Government wanted the citizens advice bureaux to take on the organisation of the workings of this legislation, but that that body turned it down. The citizens advice bureaux are helpful as regards matters concerning disability, but I am sure they know what a mammoth task it will be to do the job properly, and that the variation among disability matters across the board is immense.
Whatever the machinery that is used to do the job, be it a council or a commission, it will have to have a wide range of expert advisers and people who understand all sides of the problems. The correct balance will have to be found and it would be wrong for everyone concerned if this legislation encouraged litigation. It needs to promote reconciliation and good practice for all. Service providers, service users, employees and employers, all need to have the correct attitudes to make it work. I feel that there needs to be a central body with a network across the UK and resources to enable it to work.
The big question I ask the Government is: who will decide whether something is reasonable?

863
There is much concern over Clause 5(5), which states:
"Regulations may make provision as to other circumstances in which, for the purposes of section 4, an employer is to be taken to be justified in treating a disabled person less favourably than he treats, or would treat, others who do not have the disability in question".
I am worried by the list of examples in Clause 6(3) of steps which an employer may have to take in relation to a disabled person in order to comply with subsection (1). If there is to be a list, as there is at present in paragraphs (a) to (I), I should like to add paragraphs (m) and (n) to include provision of parking and assistance from a car for a severely disabled person using a wheelchair. I know many well-qualified and skilled tetraplegics who are excellent employees, once they can get out of their transport, which is likely to be a car, and in to their place of work. That may be the only help they need. As other items are written into the Bill it would seem unwise to leave out the two I have mentioned.
It may be better not to have a list as other vital needs may be left out, which could cause problems and prevent people taking up employment. I know that the items listed are only examples, but it will be those which are left out which will be argued about.
Not knowing what the regulations are to be is causing concern. The Law Society feels that the phrase:
"a clinically well-recognised illness"
will cause considerable uncertainty. What is the Minister's view? It is amazing how many disabilities there are. They may be recognised only by experts dealing in the specialised field of that disability. Are they then to be left out of the legislation? That seems to be most discriminatory and unreasonable.
At present much legislation is going through Parliament which involves people with disabilities, such as the changes in benefits and the Jobseekers Bill. I have been contacted by the organisers of a fishing club for disabled people who fish at Telford. They are very worried that people on the new incapacity benefit will lose benefit if they do unpaid voluntary work, whether it be for one hour or more. Is that true? Will it be the case that only people with jobs will be able to do voluntary work? The members of that club are also concerned that if they go fishing that will be taken into consideration against them. With the effect that the National Lottery is having on small charities, if disabled people are prevented from helping the charities that will be a disaster for the charities and the individuals who will have to sit at home and vegetate. That in itself is discrimination. I should very much like to have an answer, if not today then when the Minister has had time to look into the matter.
With all legislation concerning the complex subject of disabilities one needs clear interpretation, clear guidelines and adequate training of the personnel who administer the resulting legislation at face to face level.
I join with Skill, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities, in its concern that the Disability Discrimination Bill explicitly excludes further and higher education establishments. When the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was Minister at the Department for Education I raised two issues. One concerned a community college of further education, and the other Keele University. Both concerned the lack of lifts. At Keele University there was no lift to the students' union
864
building. Students were very upset that students with disabilities were discriminated against because there was no access. More lifts are needed for full integration in colleges and universities. The establishment said that it did not have the money and needed a grant. The Department for Education said that it was up to the individual establishment. The result was that there was no provision. Again, if only some of the lottery money could go towards that type of provision, that would be a help.
As a frequent user of British Rail—or what I think is called British Rail; it may be called something else now—I should like to pay tribute to the improvements made for people with disabilities and to the helpfulness of the staff at ground level. With a growing elderly population, there is anxiety that unmanned stations are causing problems.
All travel is important, and I know only too well the difficulties of lack of space in aircraft for people with stiff legs who need to stretch out. My noble kinsman, who has a deep vein thrombosis in his right leg, had great problems on a recent flight.
Age Concern is worried that many of its members with disabilities will not be covered by the provisions of the Bill unless the definition is more flexible. Perhaps many Members of your Lordships' House will have sympathy with that point.
The Minister and the Minister for Disabled People have a great deal of energy, and I hope enthusiasm. One only has to note the many organisations which are taking an interest in the Bill to see how important it is to have the correct machinery and resources to make it viable. It will affect millions of people. If those two Ministers will take the message to the Treasury and their ministerial colleagues that to make such wide-ranging legislation work realistic resources will have be available, there will be millions of grateful people. Good facilities for people with disabilities is surely an insurance and an investment for future generations.
I hope that the legislation will, in time, help to build bridges across the deep gaps which have developed over years of discrimination through lack of knowledge and willpower.
7.18 p.m.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, first, I wish to extend an apology for my late arrival in this Chamber to the Minister, my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham and the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill. It is a poor substitute, but tomorrow morning I shall read with great care each of their individual contributions at the start of this debate.
The Bill is a testament to the hard work over many years of Members from all sides of this Chamber, Members in another place, disabled people themselves and the organisations representing disabled people. Therefore, it is a shame that the Bill that they have awaited for so long has severe limitations and, in my view, does not adequately address the needs of disabled people. It does not provide for the enforcement powers that are needed for such legislation. There is no doubt that people with disabilities have a sense of joy about the Bill, but equally are greatly disappointed by its limitations.

865
I shall address my brief remarks to Part II of the Bill dealing with employment. In my view and experience, discrimination in employment starts before the interview and is demonstrable at the interview itself. Job applicants without a disability who go for an interview are asked about their skills and their training. They are asked about the positive aspects of their contribution to the employer's organisation. On the other hand, individuals with a disability are asked a completely different set of questions: what are their disabilities; will they be able to do this; will they be able to walk up the stairs; will they be able to deal with customers properly? They are asked a whole range of negative questions. That is where discrimination in employment begins.
My concerns regarding employment provisions relate to the exclusions within the Bill. For instance, why is it legal to reject a deaf person as a secretary, or a person with an artificial limb as a cook if the job is in the prison service, but not legal to reject those people within the hospital service or in a range of other areas? To give that legal exclusion to the prison service is a discrimination.
My noble friends Lord Murray of Epping Forest and Lord Ashley of Stoke admirably covered the exclusion of small firms. However, the provisions of the Bill place a severe limitation on rectifying discrimination, and the manner in which people with disabilities are treated.
Remploy has been mentioned. There is much concern about the possible impact of the Bill on Remploy. I hope that the Minister will be able to give assurances with regard to the work that Remploy does, the protection that it has and the support that it receives. Remploy was formed by strong cross-party support after the Second World War. It is an admirable demonstration of people with disabilities working in employment producing good quality goods and being able to compete extremely well in the market place.
The provision of the support employment programme appears to be threatened by the abolition of the register of disabled people. We need assurances in that regard from the Minister when he replies.
A further employment related aspect of the Bill is the abolition of the employment quota. It will remove the central elements of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. That is of deep concern to people with disabilities and indeed their organisations and anyone involved in the employment field. I readily accept that the quota level has not been met. But surely the answer is to monitor it and enforce the provision rather than abolish it. Such a form of deregulation which completely wipes out the quota will harm employment opportunities for people with disabilities, and employment policies relating to such people in many organisations. Only 10 employers have ever been taken to the courts for non-enforcement of the quota. Indeed, since 1975 not one employer has been prosecuted. There has been little attempt to apply a provision in law which the Bill now seeks to eliminate.
In his reply, perhaps the Minister will say why the Government did not take up the suggestion of the Employment Select Committee in another place: to run the anti-discrimination Bill in conjunction with the quotas, and to monitor them to see whether it is necessary
866
for the quotas to continue. If the registered disabled people represent only 1 per cent., we might consider reducing the 3 per cent. figure but keeping a quota.
I must comment on the reference made by the noble Lord, Lord Holderness, to employers being favourably disposed to disabled people. That has not been my experience. My experience has been that good employers follow the law. Good employers have good policies for people with disabilities in employment in their companies. Regrettably, many employers ignore the current legislation. It is those employers whom we need to address. As regards the 1 per cent. registration of people with disabilities, I have met many employees who were not registered as disabled. They were afraid to do so because they believed that they would lose their job; and if they did so they would have no chance of other employment. I have spent many hours trying to persuade people to register for disability. They did not do so because they feared the impact on them and their employment chances.
There are many examples—some choose to call them anecdotal evidence—of the need for the Bill to be strengthened in the area of employment. I do not regard such examples as anecdotal. I know that they represent the reality of everyday experience of many disabled people seeking to provide independently for themselves in employment. For instance, an employee in an advertising department of a newspaper was dismissed because he had a mild form of controlled epilepsy. It did not interfere with his job, but he was dismissed. A coach company refused to carry a person in a wheelchair; hence it affected that person's employment chances. A qualified blind telesales person was denied a job because the employer thought that she would not be able to cope with the stairs to the office.
A Department of Employment survey found that employers drafted their job requirements in ways which unnecessarily excluded disabled people. That has been my experience too. In that survey, 65 per cent. of employers thought the ability to climb stairs was "vital" for work in management; 31 per cent. even believed that the ability to walk fairly long distances was vital for a career as a degree level business professional. Those are real examples of the experience of people with disabilities. Those are the main areas of concern regarding employment provisions in the Bill.
The overriding concern of many groups representing people with disabilities is the absence of a central body with the authority and resources to make the law work. The national disability council to be established by the Bill is not such a body. Enforcement powers need to be introduced. I hope that there will be cross-party support for changes that will strengthen the Bill in the area of employment and in the many other areas to which noble Lords referred.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, noble Lords will regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, has had to withdraw from the debate because she is unwell. I am sure that we all wish her well and hope that she will be

867
with us at future stages of the Bill. I should like to make a few general remarks and then concentrate on access, transport, and the national disability council.
I am concerned about the exemptions for small businesses and the removal of the quota system and registration. Who will gather the statistics about the number of disabled people: in employment? And who will monitor the results of the implementation and effect of the new employment rights? I believe that small businesses should not be exempt for all time and that the Bill should extend to all employers. Like the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, I am concerned that the access-to-work scheme may be under threat. It has been a remarkable success and it ought to continue at least until we see how the new proposals work.
The provisions of the Bill raise many questions for businesses and for their disabled employees and customers. What is a reasonable provision? Is there any order of priority for access improvements? What improvements will give the best value for money? How will fire safety and building management relate to the physical access issues? Surely it is time that we stopped paying lip service to the access needs of the disabled in their houses, workplaces and in places of leisure entertainment?
It is so much easier and cheaper to build in the basic requirements from the start rather than to carry out a major reconstruction later. Why cannot building regulations lay down adequate standards for all new housing developments, estates and social housing so that the designs ensure easier access—wider doors and passages, bathroom aids, and so on? Such housing accommodation would make it easier for the able bodied and disabled persons to use such premises for life, with only minor adaptations. The same applies to educational establishments, to other public buildings and to entertainment and leisure complexes.
This new legislation will be most successful if access provisions can be negotiated between the employees and employers, between the service providers and their disabled customers. That will depend on all parties having a clear understanding of their rights and responsibilities and knowing what options are open to them.
Whether we eventually have an advisory committee or a commission with teeth, sources of advice at local level and nationally will be vital. When some of us had the privilege of meeting the Minister in another place and the noble Lord opposite both of them referred to the need to have advice groups at local level. It seems that they hoped that the citizens advice bureaux might be such bodies, but they are meeting, or appear to be meeting, with some resistance over the increased costs and responsibilities and the need for specialised training.
Access officers have been employed by many local authorities for over 10 years to give advice to developers and to service providers. A provision in the Bill for at least one access officer in each local authority area would ensure the development of a source of independent advice for goods and service providers and users. Then we also have the Access Committee for England, appointed and financed by the Government in 1984 with the object of promoting and advising on access for disabled persons to the built environment.
868
This new legislation will stimulate demand from businesses and from disabled people for support and advice. Yet the Government have drastically cut the funding of the Access Committee for England for this year. Why? This has put the committee under the most severe pressure and yet it has a network of over 400 local access groups in England, with personal experience of the disability of its members which is used to great effect to promote better access provision in all key services at a local level. Who better to be called in aid? But it cannot undertake additional work if its core funding is cut so drastically and without due notice.
I am glad that compliance costs have not figured so prominently as they did in the earlier Bill. I can only repeat what I said then, that compliance costs need to be considered together with opportunity costs or cost benefits. Only to consider costs is to consider outlay and ignore the return. That attitude tells us nothing about the merit of the investment.
If we are unwilling to incur compliance costs we leave people with disabilities frustrated at the edge of opportunities for education and employment, lacking public transport which they could use without great difficulty and denied access to many of the buildings in which the social, cultural and economic life of their community is carried on. If accessible transport is not available, then access to education and employment is denied to many disabled persons.
I am delighted that the low floor buses are appearing on the streets of London and elsewhere and that taxi cabs for hire are to be wheelchair accessible. I pay tribute to the Minister, Steven Norris, for his efforts towards the new provisions relating to taxis and private hire cars in the interests of a countrywide, dependable, safe and acceptable system of service.
Accessible taxis are not just about wheelchair users, even though 75,000 to 80,000 people use wheelchairs all day and every day. Those taxis will also have better fittings for the 1 million visually impaired people and will be more suitable for the 4 million people with mobility impairments who do not have to use a wheelchair. It means that the nimble, the not-so-nimble, those with a lot to carry, those with a trolley or a buggy, the partially sighted and the disabled will all benefit from more accessible transport.
My final concern today is about the proposed national disability council which will only have a monitoring or advisory role. Without full powers of enforcement such as those given to the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission, the new laws could be disregarded. If the council is unable to take up general cases of discrimination, the onus will be on individual disabled people to fight their own case. Yet most of those people will be unable to seek redress through the courts unless legal aid is available to them.
We need a full commission to assist those who want to follow up a case, either by giving advice or with full legal representation. The commission should be empowered to issue a non-discriminatory notice against individuals and organisations and be able to enforce compliance. A council lacking resources for follow-up work, both in terms of finance and staff, and which cannot apply statutory enforcement measures is unlikely to be heeded

869
by employers and service providers. It will therefore threaten the credibility of the council, both among disabled persons and among the business community. It will have no enforcement powers and it will lack both independence and adequate resources.
The Bill could still be a landmark for disabled people. It is a move in the right direction, but much remains to be done. By widening the Bill to cover transport and education, the Government have strengthened the need for a commission—with teeth—to act on behalf of disabled persons. Discrimination is morally wrong and unreasonable. Unjustified discrimination cannot be tolerated today. We must have a real national commission, adequately funded, with powers to advise, powers to draw up codes of practice and powers of investigation and enforcement. Can we not please the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, by seeing the person and not their disability? Disabled people want and ought to have equal rights like everyone else and equal citizenship. This is an opportunity for us to give them that.
7.48 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, at this hour many of the issues have been covered. I shall therefore confine myself to one aspect and in so doing I shall not delay your Lordships for many moments.
One of my earliest memories as a small child was seeing disabled people being pushed in a variety of chairs. The vehicles were cumbersome and heavy and the disabled person was often completely dependent on the person in charge. He or she was often left outside shops and distanced from normality in many ways. Life must have been very difficult as a result.
One of the biggest changes since those days—I marvel at it—is that even people with very severe disabilities are now able to enjoy the pleasure of getting around independently. That is due to the dramatic advance of technology and the determination of many groups and individuals to see an end to the discrimination against disabled people which was so hurtful and negative. I pay tribute to all those who have highlighted the issue of discrimination. I pay tribute also to my right honourable friend the former Minister for Disabled People, Sir Nicholas Scott, who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, said, fought tirelessly on behalf of disabled people. Indeed, I believe it was he who prepared the ground for the Bill before us today.
I congratulate my honourable friend the present Minister on introducing a Bill that seeks to take forward the current legislation so that we have on the statute book the greatest advance for disabled people in the country's history. The Bill covers employment and access to goods and services while at the same time giving consideration to all employers, particularly small employers, who may not have the financial resources required.
I have to admit that I shall be glad to see the quota scheme replaced. I am sure that it was an honest attempt to raise awareness and give disabled people a right to employment. But it just did not work. The proposal in the Bill giving a statutory right to disabled people, making it unlawful for employers to treat a disabled person less
870
favourably than other people without justifiable reason, is a great step forward. I welcome it. More than four in five employees will be covered by the proposal. But, as I said, it is imperative that small businesses are not placed in a position where the law drives them out of operation. The United States decided to exclude small businesses from the Americans with Disabilities Act. Doubtless, that was for similar reasons.
The Bill is very good news for everyone, including those who have not had to cope with disability and who have so much admiration for those who do overcome the difficulties they face. I welcome the Bill and wish it well in its progress through this House.
7.51 p.m.
Lord McConnell: My Lords, I do not intend to delay your Lordships long at this late hour. Mainly, I wish to say that I give general support to this Bill.
My interest in this subject arose a few years ago in response to the case of a young French woman who came to Northern Ireland to take up a post as an assistante in a grammar school. The engagement was merely for one year, but she made many friends, liked the place and wanted to stay on. I tried to help her to get employment. I went to see a man whom I knew who took on staff in a large national company. I told him that she was bilingual in English and French, that she could speak Spanish and that she had a degree in management from a French university. He was very impressed—until I told him, "But she is in a wheelchair". "Oh," he said, "our offices are on several storeys. It's a high building. If it caught fire, somebody would have to carry her down the stairs". He lost interest completely when he discovered that she was disabled. That made me think that we ought to do something to help such disabled people. That, I hope, is the benefit of this Bill.
The Bill may not be the complete solution, but it is certainly a welcome step. I am glad to see in it a degree of flexibility in that it can be extended in certain respects—for instance, the provisions dealing with the number of people in an enterprise which is to be exempt—and the legislation can be brought in piecemeal, so that we can learn from experience and proceed at the proper speed.
I shall mention just two other points. I shall not go into great detail because many experts have already spoken on this subject, and I do not pretend to be an expert. I am glad to see that the legislation will apply to the Crown. Too often in the past legislation has been passed in which the Government have said, "This is what you must do, but of course it does not apply to us. We do not have to do it". There are two recent examples of Crown exemption. One was the fire at Windsor Castle. Sir Alan Bailey, in his report, stated that we should consider the position in respect of Crown exemption. A similar example arose in regard to the fire at the Stormont parliament buildings in Belfast. Again, the fire regulations were not followed by the Crown. Sir Reginald Doyle likewise said that the matter should be looked at. I am glad indeed to see that this Bill applies to the Crown.
I am also glad to see that the Bill applies to Northern Ireland. Too often legislation applies only to Great Britain and not to the whole of the United Kingdom. Eventually,

871
Northern Ireland has an order that cannot be amended; we either have to take it or leave it. I am glad to see that Northern Ireland is properly included in this Bill. I extend my support to the Minister in respect of his legislation.
7.58 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, like all other noble Lords, I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly—particularly as its objective is to tack le discrimination against the disabled. Naturally, it has received the warmest of welcomes. The acknowledgement and universal understanding that disabled people have every right to be treated as equal citizens is a very big step forward if one considers what happened some 50 years ago. We are now a much more caring and humane society.
The Bill before us in effect updates the 1944 Act so as to encompass in law the very changes in universal understanding of the needs and wants of disabled people that have been so apparent in recent years. As well as welcoming the Bill, I believe that a similar welcome should be given to the remarkable degree of consensus that has been achieved on this issue, particularly between those organisations that represent the disabled and the business community. It is as a business person that I wish to make comments on this Bill, but as one who has first-hand knowledge of the real, not imagined, problems of access for the severely physically disabled.
I should like to make four points at this stage of the Bill. First, what the Bill must not do is result in a substantial increase in the cost base of British business. That in turn would affect our painfully won improved international competitiveness. The CBI reproduced for us the Government's estimates of the additional costs that are likely to be incurred—by whom, is an issue in itself, and one that has not been made clear. Those costs range from £375 million to £1,125 mill ion in non-recurring costs, and some £40 million to £120 million per annum thereafter. At this stage it is probably not opportune to ask for a detailed breakdown of where the Government will be responsible for these costs, but I give notice to my noble friend the Minister that I shall pursue this matter in Committee.
In business nowadays, any new piece of legislation, any new computer programme or any new way of improving customer care is not introduced with minimum fuss. The sums that are spent on training, internal helplines and process manuals all involve hidden costs to business on a scale that is really quite frightening. I fear that far too often legislation is proposed without sufficient acknowledgment of the cost burdens that are involved. Being tempted to be cynical, I suggest, gently, that a whole new industry of consultants giving advice on the Disability Discrimination Act will spring up once the Bill receives Royal Assent.
The imperative to retain our determination to improve international competitiveness was brought into sharp focus for me with the release of recent figures that show that, while on manufacturing unit labour costs the growth has been close to zero, they moved up 0.6 per cent. in the first three months of this year compared with the same period last year.
872
Even more worrying is the fact that since 1993 the US, Germany and Japan, our main competitors, have seen even steeper declines in unit labour costs. There is no room for complacency here. Any increase in imposed cost must be resisted. My noble friend the Minister must realise that I am putting in a plea for government to take on all the cost, but I know what his response to that will be.
Our progress over the past three years cannot be jeopardised by allowing costs to run ahead of productivity gains. If they do, the inevitable will happen, and the so welcome improvement in the unemployment rate will disappear, creating a risk to one of the objectives of this Bill; namely, more jobs for the disabled.
Earlier today we heard that the Government's second competitiveness White Paper has been published. Indeed, I have already scanned it for latest trend information. There is much in it and much to be welcomed. But we shall have to maintain our vigilance and make sure that we do not slip.
To return to the issue of costs in this B there does not appear to be a clarification of the precise distinction between recurring and non-recurring costs, other than the fact that the CCA (compliance cost assessment) document states that non-recurring costs may include adaptations or alternative services as well as the costs associated with acquiring information on the new legislation, the review of rules and practices and dissemination of instructions to staff. On that point, the "dissemination of information to staff' would almost certainly be a recurring cost depending on staff turnover levels.
I turn to my second point, which follows neatly from the first; namely, the essential requirement for clarity. There exists a huge risk of cost escalation from lack of clarity. I specifically draw attention to Clause 21, which deals with the provision of goods, facilities or services. To give just one example, how will services such as vending machines, banks' ATMs, and telephone boxes be dealt with? Will the provider of those services be obliged to have an employee standing by to ensure that the disabled are assisted to operate those machines? This is not a rogue point but a valid concern. At the Committee stage I am sure that this matter will be addressed. I just put up a marker.
My third point concerns the availability of advice to businesses to ensure that they can do the right thing. The scope of the Bill is immense and there are bound to be areas of confusion which manifest themselves during the operation of the Act and points that none of us will have thought about. What we certainly do not want is a situation whereby, through no fault of their own, businesses fall foul of the legislation because of bad advice or, indeed, no advice.
Let me illustrate my point. I was taken aback when I was shown an internal manual prepared by Bass PLC, who own the company Holiday Inn. That internal manual gave instructions on how to comply with the US ADA legislation. The manual is 292 pages long. It covers a detailed breakdown of the law, analysis of the disability market, disability etiquette, resources to be made available, questions and answers for hotel managers and the rules and regulations attached to each area covered by that Act. It is a sobering process but necessary if that company does not want to get into serious legal problems.

873
Yet, in the US there are helplines available. The helpline on access, for example, is provided free by the Department of Justice. I ask my noble friend the Minister whether there is any likelihood of similar helplines being provided by a government department here. That point could be covered, I suppose, by the national disability council, if its remit were widened to provide advice and guidance.
My fourth point concerns small businesses. It is in that area that we are pinning so much hope for new job creation. It is essential that the cost burdens arising from the Bill are minimised. The Government have already committed themselves to reviewing the current exemption from the proposed employment right for those employing fewer than 20 employees. But that creates a possible danger. If regulations and codes prepared with those employing more than 19 people in mind suddenly apply to those employing fewer people, there could be a real problem. It would be far better to consider the situation of that group when the regulations and guidance on unemployment are first drafted rather than later. The Government have said that they will not reduce the level below 20, but regulations and guidance need to reflect that.
It has to be said that if there were not such an exemption for small firms, as advocated by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and many others, there could be significant cost penalties. Employing a disabled person can be very costly, not just in terms of access but in terms of back-up when the person has, for example, to go to regular physiotherapy or for medical checks, etc. In my personal experience, the sick-leave record of the disabled is generally much higher. A larger company can have the luxury of job cover. Smaller firms might not be able to afford it. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes spoke about HIV and how an HIV-positive person has problems. That is very true. A bigger organisation can cope with that, again, allowing back-up and jobshare, but the smaller companies might have problems if the level were extended below 20 people.
Inevitably, there is a great deal more that could be said about the Bill and many noble Lords have already said it. But lest I give the impression that it is all too complicated, I must reiterate how much I welcome the Bill. The principle is excellent; the content needs working out; and the perennial question of who bears the cost must be addressed. However, it is imperative that every effort is made to ensure that clarity is reached on every single aspect of the Bill. We now have a golden opportunity to introduce measures which should make life so much better both for the disabled and for those of us who have a genuine wish to make sure that life is made easier for the disabled.
Perhaps I may make an observation. I do not think it is realised that many people who are in close contact, on a daily basis, with the severely disabled live with a constant nagging guilt that they are not doing their absolute utmost to alleviate the problems of disability. If only things were universally easier, those who are responsible for the complete care of the disabled person would not be so "stressed out", to use the current jargon—but it is jargon which so correctly describes the reality of the situation.
874
Of course, things are not universally bad. There are shining examples of good practice: the out-of-town supermarkets, so often the butt-end of recrimination are a case in point. It is so much easier to go grocery shopping in those stores than to try to manipulate a wheelchair up and down kerbs and in and out of congested small shops in the high street. People's attitude to the disabled has improved beyond measure, but there is still a way to go and this Bill will propel the issue forward.
Finally, let me sound a note of caution—a health warning, if you like. What we do not want is a new piece of legislation which is so unclear and so complex that at every turn one has to refer to lawyers. Too much legislation becomes tantamount to writing blank cheques for the legal profession but, more seriously, brings us all into disrepute also.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill in general. I should like to mention just one area of concern where I feel that further debate is needed; namely, the provision of medical care to disabled people. It is a vitally important area involving, as it does, the patient's right to medical care and, in the last resort, possibly to life itself. It is an area where there are a number of difficult but important ethical questions.
The Bill has very little to say on the subject of medical care—so little indeed that I wondered whether it was intended to cover it at all. However, Clause 12(3) (h) (on page 9) refers to:
"the services of any profession or trade".
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, kindly confirmed to me that health authorities and medical practitioners are included in the Bill in so far as they offer services to the public. Nevertheless, from inquiries that I have made so far, it appears that the Bill is regarded as almost entirely concerned with commerce, trade and employment. If that is so, the very considerable medical implications remain to be fully assessed.
I hope that, as the Bill goes through its various stages in your Lordships' House, the public debate on the medical issues will gather pace and provide a forum in which various representative professional bodies and the voluntary agencies can participate.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I have no intention of echoing previous speakers who have enlarged upon the many important provisions of this important Bill. I want only to take up a point made by my noble friend the Minister concerning amendments that would affect the institutions of higher education, which we understand are to be brought forward at Committee stage along with other government amendments.
It is obviously important that higher education, as education generally, should make adequate provision for all those who, by reason of disability, may not be able immediately to find a suitable place and to vary provisions in order to assist them. With 96 universities (at the last count) and innumerable courses, that should not be too difficult, provided it is accepted that the rights conferred could not be necessarily universal. It is important that

875
there should be some place; it need not necessarily be that every institution must provide a suitable place. To take an obvious example, the business of physical access through lifts or other means is relatively easy to apply when one is erecting a new building, but when one is dealing with historic buildings constructed centuries ago real difficulties are involved. Their listed nature involves other permissions and the intervention of other authorities.
But on the whole it cannot be denied, either by the Government or those familiar with the higher education scene, that universities have taken their obligations seriously and that a great deal of work has been and is being done by university staff, assisted by the demands of the student bodies themselves. The University of St. Andrews, with which I am connected, has a student officer whose prime duty is to make sure that disabled students coming to the university are familiar with the facilities available for them and to agitate for suitable facilities where they do not exist. We are not dealing therefore with a static situation.
On the other hand, there does not seem to me to be in the disabilities field any specific reason to go back on undertakings which this House secured in relation to academic freedom. I remind your Lordships that, during the passage of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, an amendment was passed which prevents the Secretary of State from giving directions to the funding councils which might impinge on academic freedom. As 1992 seems like a long time ago, perhaps your Lordships will pardon me for reading the section. It is Section 68(3), which states:
"Such terms and conditions"—
that is to say, the terms and conditions of grants from the funding council—
"may not be framed by reference to particular courses of study or programmes of research (including the contents of such courses or programmes and the manner in which they are taught, supervised or assessed) or to the criteria"—
this was the amendment accepted by the House against the advice of the Government, but which the Government accepted—
"for the selection and appointment of academic staff and for the admission of students".
That seems firm enough. But we now learn that without prior consultation with the universities the Government (I understand from listening to this debate on the more general issues) consulted fairly widely with those organisations concerned with disability. However, their habit of consultation, which may be powerful in the Minister's Ministry, is not one which the Department for Education finds normal or natural. We now learn that the Government propose to introduce an amendment to the Bill,
"to provide the Secretary of State with an unambiguous power to require the higher education funding council to seek policy statements from universities and colleges covering their arrangements for access (in its widest sense including admissions and curricular policies as well as physical access) for disabled students".
The letter of 28th March to the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, which gave the first official indication of the Government's intention, stated that this was being done because of the restrictions in Section 68 of the Act from which I quoted.
876
In other words, the genuine and important needs of disabled students are being used, on occasion, for the Government to go back on a decision reached by Parliament that the one thing the funding council may not do is to place conditions on its grants affecting academic matters. The objection is not so much in the substance because all universities do and will continue to give publicity to the arrangements they are making on behalf of disabled students. The difficulty is that once a provision of this kind is overridden on a worthy cause, what will stop the Government from coming forward and providing means of overriding it for some less worthy cause?
One might say that perhaps the needs of disabled students are so important that we should make this an exception to the general rule. But in this case it does not appear that it would be of assistance. The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), mentioned the national bureau for students with disabilities—SKILL—in which I understand she is a leading figure. But SKILL is opposed to the government amendment. I received a briefing from it which reads as follows:
"There is no sound reason why the increase in equality for one group should be made to threaten the existing rights of another, the universities. More specific policy statements on provision for disabled students would be welcome and useful, but the amendment needs to be framed in another way if it is to be welcome to the institutions who are to respond to it".
In other words, those who represent disabled students believe that the way forward is through co-operation between such organisations and the institutions of higher education. They deplore the interjection of an unnecessary compulsory power in violation of the undertakings given by the Government when the original Section 68 was finally enacted.
Since I am sure that my noble friend the Minister is anxious that there should be co-operation on all sides of the House in dealing with this important Bill, and will be looking for the greatest measure of goodwill, I ask him earnestly to consider not moving the proposed amendment in order that there should be one big body of opinion—those concerned with higher education—who will look upon the Bill with favour, which they might otherwise withhold.
8.18 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I welcome the Bill as far as it goes. I also thank the Government for the concessions they have already made and look forward to seeing the amendments they intend to bring forward.
The Bill establishes two important new rights for disabled people in employment and in access to goods, facilities and services. There are around 1 million blind and partially sighted people who could benefit as a result of legislation to outlaw unfair discrimination in those areas. Part III of the Bill deals with goods, facilities and services.
The RNIB is pleased by the Government's pledge to bring forward amendments in regard to transport. The noble Lord, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham—I am sorry he is not in his place—spoke of transport by taxi. Some taxi drivers refuse to carry guide dogs for the blind

877
or talking dogs for the deaf. I understand that it is generally minicabs, which I believe are not licensed. If they do carry the dogs, it is not unknown for the guide dog owner to be charged extra for the dog. That would seem to be very unfair.
Last Thursday evening when I arrived at York station I had to take a taxi the 11½ miles home. I was in a saloon car. The car behind was a London-type black cab, which I can assure your Lordships makes for an extremely uncomfortable journey on country roads. The driver, a taxi driver for 29 years, said he would like to have a mixture of taxis. All taxis and hire cars in York are licensed. His taxi was registered under Ryedale district council, my own council. He had a large notice in a convenient spot for all to read —"Guide-dogs and talking-dogs are carried without hesitation and at no charge". His list advised that an ordinary pet should be charged for at lop. He would like some saloon taxis allowed as tourists often ask to be taken quite long distances to beauty spots or places of special interest and expect a comfortable car. May I ask the Minister whether this mixture of taxis could not be recommended.
SENSE would like the Bill to afford protection to deaf-blind people in the provision of goods and services. For deaf-blind people this means that companies and shops should not be allowed to charge for services such as Braille copies of brochures, leaflets or menus. If companies or providers of goods and services are able to impose a charge, it could be seen as a disability tax. This would surely be going against the main intention of the Bill—equality before the law.
As other noble Lords have said, the definition of disability is very difficult. SENSE and other organisations for the disabled feel that the definition is too narrow. SENSE draws attention to the failure to include genetic predisposition within the definition. This would appear to throw open the possibility of a person suffering from Usher syndrome being discriminated against by an employer. Usher syndrome is where an individual is born with a profound hearing impairment and then begins to lose his sight in his mid-to-late twenties. The discrimination would be where an employer took into account the future loss of sight, perhaps 10 years hence, when interviewing for a job at a time when only hearing is impaired.
I agree with many of the organisations for disabled people in their wish to see a commission with legal teeth rather than a national disability council without the backing of possible legal enforcement.
Remploy Limited, a government-subsidised company, is very concerned that the Bill could have an adverse effect on the employment of people with severe impairments. Remploy was originally set up after the last war—the 1939–45 war—to provide jobs for disabled people, particularly those disabled in the service of their country. As we celebrate the 50th anniversary of VE Day, it would be very sad if subsections (2) to (5) of Clause 34 of the Bill threatened the unique nature of Remploy. May I ask the Minister if this could happen under the Bill, or is Remploy worrying needlessly?
878
I look forward to the Bill leaving your Lordships' House improved not only by promised government amendments but possibly other amendments as well.
8.23 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, it is getting late and I will not detain your Lordships for long. I believe that the Bill deals with an issue of fundamental importance to our society, and I welcome it. I am glad that the Government have responded to the widespread concern about the rights of disabled people and are seeking to strengthen the law and protect the disabled from discrimination. I have experienced the impact of disability in my own family, as no doubt have many noble Lords, and anything that we as parliamentarians can do to enhance the status of the disabled and ensure that they are treated on a similar basis to the rest of society must be welcomed. No doubt noble Lords will have a number of suggestions for strengthening and improving the Bill.
As I read the Bill, I was troubled by a more fundamental concern. I believe that we are in danger of rightly responding to the cries of those disabled people that we can see and hear, but gradually leaving to one side those who cannot speak for themselves. I fear that, in spite of the efforts of a Bill like this, the overall attitude of society to disability and handicap is becoming more negative. I say that because the advances of genetic screening mean that more and more inherited handicaps are identified before birth and the option of abortion is not only offered but is expected to be taken by parents facing the possibility of a handicapped child. In 1993 there were 2,000 terminations of pregnancies on grounds of serious handicap, some of them in very advanced stages of pregnancy, following the changes made to the law in 1990. Noble Lords may feel that abortion raises different ethical issues from the more general concern for disabled rights. But what of the newly born or the confused elderly with disabilities who cannot speak for themselves?
I was shocked to read of a recent case in Holland where, on 26th April, a judge acquitted a gynaecologist of murder charges after he had intentionally killed a three day-old baby girl. The doctor justified his action on the grounds that the girl was seriously handicapped and might only have a few weeks to live. While the Medical Ethics Committee of this House, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, strongly condemned in its report actions like that, I can see a time when the trends in our society mean that such events could happen here. Perhaps I may add how much I applaud the report of the Medical Ethics Committee of your Lordships' House. I should like to congratulate members of that committee, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Walton, on the admirable report which they rendered.
Similar issues arise where those who are incapacitated but unable to express a view may become less valued by our society and we decide that the best thing is for them to have their lives ended, directly or indirectly. The recent Law Commission report on mental incapacity delves into that issue with results which, in some cases, I find deeply offensive.
It is clear that we need a Bill like the one before us today. But my plea is that we need to think again about our attitude as a society to the disabled. We must eliminate

879
discrimination against disabled people but never go down the path we have started with the unborn—of eliminating the disabled themselves.
8.27 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I have powerful memories, 50 years ago, of going to a lecture on rehabilitation given by a most outstanding surgeon who had an international reputation for the work that he had done on people hopelessly, it would have seemed, mutilated and disabled either in the forces or as the result of civilian bombing. He took as his text: sympathise not with my weakness but with my strength. That is the principle which should lie behind all legislation connected with disablement and the way we should deal with, and the opportunities we should offer to, disabled people.
To turn to another memory of those years, that strength was very much illustrated by an exhibition near Burlington Academy by disabled people who had been trained to do work which was urgently needed at that time. It was remarkable how during the war people who had been regarded as quite incapable of employment were suddenly found to be very valuable indeed and quite able to get up to high standards of work provided they were given the appropriate training. I should like once again to pay particular tribute to the work that St. Dunstan's did at that time, and has, of course, done since. That is why I want particularly strongly to support what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), about the importance of education and training. One cannot give appropriate training to disabled people to bring them to the standard of work which enables them to obtain and to hold very satisfactorily—not as a concession—the jobs for which they can be trained unless they have the essential education to do it. That is a most important matter to be put into the Bill for the development of disabled people. In so doing, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said: it is particularly unfortunate to alienate the education institutions by making unnecessary requirements in order to reach the standard. He was referring to a government amendment that we have not yet seen. The Government still have time to do something about it and to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and, by implication, by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth). Therefore the emphasis on education and training and its absence from the Bill, is something on which we should concentrate.
Employment is at the heart of the matter. To be able to get a job, hold it down, earn a living and to work along with other people in ordinary employment, is probably the greatest benefit that one can give to the disabled. It is also the most economically sensible thing to do because it relieves the strain put on society if the disabled are unable to work. It makes the disabled contributing citizens rather than people who have to draw benefits from the rest of the community. I particularly regret that education is not included in the Bill. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that under the European Convention on Human Rights, discrimination on grounds of education is illegal. I hope that he will be able to comment on that and tell us what action the Government might consider taking in that regard.
880
There are many other points of proposed; legislation on which I would like to comment. I very much follow the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, as regards costs. It is quite extraordinary that this Conservative Government, which is quite rightly devoted to the development of industry and its prosperity, and which claims that they are taking burdens off industry, are constantly putting them on. If we want better treatment, facilities and opportunities for disabled people, surely a considerable amount of the cost should be borne by the Government and the taxpayer. Of course, it is not the Government: they are always telling us that they have not got any money and that it is the money they have taken from us, whether we want them to or not. It is unreasonable that industry should have to bear the cost if we want a decent society.
I have said this before and I shall say it repeatedly: if we want a decent society and the proper treatment of disabled people, which is very much part of having a decent society, then we must be prepared to pay for it. The Minister looks extremely doubtful about it. He is going to tell me, of course, that the Liberal Democrats will throw money away right, left and centre and that they do not care what the taxpayer has to pay. We want a decent society and we believe that people are capable of being persuaded that such a society has to be paid for and that the costs should not all be laid on the employer if we want it to work properly.
There are many other points, but there is not a great deal of time to deal with them at the present moment. Once again the question of parliamentary control over the regulations and development of this Bill rears its head. I understand that the council lays down the guidance which the tribunal has to go by in dealing with the complaints which come before it. But that guidance does not come before Parliament. Therefore, the tribunal is adjudicating on cases where Parliament has not had the chance to say whether the standards on which the adjudication takes place are satisfactory. The Government's passion for doing everything by regulation in side tracking and bypassing Parliament, has become a mania. Would it not be possible to look again at this matter to see whether the right can be restored to Parliament to look to see what the guidance will be before it is passed to the tribunal to act on?
We come once again to the question which practically all noble Lords have raised and which I sincerely hope will be dealt with before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House. All the good intentions in the Bill and all the fine words said about it, will add up to absolutely nothing unless there is an effective enforcement procedure. That has to be in place in order to see that the whole purpose of the Act is properly carried out and that discrimination does not take place.
In view of some of the comments made by some noble Lords, perhaps I may add that the anti-discrimination legislation which we are asking for, with powers to have it enforced, is in no way asking employers to take on people who will be economically damaging to them. Previous anti-discrimination legislation has made it entirely clear that employers are not asked to run their businesses less efficiently because there is anti-discrimination legislation. All employers will retain the right—as they have done under legislation dealing

881
with sex discrimination and discrimination on grounds of race—to refuse to accept someone if it is justifiable so to do. They are only required not to turn down people for reasons which have nothing whatever to do with their ability to carry out the job.
That point does not seem to be fully understood as regards some of the comments which have been made today. We heard Members of your Lordships' House talk as though employers were asked to carry people who cannot do the job. That is not so: they have never been asked to take on women who are not competent to do the job because they are women or members of ethnic minorities because, as such, they are incapable. They will not be asked to take on disabled people who are incapable of doing the job. There has always been the provision that the employer can turn down—the Minister is telling me to shut up and I shall do so very shortly.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we are in the gap.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I had forgotten the time allowed for the gap. I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I have made the point about discrimination which is very important. I finish by saying again that without enforcement procedures of the kind that we have had in other anti-discrimination legislation, we are wasting our time.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, as is always the case when this House debates disability, we have had an excellent and wide-ranging discussion. In winding up the debate from this side of the House I shall not attempt to repeat the many persuasive arguments which have been advanced. I believe that all who have spoken have felt a strong sense of déjà vu. If my arithmetic is correct, this is the 14th attempt to get legislation on the statute book since 1982. We know now that the Government have been finally persuaded that education and persuasion are not enough and that legislation is needed.
Obviously, the crucial question is this: will the legislation begin the task of ending discrimination against people with disabilities? At the outset, to be fair, I must say that it is a beginning. My noble friend Lord Ashley said that it was "a midget milestone". I would describe it as a very tentative first step. To use the Minister's word, it would be churlish to argue that it is not in fact a beginning. But will it go far enough? Clearly, we believe that it will not. We shall certainly attempt to strengthen the provisions of the Bill as it goes through its various stages.
The reason for having the legislation at all is a simple one. Discrimination of any sort, be it on grounds of sex, race or disability, reinforces and legitimises attitudes in society which run counter to fundamental beliefs which are based on natural justice. Those of us who have made the case over the years for enshrining anti-discrimination provisions in law did not have to make the case in favour. The onus was on those, like the government, to show why legislation was not needed. That argument has now been won.
882
Our task now, having breached the walls of prejudice against legislation, is to see that the Bill does a proper job, not in ending but in beginning to end discrimination against people with disabilities. I believe that we can all agree that one Act of Parliament will not solve the problem. Attitudes towards disability are founded on a complex psychological matrix involving fear, ridicule, pity and charity.
However, if those attitudes are to be overcome, there has to be a basis in law which lays down the rights of a disabled person. Anti-discrimination legislation does not confer privileges on those affected by it. It ensures that certain groups in society receive the same treatment that the rest of society takes for granted. Discrimination against disabled people has become institutionalised in employment, access, education and many other areas. Institutional discrimination can be ended only by changing social behaviour through appropriate legislation.
The statistics and the arguments are well known and have been quoted, so I shall not repeat them. However important the statistics, it is the everyday experiences of people with disabilities trying to live their lives as fully as possible which are the real facts that matter. If one in nine of the population is to lead life to its fullest potential, the other eight must learn to listen and to understand that the argument has now moved from charity and welfare to civil rights.
Perhaps a useful way to examine the Bill is to compare it with successive anti-discrimination Bills which have been proposed over the years as Private Member's Bills. The latest is the Barnes Bill. A true anti-discrimination Bill speaks of "civil rights". This Bill speaks of "duties". A true anti-discrimination Bill would say that no employer can discriminate. This Bill says that certain employers, small employers, are allowed to discriminate. Anti-discrimination is based on the idea, "You are disabled if you think you are". This Bill is based on the philosophy, "You are disabled if we think you are". A proper anti-discrimination Bill would have a commission with teeth; this has a council with gums.
Your Lordships may have seen the excellent supplement in the Observer on 7th May, produced in association with Scope, which dealt with disability. It provided an excellent summary of the arguments surrounding disability legislation over time and included immensely instructive and moving accounts of the day-to-day experiences of nine disabled people with a wide range of disabilities. A number of things can be discerned when one looks at the life experiences of disabled people. There is often low self-esteem among disabled people, fuelled by a low level of expectation in education and employment. Many people think that a job as a lift attendant, telephonist or car park attendant is not only suitable but appropriate for disabled people. There is also casual institutional discrimination, often by doctors who either do not understand disability or just do not know how to communicate with disabled people or their relatives.
There are infuriating practical problems. There are cab drivers who pretend that their wheelchair ramps have been stolen so they cannot take a wheelchair. As we have heard, there are minicab drivers who either refuse to take

883
passengers with guide dogs or who charge extra for the dog. A member of my family who uses a guide dog says that the drivers of black cabs in London are excellent in that respect; it is the minicab drivers who create the problems. I hope that that point can be met when we deal with the licensing of cabs in later legislation. There is also the question of the lack of an induction loop system in public places. As a family, whenever we go to a theatre, church or meeting place, we now ask, "Is there an induction loop and if not, why not?" Architects and design consultants now go in for fashionable greys and pastel colours and omit colour coding on the edge of steps to help the visually impaired.
Discrimination against disability has its roots in our social culture and finds expression in economic and physical disadvantage. As I pointed out earlier, a complex mixture of religious, psychological, cultural and educational factors provides the seed bed for discrimination. Every disabled person continually meets examples of insensitivity or downright ignorance based on traditional perceptions of impairment.
Much has been said about the powers, or lack of them, of the national disability council which is proposed by the Bill. Only this morning I received the government response to the consultation paper on the government measure. The section which deals with the new advisory body states:
"It emerged from the qualitative analysis that many respondents felt strongly that the new body should not be advisory at all but should have statutory powers of enforcement—otherwise it would be ineffective. Further, most advocated that the new body should be a commission, with the same powers to combat discrimination as the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission … It was therefore considered that an essential function of the NDC should be to enforce the new law".
It will be interesting to know from the Minister why the response to the consultation was ignored. How is it proposed to organise or fund advice at the local level where it is needed? We hear that NACAB has said that it is not at all keen on the idea.
Over the past five years when we have been discussing this matter we have all had occasion to mention the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA. I thought that it might be helpful if we brought ourselves up to date with the latest thinking in America on the ADA, its successes and failures. I spoke only yesterday to Judy Heumann in Washington DC, who is herself disabled and is the Assistant Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitation Services. She is very well known on the world disability scene. Her view was that, broadly, the ADA is working well but that it takes time. When one looks at the American experience, it is important to remember that the ADA is one of a number of Bills which started out over 20 years ago. It is not the first such Bill, as ours is. How much progress have we missed by the Government's intransigence on this matter since 1979? Judy Heumann said that there is now much more discussion, both for and against, but that the barriers are breaking down. Substantial resources have been put into technical assistance for employers and educationists. We have to compare that with the miserly amount that is set aside under the Bill for the national disability council.
884
I am sure that much will be made of the fact that this Bill excludes from its provisions employers with fewer than 20 employees. The federal Act, the ADA, has a limit of 15 employees. Indeed, for many years some states have specified a significantly lower minimum. That is because the only way to include employers in some states was to bring the limit right down. In New York, for example, the minimum is six and in California it is four. Why then are we starting with 20? As a result of the ADA, there is now much greater awareness of disability, but in the five years of its existence only nine cases have come to court in the whole of America. There has been no rush to litigation. Those of your Lordships who have been to New York will know that it has many old buildings with many steps. However, most of its restaurants are now accessible and the average cost per restaurant of doing that was 300 dollars. They have discovered that if you use a small portable ramp, you do not have to put in the expensive solid ramps to which we are used. When owners came to modernise their restaurants, they were forced to think things through and to make their buildings accessible.
As I said, America has 20 years of experience, starting with contract compliance which was laid down by federal and state government. When the ADA was introduced, over 50 per cent. of companies in America were already complying with such provisions as a result of contract compliance. What could we have done over the years if the Government had insisted on anti-discrimination measures for disabled people in contract compliance here? The late Ed Roberts who, sadly, died recently, was the chairman of the World Institute of Disability. He said that the ADA made people think twice, and that when disabled people say, "You're discriminating against me", the officious, the bureaucrats and the prejudiced back off. Mr. Justin Dart, the Right-wing Republican, the chairman of the President's Committee on Disability under George Bush, said that the ADA has made disabled people full citizens of the United States.
The first Motion that I moved in your Lordships' House eight years ago was to draw attention to the needs and problems of people with disabilities. In that debate, I coined the phrase "the disabled divide" to describe the gulf that exists between the aspirations and ambitions of people with disabilities and their actual experience. The Bill will not bridge that divide unless it is considerably amended and strengthened. Noble Lords will be doing a great service to disabled people if they ensure that those improvements are made to the Bill as it goes through its various stages. We must ensure that when it completes its passage through the House it will truly be a civil rights for disabled persons Bill and not the half-hearted and tentative Bill we have before us.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate with a large number of speakers. I do not suppose that your Lordships would appreciate it if I tried to answer every point that was made by every speaker.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I dare you!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suggest that the Benches opposite do not try to tempt me. We should still be here after 10 o'clock. I shall look at one or two of the themes that have run through the debate and then take one or two individual points. I have no doubt that we shall be able to return in Committee to most of the issues raised in Committee.
The main theme running through the debate, as it did through the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was the council that the Government have proposed as opposed to the commission which the Benches opposite seem to want. The theme that runs through the debate is the view that discrimination against disabled people is somehow akin to discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or religion. I do not propose to attempt to counter all the points raised; but I am sure that we shall have plenty of opportunity to go over them.
I should like to explain some of the reasons underlying the approach we have adopted to the Bill. First, we gave careful consideration to adopting the existing model found in the sex discrimination and race relations legislation. We rejected that because in some cases disability can limit someone's ability as an employee or capacity to receive services.
If we are serious about tackling discrimination against disabled people, we must not stop at merely prohibiting unfavourable treatment as in sex and race discrimination legislation. We must also require employers and service providers to take reasonable steps to help disabled people overcome any limitations imposed by their physical or mental impairment. Having done that, we must still remember that some disabled people will, none the less, not be able to do a particular job or to avail themselves of some services. In those cases, regrettably, we must allow that less favourable treatment is inevitable.
Those factors make this area different from race and sex. They also make our endeavours to end discrimination against disabled people a complicated matter. Those complexities are, quite rightly, reflected in the Bill. Where the national disability council can help with some of the examples that noble Lords gave, is when it finds that a particular group of disabled people is having difficulty securing its rights; for example, from considering the information supplied by the advice and assistance service, there will be a number of courses open to the council. It may want the Secretary of State to commission research to find out the reasons for the difficulties. Alternatively, it may wish to take evidence from the advice service and speak to representatives of any industries or businesses concerned in order to identify the problem.
In any event, we would expect the national disability council and the National Advisory Council on the Employment of People with Disabilities to draw their findings to the Government's attention and to make recommendations as to what should be done to overcome any problems. The flexibility provided for in the regulation-making power in the Bill and the provisions for codes of practice allow for the policy intention to be clarified if particular problems arise.
It should be borne in mind that the existing commissions have used their powers of general investigation very infrequently. In 1993, the Commission
886
for Racial Equality commenced only three investigations of named bodies and the EOC commenced only one such investigation. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and others, prayed in aid the CBI as being in favour of an effective enforcement body. I believe that the noble Baroness will find that the CBI is neutral on the question of a commission. Its main concern is that there should be an effective source of advice and information for employers. We shall be working with it to ensure that such a service is made available. I am confident that it can be delivered without setting up a commission.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, seemed to be worried that the council would be responsible only to the Secretary of State. It will provide advice to the Secretary of State, but it will also produce an annual report which will be laid before Parliament and be published. It will be open to Members of your Lordships' House to seek to debate any aspects of that report.
I shall turn to a point made outside the House by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, who was critical of the lack of a commission in the Bill, as he seems to think that a large number of people will choose to disobey or disregard the law. I can do no better than quote back to him his words in last week's programme "Does he take sugar?" in which he said, "I can't believe that many people are going to break the law, I just don't believe that". Neither do I.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. That is precisely what I said today. I was echoing myself. The Minister has misunderstood. He should read Hansard tomorrow.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was reading a transcript of the programme; but I shall, indeed, read Hansard tomorrow.
I shall turn to the issue of definition. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, complained that the definition excludes some disabled people. The definition is not limited to people whose impairments are clinically well recognised. That qualification relates to mental illness only which, as your Lordships will recognise, has a much greater scope for doubt than other mental impairments or physical impairments.
The noble Baroness has some other misconceptions about the Bill, upon which I have no doubt we shall spend some happy hours in Committee. The definition of "mental impairment" is wider than that in the Mental Health Act. Under that Act, people are covered only if they are a danger to themselves or others. I should not have thought that the noble Baroness would have wanted such a restriction. Someone who has epilepsy, where the substantial effects are controlled by medication, would be covered.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, again, like my noble friend Lord Ashley, I am sure that the Minister would wish to quote me correctly when he is addressing points in his reply. The examples of well-defined conditions that I gave were from MIND. ME and mental disorder would not be considered. I made it clear that when I was talking about that area in which the Bill fails to protect against discrimination, I was talking about mental disorder. The other examples, including controlled epilepsy, related to where it had no adverse or substantial

887
effect on normal activities and in consequence therefore were not covered by the Bill. That was a separate part of the answer.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I said at the beginning that I was not going to answer every point. I thought I had answered one of the points that the noble Baroness made but perhaps that should act as a warning to me. I should probably leave these matters to the Committee. The noble Baroness may be surprised to know that the mildly disabled people would not be covered by the definition in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill.
My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes was worried about HIV and AIDS. She raised some interesting points about the inclusion of people with HIV and AIDS. I am sure that we shall return to those points later. I can confirm that people with HIV and AIDS will be covered by the provisions in the Bill if the symptoms have a substantial effect.
I shall turn to one of the other main themes in the employment sector, which was drawing the line at 20 employees. It is true that the CBI is against the exemption of small employers; but we should bear in mind that the CBI represents few, if any, employers with fewer than 20 employees. I should think it would be difficult to find many, if any, of those in its membership. Significantly, the Federation of Small Businesses, which of course does have small employers as members, supports the exemption of small employers.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix, explained that he was going to a reception to look for some money for one of his good causes, and that he hoped to return. However, he underestimated the ability of your Lordships to keep speeches within reason—I mean the time and not the content—and I shall attempt to do likewise. The noble Lord came to see me with some people from MENCAP. I should say to him that I do not believe that it would be practicable or reasonable to overlap the quota provisions with the new provisions in this Bill, even for a year. The two laws will not be compatible. One is subject to criminal sanctions, and the other to civil sanctions. They have different definitions. One insists on a system of registration, and the other does not. Those are only three differences. Employers will have to make a transition at some point. It seems to me best to ensure that employers have a reasonable time in which to understand and take account of the new legislation. I hope that they will be able to do that with the guidance which we shall provide for them.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich—a splendid title, if I may say so—pointed out on the question of small firms that many of the 96 per cent. of small firms will be in rural areas. I have little doubt that that is true. But I remind the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords that something like 80 per cent. of employees will be covered by the Bill. Many large firms or branches of them are in rural areas. Therefore, they will be covered.
I thought that the right reverend Prelate made a good point, and I wish to underline it, when he said that 60 per cent. of firms employing fewer than 10 people have disabled employees. Indeed, we are aware that many
888
small employers employ disabled people. We welcome that. The Bill will not prevent them continuing to do that if they are doing it at the moment without being covered by the legislation.
In no way do we wish to give the impression that we are content to see small firms treating people unfairly. We are opposed to unfair discrimination in any form. The fact is that we hope that many small firms, in addition to the 60 per cent. already mentioned, will be encouraged by the guidelines in the statutory employment code of practice. We shall consult small firm organisations when we draw those up. While they may not be covered by the legislation, the good practice will be there for them to see.
My noble friend Lady O'Cathain, made some serious points about the loading of costs on to business. We have tried to be mindful of that in the timescale over which we shall implement the legislation. I do not see that you can simply substitute business for the Government because the Government receive much of their income from business and individual taxpayers. Therefore, it is much more sensible to attempt to introduce the legislation and the costs that go with it in a balanced and sensible way over time.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the point about small employers, will he deal with the question that I asked him; namely, if six is good enough for New York and four is good enough for California, why do we need 20?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we do not live in either New York or California. We live in Britain. We must make our own judgments on that, and our judgment is that 20 is the appropriate number. We do not do lots of other things that are done in New York, thanks be to God, and I do not see why we should just follow blindly what is done in New York. We must tailor legislation to the needs of our own country, and sufficient unto that is the problem thereof.
I shall turn now to Remploy because I was asked whether it would be safe when the legislation is enacted. The Bill does not affect the substance and the provisions in the 1944 Act under which Remploy was set up as a company providing sheltered employment. We are committed to maintaining Remploy's present support which, I am advised, was £92 million for the year 1994–95.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, raised a number of employment-related issues. He asked about Access to Work. When that was introduced in 1994, we made clear that the operation of the programme, including the financial aspects, would be reviewed after one year's operation, and a decision made on its future. The implications of the new duties in the Bill will be considered during the review. Of course, I cannot anticipate the outcome of the review, but I assure the noble Lord that its intention is to see how the available resources can be used as effectively as possible to help disabled people obtain and keep jobs.
As regards profit-distributing organisations, we are committed to the supported employment programme which provides jobs for nearly 21,000 severely disabled people. The new power will enable us to fund supported employment in dividend-distributing bodies. In the

889
long-term, that will allow the provision of a wider range of supported job opportunities in a greater number of locations. It will also help to tailor provisions more precisely to the local employment needs of those who are most severely disabled. No one already in supported employment or on a waiting list will lose that place as a result of the changes. We shall consult relevant organisations, particularly those representing existing supported employer providers, before we use that power.
A number of noble Lords raised the question of education. As I said in my opening speech, we must be mindful of the considerable progress that we have made in education. I remind noble Lords that nearly 99 per cent. of all pupils are in mainstream schools. About 2 per cent. of all pupils have statements; and 49 per cent. of the pupils with statements are in special schools, while 51 per cent. are in mainstream schools. We must try to maintain a balance because it rather depends on individuals and their problems as to which is the best of the alternatives.
I do not wish to become involved in the discussion between the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and my noble friend Lord Beloff on the subject of higher education. Perhaps I may say to both of them that we are mindful of the need to make sure that if we attend to school education, when pupils leave school, they must not find that the doors are shut, the lifts are not there or whatever it may be if they are able to go on to further and higher education.
I should say to my noble friend Lord Beloff that we understand the anxieties in relation to the proposed higher education amendments. However, I ask my noble friend and those noble Lords who are interested to await the actual amendments before reaching a final decision on their merits. I assure him that there will be adequate time to discuss them in Committee, and I hope to be able to persuade him that the Government's proposed approach is both sensible and not imposing untoward restrictions on the universities. I can go further and say that we are consulting with higher education representative bodies, including those mentioned by my noble friend, on the details of achieving our objectives.
The noble Lord, Lord Rix (who I am glad to see has now returned from his expedition) asked me about discrimination by insurers. I believe that several speakers also mentioned that point. At the risk of detaining your Lordships a few moments longer, I should like to set out our position on that important aspect. I believe that noble Lords will recall that, despite originally proposing to exclude financial services from the legislation, the Government decided as a result of responses to last year's consultation exercise that, notwithstanding the many difficulties that we would face, it was important to ensure that disabled people did not encounter unfair discrimination in insurance or as regards any other financial services.
I have stressed "unfair discrimination" because insurance, by its very nature, involves assessing and weighing risks and selecting and discriminating between those risks. The task that we have set ourselves is to find a way of deciding what criteria it would be reasonable to apply. Actuarial data, certainly, where it is available; but what do we do when it is not available? What about claims
890
history and other such factors? We have been exploring those questions with the insurance industry and have taken a power in the Bill so as to put the solution into practice by way of regulations.
I am confident that we will be able to come forward with a workable solution which will ensure that disabled people are not refused insurance or charged higher premiums unjustifiably, while also protecting the industry's right to transact its business, make its profits and act on the risks involved.
My noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, raised the issue of taxis. I should point out that government amendments to allow the setting of minimum access standards for taxis have yet to be finalised. I can assure the House that there is no intention to require every new taxi to be purpose built; nor do we intend to subject taxis to all the requirements in Part III of the Bill on service providers to make reasonable modifications. I can also assure the House that, in framing the new access standards, the Government will be mindful of the problems facing taxi operators in rural areas. Coming from the West Highlands as I do, I am well aware of such difficulties.
However, more accessible taxis will be a boon for more than just wheelchair users; indeed, they will also be to the benefit of many elderly people such as those suffering from arthritis. Anyone who has an elderly relative will know the difficulties that they sometimes encounter when getting into a motorcar.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, raised a most interesting question about digital mobile phones; indeed, I was most intrigued. I should tell the noble Lord that we have to make sure that new telecommunication equipment can be used by deaf people. However, we cannot do that by imposing restraints on the manufacture and design of new products. It would be wrong to jeopardise the bringing of new products to the market by requiring manufacturers to comply with an individual's right to accessible products. The Americans with the Disabilities Act, for example, do not attempt such restrictions. The US National Council for Disability has pursued questions about accessible products with the manufacturers and they have registered some notable successes. For example, there are discussions with Microsoft about making the next version of the Windows computer operating system more accessible to people. I very much hope that our proposed national disability council will be able to play a similar role.
I believe that I have probably spoken for as long as I possibly can, given the admirably short speeches that most speakers made. However, I should like to conclude by saying that I was particularly impressed by three noble Lords who contributed to our debate. I happen to know at first hand the kind of careers that those noble Lords pursued. I have in mind the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, and my noble friends Lord Campell of Croy and Lord Holderness. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy reached the Cabinet table, which is better than some of the rest of us have managed to do. It shows that disabled people can often get to the very top. Perhaps my noble friend had secret ambitions of becoming Prime Minister, but I believe that getting around the Cabinet table would be good enough for most of us. In addition, my noble

891
friend represented a constituency in the north of Scotland at a time when travel would have been a good deal more difficult than it is today. He got around that widespread rural constituency extremely well, as I know.
Of course, the three noble Lords that I mentioned exemplify what I believe we are all trying to achieve; namely, that people ought to be able to make their own way in the world by their own efforts and abilities, and they should be able to realise their full potential. Our policies will continue to be directed towards making that fulfilment a reality for those whose talents are constrained or who are prevented from contributing fully to society. More than most, disabled people can be frustrated by lack of opportunity and by the hurdles which they must negotiate in attempting to do the things which the rest of us take for granted. These difficulties are often caused by social barriers and a lack of—
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. However, before he sits down, I wonder whether he would be good enough to deal with one point that the House might consider important, which is parliamentary control over delegated powers. I raised the point—I think one or two other noble Lords did as well—that in the sex and race discrimination Acts, any changes in exemptions in the scope of the Bill must be dealt with by affirmative procedure. In this Bill it is only negative procedure, and so far as the guidance is concerned in Clause 4, that seems to me to be legally relevant, like the Highway Code, and yet there is to be no negative or affirmative procedure. Would the Government be prepared to think again about those two points?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Lord may know, if he has followed the record in Hansard on the previous two Bills for which I have been responsible, that I have taken seriously the reports of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, and I look forward to receiving that report. I do not think he will make me go any further than that this evening.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I was going to say, being on that Select Committee —I do not think there is anyone else on that committee who is here tonight—that we have noted that the negative procedure is there. But, for example, had the Government given themselves powers to put the number of 20, as regards the limit for small firms, upwards instead of downwards, I think we would have thought the affirmative procedure was needed. But having looked through the Bill, I do not think the negative procedure is wrong.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that. As I said, I look forward to reading the report. As I was saying, the difficulties faced by disabled people are occasionally caused by ignorance and sometimes by outright prejudice, but rarely by the person's ability, or by the disability itself. This injustice—for that is what it is—is, I think (as anyone listening to your Lordships' debate today would realise) unacceptable to the House, and of course it is unacceptable to disabled people. It is equally unacceptable to the Government, which is why we are committed to the creation of a fair, open and accessible environment for disabled people.
892
I mentioned at the beginning of this debate that over the past 15 years much has been done to further that aim: there has been the Access to Work programme, which enables more disabled people to take up employment; the introduction of access requirements to the building regulations, which has had a substantial effect on social, recreational and employment possibilities; for disabled people; the recent community care reforms, which have created new opportunities for people to get help in their daily lives; and the development of a more comprehensive system of disability benefits upon which expenditure has tripled in real terms since 1978–79.
We have set ourselves a tough task now—perhaps tougher than others before—and that is a pledge to the disabled people in this country that we will eliminate discrimination against them. This will not be easy. It is a goal which cannot be achieved overnight, as disabled people realise. But the Bill now before your Lordships' House represents an enormous stride forward towards the fulfilment of our aims and the redemption of that pledge.
The measures contained within the Bill represent the most comprehensive package ever brought by any government to tackle discrimination against disabled people. It is well worth reminding your Lordships of what it does. For the first time it will be unlawful for employers to treat a disabled person less fairly; for the first time, disabled people will have a right not to be denied access to goods and services solely on the grounds of their disability; and a national disability council will be established to keep the issue of discrimination under review and to advise the Government. Together these represent an enormous step forward in the battle against discrimination. I believe that they will be welcome to the many who care greatly about disability, and they will be crucial to the future happiness and well-being of disabled people. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

National Health Service (Amendment) Bill
9.18 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to be able today to sponsor the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill, brought from another place for Second Reading.
This is a worthwhile measure, as I shall go on to explain. It seeks to reform the constitution of an important body, the National Health Service Tribunal, and to provide it with an important power which it does not now have.
The Bill contains a number of measures designed to ensure that the NHS Tribunal, a quasi-judicial body which operates within the domain of the family health services, is able to carry out its work as efficiently as possible. Noble Lords may find it helpful if I explain at this point a little about the tribunal and the way it works. Many of your Lordships will know that practitioners who provide family health services—GPs, dentists, pharmacists and opticians—are not employees of the National Health

893
Service; rather they are independent contractors bound by terms of service within the NHS—contracts in laymen's terms. Those contracts do not allow for practitioners to be removed from practice by the authorities which hold their contracts, even where their conduct or the way they practise gives cause for grave concern.
However, there is a body which can disqualify such practitioners from providing family health services, and that is the NHS Tribunal. If a family health services authority believes that a practitioner's behaviour or the way he practises is prejudicial to the provision of services in its area, it can ask the NHS Tribunal to disqualify that person from practice by directing that his or her name be removed from the appropriate family health services authority list of practitioners who are contracted to provide the service. If, after holding an inquiry, the tribunal considers the health authority's concern to be well founded it can do just that—disqualify the practitioner. The doctor, dentist, pharmacist or optician concerned may not then return to practice until the tribunal or the Secretary of State for Health has removed the disqualification.
I must stress that those procedures are quite separate from the procedures used by the regulatory bodies for the professions—the General Medical Council, the General Dental Council, the General Ophthalmic Council and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. The tribunal exists to enable the NHS to protect the standards of service it provides while the regulatory bodies are quite rightly concerned with professional standards.
So the tribunal is an important body which performs an important function. Noble Lords may wonder why the National Health Service (Amendment) Bill is needed if the tribunal already has the power to disqualify practitioners. I shall explain. The Bill contains other clauses designed to increase the membership of the tribunal and to bring rights of appeal against its decisions into line with those applying to other tribunals. However, the clause I am about to describe—Clause 2—forms the central purpose of the Bill, and I shall concentrate on that.
The Bill is needed because no matter how much a practitioner's conduct causes concern for the safety of patients, whether because of a dangerous practice or a cavalier attitude, the tribunal cannot act immediately to protect patients. Before making a ruling on the representations made by a health authority it must first review all the evidence placed before it. There will usually be an oral hearing at which both parties—the health authority and the practitioner concerned—are represented by counsel. Noble Lords will appreciate that all of that cannot be done in a moment. It takes time to process such evidence and to arrange a hearing. Although the tribunal works as speedily as possible it usually takes between three and six months for a case to be dealt with, and during that time patients may continue to be at risk.
The National Health Service (Amendment) Bill addresses that problem by seeking to provide the tribunal with the power to suspend a practitioner immediately where it is asked to do so by a health authority in order to protect patients. That gives time for the tribunal to consider fully the allegations made against him or her without the danger to patients continuing.
894
In saying that, I do not wish to create a false impression. In this country we are fortunate in enjoying a very high standard of service from the primary care professions. As a member of one of those professions I know with what seriousness the great majority of practitioners approach their work and the responsibility they feel towards their patients. Dangerously careless and incompetent practitioners are rare, but serious lapses in professional behaviour do occur. Few and far between as they are, it is unacceptable for even one practitioner to expose patients to risk and for the National Health Service not to be able to protect those patients.
Situations have arisen in the past few years where practitioners' conduct has forced health authorities to seek to have them removed from their lists. The Bill was brought to the other place by Mr. John Austin-Walker, the Member for Woolwich. I should like to congratulate him on persuading the Government of the importance of the issue. He had a special interest in the subject because a problem existed whereby many of his constituents were ill served, even endangered, by a neglectful doctor who used every possible ploy to delay proceedings against him for an inordinate length of time. I recall from my own dental service committee days a dentist who dragged out proceedings for almost three years, continuing to destroy patients' mouths throughout that time. That was a rare case, but it was one too many. It was frustrating for those hearing that man's case to know that we were powerless to stop him.
In the case referred to by Mr. John Austin-Walker, the family health services authority was powerless to protect the patient and the GP was callously careless and indifferent. Under these new provisions the authority would be able to suspend him immediately from practising and then investigate further as to whether or not that was right.
Reference has been made to both the professional regulatory body and the National Health Service Tribunal. However, in that case neither was able to act immediately. The case to which I referred involved a doctor, but I have encountered other examples in the dental field because that is the profession of which I am a member. It is now some time since I sat on dental service cases. However, I was also a member of the disciplinary committee of the General Dental Council.
If the National Health Service Tribunal had been able to suspend the practitioner involved, the patient's safety would not have been at risk during the time until the practitioner was finally disqualified from practice.
I can assure your Lordships that the power to suspend is intended to be a reserve power, to be used only in extreme circumstances where a practitioner's standard of service falls very short of that which patients and the National Health Service are entitled to expect. As a professional, I welcome the existence of such a power and I am sure that the majority of my colleagues would support me, as would other professionals. Practitioners who take a pride in the service that they provide are as anxious as the general public that those few who wear their professional responsibilities lightly should be dealt with appropriately. Passing the Bill will make a great difference. The new power will be rarely used but nonetheless will be very effective.

895
Your Lordships will wish to know that the Bill also makes a provision enabling the NHS to ensure that a practitioner whom the tribunal disqualifies is unable to take on work as a locum, or an assistant, or a deputy to another practitioner, or for a health authority. That can occur at present. I remember very clearly dentists who were disqualified immediately working under another dentist. The disqualified dentist still met all the expenses and ran the place, but had some young fellow with his plate up "fronting" for him. That was a terrible practice, and nothing could be done about it at the time. Although that could occur at present, I do not believe that it would be usual. However, that is a good aspect of the Bill and a provision which is much needed. It is highly dangerous and very undesirable for someone disqualified to get round the disqualification by such a method.
As your Lordships can see, the Bill contains the provision allowing arrangements to be made for practitioners to continue to receive NHS payments until there has been a final ruling. I believe that such a provision is in line with employment law. Nothing, of course, will have been proved when suspension is directed, so NHS payments should continue. I am sure everyone agrees that that is fair.
The other clauses relate to the constitution of the tribunal. They aim to provide deputy chairmen and a greater pool of members so that business can be conducted as speedily as possible. As I said, the tribunal already does an excellent job but its chairman and members are busy people. Being able to draw upon a larger number will be helpful.
I believe that this is an important Bill which will bring in highly desirable legislation designed to confer on the National Health Service the ability to protect the services that it provides. I commend the Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Gardner of Parkes.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, on bringing the Bill to the House and explaining it so clearly, and thus I can be brief in responding. As she said, the Bill was taken through the other place by my honourable friend Mr. Austin-Walker, Member for Woolwich. I am sure that it will pass through this House with equal facility.
The Bill is technical but extremely important to those concerned. Any procedure which is devised for dealing with misconduct or incompetence has to balance natural justice for practitioners against the need to protect patients. In my submission, the Bill seems to get the balance about right.
There are a couple of points which perhaps either the Minister or the noble Baroness could answer. As I understand it, the General Medical Council or the General Dental Council can only act over serious misconduct by practitioners. What would happen with what one might describe as less serious misconduct or incompetence? I imagine that the Bill will help on that point. It seems to give much needed flexibility in matters of suspension and disqualification, as clearly explained by the noble Baroness. The provisions are also in line with employment law when dealing with the payment of practitioners who have been suspended.
896
As I understand it, the grounds of appeal are fairly wide. I believe that appeals from the tribunal will only be on a point of law. Probably the grounds are wide enough; if there were maladministration by the tribunal presumably it could be appealed against on procedural irregularity. I know that the Government support the Bill. I understand the ending of the anomaly by removing the unrestricted right of appeal, but when the Minister replies, could she say whether that removal has narrowed the ground by restricting appeals from the tribunal merely to points of law?
With those few comparatively small and technical questions, I believe that it is a good Bill and from this side of the House we shall do all we can to help its progress.
9.32 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I also wish to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, for introducing the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Carter, from these Benches we very much welcome it and particularly the introduction of the interim suspension of practitioners until the tribunal has come to a final conclusion. From personal experience, I have been aware of the problems that can arise when, as the noble Baroness explained, a general practitioner prevaricates. He may think of every conceivable way of delaying the tribunal's decision and that constitutes a great danger to the public.
I do not wish to speak for long because the Bill is, in my view, non-controversial. I should like to ask either the noble Baroness or the Minister whether the Bill will in any way make it easier for the ordinary citizen to lodge a complaint against a general practitioner. I have had two personal experiences of trying to lodge complaints against a general practitioner and found it almost impossible. It was the same general practitioner in both cases and he was an alcoholic. He was the family doctor of my gardener and his wife; she was desperately ill and pregnant at the time. The general practitioner came to see her and completely neglected to diagnose the problem. He said: "You are just pregnant, you are probably having a miscarriage and ought to stay in bed". He came to see her two days running and she became more and more ill. I was so anxious that I got my own doctor to see her, much against his better judgment because he should not interfere in another doctor's case. My doctor took one look at her, rang for the ambulance and she went to hospital with very bad peritonitis. If I had not called my doctor, she would have died.
The same GP made a similar mistake with a young farm worker. He took the young man off the sick list because he said that he was just prevaricating, so the poor boy went back to work feeling awful. He was working on a harvester and fell off the platform unconscious because he felt so ill. I took him to hospital—he was suffering from rheumatic fever.
I relate these stories only because I then set about trying to get that practitioner investigated. At that time I came up against the problem that, in order to be able to lodge a complaint, I had to have another general practitioner, or two, to corroborate my statement. That is sometimes very difficult. The local general practitioners knew each other. They felt sorry for the man, and they knew his family.

897
I can understand such reluctance, but it makes it impossible for the average citizen. I therefore hope that this Bill will make it easier for people who find themselves in the situation in which I found myself to get their complaints through to the right authorities. I very much welcome the Bill, and wish it an easy passage through this House.
9.35 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is my pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, whose distinguished career as a practitioner, vice-chairman of a regional health authority and now the chairman of a very well-known and respected London teaching hospital, among other things, suits her admirably to the task of introducing and taking the Bill through this House.
The Bill is a concise and well-targeted piece of legislation, intended primarily to end an anomaly that has existed for as long as the family health services themselves. The Government wholeheartedly support it.
Before I go into detail about the provisions of the Bill, I should like to echo the views expressed by my noble friend when she mentioned the sterling service given by family health service practitioners to their patients. They do an excellent job and noble Lords will know of GPs, dentists, pharmacists and ophthalmic practitioners who ensure that the service their patients receive is second to none.
On a lighter note, I was quite surprised to hear someone talking recently about their GP, extolling his virtues and concluding with the remarks: "He really is very good, especially when he is sober". Fortunately, there are few cases like that, and very few practitioners actually present a danger to their patients. But the National Health Service needs to be able to act to protect patients in these circumstances. Some of your Lordships might have been surprised to hear that the NHS had no power to suspend, for example, a GP whose conduct or practice put his patients at risk. But that is the case. There is a sharp difference between practitioners directly employed in the community and hospital services and in general practice, medical, dental, community pharmacy and optical services—hence the need for this Bill and for the important power it will give to the NHS Tribunal.
Noble Lords may be aware that the tribunal is chaired by a distinguished barrister, Mr. Adrian Whitfield, who, with a lay and a professional member, deals efficiently with the representations made by family health services authorities. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the tribunal for the thorough and sensitive way in which it carries out its work.
Nonetheless, for the reasons my noble friend has explained, the tribunal cannot order the immediate suspension of practitioners, however justified it feels the case may be. The new power of suspension contained in Clause 2 of the Bill will put that right. It will enable the tribunal to respond positively where it believes this to be justified.
There is an important point to stress here. The provisions of this Bill only allow suspension, when imposed, to be an interim measure. As my noble friend
898
said, it cannot be an end in itself. That would not be in anybody's interests. Once the tribunal has made a judgment based on the full evidence before it, the suspension will be removed—it will either be replaced by disqualification or the practitioner will be allowed to continue to practise.
Some noble Lords may think that giving the NHS Tribunal a power of suspension places practitioners under a double threat of suspension since disciplinary powers are already available to their professional regulatory bodies. The NHS and the professional regulatory bodies do, of course, have different areas of responsibility, and it is impossible in practice to define where one ends and the other begins. It is possible that some practitioners will find themselves at a double risk of suspension as a result. This seems inevitable in any area where contractual and professional responsibilities overlap. It is already accepted by the medical profession, for example, in relation to other professional proceedings and NHS disciplinary proceedings which run in tandem. There is no reason for reticence in introducing NHS powers to protect the public or NHS services.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked whether the GMC can only act over serious misconduct and what happens to the lesser offences. The grounds of disqualification by the tribunal are different from those of the professional regulatory bodies, which are concerned, as the noble Lord said, with professional misconduct. The grounds for disqualification by the tribunal may indeed be wider.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, also asked about appeals as a point of law. The restriction of appeal to a point of law only will narrow the possible grounds of appeal. But we think that confining appeals to the point of law will not result in any injustice.
My noble friend also touched on the question of practitioners' incomes during periods of suspension. It is crucial that practitioners should not be disadvantaged at those times because, no matter what the prima facie evidence might be, nothing in the initial stages has been proved against them. So while he or she is suspended, a practitioner will continue to receive an income from the NHS. The detail of exactly how that will operate will be worked out with the professions at a later stage, but we feel that it is important to establish the principle in the Bill.
Your Lordships may feel that this will increase pressure on the public purse. That may well be so, although we believe that the additional burden will be minimal. We are talking about small numbers of cases—only around five or six practitioners are referred to the tribunal each year. We think that suspension is likely to be requested and granted in only a very small number of cases each year.
The Bill also makes provision for a disqualified practitioner to be removed from contact with patients. That person cannot accept work as a locum, an assistant or a deputy to another practitioner or for a health authority. I am sure that your Lordships would agree that that is desirable.
The other provisions in the Bill—devised to assist the tribunal in processing its workload by broadening its membership and to bring rights of appeal into line with those for other tribunals—make good sense and are, I believe, uncontroversial.

899
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, asked whether the Bill will make it easier for a patient to lodge a complaint against a practitioner. In itself, the Bill will not influence the present situation. But we have just recently reviewed all our complaints procedures in line with the Wilson Report that was published. We believe that that will make it a simpler system. There is another Bill before the other place which will amend the GMC Bill—that picks up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—and which will give much more flexibility.
In conclusion, it is worth mentioning just one last point. My noble friend Lady Gardner alluded to the frustration felt by members of the health professions with those who bring the profession into disrepute because of the poor and even dangerous level of service that they provide. I can tell your Lordships that organisations representing those professions also recognise the need for the NHS to have the power to suspend practitioners in extreme cases.
Health authorities for a long time have recognised the need for a power to suspend family health service practitioners. It is in response to their concerns that we have considered the need for such a power to deal with extreme cases and wish to support my noble friend in the passage of this Bill.
9.43 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in the debate for their support. I am not surprised that they supported the Bill because it is a very good measure. I also thank the Minister for her comments and her excellent replies on the various points.
Perhaps I may just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, that it is true that the new procedures are coming in; but one way in which this Bill might help is that now if a patient writes in with a complaint to the Family Health Services Authority, it will have access to this additional power in its armoury. That is very effective in itself.
That power will also have a valuable deterrent effect. People who have been so completely cavalier in the past and thought that even if things went wrong they could get away with it, or that it did not really matter, will be given cause to think. That will be another effective aspect of the new power. It is really, therefore, just another weapon in the national health armoury, but a valuable one. I thank all those who spoke on this matter. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Home Energy Conservation Bill
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hamwee.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Interpretation]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, after ("measures"") insert ("means measures to encourage the increased efficiency of energy use in residential accommodation for the purposes of—

(a) reducing the consumption of finite energy supplies, especially those causing pollutant emissions,

(b) supporting trade and industry in energy efficiency services and products;

and").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 2. First, I must apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend the Minister for not being present at Second Reading, and I hope that they will forgive me on this occasion. Also, I should declare two interests; one as a consultant to a solar energy company and another as a director of Eurosolar UK, which is a non-party organisaion designed to promote the use of renewable energy.
I know that many people throughout the country still feel that when the words "renewable energy" are mentioned, they do not apply to this country. Their eyes tend to glaze over and they are quite happy to burn fossil fuels. But my anxiety is that fossil fuels in this world are finite and a serious problem is looming ahead of us. My main concern with the Bill is that it does not tackle the essential problem which faces us; that is, how to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide that we pump into the atmosphere.
The advantage of renewables is that they do not pollute. That is why they will become of increasing interest in this country and throughout the world. I am sure that there is a ground-swell of opinion that wants to take the whole idea of renewables forward, just as it did not so long ago with unleaded petrol. On that point, perhaps I can ask my noble friend the Minister what will happen to the non-fossil fuel levy with the privatisation of the nuclear industry? No other measure has perhaps been so significant in encouraging renewables industries in this country as the non-fossil fuel levy. It is an example of Conservative policy at its best. It produces an incentive for the private sector to conduct research, to spend money, to make the investment and, when that investment produces the goods—in this case electricity free of pollutants—it receives the benefit of the levy.
Can my noble friend confirm that the levy will continue at the same level hypothecated at the moment, which is 1 percent. of the 10 per cent. non-fossil fuel levy? That will be important because it gives this country a huge opportunity to become world leaders in renewable energy. Also, has my noble friend available the energy ratio for 1993—that is, the amount of energy needed to produce a unit of GDP? That is a true indication of the energy being used by a country and gives a better indication of where a country is going.
The Bill does not fulfil the criteria that I have laid down. I do not believe that it will lead to the kind of reduction in carbon dioxide emissions anticipated by some of its proponents. Therein lies the rub, because a good many people will say, "We now have the Home Energy Conservation Act. We can sit back and not do anything more". That would be a serious setback in our fight against global climate warming. In addition, it does

901
not cover enough of the industries which generate carbon dioxide. As the noble Baroness said at Second Reading, it covers between a quarter and a third of carbon dioxide emissions, including an allocation from the power stations for domestic use. If one takes houses by themselves, which is the remit of the Bill, the total is probably under a quarter. There are huge areas of industry and transport which should also have been covered by the Bill and which I would wish to cover. But, quite rightly, the rules of the House prevented me from widening the scope of the Bill.
What will the Bill give us? It will give local authorities lots of work to do. It will give them new duties. They will be able to produce lots of reports at great expense to council tax payers. I seriously believe that that money could be better spent elsewhere. I do not know what the cost of these reports will be or whether Richmond council believes that the cost can be justified against the better use of expenditure.
If it is argued that energy conservation leads to a reduction in carbon dioxide, that is not supported by the facts. The ENDS Report in 1993 looked into a study conducted by the Building Research Establishment on behalf of the DoE's energy efficiency office. The study evaluated the impact of work carried out under the home energy efficiency scheme. It had been anticipated that the average household would potentially save £44 a year on its winter fuel bills, equating to a reduction in CO2 emissions of 0.7 tonnes per year. But what happened in reality is that we did not get that saving because people liked the extra warmth and so consumed just as much electricity and produced just as much carbon dioxide. In fact, 77 per cent. of households in practice opted for increased warmth and the actual reduction in fuel bills was only £9—not the £44 that was envisaged—and the CO2 reduction was just 0.14 tonnes per year and not 0.7 tonnes. That is the complacency factor which I feel the Bill will set more in concrete.
We must get rid of the myth that energy conservation equals energy saving. It might increase the comfort—that, in itself, is no bad thing—but it does not attack the main problem. The Bill should encourage a change of fuel source; and that it signally fails to do. That is the importance of Amendment No. 1. It is the setting in the amendment of the measures for reducing the consumption of finite energy supplies and supporting the trade and industry concerned with energy efficient services and products that I believe is so important. If that is spelt out in the Bill, the true purpose will be identified.
Having used the words "energy efficiency measures" it is right to define those. I have done that in Amendment No. 2. I have suggested there not a complete definition— one cannot get a complete definition—but signposts that local authorities and the Secretary of State should look for. The definition is:
"the most effective way of utilising energy for heating, lighting, refrigeration and other energy consuming functions".
Again, we are slightly misled on this aspect. Perhaps I may take the example of our hot water systems. As a result of the European directive, we can now buy a boiler with an energy efficiency rating on it. But that is not the end of the story. We go home, put the new boiler in and we think
902
we are doing a good job. But we have not actually looked at the water that the boiler is heating or what the result is, because I do not believe that it is well known that for every millimetre of scale on the boiler tank, on the coil in the immersion heater or in the kettle, one is reducing the energy efficiency by 10 per cent. Therefore, a mere five millimetres of scale on the boiler or in the kettle—I looked into mine at the weekend and I should not think that there was much short of five millimetres there—equates to a 50 per cent. reduction in energy efficiency. Therefore, although I thought that I was doing quite a good job, I was using much more energy, and causing the emission of much more carbon dioxide from the power station, in order to get that kettle to boil. It is exactly the same with our boilers.
It is important to stress what energy efficiency means so that those who will be responsible for the reports, as outlined in the Bill, and the Secretary of State, can home in on what really matters and not just on the gloss on the surface. I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): I shall deal with Amendment No. 1 first. That amendment, moved by my noble friend Lord Caithness draws the Committee's attention to two particular aspects of energy efficiency. One is the need to reduce the demands placed on finite energy supplies, which also give rise to harmful emissions. The second is the role which trade and industry can play in providing energy efficiency services and products.
I fully agree with my noble friend that these are important matters to take into account in any energy efficiency strategy. As I hope to reassure the Committee, they are matters which are already covered by the Bill, and the Government certainly hope that they will be covered in energy conservation authorities' plans under the Bill. However, I believe that the definition in the Bill is already wide enough to allow this and that the amendments proposed by my noble friend are not therefore needed. The involvement of businesses in energy efficiency in general and in partnership with local authorities in the context of the Bill was the subject of some discussion in another place. The conclusion there, which I believe was the right one, was that the Bill as it stands gives authorities full scope for involving businesses and products in the measures they include in the reports they prepare under the Bill.
My noble friend mentioned the scope for the greater use of energy from renewable sources. The Government's new and renewable energy policy is to stimulate the development of new and renewable energy sources wherever they have prospects of being economically attractive and environmentally acceptable. It will be open to authorities to include reference to such measures in their energy conservation reports, and I will certainly see that their attention is drawn to the possibility in the guidance to be drawn up. Guidance for local authorities is available from the Department of Trade and Industry.
Turning to the reduction of emissions which are harmful to the environment, reductions in the demand for energy which we all hope and believe will result from measures identified as a result of the Bill will of course lead to improvements in this area. Clause 2(3) (b) of the

903
Bill requires that energy conservation reports must include an assessment of the extent to which emissions of carbon dioxide would be decreased as a result of the measures set out in them. This is a sure way of ensuring that authorities focus on the benefits of carbon dioxide reductions. Reports may also include an assessment of decreases of emissions of oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide.
Turning to the second part of the first amendment supporting trade and industry in energy efficiency services and products, there is again much being done. The existing definition of energy conservation measures is deliberately widely drawn and can cover both advice on energy efficiency goods and services to consumers and advice to providers of goods and services on how they can help with initiatives. Of course, local authorities cannot recommend particular products or service providers but they can draw consumers' attention to what is available so that they can make an informed choice.
The home energy efficiency scheme, which my noble friend mentioned, provides help with loft insulation and draughtproofing to elderly and low-income households and operates to national standards and through approved network installers, giving reassurance to those who might be daunted by the prospect of identifying what needs to be done and arranging for the work to be carried out.
My noble friend suggested that the comfort level then rises —so be it—but I believe that other areas also need to be considered. Education and improved information is an important element in energy efficiency in the home. Most people would consider the fuel consumption of a car when considering making a purchase. I hope that it will become as natural to look at the energy consumption of different models when buying a new refrigerator or washing machine. In terms of more efficient appliances, the UK implemented the first energy labelling directive on 1st January 1995. This requires energy information labels to be fitted to all domestic freezers and refrigerators. It enables consumers to compare the energy efficiency of different models, and manufacturers and retailers are already responding to the measure by positively marketing products which use less energy to do the same job. Directives covering other domestic appliances are to follow.
There have also been initiatives to promote energy saving lightbulbs. For two successive years, the Energy Savings Trust has run highly successful promotional schemes in collaboration with the lighting industry to cut the price of energy-saving light bulbs to consumers. Over one million lamps were sold between October and December last year, five times the normal sales levels.
In that connection, my noble friend asked whether the non-fossil fuel levy would continue. Renewable energy will continue to be supported by the fossil fuel levy on electricity bills. I cannot give my noble friend a date or say that it will continue indefinitely, but it certainly will continue.
I turn now to the second amendment which my noble friend grouped with Amendment No. 1. The amendment would add to the Bill a definition of the term "energy efficiency". I congratulate my noble friend on drawing up
904
such a definition. However, I believe at least in the context of this Bill that the attempt is unnecessary and one which is possibly fraught with danger.
The term "energy efficiency" is used in Clause 2(2) of the Bill, which requires that an energy conservation report shall set out measures which the authority considers practicable, cost-effective and likely to result in significant improvement in the energy efficiency of residential accommodation in its area. I think that we could all explain in ordinary language what we mean by that but, as my noble friend will appreciate, it is not the same thing as having a definition enshrined in statute which might be restrictive.
In talking about "energy effiency" in ordinary language, we mean measures which will result in an equal or greater level of comfort or service being secured for the use of less energy. There are a number of ways in which this can come about. Choosing equipment which performs a task using less energy is one. A refrigerator which runs on less electricity or a low-energy lightbulb are examples. Preventing the waste of heat or light by behavioural changes is another. Setting and using controls properly, drawing curtains to minimise heat loss through windows, and turning lights or appliances off when they are not needed are all examples in this area. Then there are physical measures to prevent the waste of energy used for heating such as loft insulation, draughtproofing and cavity wall insulation. The elderly and disabled can get help with loft insulation and draughtproofing as well as energy advice under the home energy efficiency scheme which has already helped over a million households. I think that we can safely leave the term "energy efficiency" without definition.
If noble Lords are concerned that authorities will not cast the net wide enough in seeking energy conservation measures, it will be possible to indicate in guidance the whole range of initiatives which are open to them. I believe that guidance is a more flexible and—dare I say— user-friendly way of doing this than enshrining a definition in statute.
Before I sit down, my noble friend asked about the energy ratio. I am afraid that I do not have the figure in my brief, but I give an undertaking to find out how the energy ratio has changed over the years and I shall write to my noble friend with the information. In the light of what I have said, I invite my noble friend not to press his amendment, which I believe would not improve the Bill.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: From the Labour Benches I first apologise for the sad absence of my noble friend Lady Hilton who dealt with this matter at an earlier stage. Unfortunately, she has suffered a family bereavement. I am sure that the Committee will be thinking of her at this particularly sad time. However it provides me with an opportunity to say a few words about the Bill and the amendments.
I was impressed with how fluently the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, dealt with what could have been a complicated issue. He dealt with it well and openly. I was tempted to nod my head at all the arguments he produced until the Minister stood up—the noble Earl must have done this a thousand times—and said that there was no need for the amendments because the Bill is drawn wide enough to take into account whatever it was he said.

905
The noble Earl talked about kettles and elements. For a moment I was going to call him my "esteamed" friend. He impressed me with his knowledge of such matters. Mrs. Diana Maddock in another place, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have done Parliament, the people and energy users a good service by getting the Bill this far. I have read the proceedings of another place where the Bill was given a right going over. It took almost five hours to get through its Committee stage in another place.
I fear the worst. If amendments were carried in this place they would have to run the gauntlet of another place. They would be capable of being used, or abused, by anyone who wanted to use it as a stick, although not necessarily to deal with this Bill, which, as my noble friend Lady Hilton said, is straightforward, simple and sensible.
The advice the Minister gave to the noble Earl is sound advice, especially as the Government took the trouble to move amendments in another place to improve the original Bill. They were accepted by Mrs. Diana Maddock and the whole House. There were no arguments and no animosity. We in this place would be doing the promoters of the Bill in both places—in effect, that means this country's consumers—a service if we said to the noble Earl that he has served us well by pointing out that there are ways in which even this Bill can be improved; but the parliamentary logistics and the opportunities for mischief that might be created are overpowering reasons why the noble Earl should accept his noble friend's advice.
Baroness Hamwee: I thank noble Lords who have spoken. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Graham, to pass to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, the condolences of these Benches. We were aware of some possible family difficulties and we are sorry to hear of her bereavement.
As my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich commented to me while the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was moving the amendment, he would be more interested in hearing the Government's response than comments from Richmond-upon-Thames, although he did mention Richmond-upon-Thames. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for replying at such length. That will shorten what I need to say.
I support the noble Earl's intention to reduce consumption and pollution. Of course, as he said, that was at the heart of the Bill. I support his intention to develop services and products, but it is the old issue: is there a risk of being too specific on the face of the Bill? If we mention those specific matters, should we mention other specific matters? If we do, we should have to cover the whole ground for fear of leaving out something. The word "advice" is included in the definition of energy conservation matters and was inserted in another place at the instigation of the Government. Therefore, those generalities cover the matter very thoroughly indeed.
The Minister indicated that guidance will be a flexible instrument which can stress the very wide nature of what is available and what is possible. We know already that that is likely to include advice to industry and the voluntary sector. The Minister has mentioned also reports by local authorities and what they may possibly contain.
906
I have some small anxieties about the drafting of the amendments. For completeness I should mention that as drawn, the amendments would mean that the measure would have to deal with what the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) and the generalities contained in the existing definition. I am not sure whether that is the intention.
I am rather concerned also as to whether the support for trade and industry in those services and products by local authorities would be intra vires the local authority. Supporting trade and industry is not the purpose of the Bill although that will be a very important by-product. I am rather concerned as to whether direct support in the way that it is suggested might be outside the scope of a local authority's powers.
As I say, that will be an important by-product. The Minister has reminded me of the very good work which many good local authorities did—it now seems quite a long way back in history—in installing energy efficient light bulbs in local authority housing. There are a number of such examples. Local authorities, working in partnership with other sectors and with industry and business, will be able to achieve a great deal.
The noble Earl said in moving the amendment that we cannot sit back. Of course we cannot. This Bill may be the end of the beginning of one major area in dealing with energy issues. It is not the whole; but it is very important. I am sure that those who have been involved so far with the Bill and who are excited by the possibilities that it presents will agree with the noble Earl that we cannot sit back.
Having heard the Minister and my small contribution, I hope that the noble Earl will feel reassured with regard to the amendments and will not seek to press them.
The Earl of Caithness: First, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, how very sorry I am to hear about the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton. I hope that he will pass on to her my very best wishes.
The noble Lord disappointed me. I spent years on the Front Bench disagreeing with the noble Lord. I thought that when I was on the Back-Benches, at least we might agree. However, it looks as though we shall spend years disagreeing with each other. But I was not at all surprised by what he said.
I should like to press the Minister on a number of issues. Will he write to me with further details of the non-fossil fuel levy? Exactly what is in the Government's mind in that regard? How will that continue in the light of nuclear privatisation? How much money do the Government intend to spend on the very worthwhile path on which they have commenced? I should stress that that is a prime example of Conservative policy at its best because at least 3,000 people are now involved in the renewable energy field who were not so involved not many years ago, before the levy came into being. That is an area as regards which countries in Europe and around the world are turning to Britain and we are now at last seizing the gauntlet and becoming world leaders. Perhaps my noble friend will write to me on that.
I know that a great deal has been done in the field of labelling and identifying energy efficient products. Again, I stress the caveat that that does not necessarily

907
mean that we reduce the consumption of energy. If you buy a petrol-efficient car the fact is that, more often than not, you actually drive further. With a set amount of money you were able to travel x miles, but now you can drive x miles plus, say, 15 per cent. and therefore you do so. There again, there is no saving. That is what concerns me about the Bill. The intention is good, but it actually misses the key point; namely, to reduce the amount of energy that is being consumed.
My noble friend ducked the question, if I may put it that way, of cost; as, indeed, did the noble Baroness regarding what the costs of the proposal would be for local authorities. The noble Baroness certainly did not give a justification as to why Richmond-upon-Thames Council could spend the amount of money that it intends to spend in that respect as opposed to something more cost effective.
Finally, I am grateful for the response given by my noble friend the Minister. He mentioned the word "guidance". I hope that he will consult very widely on the question of guidance. Perhaps my noble friend could give me an assurance that he will consult the renewable industry sector about the sort of guidance that the Secretary of State will give to local authorities. I believe that that would be a comfort under the present circumstances. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would be kind enough to respond to some of those points before I withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Ullswater: I shall, of course, be happy to write to my noble friend about renewable energy and the amount of money that the Government are spending on it. My noble friend also indicated that he would like to see guidance consulted upon before it is issued. I shall certainly bear in mind what my noble friend said and draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State when he considers the issuing of guidance. I do not believe that there is anything between us as regards guidance of which the industry would approve, but I shall certainly bring that to the attention of my right honourable friend.
The Earl of Caithness: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that response. Perhaps there will be an opportunity for me to take those points further at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Clause 2 [Energy conservation reports]:
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert ("encourage the architects, designers, builders and those granting permission for residential building schemes to build buildings incorporating energy saving features and the optimum use of renewable energy in their design; and to").
The noble Earl said: The above amendment follows on partly from Amendment No. 2, but it also raises a slightly wider issue. We seem to have forgotten much of the talent that we had in the past. Visiting particularly rural areas, one can see how very cleverly the houses were designed
908
up to about 80 years ago. Those who built, houses seemed to have an innate understanding of how the eco-system in which we live operates. They were situated and designed to make the maximum use of solar energy, of water power, or of whatever nature could provide because they did not have the skills and technology that we have today.
However, with such skills and technology we seem to have lost the ability to enhance our buildings and make the maximum use of our surroundings. We have bulldozed plenty of land flat and we have put up houses in rows, just like in the song,
"Little boxes, little boxes, little boxes all the same",
without thinking how they could be better designed by incorporating features which would help to keep such houses in a fit and habitable condition at the minimum cost. It is for that reason that I put down Amendment No. 3 which seeks to,
"encourage the architects, designers, builders and those granting permission for residential building schemes to build buildings incorporating energy saving features and the optimum use of renewable energy in their design".
Again I come back to the question of renewable energy. It seems to me totally ludicrous that even in this country we have our boilers on in the summer in order to heat water. It is quite possible with modern technology—again partly due to the incentive that the Government have produced, which I mentioned on speaking to the first amendment—for us all to switch off our boilers and have good hot water through solar energy. That would save enormously on the consumption of fossil fuels and reduce the amount of carbon dioxide.
It is areas like these which need again to be brought forward by the Secretary of State for local authorities and for those who are designing and building domestic accommodation, let alone industrial and commercial accommodation, to take note of so that the maximum benefit can be gained from renewable energy and existing resources rather than using up scarce fossil fuel resources. I beg to move.
Viscount Ullswater: Perhaps I could start by saying that we on this side of the Chamber, as my noble friend indicated, would very much like to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in passing our condolences to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, on a family bereavement.
We would all, I think, agree with my noble friend Lord Caithness that it is desirable, both from the point of view of the environment and of the occupants; of newly built homes, that they should be built with due regard for energy efficiency. Although measures identified in reports made under this Bill will inevitably be principally concerned with existing housing accommodation, it is right that we should ensure that energy efficiency, including the use of renewable energy, is taken into account in the design of new buildings.
The Government have done and are doing a great deal to encourage greater attention to energy efficiency by architects, builders and others. New building regulations come into effect on 1st July 1995 requiring higher standards to be achieved for insulation and for heating and hot water controls in buildings. Also with effect from 1st July 1995, we have introduced a new building regulation which will require new dwellings to be given an energy

909
rating calculated by using the Government's standard assessment procedure. Prospective purchasers and tenants will be able to compare the likely space and water heating costs of different dwellings, and architects, designers and builders will in consequence be encouraged by competition to identify ways to increase energy efficiency.
There is a considerable amount of guidance and advice available to those designing buildings. The best practice programme of the Energy Efficiency Office includes advice on energy efficient housing design, incorporating, where appropriate, design advice from the Department of Trade and Industry's passive solar design programme.
My noble friend indicated from his experience how the builders of yesteryear used the best possible planning methods to reduce the amount of heating required in older buildings. We believe that there is a future for passive solar design. Indeed the energy design advice scheme has set a target for annual energy savings of some £50 million by the year 2000. We believe that PSD is an aspect of good, low-energy, climatically responsive building design, construction and management, and it uses through that design free solar gains in buildings to reduce their energy requirements.
The best practice publications have been widely circulated among target audiences and are available free of charge from the building research energy conservation support unit at the Building Research Establishment. Designers can also turn to the energy design advice scheme of the Department of Trade and Industry for expert consultancy advice on energy conscious design measures for specific building projects.
While I agree that it is highly desirable for all concerned with buildings to take energy efficiency into account, the reference in the amendment to planning is one which would cause the Government some difficulty. The incorporation of energy-saving features in residential developments may or may not be a material planning consideration; whether it is will depend on the facts of the case. As the amendment would oblige energy conservation authorities to seek to persuade planning authorities to take account of factors which are not planning considerations, I have to say to my noble friend that that is not acceptable to the Government. However, the department's Planning Policy Guidance Note 12 states that the conservation of energy is one key issue to which the Government have already asked local authorities to have particular regard as an issue in development plans. So it is not overlooked in the planning process.
As far as concerns renewable energy sources, the Government's policy is to stimulate the development of new and renewable energy sources wherever they have a prospect of being economically attractive and environmentally acceptable in order to contribute to diverse, secure and sustainable energy supplies, reductions in the emission of pollutants and the encouragement of internationally competitive industries.
In domestic buildings the most obvious scope for the use of renewable energy sources concerns the use of solar energy. Active solar technology, used for systems which collect the sun's radiation and then transfer it in the form of heat to air, water or some other fluid, is obviously more
910
complex than the PSD I have already mentioned. Nevertheless, there are currently some 46,000 active solar heating systems installed in residential properties in the UK, with up to 2,000 systems being added each year.
I hope that my noble friend will draw some comfort from what I have said about the many steps the Government have taken to ensure that energy efficiency is taken fully into account in the design of housing. These go a long way to ensuring that the aim behind his amendment is already being achieved. I have also explained that the reference in the amendment to planning is not one which would be acceptable to the Government. I therefore venture to hope that my noble friend may feel able to withdraw his amendment, but with the gratitude of the Committee for having raised these important issues.
Baroness Hamwee: I very much support the thrust of the amendment proposed by the noble Earl. In relation to the previous amendment he invited me to mention experience in that great borough of Richmond-upon-Thames. I can tell him that there, and I believe in many other planning authorities, discussions with developers on developments of any major size are used rather than a confrontational approach to planning. I am sure that the issues he raised will increasingly become major issues for discussion.
As the Minister said, there must be concern as to whether it would be possible to base a refusal of planning permission or to frame a condition attaching to a consent on an issue of energy efficiency because of uncertainty as to whether that would be a material consideration. Indeed, the Secretary of State and planning inspectors say time after time on appeals that planning should not usurp other systems.
If the noble Earl wishes to bring to the House a change to the building regulations to deal with these matters I should be very happy to support him. However, I believe that that would be the appropriate context for these matters rather than this Bill. I too would support wider discretion on the part of local planning authorities, and to the extent that there is support for that in the amendment I join with the noble Earl. However, I fear that the wording would be out of place, even though I support the thrust of the amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will not seek to press the amendment.
10.30 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: I entirely take the point that my noble friend makes about the wording, and the problem that he would have regarding planning on which undoubtedly he is an expert. I foresaw difficulties in that regard when I put down the amendment. It was not surprising that those difficulties came home to roost.
However, I draw some comfort from what my noble friend said, as he believed that I might. Perhaps more people would draw comfort if the department made more widely known what they have done. There is no doubt that the Government have done a great deal in this field; but much has been hidden under a bushel. Many of the successes are not widely known.

911
I was grateful for the full answers that my noble friend gave and for the time he has taken to address the great majority of my points. I am grateful, too, for the comments of the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported to the House without amendment; Report received.
House adjourned at twenty-eight minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Domestic Violence
  Domestic Violence
  Life Sentence Prisoners: Home Visits
  Life Sentence Prisoners: Home Visits
  National Park Authorities: Local Representation
  National Park Authorities: Local Representation
  Household Division Costs
  Household Division Costs