Sitting of 23 May 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For North Down, in the room of Sir James Kilfedder, deceased.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MALVERN HILLS BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION

    Nursery Schools
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what percentage of three to five-year-olds have pre-school places in publicly funded schools or nursery schools in (a) Great Britain and (b) France. [23809]
    The Secretary of State for Education (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): In 1992 all three to five-year-olds in France attended some form of schooling, including private, compared with 68 per cent. in the United Kingdom. Of the other European Union member states, only Belgium, Italy and Spain have a higher percentage attendance than the United Kingdom.
    Mr. MacShane: I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. I hope that she will take this opportunity to deny the report in yesterday's Daily Mail that she plans to introduce a crazy right-wing voucher scheme which will create kiddies farms for middle-class parents. I know that she loves France as much as I do and my more serious point is, why three to five-year-olds in France get a better deal from their Government than my three to five-year-olds get from theirs. I speak as one with two children under that age.
    Mrs. Shephard: I note that the hon. Gentleman prepared his indignation in advance. Nine out of 10 three and four-year-olds in this country have some form of pre-school education. Just over half attend nursery schools or nursery reception classes in primary schools; and 41 per cent. are registered with a play group. The hon. Gentleman spoke about assertions in the Daily Mail. I remind him that we have made it clear that in due course we shall announce our proposals for new places with new
    692
    money for children under five. When we make that announcement the mechanisms by which those places will be provided will become clear.
    Sir David Madel: As local education authorities steadily expand nursery school provision, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Pre-school Playgroups Organisation also plays a vital role in preparing children for compulsory years at school?
    Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend is right. Our announcement will make it clear that we are promoting good quality, and choice and diversity for parents. Our objective is most specifically not to put private or voluntary providers out of business.
    Mr. Don Foster: Further to the Secretary of State's response to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) may I ask her to tell the House a bit more precisely when she is likely to make her announcement about the expansion of nursery education? Does she agree that a voucher system would not provide the necessary resources for places for children in terms of physical facilities, or the training for the high-quality teachers needed for high-quality nursery education?
    Mrs. Shephard: I say again that we shall make the announcement when the policies are ready. The delivery mechanisms will be part of that announcement. I have already said this afternoon—and on many other occasions—that our plans will promote good quality and choice and diversity; obviously good quality includes the right qualifications and training.
    Mr. Riddick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of nursery places for all four-year-olds provides the Government with an excellent opportunity to do something popular—to provide vouchers to parents and thereby give them more choice? Will she take this opportunity to say that she does have sympathy with the article in the Daily Mail; and that she will not adopt the sort of hotchpotch compromise trailed in some newspapers, or the sort of scheme that the DFE has some expertise in creating?
    Mrs. Shephard: I thank my hon. Friend. The delivery mechanisms, including vouchers, bidding systems and so on, are part of the policy considerations that we are currently looking at. Nothing has been ruled in and nothing ruled out.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: Does the Secretary of State recall the Chief Secretary's speech on nursery vouchers to the Centre for Policy Studies on 15 March, when he described himself as a
    "heavy handed Chief Secretary pre-empting the proper process of Government decision making"?
    In view of yesterday's Daily Mail article, will she tell the House who determines education policy for the Government—the Secretary of State or the Chief Secretary?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am sure that the editor and proprietor of the Daily Mail will be enchanted to know that the paper's every word is so carefully perused by Opposition Members.
    As for the Chief Secretary's words at the seminar, I am not sure that I recall them too clearly, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I and my team of Ministers are in charge of education policy.

    Stamford Endowed Schools
    Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on future access to the Stamford endowed schools. [23810]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Robin Squire): I understand that Lincolnshire county council is consulting on a proposal to phase out its scholarship scheme for 25 boys and 25 girls to attend the two Stamford endowed schools.
    Mr. Davies: Is my hon. Friend aware that these county scholarships, which have enabled children who qualify academically in Stamford to go to the Stamford school and the high school—both excellent schools—irrespective of their parents' means, have been a priceless educational asset to generations of Stamford children? Is he further aware that the only reasons why the county council is planning to abolish the scholarship scheme are ideological prejudice and sheer malice? [Interruption.] Does my hon. Friend agree that the behaviour of Opposition Front Benchers, who are shouting now, is contemptible? They take advantage of educational choice for their own children in London, yet when they come to power with their Liberal poodles in Lincolnshire they try to destroy parental choice there.
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend has touched on a sensitive point with Opposition Members. I am sure that he is right about the many boys and girls in Lincolnshire who have benefited in past years, but I am afraid that this is a matter for Lincolnshire county council alone to determine. My right hon. Friend has no jurisdiction, provided that there are sufficient other places for school pupils in the area. I note, however, that the headmaster of Stamford school has described the proposal as social and educational vandalism.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools there are in the south-east. [23811]
    Mr. Robin Squire: There are 300 grant-maintained schools in London and south-east England, including nearly half the maintained secondary schools in the region.
    Mr. Waterson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that there is not a single grant-maintained school in east Sussex? Does he agree that that is a great shame; and will he undertake, with his ministerial colleagues, to do everything in his power to communicate to parents, governors and teachers the tangible benefits of GM status?
    Mr. Squire: I willingly give an assurance to my hon. Friend in answer to his question. He will recognise that the growth of grant-maintained schools is determined by parental ballots and I am afraid that only three out of about 250 governing bodies have so far consulted parents by such a ballot. None is yet benefiting from the improvements that grant-maintained status brings. I have some good news for my hon. Friend. Earlier this year I
    694
    approved the first grant-maintained school in west Sussex and I strongly suspect that its good influence will waft across the border in the very near future.
    Mr. Tony Banks: The Minister will recall that there is only one grant-maintained school in the London borough of Newham—Stratford school, which has been judged to be failing. The Secretary of State has now sacked the chairman of governors and the governors and put her own people in. When will the Minister be prepared to sit down with the local education authority to discuss the educational welfare of the children at Stratford school, or is he going to continue, for party political purposes, to throw money at Stratford school, despite the fact that it is failing and will continue to fail?
    Mr. Squire: First, I must clarify something that the hon. Gentleman said. The former chairman of governors resigned; he was not sacked. On the more substantial point, I trust that the hon. Gentleman shares our wish to see education improve in that school. It is recognised that it is not at the level that it should be and the Government, through the newly appointed governors, are taking steps to ensure that standards will improve at that school, which will benefit all pupils there now and, indeed, in the future.
    Mr. Gale: My hon. Friend knows that as a result of the Government's policy, Kent county has a very wide range of choice of schools, including excellent grant-maintained schools. He also knows that those schools are staffed by excellent and dedicated teaching staff. Is it not right that those teachers should be paid properly and is it not a disgrace that the Labour and Liberal administration that runs Kent county council is refusing to pay them to score party political points while knowing that it has the money to do so?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend makes a serious point. I note that other of our hon. Friends from Kent have made similar comments recently in the House. If it is true, that through mismanagement, Kent has discovered that it has significant sums with which it could have fully funded the teachers' pay rise, it is very important that all the people of Kent know exactly where the finger of guilt should be pointed, and that is certainly at Kent LEA.

    Special Needs
    Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she plans to review the resources available for education for children with special needs. [23812]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The special educational needs code of practice, which came into effect in September 1994, will encourage schools to make more effective use of their budgets for pupils with those needs. How each local education authority determines its priorities is a matter for the authority concerned.
    Mr. Austin-Walker: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the special educational needs tribunal has heard only about 50 of the 500 appeals before it and will she ensure that the tribunal has sufficient resources to clear the backlog? Further, while Opposition Members welcome the code of practice, we recognise that resources are needed for it to be put into place.

    695
    Is the Secretary of State aware that many local authorities are not meeting the six months timetable for statementing because of the shortage of educational psychologists? Will she make the resources available to ensure that that can be rectified and provide additional resources in 1996–97 for the additional training that will be needed for special educational needs co-ordinators?
    Mrs. Shephard: Local education authorities have a duty to provide for the education of statemented pupils. They should provide additional weighting for pupils with special needs. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that an Audit Commission survey in 1992 found that two thirds of head teachers did not know how much was in their budgets for special educational needs, hence the need for greater transparency was made mandatory under the code. I certainly agree that the work of tribunals has some backlog at the moment, partly because this is a new system.
    The hon. Gentleman also mentioned training. He should know that GEST, the grant for education, support and training, amounts to £27.8 million this year, an increase of £4 million on last year, and makes provision to support training for educational psychologists, among other things.
    Mrs. Peacock: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the unacceptable delays that have occurred in the past in respect of some appeals to her Department. Will she tell me and the House how long it will take the SEN tribunal to deal with the case that I am about to put to it which involves a very bright child who does not have a school to go to in September?
    Mrs. Shephard: In that case, I should hope that the tribunal would deal with the matter with all dispatch. It is clearly urgent.

    Vandalism
    Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on the level of vandalism in schools. [23813]
    The Minister of State, Department for Education (Mr. Eric Forth): The Department for Education survey of security in schools shows that vandalism accounts for 80 per cent. of the incidents of school crime.
    Mr. Janner: Does the Minister know that there is a serious plague of vandalism in the city of Leicester, with no fewer than 796 incidents in my constituency alone in the past financial year? Is he aware of my very useful and constructive conversation with the Secretary of State and her promise to come to Leicester to see the results of that vandalism and talk to the people on the ground? Will she be kind enough to let us know when we are likely to have the pleasure of welcoming her and whether the Department has done anything about helping schools to cope with vandalism since our conversation?
    Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend hopes to visit very soon. When she does, I hope that she will learn from the schools affected and from the local education authority about the measures that they are taking within their remit to ensure that this serious problem is tackled. There are many possibilities open to schools and local authorities. For example, GEST funding and supplementary credit approvals may be given, single regeneration budget
    696
    money may be made available and closed circuit television is proving to be very successful in reducing vandalism to zero where it was previously often pernicious. I hope that local people will describe to my right hon. Friend what they are doing to tackle this difficult problem.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does my hon. Friend consider it a quite extraordinary act of vandalism that the school budgets in Kent should have been shortchanged by £3.8 million by the Liberal county council—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his question to that on the Order Paper, which is not concerned with finance. The hon. Gentleman had the chance to raise that earlier.
    Mr. Arnold: Is not it a remarkable bit of vandalism that, although there is a surplus of £17 million, our schools are shortchanged?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has abused the procedure. I hope that the Minister will answer according to the original question and not as widened by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Forth: That echoes the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies), who referred to the latest act of socialist vandalism by his LEA. It seems to be an increasing but regrettable feature of some local education authorities.
    Mr. Barry Jones rose—
    Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) can make a better stab at it.
    Mr. Jones: Is not there a link between rampant vandalism and 16 years of Conservative Government?
    Madam Speaker: Order. I think that that is known as a quid pro quo, and the Minister is not answering.

    Standard Spending Assessment
    Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to change the present education standard spending assessment formula. [23814]
    Mr. Robin Squire: My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration is reviewing the area cost adjustment. We also keep under review the education factors in the standard spending assessment methodology. Before making any changes, we will take careful account of the views of the local authority associations.
    Mr. Atkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for responding positively to the representations that I and my Dorset colleagues made to him recently about the adverse comparisons between neighbouring LEAs. Will any new LEA funding formulas be more transparent and demonstrate to governors and parents that they reflect fairly the actual costs of providing education in our schools?
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend refers to the alluring prospect of some simple formula involving a sum per pupil. In practice, there would always have to be some way of allowing for the inevitably higher costs of educating pupils in certain circumstances and areas. As

    697
    the House will be aware, we are looking at the possibility of a national funding formula, but I would not want to mislead the House by suggesting that it is imminent. Significant practical difficulties have to be overcome.
    Mr. William O'Brien: When considering a review of the education SSAs, will the Minister take into consideration the need to provide more resources to make available a general educational facility for nursery schools? When adjusting the SSAs, will he also take into consideration consultation with parent and teacher organisations?
    Mr. Squire: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the SSA is ultimately simply a distribution mechanism. The total size of the budget is determined in discussion with other Government colleagues. If the hon. Gentleman is adding his name and suggestion to the growing list of Labour commitments, we would simply note it.
    Sir Malcolm Thornton: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread support, especially at school level, for the prospect of a re-think of the way in which we fund our schools and that there is overwhelming evidence that needs-led funding requires active consideration? Is he also aware that the Select Committee on Education has done some work on that subject and has produced a report, which would not be a blueprint but would nevertheless add to the debate on the possibilities of a national funding formula and which I commend to him?
    Mr. Squire: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, whose work as Chairman of the Select Committee on Education is so good, sound and gives us many practical suggestions, as indeed, is the work of the Select Committee as a whole. From his position, he will know how true were my earlier comments about the difficulties that attend such a change.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Even if it were conceivable that the Government were to move swiftly to change the formula, how soon would they be able to repair the damage done to the fabric of our education system this year? The National Association of Head Teachers has pointed out that already more than 2,500 teachers' jobs have gone, £300 million has been stripped from schools' budgets and the Government's depredation, to refer to an earlier question, has been much more damaging than that which any vandals could do.
    Mr. Squire: The hon. Gentleman makes no reference to the rising standards in our schools, which is the key point of education. He also makes no reference to the significantly increased sums of capital build in the forthcoming year. If he is suggesting that he would spend significantly greater sums were his party in government, let him come up with a figure, say what it is and get the approval of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), then we will start to take his criticism seriously.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grant-maintained schools there are in the north-west. [23815]
    Mr. Robin Squire: There are currently 84 grant-maintained schools in the north-west of England.
    Mr. Thurnham: When we next have a ballot in the north-west, will my hon. Friend address parents on the
    698
    very great benefits of grant-maintained schools and invite the Leader of the Opposition to join him on the platform so that the right hon. Gentleman can condemn all the rubbish put out by the Labour party in the north-west?
    Mr. Squire: I sense that if I were to go to a school and speak about the undoubted benefits of GM status during a ballot, I might find subsequently a small problem or two, vis-à-vis legal advice. The serious point that my hon. Friend makes is worth making. It is not that we even know the Opposition policy on opt-out schools. In this month alone, we have been asked to choose between the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who says that he is in favour of opt-out schools but says nothing specific, and those of the shadow spokesman for Wales, who has said that all the Labour party members in Wales are totally against opt-out schools. Which one speaks for the Labour party?
    Mr. Pike: Does not the Minister recognise that the majority of parents in Lancashire and the north-west do not want GM schools? All they want are schools provided by the local education authority which have sufficient funding to provide the right quality and standard of education for our children.
    Mr. Squire: As my earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) indicated, significant numbers of parents want grant-maintained schools in the north-west. They are enjoying them, and they would enjoy even more of them if the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were not so innately opposed to them.
    Mr. Dover: Does the Minister acknowledge that the Labour-controlled county council in Lancashire has transformed a 1 per cent. real increase in last November's budget into a 5.5 per cent. cut in the county? Does my hon. Friend agree that the only way to get real increased cash resources to schools is to have a much wider provision of grant-maintained schools?
    Mr. Squire: Undoubtedly, one of the many benefits of grant-maintained status is that by devolving control of all the budget to the school governors, one gets better value for money and less need for bureaucracy in town or county hall. My hon. Friend is right.

    Capping
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about the effects of capping on schools. [23816]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: The capping limits allow all local education authorities to increase their budgets. They have discretion over funding for their schools within the level of their cap.
    Mr. Jamieson: Will the Secretary of State tell the House what recommendations she will make to her right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment regarding Devon's cap, following the meeting between the Under-Secretary of State for Schools, myself and a delegation from Devon county council? Will she tell the House whether she agrees with Tory Members in the south-west, such as the hon. Members for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) and for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam)—and even the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink)—who believe that caps should be raised, or

    699
    whether she agrees with those Conservative Members in Devon who are fully committed to lowering standards in local schools by keeping the caps in place?
    Mrs. Shephard: I am well aware that Conservative county councillors in Devon gave an additional £4.4 million to the education service in their draft budget, within the cap. We are at present considering the appeals submitted by capped authorities and we shall take decisions in the light of available information.
    Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled county council in Devon three times turned down the Conservative budget which provided the money that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) accused us of not giving? Does my right hon. Friend also realise that the local education authority takes 28 per cent. of the standard spending assessment to run its headquarters operation? That money could go to the local schools if Devon was not so vociferous about the way in which it wishes to spend money.
    Mrs. Shephard: My right hon. Friend makes a good point. He and some of my other hon. Friends representing constituencies in Devon have frequently made such points. Devon receives more per pupil in its education SSA than 35 other local education authorities.

    Assisted Places
    Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many children have an assisted place at a private school. [23819]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Almost 29,800 children hold Government-assisted places in independent schools in England in the current year. In addition, other children are supported in independent schools by local education authorities.
    Mr. Martin: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the assisted places scheme is popular with parents because of its educational value and the opportunities provided, not least by places given to pupils in Portsmouth? Will she take every opportunity to point out the fact that the vindictive educational vandals on the Labour and Liberal Democrat Benches would abolish the assisted places scheme if the British people were ever foolish enough to elect a Labour Government?
    Mrs. Shephard: The assisted places scheme has helped more than 70,000 children since its inception. It is a success and it is popular. The Government believe in encouraging choice and diversity in education, a policy consistently opposed by the Opposition who, if they have a position on the matter, seem to believe that they can exercise as parents choices that they vote to deny to others.
    Mr. O'Hara: Is not the assisted places scheme more to do with propping up a foundering private system than with the opportunities it gives to the children whom it is draining from the state system, together with resources? Is not it a fact that the value that is vaunted for the assisted places scheme is certainly not borne out by the examination results achieved by the children involved?
    Mrs. Shephard: Oh, how wrong the hon. Gentleman is. The assisted places scheme is about the extension of
    700
    choice and about excellent examination results. Assisted places scheme pupils in 1994 had pass rates of more than 90 per cent. in both GCSE and A-levels. The scheme also encourages a high stay-on rate. It is an investment in opportunity which the Opposition would lose no time in abolishing.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Given that the incomes of 60 per cent. of the parents of children with assisted places are less than the national average and that the head of the headmasters conference said that the cost to the Exchequer of the assisted places scheme was less than the average for a state school, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour party's opposition to the assisted places scheme is based not on logic or on good education but purely on ideology and envy?
    Mrs. Shephard: Given that the aim of the scheme is to widen the choice of able children from less well-off families, one would have hoped that Opposition Members would support it. Their attitudes are to do with class envy, as my hon. Friend remarks.
    Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, if the money devoted to the assisted places scheme were devoted to the state sector, 5,000 additional teachers could be employed to assist in reducing the class sizes which she seems determined to drive up?
    Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman has forgotten that pupils transfer with their funding, which is unfortunate given that he occupies a place on the Opposition Front Bench. It would be interesting if the hon. Gentleman would confirm that his party intends to abolish the scheme in the unlikely event of the Labour party ever attaining power.

    Parental Choice
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the contribution of choice and diversity to the quality of education and the contribution of grammar schools, city technology colleges and grant-maintained schools to parental choice and the quality of education. [23820]
    Mr. Robin Squire: The exercise of informed parental choice has a key role to play in raising standards. Grammar schools, grant-maintained schools, city technology colleges and specialist colleges mean greater diversity in the kinds of schools to which parents can apply, and high-quality education to large numbers of pupils.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the overwhelming majority of the nation's parents want greater freedom of choice and diversity in education? [Laughter.] Does he further agree that Opposition Members—who are currently laughing about education and do not see it as an important matter, as we do—would abolish grant-maintained schools, grammar schools and the assisted places scheme, all of which are in demand by parents? Would not the cost of abolishing those schemes come from the scarce resources in the education budget? Would that not represent a total waste?
    Mr. Squire: Not only is my hon. Friend right but, unusually, he understates. We can see from the answer to a previous question that a further group of schools will be threatened should the lot opposite come to power. The

    701
    Government want all schools to develop their own identity, while the Opposition are motivated more by dogma and are prepared to attack excellent schools in the name of that dogma.
    Mr. Sheerman: If the Minister is going to talk about the proper use of taxpayers' money, will he defend the information he gave to me in a written answer, that his Department is spending millions of pounds on brainwashing parents in favour of grant-maintained status, including producing a free video which is placed on every seat at every vote? That is not about choice, and it should be paid for by Conservative central office.
    Mr. Squire: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would share our wish that all ballots should take place in an informed and accurate way. The publicity to which he referred must comply with the proper codes of government conduct, and it is not the equivalent of party propaganda. I certainly bow to the hon. Gentleman's greater knowledge of that subject.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the remarkable educational achievements of Southend's four grammar schools, which are unique in offering free education to one quarter of all children from Southend-on-Sea? What steps can he take to protect those schools from Lib-Lab-controlled Essex county council's appalling proposal to abolish free school transport, which will mean that freedom of choice will be available only to the upper-income groups? Would not Keir Hardie, who was a remarkable, truthful socialist, turn in his grave at the thought of that appalling proposal?
    Mr. Squire: As my hon. Friend is aware, I have considerable knowledge of the achievements of Southend schools to which he rightly refers. I was particularly saddened to read about the proposals of Essex local education authority, which, as my hon. Friend implies, can result only in ensuring that the children who go to those schools in the future are likely to be from better-off families than at present—now, they are drawn simply on the basis of their educational merit.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: If state schools are now so superb, is it not time that Conservative Members of Parliament took their children out of the private sector and sent them into the public sector? Furthermore, if these schools are so good, is it not about time that a member of the royal family sent his or her children into the public sector?
    Mr. Squire: Well, there was a lot of bile there, was there not, Madam Speaker? First, as a state-educated pupil, I have no reason to apologise for the state of my education then or, more important, the state of education in our maintained schools now. It is improving, but it must improve more. How the hon. Gentleman has the gall to talk about private education, given the nature of the Leader of the Opposition, I simply do not understand.

    A-levels
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what comparisons she has made between this year's GCE A-level results and those from previous years. [23821]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Since 1980, the proportion of 18-year-olds achieving two or more GCE A-levels has doubled from 14 per cent. to 28 per cent.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent news about the increase in GCE A-level passes. Of course, it is due to successful Government education policies. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what steps he intends to take to maintain the rigorous standards of A-levels and thus public confidence in them?
    Mr. Boswell: We are absolutely committed to the maintenance of standards and rigour in A-levels and that is fundamental to the remit that we have given to Sir Ron Dearing's review of the qualifications framework from age 16 to 19. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also invited the Office of Standards in Education to undertake a further inspection of GCE A-levels and to report in 1996. That inspection will deal with such matters as consistency of standards in GCE A-levels over time.
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: Does the Minister accept that a proper comparison of A-level successes could be made only if other qualifications on offer to older students were also taken into consideration, including the higher national certificate? Will he take the earliest opportunity to consult his hon. Friend the Minister for Merseyside to find out whether a way can be found to save the theatre wardrobe course in Liverpool—a higher national certificate course of the highest quality, which is a great success and attracts students from throughout the country, but which, unfortunately, is due to close?
    Mr. Boswell: I can report to the House that, alongside the success of GCE A-levels, there has been a massive expansion in the range and quality of vocational qualifications. I advise the hon. Lady, however, not to smuggle in a question about a particular course, which I am empowered neither to provide nor to withdraw, although I recognise her concern. I cannot answer at the Box for that suggestion.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that grant-maintained schools in the north-west have done especially well in their results and that no grant-maintained school in Lancaster or Cumbria has had to declare any permanent teacher redundant?
    Mr. Boswell: I agree with my hon. Friend in every respect, save that her encomiums for grant-maintained schools are characteristically confined to the north-west, whereas we on the Government Front Bench would apply them to the entire country. They are successful schools with very high standards.

    Special Needs
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what new plans she has to meet the special educational needs of children. [23822]
    Mr. Forth: The Education Act 1993 and the code of practice that came into force last September provide an improved framework for meeting special educational needs. The Department has in place a range of measures to support and monitor the implementation of the code.
    Ms Lynne: Does the Minister accept that one of the advantages of nursery education is that a child's special

    703
    educational needs can be diagnosed at an early stage? Does he agree that the proposed voucher scheme will mean that children from poorer families will be disadvantaged and their special educational needs will not be diagnosed at such an early stage?
    Mr. Forth: No, I cannot agree with the point that the hon. Lady makes. With expanded pre-five provision, there is the potential that many special educational needs could and should be diagnosed much earlier. Whatever delivery mechanism is eventually determined, those advantages could, would, should and will be spread to everybody, regardless of his or her means.
    Mr. McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend agree that there seems to be a wide divergence throughout the country in terms of the amount of money spent on special educational needs? Is he aware of the growing support on the Conservative Benches for a national funding formula for education, so that we can have transparency in educational funding throughout the country rather than some of the money being salted away by local education authorities?
    Mr. Forth: Yes. My hon. Friend, typically, has hit on an important point. One of the great advantages of the code of practice and the procedures surrounding it is that, for the first time, we can see much more clearly where special needs money is directed, what use is made of it and who is doing what. As we see that increasingly clearly, authorities that shortchange parents and pupils, particularly those with special educational needs, will be identified, flushed out and shamed into doing something significantly better.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May. [23839]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. Jenkin: Further to the prior notice that I have given my right hon. Friend on the subject of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, will he reassure the House that, contrary to indications in The Sunday Times this week, the Government will bid for a net retrieval of power from the European institutions? Is not our resolve in this matter an increasingly defining issue between the Government and the Opposition? Does he agree that our determination to secure the powers of the nation state contrast utterly with the Leader of the Opposition, who has nothing but a soundbite and a submissive smile—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us make some progress.
    Mr. Jenkin: I see that the yobs are out in force today, Madam Speaker. As I was saying, the Leader of the Opposition's idea of a nation state is Europe.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me notice of the broad subject that he intended to raise. I did read the speculative story in The Sunday Times, which is speculating on decisions and matters that
    704
    are still under discussion, which have not remotely been concluded and will not be concluded for some time. The general approach that the Government will take has been set out on many occasions. We believe that Community action should be used only where it is necessary and valuable and should not include going into what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has called the nooks and crannies of daily life. At the IGC, I shall block any attempt to extend Community competence into intergovernmental areas such as foreign affairs, defence and home affairs and I shall aim to strengthen subsidiarity, which has already led to a reduction in Commission activity. My hon. Friend is entirely right about the differences between the Conservative party and the Opposition, and they become clearer.
    Mr. Blair: I welcome the Prime Minister's assurance that the new committee on Nolan will look at how, not whether, it implements the Nolan recommendations. Can I take it that that includes the specific recommendation that the amount paid to Members of Parliament under outside consultancies will be included?
    The Prime Minister: Let me make it entirely clear to the right hon. Gentleman what I said in the House, without any dissent from him or any other hon. Member, when I set up the committee. I said then:
    "Recommendations affecting the Members and procedures of this House will, of course, be for the House to decide."—[Official Report, 25 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 759.]
    We have now seen the report. I have said repeatedly that I favour greater transparency and accept the broad principles of the Nolan committee. We need to examine how those principles will work and what their implications will be for Parliament. I hope that that can be done on an all-party basis, which would be in the interests of the House, so that the country can see that the House is seeking to live up to the highest standards which I wish it to have and which, I believe, the right hon. Gentleman has also said he wishes it to have.
    Mr. Blair: I welcome that and I take it that that answer ensures that the new committee will look at how but not whether the recommendations are implemented. Can the Prime Minister therefore say whether it is his understanding that the new committee will report before the long summer recess its recommendations on how the Nolan recommendations are to be implemented?
    The Prime Minister: We have set out some detailed proposals on what might be the remit of the committee and they are the subject of current discussion with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor). Those discussions must continue with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in the hope that an agreement on that remit is reached.
    On the speed of reporting to the House, I certainly anticipate that the committee will make rapid progress. I hope that agreement could be reached on publishing at least an interim report before the House rises for the summer recess. The committee itself must determine how rapidly it can discuss the matters in question.
    There is no doubt among those hon. Members who have taken the trouble to read the Nolan committee report that it refers to many matters of great difficulty, on which the Nolan committee believes the House should decide how

    705
    they are carried forward. This is a matter of great importance to the future of the House and it is vital that it is properly examined and got right.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May. [23840]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, at 6 o'clock last night, the House rejected a Labour-inspired amendment that would have cost the taxpayer £250 million. Is he also aware that, at 6 o'clock last night, the Leader of the Opposition was addressing an audience of City fat cats—[Interruption.]—and promised to renounce the high tax and spend policies that have characterised every Labour Government since the war? Is my right hon. Friend aware that that was the fifth time the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he was wrong? He was wrong on the Common Market; wrong on defence; wrong on industrial relations reform; and wrong on privatisation. Five wrongs do not make a right leader for the country.
    The Prime Minister: I was not aware of the coincidence of timing between the Opposition amendment, designed to spend more public money, and the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to cut inflation and cut down on public spending. I have to say to the House that I am unsurprised by that contradiction, which is by no means the only contradiction between what the leader of the Labour party says and what the Labour party does. Every time we have dealt with monetary policy to restrain inflation, we have been criticised by the Opposition for putting interest rates up. Every time there has been a dispute of some sort, they wish to spend more money on it. Every time we have tried to restrain expenditure, they have called for more expenditure. There is, to put it kindly, a disconjunction between what they say and what they do.
    Mr. Livingstone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May. [23841]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Livingstone: Has the Prime Minister had time today to read the latest edition of the "Socialist Economic Bulletin"—[Laughter]—which demonstrates that, since 1979, dividend payments as a proportion of gross domestic product have increased by £22 billion per annum, while manufacturing investment last year was only £12 billion? What can the Government do to ensure that increased dividend payments do not squeeze out productive investment?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be less surprised than others to know that I have, in fact, read the "Socialist Economic Bulletin"—not least because he invited me to do so before answering his question this afternoon. [Laughter.] Old Lambeth connections die hard.
    I believe that the hon. Gentleman understates the importance of dividends, which, with capital growth, are the reason why people invest in the first place. We have at the moment perhaps the best environment for
    706
    investment in this country that we have had for very many years. Three years of steady growth with low inflation has given companies the stability to take investment decisions in a secure economic environment. We can see now that investment is increasing, and the Confederation of British Industry forecasts manufacturing investment growth of 8 per cent. in the next year.
    Since 1980, United Kingdom investment has grown quite substantially. In the present economic environment, I would expect it to continue to do so.
    Mr. Trotter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is great anxiety about organised crime in this country? Is he aware that the Leader of the Opposition is shortly to take a Labour roadshow to north Tyneside, and would it not be appropriate if that entertainment included the Labour leader's opinions on the current police investigation into serious allegations of corruption and organised crime in the north Tyneside Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I am not aware of the details to which my hon. Friend refers, but I know the enthusiasm with which the Labour party likes to see matters examined and debated publicly, so no doubt the party itself will wish to hold a public inquiry into any allegations against any aspect of the Labour party.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May. [23842]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michie: Bearing in mind the sleaze and the conduct of this place, which is a debate that has been going on for some time, if the Prime Minister really wants to demonstrate to the public at large that we are going to get our act together in this place, will he ask the Conservative members of the Select Committee on Members' Interests to stop blocking the consideration of evidence and remove the Tory Whip, so that we can proceed in a proper, democratic way?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows the powers, influence and independence of Committees such as the Members' Interests Select Committee.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: And the Whip.
    The Prime Minister: Before the hon. Gentleman shouts himself into trouble, I should like to say that he also knows that the membership of that Committee is approved by the House before it sits.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is ludicrous to try to set economic tax rates by taking the international average? Was not the import of the Leader of the Opposition's speech last night simply to try to disguise, in his characteristic way, his intention of increasing income tax rates? I take that because most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have a higher rate of tax than this country. Instead of saying it directly, as usual the Leader of the Opposition tried to disguise it behind words.
    The Prime Minister: It is clear that there was a certain lack of transparency in what the right hon. Gentleman said

    707
    last night. There is no doubt that the UK top rate of income tax and national insurance contributions is the lowest of any country in the European Union, and we have every intention of keeping it that way. We also have the lowest main rate of corporation tax among the major industrial countries, and the burden of taxes on business in the UK is lower than in any other G7 country except Canada. That is in spite of the increases in taxation that we have had to undertake in the past few years to deal with the expenses following on the recession.
    However, as the right hon. Gentleman is obviously worried about tax levels, I hope that he will demonstrate that, if and when we are able to reduce taxes, by joining us in the Lobby when we do so.
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May. [23843]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Banks: Would it come as a surprise to the Prime Minister to learn that I am one of his admirers—indeed, I might be his only admirer? In that capacity, does he accept my great anger at the outrageous attack made upon him by Margaret Thatcher who, in her book, likens him to some sort of incompetent train spotter? That is a disgraceful attack and I think that we all feel very strongly about it. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to
    708
    damn all Mrs. Thatcher's policies that have got him and his Government into the appalling mess in which they now find themselves?
    The Prime Minister: The fraternity that exists between former Lambeth councillors perhaps does not entirely extend to the hon. Gentleman. It is less of a surprise to hear that he may be an admirer of mine than a shock and a disappointment.
    Mr. Brazier: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern among some Conservative Members at the idea that homosexuals may shortly be admitted to the armed forces? Is it not true that a barrack room or a ship are not just places of work for service personnel but their homes? Should we not take account of the wishes of service personnel in making that decision? I ask for my right hon. Friend's assurance that he will uphold the promises that were given to the House before legislation to remove the criminal offence of homosexual activity in the armed forces went through Parliament without a vote. Will he assure the House that, if the present court case overturns the status quo, the matter will be brought to the House so that we have the opportunity to reverse the decision?
    The Prime Minister: The House reached a decision some time ago and I do not wish to anticipate the result of the current court case. Clearly, if it produced a different set of circumstances, we would have to examine it.
    As to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I think that the service chiefs have made their view clear about the matter, and I share that view.

Cross-media Ownership
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about media ownership.
Because of the extreme market sensitivity of this issue, I arranged for the substance of the Government's decisions to be announced by my Department before the stock exchange opened for business this morning. I am making this statement at the earliest opportunity thereafter. I hope that the House will accept this way of proceeding, for which there are clear precedents and which I discussed last week with the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), as well as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman)
Following the relaxation of some of the restraints on the ownership of ITV companies in December 1993, the Government announced in January 1994 that they were to review the existing rules governing media ownership. Today I have published a policy document which sets out our proposals, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. In developing the proposals, we have taken account of advice, ideas and comments from a wide variety of sources. I am grateful to all those who wrote to us and participated in the constructive debate on the issue.
Media ownership policy must balance two key objectives. First, it must underpin the diversity of viewpoint that is necessary in any healthy democracy. The Government believe that that requires additional safeguards on plurality of ownership beyond those required by competition law alone. Secondly, it must ensure that the media industry is able to respond to the changing demands of the marketplace and, in particular, that it is able to take advantage of the market opportunities which flow from accelerating technological change.
Technological convergence is not only bringing together functions that have traditionally been separated, but creating an enormous variety of new products and markets. It is inevitably difficult to predict the exact nature and pace of that change, but as different media sectors converge, media ownership regulation needs to look at the media market as a whole, if its core objectives are to be delivered.
The importance of developing a new approach will be reinforced by the introduction of digital broadcasting over the next few years. That will lead to more channels, more choice for viewers and listeners and more opportunities for media companies. The Government will follow up my announcement today by publishing their proposals for digital broadcasting later in the summer.
Against the background of those changes, I am putting forward for consultation a long-term proposal for the future regulation of media ownership which has three main features. First, the media market would be treated as a whole. Secondly, market share thresholds would be established, below which media ownership would be regulated only by normal competition law. Thirdly, a regulator would be established, who would be empowered to restrict concentration above the thresholds where he or she deemed such concentration to be contrary to the public interest.
710
For the purposes of consultation, I propose total media market share thresholds at 10 per cent. of the national media market, 20 per cent. of a regional market and 20 per cent. of the individual press, radio or television sectors.
Such a model would provide a flexible and durable framework, which would better accommodate the dynamic of the media industry, while continuing to safeguard the public interest in diversity and plurality. I also believe, however, that the substitution of the existing structure by an entirely new framework of rules must be based on full consultation and widespread acceptance that the new structure is fair. I shall therefore welcome views from all interested parties on the proposal.
In the meantime, however, action is required now. The Government therefore propose to introduce a package of immediate measures to remove unnecessary restrictions on the growth of media businesses. It will contain two elements.
First, I am today introducing a package of proposals for change through secondary legislation. I am laying before the House an amendment to the Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991, which, subject to the overarching 15 per cent. threshold set by the points system set out in part IV of that order, will raise the number of local radio licences that may be held by a single person from 20 to 35 and relax the subsidiary limits on the holdings of radio licences in urban areas with a population of between 1 and 4.5 million.
I am also consulting the Independent Television Commission and the BBC with a view to amending the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991. I propose to raise the equity ceiling between independent producers and broadcasters from 15 per cent. to 25 per cent. and to amend the definition of an independent producer, so that the ownership of any broadcasting interests outside the European Union does not disqualify an EU company from independent status within the United Kingdom.
In addition, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has agreed to amend the newspaper merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 by doubling the threshold for automatic reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission from a circulation of 25,000 to a circulation of 50,000.
The changes will allow greater consolidation within the radio industry, encourage greater investment and stability within the independent production sector and reduce the costs of small mergers within the newspaper industry. The remaining short-term changes that I am proposing today will require primary legislation, which will be brought forward at the earliest available opportunity.
Subject to two important safeguards, the Government propose that newspaper companies with under 20 per cent. of national newspaper circulation will be able to control up to 15 per cent. of the television market, including up to two regional ITV licences or one regional ITV licence and the Channel 5 licence. Newspaper companies with more than 20 per cent. of circulation share will be free to expand in satellite and cable up to 15 per cent. of the total television market, but regulation will continue to prevent them from owning more than 20 per cent. of any terrestrial ITV or Channel 5 licence.
The new rules will also apply reciprocally, allowing television companies to acquire interests in newspapers on the same basis.

711
Proposals for cross-control between television and newspaper companies will be subject to safeguards. First, any such investment will require the consent of the ITC, which will have the power to restrict transactions which it deems to be contrary to the public interest. Secondly, no cross-control will be allowed between newspaper and television companies where the newspaper company's regional titles account for more than 30 per cent. of regional newspaper circulation in the relevant ITV region.
The Government also propose that the arrangements to liberalise cross-investment between newspaper and television companies should be replicated for cross-investment in the radio sector. In addition, the Government will take the opportunity to remove the numerical limits on the holding of local radio licences, but retain the overall 15 per cent. limit on the number of points in the radio ownership system.
The Government will also abolish the rules that limit ownership between terrestrial television, satellite and cable. Terrestrial broadcasters will therefore be allowed to have controlling interests in satellite and cable companies, provided that their total interests do not exceed 15 per cent. of the total television market. Satellite and cable companies will also be able to have outright ownership of ITV or Channel 5 licences, subject to the 15 per cent. market limit and the two-licence limit.
These principles will apply subject to one condition. The current rules for ownership of non-domestic satellite broadcasters and cable operators have already allowed for a much higher level of investment by newspapers in those sectors than in terrestrial television. The Government therefore propose that satellite and cable companies that are more than 20 per cent. owned by a newspaper group with a national circulation share of more than 20 per cent. should continue to be restricted to a 20 per cent. holding in one ITV or Channel 5 licence, and 5 per cent. in any further ITV or Channel 5 licence.
Finally, as part of the review, the Government have looked again at the ownership arrangements for ITN. We have decided that the principles underpinning the Broadcasting Act 1990 remain sound, and that the 20 per cent. limit on individual stakes in ITN should remain. However, in order to give more ITV companies the opportunity to invest in ITN, we shall remove the 50 per cent. limit on total ITV holdings.
Our media industry is on the threshold of a new era. We cannot pretend that the changes in technology, and their impact on the marketplace, are not happening. We have an obligation to create the legislative framework that will allow the industry to respond to those changes. At the same time, we must protect the diversity of our media, which is an essential element of our democracy.
The approach that I have outlined today does two things. First, it suggests a fundamental long-term reform of media ownership in Britain, and allows time for the implications of this proposal to be properly considered. Secondly, it proposes some more immediate changes which balance more liberal ownership regulation with the introduction of a new provision for public interest scrutiny of the growth of media businesses. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Chris Smith: I welcome the document, which is long overdue. Why has there been such a long delay? In particular, why could we not have heard these announcements before the Channel 5 process was put in hand, rather than after?
712
Opposition Members welcome the broad, long-term approach of viewing the whole spread of the media, adopting a points system to do so, and insisting that no one company can secure a dominant position. While the principles set out by the Government in the document are broadly right, however, we believe that the practice leaves much to be desired.
Does the Secretary of State understand that he is putting enormous power into the hands of his proposed independent regulator? That regulator will have very wide discretion: he or she will have the power to make or break companies. The regulator will determine what happens to the ownership of national newspapers and television stations. But who appoints the regulator? Who will it be, and to whom will that person be accountable? Those are crucial questions, which the document leaves up in the air.
We believe that the regulator must not be "doubled up" with the Director General of Fair Trading or the ITC. Given the enormous scope and importance of the regulator's role, this must be the only thing that he or she does: he or she must not be moonlighting from other private or public responsibilities.
May we also have an assurance that the normal operation of competition policy through the Monopolies and Mergers Commission will continue alongside the new rules? Surely both must apply: one must not be a substitute for the other.
How has the Secretary of State arrived at his inadequate definition of the public interest, which will be the regulator's crucial remit? I carefully searched paragraph 6.19 of the document for the Government's definition. Diversity, accuracy, economic benefit and efficiency are all rightly included, but I sought in vain for one crucial and overwhelmingly important word—"quality". Surely quality of programme making must be at the top of the list of criteria.
In the more immediate future, is there not also a serious danger of a flurry of takeover and merger activity for hitherto independent ITV stations? If national newspaper companies with a national focus and interests seek to take over regional ITV stations, will there not be a serious danger of harming the regional character of those stations?
A sense of regional identity has been one of the glories of the ITV network since its inception. Is not the Secretary of State putting that at risk? What safeguards will he put in place? Why does the document contain no specific provisions in relation to foreign-owned media companies? Surely precisely the same rules should apply across the board, whether companies are foreign or domestically owned.
What account have the Government taken of the future of community radio stations which may lose out as new radio licences go to bigger commercial companies? There is nothing necessarily wrong with commercial radio expanding, but surely there must be simultaneous provision to protect community radio interests. Why is the document silent on conditional access and the power of media gatekeeping? It states that that issue caused concern during the consultations, but why do the Government proposals not address it at all?
Why does the entire document have about it the sense that it is trying to legislate for an old era rather than a new? It deliberately excludes digital terrestrial television, says little about subscription services, and does not

713
address the vital issue of access by the public to broadcast sports events. Those are the new growth areas of the media world, and they are remarkable by their relative absence from the document.
The principles are surely clear. They are: diversity, plurality, quality and the best possible programmes for the viewer and listener. The rules are to make sure that there is not excessive dominance by any one commercial provider. The Government have set out some of that in their document, but there is a trail of unanswered questions and concerns over much of the detail. Ultimately, the document will not do much to benefit the ordinary viewer and listener.
Mr. Dorrell: I was not entirely clear whether the hon. Gentleman was welcoming the document or attacking it. As he started by saying that he welcomed it I shall take him at his word. He said that there was a trail of unanswered questions. Some of the questions that he listed are in the document in interrogative form because the document starts a consultation process on precisely the questions that the hon. Gentleman raises. Perhaps I may go through his points one by one.
The hon. Gentleman asked why it has taken so long to produce the document. The issue is important, and it is important to address it in the short and long-term contexts. I make no apology for spending time thinking through the document's short and long-term proposals.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked me—presumably this was one of his trail of unanswered questions—about the shape of the regulator. That question is avowedly unanswered in the document, which sets out the need for a regulator and invites opinions on the precise shape that the regulator should take. One way of approaching that would be to vest the power in the Director General of Fair Trading and the MMC. Another way is the one which the hon. Gentleman suggested—I take that as an early response to the consultation process.
The hon. Gentleman asked me whether normal competition rules will continue to apply alongside any specific regulation of media ownership. The answer is yes.
The hon. Gentleman then asked me about the public interest in quality. He was on to an important point, even though it is not directly germane to the regulation of media ownership. We focus on quality in our television system through the ITC, through the channel allocation system, and through the conditions imposed on allocation. The document examines the whole media sector.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not seriously argue for the introduction of statutory machinery to regulate quality in the newspaper sector, which is just as important a part of the media industry as television. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about quality is that all those provisions remain unchanged by these proposals—including the provisions in the ITC to protect the regional character of the ITV licensees.
There are no proposals to change existing arrangements governing foreign-owned companies. The Government do not believe that there is any need to change them, so we have introduced no proposals.
Community radio is an important success story from the last round of liberalisation of the radio industry; I look forward to similar success stories in other parts of the media industry, coming on the back of the deregulation that I have announced today.
714
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the document is silent on the subject of conditional access. It actually devotes a whole page to the subject, between paragraphs 5.12 and 5.16, where it sets out clearly the Government's position. That is that protecting the fair operation of conditional access is fully and adequately achieved by existing competition law arrangements. The DGFT has already demonstrated his willingness to use his powers in that area this year.
So I disagreed with the hon. Gentleman's concluding comments about the balance between the old and the new. The document consciously sets out to deal with today's problems and to show the direction in which we go tomorrow, and I welcome his support for that approach.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will my right hon. Friend accept my welcome for his response to some of the open lobbying and the results of some of the seminars run by the Department? There will be great pleasure at this announcement on the part of the Pearson group, Associated Newspapers, The Guardian and The Telegraph Group—perhaps not shared by the Mirror Group and News International.
Will the lobbying by Channel 4 lead in time to an end to the subsidy for Channel 3 interest payments and dividends? Does my right hon. Friend expect a future paper to deal with the unnecessary restrictions that prevent British Telecom from putting television signals down telephone lines?
With the absence of scarcity, does my right hon. Friend soon expect to allow usual fair trading and monopolies and mergers conditions to apply to the newspaper business? The predatory pricing of The Times seems to many of us to have increased the losses of that business and to represent an unfair attack on other broadsheets.
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend describes the document in terms that I do not recognise, and then goes on to demonstrate the importance of what it seeks to do: to concentrate on the policy objectives that we set ourselves.
The document concentrates on two key interests—plurality and diversity in the media market, and the equal and equivalent interest that the public have in strong and healthy media businesses. The proposals in the document are designed to change media ownership regulation in the service of those two objectives.
The important principle behind the funding mechanism for Channel 4 is that the people who signed contracts when the Channel 3 licences were awarded in the belief that they ran the risk of covering deficits in Channel 4, and in return for that participated in Channel 4 profits, should be entitled to the Government's protecting that interest, which formed part of the contract that they signed when the licences were awarded.
As for BT getting into broadcasting, the House will know that the Government's position is that it is important to restrain the growth of BT in that sector in the short to medium term at least, to allow other operators to set up competing distribution systems.
If my hon. Friend wishes to pursue the question of predatory pricing by individual newspapers, he will know that there are clear provisions in competition law within which that can be pursued. I am sure that the Director General of Fair Trading will look forward to hearing my hon. Friend's evidence.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I was concerned at the right hon. Gentleman's response to the

715
hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) on the issue of Channel 4 funding, because it appeared to pre-empt his response to the Select Committee report on the British film industry. I very much hope that his mind is still open on that matter.
In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), I may say that the proposals for the immediate future that the right hon. Gentleman puts before the House will arouse little controversy, and, I am sure, will be widely acceptable. On the other hand, I ask the Secretary of State to accept that what the consultation document says about the longer-term regulatory arrangements is almost certainly impracticable and quite certainly unrealistic.
It is simply not possible to regulate the technology of the future in the way that the right hon. Gentleman describes in his document. He said that we were on the threshold of a new era, but one would never have thought it from the way in which he looked at the possibility, or from the omission from his document of a policy to enable the free market to operate in the interests of the consumer.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while he includes in his document arrangements to allow newspaper groups greater freedom to cross-invest in television, television companies greater freedom to cross-invest in newspapers, and cable companies greater freedom to cross-invest in terrestrial television, he once again excludes British Telecom from the ability to compete in broadcasting television to Britain against American telephone companies, which are involved in cable in this country? While he is obstinate about that, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that he is being a King Canute on the matter. The change has got to come, and the sooner it comes the better.
Mr. Dorrell: In what I had to say on the Channel 4 funding formula, I have undertaken to respond to the right hon. Gentleman's Select Committee on the question of the film industry in full within the relevant period, and I shall do that. I shall certainly set out clearly in that document a reconsidered view on the Channel 4 funding formula.
The comments that I made in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) reflect the basis on which the Government reached their decision at the end of last year, and that will be reconsidered in the course of the response to the Select Committee. However, I am not certain that there will be widespread expectation of a fundamental review so soon after the decision was originally announced.
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman regards the short-term changes in both primary and secondary legislation that I propose as relatively uncontroversial. I am grateful for his support on that.
In his concern about the long term, the right hon. Gentleman returns to a theme that has been a familiar subject of discussion between us: the position of British Telecom. My position, and that of the Government, on that has been clear for some time. We believe that there is a strong public interest in the establishment of competing networks alongside BT, and that is the reason why we are constricting the growth of BT into that sector against the published deadline.
Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. Friend take congratulations on moving a long way towards dealing with this difficult position? We all welcome the part of the report that does that.
716
On the matter of ownership, will my right hon. Friend explain whether he has considered—and if so, why he rejected—the lesson that we might learn from France, where newspapers and other aspects of the media have to be owned by Frenchmen or French-dominated companies? Is that not something that we could emulate?
Mr. Dorrell: That is, of course, a subject that is regularly discussed in the context of media ownership. I am bound to say that I find that the comparison between us and the French—and, indeed, between us and many other countries—in respect of foreigners owning aspects of our media tells to our benefit. It is more attractive to have a more liberal regime such as ours, rather than the constricting type prevalent in France and elsewhere. I also observe that it is hardly a new position, but has been fundamental to newspaper economics in this country for the best part of a century.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: In so far as the policy document will foster diversity and pluralism in broadcasting, it will be wholly welcome. I make no complaint at all about the time that it has taken to come forward with these measures, in a complex and rapidly changing technological environment. May I, however, raise two matters where I doubt that the Secretary of State's proposals will foster diversity and pluralism?
The first concerns the need to regulate the television access systems covering encroaching subscription and cable. The right hon. Gentleman will have noted what Mr. David Glencross, the chief executive of the ITC, said about the need to legislate in this sphere, but the paper speaks only of maintaining a review. Secondly, is it really satisfactory to allow the owner of 30 per cent. of newspaper coverage in a region to acquire a Channel 3 licence? It seems that there is a serious risk of regional dominance by a single owner, which would be unacceptable.
Finally, may I express my satisfaction that the Government have at last agreed to lift the restrictions on ITN ownership above the 50 per cent. level, which always seemed artificial?
Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his last point. As for conditional access, I can only repeat what I said earlier. I have not been persuaded that there is any need to go beyond the existing provisions of normal competition law, which require people operating conditional access systems in Britain to operate in a way that is not anti-competitive, and which satisfies normal competition law requirements. I see no need to go beyond those provisions.
I accept that the degree of regional newspaper concentration that is acceptable in the hands of someone who also controls the relevant Channel 3 licence is a matter of judgment, although I think that the 30 per cent. level that I have proposed strikes a fair balance between the interests of diversity and allowing strong and healthy media businesses to grow.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must remind the House that, in addition to a Second Reading debate, we have another

717
important statement. May I ask for the co-operation of the House and request brief questions and brief answers, so that we can make some progress?
Mr. Toby Jessel: Far from complaining about the delay, like the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), could I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is willing to enlarge to the House and to the country on why it is necessary to make these changes at all? Why could not things just have been left as they were?
Mr. Dorrell: The short answer is that real pressures are building up in the marketplace, and media businesses quite properly remind us that the existing provisions are preventing them from taking advantage of the commercial opportunities available, but no public interest is served by maintaining that regulation. Those who are in charge of a regulatory system should have to rejustify the regulation rather than have to justify lifting it.
Mr. Tony Worthington: Will the Secretary of State tell us which of his proposals will stimulate good-quality programme making in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and the regions of England? One of the great problems about this country is its metropolitan bias.
Mr. Dorrell: The key issue of quality is always served, in my view, by ensuring that those who are responsible for media activity are healthy, strong businesses. I cannot see that the interest of quality is served by unnecessarily and artificially constricting the growth of a business. Having said that, and as I said in answer to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the key provisions for regulating the nature of the output of television and radio broadcasters are germane not to the ownership of those companies, but to the conditions on which the licence is granted. That issue is not addressed in the paper.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing to stop British Telecom offering video on demand, and, indeed, owning cable companies? Why has he not brought forward proposals to ensure that the BBC puts Radios 1, 2 and 3 out to open, competitive tender? Looking at the share of the audience attracted by radio shown in the document, one sees that a far greater share of the nation's population listens to Classic FM than Radio 3, whose service could be provided by the commercial sector.
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend's first point is right. With regard to competition in the BBC, my hon. Friend will know that the Government brought forward a White Paper on the future of the BBC during the previous summer. I would not seek to reopen those issues. The clear conclusion of that paper was that we shall continue with the present structure of the BBC, but we shall seek to reinforce the accountability mechanisms which work within it, through the agreement and the pledge to audiences, which the BBC governors will be responsible for issuing each year. The accountability of the BBC is important. I have no proposals to change its status.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the document leaves
718
unscathed the Murdoch empire's control of 37 per cent. of national newspaper circulation, Mr. Murdoch's considerable interest in television and his monopoly of the encryption system? Will he also confirm that the document does not extend to satellite the restrictions on domestic content which apply to commercial television? How quickly does he anticipate that Carlton and Granada will be asked to disgorge their extra 18 per cent. ownership of ITN?
Mr. Dorrell: In answer to the last point, the enforcement of the now confirmed provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 is a matter for the Independent Television Commission. It will clearly proceed with the enforcement of the provision which has existed since that Act. With regard to the effect of my proposals on Mr. Murdoch's business—or, come to that, any other media business—I confirm that I do not anticipate, as a result of the Green Paper, a dramatic change in Mr. Murdoch's business—or, come to that, anybody else's business.
I am concerned to allow businesses to grow in a way which allows them to respond to legitimate market opportunities, but which subjects them to public interest scrutiny when they get above a certain size in the market. That seems to be the legitimate way in which a regulator should go about his business. I am much more concerned with the principles than I am with the specifics of a particular operator.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, which to me certainly highlights the importance of plurality, diversity and quality. With such quality clearly comes quality of programmes and regional content of programmes in the development of television.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the main reasons for his statement was to give the United Kingdom media industry the opportunity to compete in the almost unlimited media market internationally, in which we can do so well? Would he answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) about the effect of the proposals on community radio, which to many people is of growing importance and which may well be adversely affected by one of the proposals that he has announced this afternoon?
Mr. Dorrell: I do not agree that the community radio success story is threatened by what I have announced this afternoon. I would argue that the further liberalisation I have announced is a further step down the road of liberalisation which was introduced some years ago and which made possible the growth of community radio, which my hon. Friend welcomes and which I welcome. I look for an opportunity for other small-scale operators to develop in the radio and other sectors. The proposals on digital, which I shall introduce later in the year, will also have an effect on that aspect of activity.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress the huge opportunities for British media businesses that have critical mass here to exploit their skills and expertise in overseas markets. That is one of the opportunities that is further opened up by this document. I re-emphasise the point that the regulation of quality, through the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority, is unaffected by anything that I have done today.
Mr. John Fraser: Many people will regard with incredulity the right hon. Gentleman's complacency

719
about gatekeeping, or what he calls conditional access. He must be aware that no coherent set of principles applies to these matters, and that nobody knows from one case to another whether a complaint to the Office of Fair Trading will work. Surely the right thing is to have a coherent set of principles and something more like the arbitration system that works under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Mr. Dorrell: One of the first Committees on which I served, with the hon. Gentleman, was the Committee considering the Bill that became the Competition Act 1980. That Act sets out precisely a coherent framework of constraints on anti-competitive practice, and it applies through the normal process of competition law to the conditional access regime that operates in Britain. That is exactly the coherent approach for which the hon. Gentleman asks; it is provided by the competition law approach that I advocate.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the media, in their role in mediating our democratic debates, are effectively a part of our constitution? If so, is he not right, as he proposes, to establish a policy framework which both encourages technological pluralism and sets particularly stringent safeguards against monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power in the field of the media?
Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with his point. In a healthy democracy, it is important that a diversity of voice is available through all the different forms of the media. Plural ownership—that is, ensuring that there is not excessive concentration of ownership—is one of the means of safeguarding that diversity of view.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Secretary of State agree that this statement is set against the background of the Berlusconi scandal in Italy? When the statement was drawn up, did the Government take into account trying to prevent a similar situation from happening in Britain? Apart from the 40 per cent. that goes to the BBC, could a Berlusconi type be stopped as a result of the statement?
Is it conceivable that somebody with political, television and other media strength could emerge—or could be prevented from emerging—as a result of the statement? The truth is that, taking into account the percentage they have now, six Murdoch types could arise as a result of what the Secretary of State has said. Will the Secretary of State give me a straight answer: could a Berlusconi-type scandal emerge in Britain as a result of the statement?
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman asks me two straight questions, to which I shall give two straight answers. Could a Berlusconi figure emerge as a result of the statement? No. Could a Berlusconi be prevented from emerging? Yes.
Mr. Anthony Coombs: I recognise the importance of diversity, and I welcome the tentative liberalisation that the statement suggests. However, can my right hon. Friend tell me why it seems to be important to set a long-term target of 10 per cent. of the UK market, especially given the fact that, with digital television, satellite television and more and more interactive communication, it will be far more difficult to measure the total market, let alone to regulate it?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend describes the 10 per cent. envisaged in the long-term scheme as a target. That is not the word that I would use; I would describe it as a threshold. It is fair to say that, if someone owns more than 10 per cent. of the audience share of the media voice in the community, there is the potential for a public interest issue to arise. Once an operator gets beyond the 10 per cent. threshold, he will be subject to public interest regulation. That is not the same as saying that he would be prevented in all circumstances from growing above that level.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is the Secretary of State aware of the genuine concerns in Scotland? Should not national newspaper sales be taken into account when assessing the eligibility for acquiring regional and local radio and television interests?
Mr. Dorrell: That is exactly what I propose. National newspaper circulation should be the criterion which limits the group of newspaper operators able to invest in Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that we are going in the same direction.
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposals for liberalisation, but in the long term he must listen carefully to consultation. As he said in his statement, the media market is changing worldwide, and we need strong and significant news groups, such as the Mirror Group and News International, to compete worldwide. Would it not be a pity if those efficient groups were restricted by over-regulation by the Government?
Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree that we have a clear public and national interest in strong, healthy and growing media businesses. The purpose of the paper is to encourage the growth of such businesses, while balancing the continuing and legitimate public concerns about the over-concentration of media ownership in a single hand or a few hands. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of minimum regulation, which is necessary to deliver that important public policy objective.
Mr. Stephen Timms: The Secretary of State's proposals deal with regulating the media market at a regional level. How important does he regard the retention of regional identities in media terms, and how important was that consideration during the framing of the proposals? Does he accept that, if we are to secure the retention of those identities in the long term, proposals will have to be brought to this House which go further than those he has produced this afternoon?
Mr. Dorrell: I am a strong advocate of the propositions that regional identity is important and that regional media have an important role to play in fostering a sense of regional identity. I suspect that there is no disagreement on that matter in any part of the House.

721
The proposals do not address that issue directly, because it is not germane to the precise issue which the paper addresses—the regulation of media ownership. Concerns about regional identity in the BBC are handled through the BBC's pledge to audiences, and in the independent sector through the conditions attached to the award of licences by the ITC and the Radio Authority. That issue is not directly germane to the ownership of the companies which ultimately operate those licences.
Mr. Nigel Forman: In an increasingly multi-media age, when the combination of technological convergence and market liberalisation—factors to which my right hon. Friend has referred—are pointing towards a seamless market in this area, should we not look carefully in the medium term at the idea of an overall regulatory system to avoid the regulatory overload and regulatory arbitrage which could follow from having a plethora of organisations minding the business of the parts of the overall sector?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point which is germane to one of the important points raised by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury about the shape of the regulator proposed in the long-term scheme. There will no doubt be substantial public discussion about that, and I look forward to pursuing the matter with my hon. Friend.
Mr. Peter Hain: Given the technological convergence accelerated by digitalisation, and alliances such as that between Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and the American communications operator MCI—20 per cent. of which is owned by BT—are not the Secretary of State's proposals for regulation already obsolete? Should we not be looking for a merger of the telecommunications and broadcasting regulations, to create a new and common regulatory system?
Mr. Dorrell: That is an interesting thought that we might wish to pursue, but it is not necessary at this stage in the process, for precisely the reason that I have given in more than one answer this afternoon—it is important for us not to confuse the telecommunications industry, development of which is an important national interest, with the existing structure of the broadcast mass communications industries. There is certainly
722
convergence between them, but we are not yet in a world where they are the same, and if we seek to leap into that, we are likely to end up with confused policy objectives.
Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend feel that the perpetual and contrived hysteria that now obtains on Radio 1 complies with any definition that he might have of public service broadcasting? Should that sort of stuff be paid for by a more or less compulsory levy on the public? As a result of today's announcement, can he reassure those of us who are fugitives from the four terrestrial television channels that the satellite channels will remain a Melvyn Bragg-free zone?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend asks an important question about satellite television—a matter to which the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury also referred. I am with my hon. Friend rather than the hon. Gentleman. If we are to encourage the development of the new technologies of cable and satellite, it is important that we do not import into each and every cable and satellite station the same sort of objectives that we define for the mainstream terrestrial broadcasters. To do so would be to limit dramatically the growth of those new technologies, in a way that would serve no public interest and would be undesirable from an economic point of view.
Mr. John Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend accept that the liberalisation that he has announced will allow the necessary investment to come forward, if we are to take full advantage of the opportunities for technological development in the broadcasting industry? Does he also accept that, as technology allows the further proliferation of channels, it may be possible to relax the rules still further, and that, in due course, the media can be governed by the same rules that govern every other industry?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has argued that case for some time, and I am aware of his views. For reasons that I have already given, I do not believe that we are in a world—or likely to be for the foreseeable future—in which monopoly regulation alone is sufficient control on concentration in the media market. Further restriction is necessary, but I also believe strongly that anyone who advocates further regulation, which is what I am advocating, needs to rejustify that and to retest the proposition regularly.

VSEL
4.22 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I would like to make a statement about the proposed acquisition of VSEL.
I released to the House and to the stock exchange this morning my decisions on regulatory approval for the proposed acquisition of VSEL by either British Aerospace or GEC. I shall now make a statement on the basis for my decisions in the two cases.
Because both bids satisfied the turnover criteria of the European Community merger regulation, the question of regulatory approval would normally have been a matter exclusively for the European Commission, but VSEL's facilities for the construction of nuclear submarines and other warships are plainly vital for United Kingdom national security. Accordingly, the Government took action, through the use of article 223 of the EC treaty, to assert UK jurisdiction over the two merger proposals in so far as they related to the military activities of VSEL. That was the first occasion on which the United Kingdom had invoked the procedure. In practice, the civil component of VSEL's activities is very small, but at the end of last year the EC Commission gave its approval for the acquisition of the non-military component by either British Aerospace or GEC.
The United Kingdom reserved for itself a judgment on how the Royal Navy's requirements for submarine and warship procurement would be affected by a prospective change in the ownership of VSEL. I referred both bids to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission because, given the nature of the target company, I felt it right to have a comprehensive analysis of the UK public interest in both cases, and because I was conscious of potential competition concerns in relation to the GEC bid.
I am grateful to the MMC for the thorough exercise that it has undertaken. Complex issues are involved, as is shown by the fact that the MMC Group did not reach a unanimous view on the GEC bid. But the reports have provided me with a sound basis of analysis from which I can proceed to make the decisions that fall to me under the Fair Trading Act 1973.
The MMC identified no adverse effects for the UK public interest in relation to an acquisition by British Aerospace. The British Aerospace bid is thus cleared to proceed.
The MMC was unable to agree its view in relation to the GEC bid. The majority, consisting of four out of six members, found that there would be adverse effects resulting from a GEC acquisition. Their view was that those effects would arise from a reduction in competition at both prime contractor and subcontractor levels with consequent risks to innovation and to the Ministry of Defence's ability to achieve the best value for money. The recommendation from the majority was, therefore, that the GEC bid should be blocked.
The minority view taken by the remaining two of the MMC Group was that, because of the Ministry of Defence's skills as a monopsony buyer, the GEC acquisition would make no significant difference to the degree of competition in the industries involved in warship making and would contribute to the ease of an ultimately necessary industrial rationalisation.
724
The advice from the Ministry of Defence to the MMC took the same view as the minority report. As the United Kingdom had claimed jurisdiction over those mergers in the light of our defence interests, I also had to give particular weight to the views of the Ministry of Defence as the customer. As will be seen from the report, the Ministry of Defence judged that the imminent bidding process for Trafalgar class submarines and type 23 frigates would be largely unaffected by a GEC acquisition. It was also confident that it had the resources and means to extract the best value for money, whoever acquired VSEL.
In the light of those considerations, I have decided to allow the GEC bid for VSEL to proceed. I take no view on whether British Aerospace or GEC should prevail. I note the assurance given to the Ministry of Defence by Lord Weinstock that, if GEC wins the competition for the next type 23 frigates, those vessels will in any event be built at Yarrow. The Government will of course be ready to use their well-established arrangements to support British Aerospace or GEC, whichever acquires VSEL, in seeking additional exports of warships to buttress declining domestic demand.
I recognise that it is unusual to set aside an adverse finding by the MMC on a prospective merger. But it is my responsibility under the Fair Trading Act to look at the UK public interest in the round, having regard to all relevant factors, including, in this case, the United Kingdom's defence interests. I have concluded that the public interest will be best served by allowing the market to determine the future ownership of VSEL and hence the industrial structure best adapted to meet the UK's foreseeable naval defence needs.
Dr. John Cunningham: The President of the Board of Trade is right to assert to the House that those important matters touch on Britain's defence capability and the skills and jobs of many thousands of workers at Barrow-in-Furness, on the Clyde and, for that matter, at Vosper Thornycroft in Southampton. We welcome his decision to make a statement in response to my repeated request that he should do so.
Like the right hon. Gentleman, we have never taken sides in the matter but have pressed for both bids to be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. The President of the Board of Trade was right to make such a reference. But the first and perhaps central question that he must answer after what is an almost unprecedented decision and statement today is: why has he not accepted the decision of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? There was little of substance in his statement to justify his decision to reject a clear and emphatic majority decision by the MMC. It is worth asking the right hon. Gentleman what in his arguments can counteract the conclusions and recommendations of the MMC that
"retaining the pressure of competition between prime contractors would be even more effective in promoting change and securing value for money … We see no reason to sacrifice the benefits of competition now in the hope that, if the merger were allowed to proceed,"—
this is in respect of GEC—
"there would then be possible benefits …
We conclude that the proposed merger may be expected to operate against the public interest."

725
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those conclusions are emphatic? The MMC also stated:
"As we are unable to identify any appropriate remedies for the detriments we have identified we recommend that the proposed merger should not be allowed to proceed."
That is what the MMC concluded after a long and thorough study. The right hon. Gentleman needs to offer the House more of an argument than that in his statement about why those emphatic, clear and unequivocal recommendations should not be accepted.
What is the status of the assurances that GEC has apparently given? Were they given to the MMC or simply to the Ministry of Defence? Can the right hon. Gentleman specifically tell the House what those assurances are and what they amount to? Will those assurances be legally binding or will GEC be able to negotiate them away as events unfold? Those important questions remain, as yet, unanswered.
In allowing the bid from British Aerospace to proceed—and quite rightly—did the President of the Board of Trade or his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence seek any assurances from British Aerospace about predatory pricing policy? Will there be complete transparency of bids for warship contracts in the future, whoever may emerge as the successful bidder for VSEL?
The right hon. Gentleman and the Government have decided to leave the matter completely to the market—so much for the right hon. Gentleman's apparent commitment to and belief in stringent competition policy in the United Kingdom, which he reiterated to the House yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman has taken no strategic view on the maintenance of jobs or skills in our defence industries nor, apparently, have he or his colleagues taken any strategic view on maintaining our defence capability for the future. Those two requirements are left to the market and could easily be under threat as a result.
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for some of the generous things that he said at the beginning of his statement.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman fully appreciated what I said in my statement. If the MMC had come forward with an emphatic, clear and unequivocal recommendation, unanimously reached, I would, of course, have recognised it as part of the evidence that I had to consider. It is quite apparent, however, that the MMC found it as difficult a decision as it undoubtedly is, and as the right hon. Gentleman recognised. The fact is that the MMC divided 4:2 on the issue—the chairman is a member of the committee. If one comes down to simple numbers, one is talking about one person's view, because if one of the four had changed his mind, the outcome would have been three all. The MMC obviously reached a narrow decision.
Mr. Derek Fatchett: If another had changed his mind, it would have been 4:2 the other way—so what?
Mr. Heseltine: That is perfectly right. The division merely reveals that the MMC report does not represent an emphatic, clear and unequivocal set of advice to me. It is a majority-minority view.
726
I have also had to take into account the views of the Ministry of Defence. We went to Europe to claim jurisdiction over this particular case because of the essential defence interests as we saw them. The MOD told me—its view was clearly expressed to the MMC—that it believes that both bids should be allowed to proceed, because the MOD, which is the custodian of our defence interests, believes that it could handle the competitive issues involved in the process. I was influenced by its views; I believe that it is appropriate that I should be.
It is not just a question of the assurances given by GEC, because the MOD places the contracts. It is in a position to ensure that any assurances given by Lord Weinstock are honoured. He gave clear assurances that if Yarrow wins the type 23 frigate order, those frigates will be built at Yarrow. The MOD is in a position to ensure that that happens—not that I would like to cast any doubt on the integrity of Lord Weinstock's assurances.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: What about small and medium-sized contractors if GEC gets the yard?
Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman asked a question from a sedentary position. If he asks it formally, I shall answer it.
The Ministry of Defence has every interest in securing the transparency of the competitive process. The Ministry of Defence is a customer. I know from experience that it does that job with great concern and care, and it has every interest in ensuring that it obtains the best value for money. It will continue to do so, and the minority view clearly made the point that it is expert in doing that.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that, as I said, this is not an easy decision. I take very seriously the opinions of the MMC, but I think that, in view of the fact that it was a split decision, and in view of the fact that the Ministry of Defence had such clear opinions about what the interests of the customer were, it is right to allow either of those two bids to proceed, and right for the market to determine what happens. I have no preferences one way or another. I have no knowledge whether either or both the bids will proceed.
Mr. Peter Viggers: Bearing in mind the fact that the market for warships has inevitably shrunk in recent years; that, increasingly, the electronic and support systems of warships are becoming proportionately more important, so the hulls are becoming less important in the manufacture of warships; that there are other yards where warships—steel ships—can be built, including Vosper Thornycroft, which has been extremely successful in recent years, and indeed Harland and Wolff; and bearing in mind the increasing internationalisation of defence procurement regarding issues such as the Horizon frigate, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been unwise and artificial to prevent VSEL merging with the company that eventually emerges as the most successful of those bidding for it, and that that would not have been a wise way to proceed in international competition?
Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who represents the constituency in which Vosper is based. I have had the pleasure of visiting that company and, as everyone is, I was much impressed by the work that is going on there.
My hon. Friend makes an important argument about the nature of the purchaser of large defence procurement orders of that type. The purchaser will insist on the

727
break-up of the contract into very large numbers of individual parts, to ensure that there is competition between subcontractors for specific items, amounting to a very large proportion of the total contract.
The Ministry of Defence is expert at doing that. It must face British Aerospace, which is the only source of our military fighter aircraft. It must deal with Rolls-Royce, which is the key supplier of engines for the defence budget. So the Ministry of Defence is very experienced at ensuring that it obtains value for money compatible with the quality that it wants.
Mr. Nick Harvey: The President of the Board of Trade made a statement in the House yesterday about competitiveness, but if GEC should go ahead and acquire VSEL, where will the competition come from for the type 23s or for other future big projects? The right hon. Gentleman rightly paid tribute to Vosper, which will be in a position to bid on some occasions, but if the Government believe in competitive tendering, where will the competitive tenders come from for the big projects?
Mr. Heseltine: The two competitions that are likely in the immediate future—for the type 23 and the batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines—are imminent, so the competitive arrangements are likely to be in place in the event of either of those two bids proceeding. In the longer term—one is talking about, for example, project Horizon, which is the new generation frigate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) has just said—Yarrow will be a potential competitor, as it is today.
However, I would be the first to recognise that, although in the short term the MMC says that it does not think that there are implications for the existing orders in the existing yards, in the longer term there may be rationalisation, and that has always been the dilemma that has confronted Defence Secretaries or those of us interested in competition policy.
Mr. Phil Gallie: My right hon. Friend put great store on the Ministry of Defence's comments about competitiveness and on the three undertakings given by Lord Weinstock if GEC were to take over. How one can split the bids of Yarrow and VSEL to ensure that there is competition when they belong to the same company? When there are bids for subcontractors to supply those contracts, how will the interests of one company be sustained?
Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will realise that the urgent and imminent competitions will involve the continuation of the existing teams that are at work at present and that will shortly submit the tenders that the Ministry of Defence is contemplating. That division exists already.
I do not know what length of time my hon. Friend is thinking about, but there has been a falling order book—a fall in demand—that may well lead to some rationalisation. If one considers project Horizon, the bid does not involve Vosper, which has the capability—albeit one that is perhaps spread over a longer period than other yards—to become involved in the process. Lord Weinstock has given assurances about the existence of the two teams in the immediate future for the competitions that will take place.
Mr. Richard Caborn: Does the President of the Board of Trade believe that his decision
728
to reject the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's proposal is sound? Many people are concerned about the basis upon which the decision has been taken—value for money for the Ministry of Defence rather than competition. That is a concern as we downsize the military budget and possibly change the landscape of British industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that that decision will not trigger a potential takeover of British Aerospace and leave only one major company to compete in Europe? In rejecting the MMC decision, the President of the Board of Trade has signalled a reorganisation of that part of British industry. Many people are concerned that we shall not receive the value for money that the right hon. Gentleman has said will flow from his decision.
Mr. Heseltine: I understand the difficulties associated with my decision, and many people have agonised over the various choices. That is why I have had to recognise the fact that the MMC was not able to reach a unanimous view about the matter. Therefore, I take considerable note of the views of the customer—the Ministry of Defence—which believes that it is correct to move in the direction that is possible in the light of the two bids.
Mr. Frank Field: While the House is naturally concerned about the strategic needs of the country and, more specifically, the Government's procurement requirements, is the President of the Board of Trade aware that, when the Government announced their privatisation proposals, his Cabinet colleague, the right hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hunt), and I tried to persuade GEC to break up the Government's preferred bidding so that it could buy the Cammell Laird yard? Is the President of the Board of Trade aware of our concerns about the long-term future of Laird if VSEL were to acquire it? When the future owners of VSEL emerge and the dust has settled, will he remind the new owners that the people of the Wirral peninsula will be waiting for that company to join with local forces, to try to recreate the skilled jobs that VSEL felt that it had to destroy?
Mr. Heseltine: I know the hon. Gentleman's concern about his constituency and the wider region. I hope that he will understand when I say that I have tried, to the limits of my endeavour, to find a buyer or to find work for Cammell. I have done the same thing for Swan—[Interruption.] No. The fact is that my Department and I have literally travelled the world trying to find a solution to Swan Hunter's problems. We have not found a solution—I do not like to tell the House that, but I must do so. We have explored every practical suggestion or alternative that we could think of, without success in that case. We all know that demand has diminished.
I have looked up the sorts of speeches that Labour Ministers in my position made in order to justify nationalising the aircraft and shipbuilding industries—I shall not weary the House with the details, unless hon. Members wish me to do so. Nevertheless, Labour Ministers explained to the House as clearly as I have done the need to take difficult decisions in changing circumstances.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Many of my constituents who are employed at Yarrow in Scotstoun will be keenly interested in the statement by the President of the Board of Trade. He will not be surprised to hear me say that I sincerely hope that

729
Yarrow wins the order for the type 23s. I must point out to him a misleading statement that appears in paragraph 2.10 of the document. It is entirely wrong when it talks about VSEL being the only United Kingdom shipyard that has the capacity to build warships of more than 7,000 tonnes. The President of the Board of Trade knows as well as I do that Kvaerner of Govan is building the hull for the landing platform for helicopters.
Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, if Yarrow and VSEL seek to secure orders for the bigger warships, he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will remember that Kvaerner, as a subcontracting yard, has the capacity to build such hulls?
Mr. Heseltine: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's views and his representations on behalf of his constituency. He will have noticed already that my right hon. and learned Friend has heard what he said. I shall make it my business to forward the hon. Gentleman's views to the MMC in the light of his observations about its report.
Mr. Tony Worthington: I obviously also speak on behalf of many of my constituents who work for Yarrow. I invite the President of the Board of Trade to make it absolutely clear what assurances have been given to him or to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission about the future of the Yarrow yard should the GEC bid be successful.
Mr. Heseltine: I think that we have covered that ground. Lord Weinstock has made it absolutely clear that, if his group wins the order, the type 23s will be built at the Yarrow yard. I hope that Lord Weinstock's assurance will be sufficient in those circumstances. The Ministry of Defence is also in a position to insist that the contract be fulfilled at Yarrow.
Mr. Barry Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that British Aerospace plc has a magnificent exporting record and that it is the largest employer of skilled labour in this country? Does he also
730
know that 2,000 aerospace jobs have been lost in my constituency in the past two years? My constituents would like to know what consequences the statement that he has made today will have for them.
Mr. Heseltine: I am proud to say that I think that I have helped British Aerospace to conclude the largest overseas contract ever won by any company in this country. I was proud to negotiate with British Aerospace the conclusion of the European fighter aircraft deal, which I think was the largest international contract that this country has ever entered into.
I have every sympathy for British Aerospace's position. I do not know whether it will continue its bid or whether it will be successful. British Aerospace has not been prejudiced in any way; it is a matter for British Aerospace to decide how it wishes to expand its activities.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Although I do not doubt Lord Weinstock's good faith, the fact remains that he, like the rest of us, is not immortal. The President of the Board of Trade has told us about assurances; is there any way in which such assurances could be made legally binding, even for a limited period? I realise that it is unrealistic to insist that they should be legally binding for ever, but is there not an argument that they should be legally binding at least in the medium term?
Mr. Heseltine: I think that the hon. Gentleman can rest upon the assurances, particularly in the light of the fact that the customer happens to be a Government Department—the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps the House should be aware of another fact. Yarrow already has the first of class of the CNGF, the common new generation frigate, so from the point of view of GEC, there is every interest in filling the work load of Yarrow until it can compete for the common new generation frigate.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: What assurances can the President give my constituents who work at Jetstream in Prestwick?
Mr. Heseltine: I am not sure whether it will be affected by the decision of either of the companies to bid for VSEL. I would have to have specific information as to any concerns that exist, but I do not immediately see them.

Points of Order
4.50 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. What can be done to protect the House from the incessant and inaccurate torrent of accusations of sleaze from the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), which has now descended into peddling accusations of sleazy deals against you on "Newsnight" last night? That cannot continue. What should be done about it?
Madam Speaker: I would refer all hon. Members to my short statement yesterday about all of us having to have a great deal of integrity. As I said yesterday, we cannot legislate for integrity and we cannot legislate for human behaviour. We all have to live up to the high standards that people outside the House expect of us, and the time has come when we must all look again at our consciences and address the manner in which we, as individuals, deal with each other in the House.

Naming Ceremonies and Parental Responsibilities
4.51 pm
Mr. Frank Field: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower registrars of births to conduct civil naming ceremonies and to require registrars to make available to certain mothers and fathers parental responsibility agreements.
In seeking leave to introduce a naming ceremonies Bill, I assure the House that it is not a panic measure in response to the discovery that certain of our colleagues in the House seem unaware of the names by which most of us know them. It attempts to deal with a much longer-term trend in our society.
Long before we had any sense of nationhood, long before we had any comprehension of what statehood meant and even before we saw signs of government in Britain, parents would present their children for baptism. The Church taught that it was a sacrament. In those days, parents as easily understood what that meant as parents today find it difficult to comprehend the meaning of such events.
As well as celebrating a sacrament, baptism was an event to welcome a child into the community. As we have had a statement today on the remains of our great warship building yards, it is perhaps appropriate that I draw examples from our sea-going power to illustrate what has happened to the numbers being presented for baptism.
When the British expeditionary forces set sail in the first world war, practically every person in that contingent would have been baptised. When the boats left for the D-day landing, again practically every soldier and sailor would have been baptised. When we went down to the sea in great ships to engage in the Falklands war, only one third of those engaging in that conflict had been baptised.
The reasons for such a dramatic change are twofold. All organisations in decline have a tendency to be caught by fundamentalists, and the established Church is no exception. Priests increasingly refuse to baptise children who are presented by their parents. For example, last week a priest refused to baptise a child because the parents were not married, as if the position of the parent were relevant to what was to be discharged to the child. There is also a more important factor that Matthew Arnold described as the great roar as the tide went out on belief in this country.
The Bill does not pretend that it can deal with those mighty forces at work in our society, but it is an attempt to put in place an alternative to baptism, which is less frequently used than hitherto. It is a short Bill, which would allow registrars at registry offices to carry out civil naming ceremonies.
First, the Bill lists the powers of the registrar. Secondly, it lists where civil naming ceremonies can take place. Thirdly, it lists the duties and the rights of parents. That is particularly important, as increasing numbers of parents who present their children for baptism are not married. It is crucial that fathers who sign birth certificates know that, should the cohabitation split up, their legal rights would be far inferior to legally married fathers.
Although the Bill does not specify it, such a ceremony would be an occasion for both sides of the family to come together and celebrate the great event of the birth of a child and to welcome that child into the community.

733
It is not my idea. In a week when it is important for us all to declare the sources of the information that we use, I am happy to put it on record that the idea comes from Michael Young, who is known in the other place as Lord Young of Dartington. He is the great social entrepreneur of this century. Among his ideas, he thought of the Consumers Association, the Open university and perhaps 1,000 other useful social inventions. He also played a part in bringing forth the Family Covenant Association, whose raison d'être is to encourage ideas and make available information about alternative naming ceremonies.
Finally, the Bill is not an attempt to force people to use it as an alternative to baptism. I regret that the Bill is necessary, but it is an attempt to widen choice and, above all, to take the best from the baptismal service into the secular, to ensure that each and every child is welcomed into the wider community and that parents and sponsors are aware of their duties to that child.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Frank Field, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr. Greg Pope, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr. Alan Howarth, Mr. Malcolm Wicks, Mr. Hugh Bayley and Mrs. Diana Maddock.

Naming Ceremonies and Parental Responsibilities
  NAMING CEREMONIES AND PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
  Mr. Frank Field accordingly presented a Bill to empower registrars of births to conduct civil naming ceremonies and to require registrars to make available to certain mothers and fathers parental responsibility agreements: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 14 July, and to be printed. [Bill 125.]
Orders of the Day

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): I should inform the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
  4.57 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is an important Bill which will make statutory provision to pay compensation to people who have had the misfortune to become victims of violent crime. It paves the way for an enhanced tariff scheme, which provides the right balance between providing for the needs of victims and protecting the interests of taxpayers by concentrating on a simple tariff approach for the majority of victims, while ensuring generous compensation for those most seriously injured.
  As the House knows, we have had a non-statutory criminal injuries compensation scheme since 1964. It provides payment from public funds to the blameless victims of crimes of violence and those injured in attempting to apprehend criminals or prevent crime.
  When the scheme was introduced, the Government of the day made it clear that they did not accept that the state was liable for injuries caused to people by the criminal acts of others, but they believed that the public felt a sense of responsibility for and sympathy with the innocent victim and that it was, therefore, right for that feeling to be given practical expression by the provision of a monetary award on behalf of the community. We remain of that opinion.
  For the past 30 years, the scheme has been run by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. In the first full year of the scheme's full operation, 1965–66, the board received 2,452 applications and made 1,164 awards totalling £403,000, or about £4 million at today's prices. In 1993–94—the last full year for which audited figures are available—the board received 73,473 applications, and made 65,293 awards totalling over £165 million. That was more than double the cost in real terms only six years previously.
  Under the current scheme, awards are assessed by the board on the basis of common law damages—what an applicant could expect to be awarded in a successful civil suit. Calculation of awards on that basis requires finely judged assessments of the degree of suffering and financial loss. That makes speedy decision making more difficult, and makes it hard to predict and control the future costs of the scheme. Under the able and energetic chairmanship of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carlisle, the board has made determined efforts to improve the workings of the scheme over the years— efforts that have met with some success. We are very grateful to Lord Carlisle and his colleagues for all that they have done.
  None the less, despite those efforts and despite large increases in administrative resources, the number of unresolved eases has risen inexorably, and now stands at

  735
  well over 100,000. At the same time, the costs have continued to escalate rapidly in a way that is unsustainable for a scheme funded by the taxpayer.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: Can the Home Secretary confirm that the Bill would allow claims to be dealt with more expeditiously? A constituent of mine, Mr. Roberts, has been treated in a disgraceful and dilatory way by the board in regard to his entirely legitimate claim. Would the proposed scheme have provided him with a more expeditious response?
  Mr. Howard: That is certainly our expectation. One of the main purposes of the change—although not the only purpose—is to improve the service given to claimants and to ensure that their claims are dealt with more expeditiously.
  It was against the background that I have described that we decided to introduce a new, tariff-based scheme in April 1994. That scheme moved away from the one based on individual assessment and provided for payments to be made on the basis of a tariff of awards that grouped together injuries of comparable severity and allocated a financial value to them, based on awards made previously by the board.
  The new scheme operated from 1 April 1994 to 5 April 1995, when the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords ruled that the method of the tariff scheme's introduction had been unlawful. That judgment, of course, related solely to the method of the tariff scheme's introduction, not its merits. The tariff scheme was therefore withdrawn immediately and the old scheme reinstated.
  However, we remain firmly of the view that a tariff-based approach is the right way forward. Such an approach is easier for applicants to understand and easier to operate, with the result that—as I told the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)—applications can be dealt with more quickly. It also enables costs to be controlled and more easily predicted.
  We have nevertheless considered very carefully all the concerns that have been expressed in this House, in another place and elsewhere about the effect that a simple tariff approach can have on those who are most seriously injured. We all have immense sympathy for such victims, and it is right that we should do what we reasonably can to help them. We have therefore concluded that the tariff-based approach should be enhanced to provide payment for loss of earnings and special care for those most seriously affected by their injury. We also think it right to add payment for loss of dependency and loss of support to the lump sum award payable to family members when, tragically, the victim loses his or her life.
  The Bill is accordingly intended to provide the framework for a new, enhanced tariff scheme. It sets the broad parameters for the scheme, making it clear that it is a tariff-based scheme, and leaves the detail to be set out separately. The more important details—those relating to the tariff itself, and other provisions bearing on quantum—will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and will require the affirmative resolution of both Houses before they can be included in the scheme.
  The Bill will repeal the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 which would have made the common law damages scheme statutory. It is intended that the Bill should come into force on Royal Assent and that,
  736
  following parliamentary approval of the details to which I have just referred, the new scheme itself should start on or about 1 April 1996.
  I have already placed outline details of the enhanced tariff scheme and the proposed new tariff in the Library of the House, but, for the convenience of hon. Members who may not yet have had the opportunity of seeing them, it may be helpful if I run through the main features.
  There will be a basic tariff of awards. Each injury description is allocated to one of 25 specific levels which will attract a fixed payment. All successful applicants will receive an award from the tariff. In addition, those who are incapacitated as a result of their injury for more than 28 weeks will be entitled to separate payment for their loss of earnings. As under the present common law damages scheme, the payment will be subject to a cap of one and a half times the national average industrial wage. The qualifying period of 28 weeks is tied to the period for which statutory sick pay is payable. That is, we believe, the most appropriate and reasonable way of triggering special consideration for those who have been most affected by their injuries, and for whom we therefore want to make additional provision.
  In cases of incapacity for more than 28 weeks, there will also be payment for special care to cover actual costs, from the date of injury, and future costs reasonably incurred. That will cover the same sort of expense for which compensation is payable under the present scheme. For example, the cost of private medical treatment would be payable if, in all the circumstances, both treatment and cost were reasonable. Payment could also cover the costs of home mobility equipment and fittings, special wheelchairs and fees for care in a nursing home.
  In fatal cases, reasonable funeral expenses will continue to be reimbursed and a fixed payment will continue be made. Under the previous tariff scheme, the fatal award of £10,000 was shared between all qualifying claimants, of whom there could have been several, but, under the new arrangements, each qualifying claimant will receive an award of £5,000 unless there is only one qualifying claimant, who will receive the full £10,000. In addition, where it is appropriate, there will also be payment for loss of dependency—the family breadwinner's wages—and loss of mother's support. Here again, payment for dependency, as under the present scheme, will be capped at one and a half times the national average industrial wage. Under the enhanced tariff scheme, the upper limit for awards will be £500,000, double that payable under the old tariff scheme.
  The final feature of the new arrangements is that there will be provision for payment by what is known as "structured settlement". For higher-value awards, that will enable the victim to opt for payment by the purchase of annuities, which will provide a guaranteed, index-linked stream of non-taxable payments for life, or another specified period. That should have the effect of significantly increasing the net value of the award to the victim.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am sure that the Home Secretary does not wish to mislead the House. When people refer to the old scheme, they normally mean the scheme based on compensation for personal injuries. I presume that the Home Secretary is not claiming that the new amount is double what would be received in those circumstances; indeed, £500,000

  737
  might be only a fraction of the sum provided under the old scheme. The Home Secretary is talking about the 1994 tariff scheme, which was, in fact, unlawful. Is not the new sum only a doubling of the sum provided under that scheme?
  Mr. Howard: I made that absolutely clear. If the hon. Gentleman had been even half awake and half listening, he would realise that. He would also know that in only a handful of cases did the award exceed the £500,000 maximum provided by the new scheme.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary deal with the concern that has been expressed to all of us—it is, indeed, an obvious concern—about anomalies and discrepancies in the scheme? While an adult with a dislocated finger might receive £1,250 under the tariff scheme, a youngster who had suffered a sexual assault would receive only £1,000. Society would consider that very unbalanced. Would not independent adjudication of the tariff amounts throughout the operation of the scheme—which the Home Secretary has been asked to consider—deal with the criticisms that are being made?
  Mr. Howard: I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman means by "independent adjudication" of the tariff system. The basis on which the tariff awards have been drawn up has been made clear. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands, the figures were not plucked from the air. They were based on an assessment of awards that had been made under the old common law damages scheme for injuries of that kind. The tariff is the result of a very careful exercise. Of course it is not written in stone, and I am prepared to consider representations about it to see to what extent it is possible to respond to them. The hon. Gentleman will understand that, in looking at such representations, it will be important to maintain the integrity of the tariff scheme and its firm basis in awards that have been made in the past under the old common law damages scheme.
  Mr. John Morris: Before he was interrupted, the Home Secretary spoke about loss of earnings. Will he explain how that applies to the self-employed?
  Mr. Howard: It applies to the self-employed in exactly the same way as to the employed. That was the case under the old common law damages scheme.
  Mr. Edward Garnier: The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) gave the impression that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had personally committed some hideous offence. There were mumblings of "Unlawful, unlawful" by some Opposition Members. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that in their speeches not one of the Law Lords in the Judicial Committee in the other place impugned his integrity? In the opening speech, Lord Keith of Kinkel said:
  "In the present case no rights have been taken away from anyone, nor has the Minister acted unfairly towards anyone. While no doubt many members of the public may be expected to have hoped that sections 108 to 117 … would be brought into force, they had no right to have them brought into force. In any event, the doctrine of
  738
  legitimate expectation cannot reasonably be extended to the public at large, as opposed to the particular individuals or bodies who are directly affected by certain executive actions."
  Is it not an appalling abuse of the House's proceedings for Opposition Members to accuse the Home Secretary of acting unlawfully when they fail to understand the nature of the judgment in question?
  Mr. Howard: That is no more than I would expect from Opposition Members. My hon. and learned Friend's assessment of the situation is entirely accurate. He will be perfectly aware that 10 judges considered this matter and five held in my favour while the other five held against. [Interruption.] That may be a matter for mirth among Opposition Members, but it clearly demonstrates that these matters are not easy to anticipate thoroughly correctly. We are in a grey area of the law in which it is perfectly possible not only for reasonable Secretaries of State but for judges, of the High Court and above, to come to different conclusions.
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: If five of the Law Lords found in the Secretary of State's favour, why has he brought in the Bill?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Lady misunderstands. It was not five Law Lords but 10 judges who considered the matter. Five of them found in my favour at different stages of the proceedings and five found against. If the hon. Lady cares to look at the record, she will understand that.
  Mr. Alun Michael: Perhaps the Home Secretary would cast his mind back and remember that he was repeatedly warned in the House and outside that he was acting illegally. The House of Lords has found that he was acting illegally.
  Mr. Howard: That is more or less what I said about five minutes ago.
  As I said to the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) the tariff is based on that used in the earlier tariff scheme which has now been withdrawn. That tariff was derived from an analysis of nearly 20,000 awards made previously by the board.
  Experience of operating the tariff in 1994–95 showed that some adjustments needed to be made to it, for example to incorporate injuries not previously identified and to provide for a greater range of awards in some cases. Therefore, the new tariff has been augmented by nearly 100 additional or changed injury descriptions, and now lists more than 300 injuries.
  The intention is that the enhanced tariff scheme will be administered by a body similar to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority which administered the earlier tariff scheme. But the Bill envisages the possibility of the administration of the scheme being market-tested at some future date, although there are no immediate plans for that. As under the former tariff scheme, the Bill provides for a two-stage appeals process.
  Mr. Jack Straw: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the position of scheme manager is mentioned in clauses 1 and 3 to enable the Secretary of State, if he so wishes, to appoint a private company to run the scheme?
  Mr. Howard: I made it absolutely clear a few moments ago that we want to hold open the possibility of market

  739
  testing in due course. That is because we believe in taking all necessary steps to take advantage of potential competition in the interests of the taxpayer. The Labour party has declared that it is firmly committed to the abolition of competitive tendering in local government. That shows how Labour remains in the pockets of the trade unions and how uninterested it is in the taxpayer and in how much people have to pay for their services from public bodies. We take a different view.
  As under the former tariff scheme, the Bill provides for a two-stage appeals process. If a claimant is dissatisfied with the initial decision, he may ask for a review of his case by a more senior official of the body administering the scheme. If he remains dissatisfied after the review, he will have a right of appeal to an independent appeals panel, which will now come under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals.
  The rules of eligibility and the procedures for making applications will remain very much as they were under the earlier tariff scheme, which itself closely mirrored the rules and procedures of the common law damages scheme. However, the time limit for making applications will be extended from the earlier tariff scheme's one year to two years. As before, the authority will have discretion to waive the time limit in exceptional cases.
  Finally, I turn to costs. We have made no secret of the fact that one of the main reasons for introducing the tariff scheme last year was to contain the costs of the scheme, which were increasing rapidly. That is not just because the number of applications has been increasing by some 8 per cent. a year but because the average award has been going up each year by some 5 per cent. above inflation. Without reform, we estimate that the annual liability to compensation under the scheme based on common law damages would, by the year 2000–01, be about £460 million. The cumulative liability in the five years 1996–97 to 2000–01 would be about £1.8 billion. That level of expenditure is simply not sustainable.
  Under the arrangements envisaged in the Bill, the annual liability will continue to rise year by year with no cuts and no reductions, so that by 2001 it should be about £260 million, and the five-year cumulative liability should be about £1.1 billion. That is still an enormous amount. Indeed, it is some £230 million more than the withdrawn tariff scheme would have cost. Therefore, it is not surprising that our compensation scheme is the most generous in the world, paying out more compensation than the USA, and more than all the other countries in Europe added together. I have no doubt that that will continue to happen under the proposed new arrangements.
  I turn now to the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Last week, the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) presented himself as the iron shadow Chancellor. Yesterday evening, the Leader of the Opposition promised that he would be tough on public spending. Today, we see the other face of the Labour party. Its reasoned amendment complains about the "adequacy" of our proposals. We know what that means. It means a call for more public spending.
  Victims of crime are, of course, extremely worthy recipients of taxpayers' money. That is precisely why we have, and will continue to have, by far the most generous victims' compensation scheme in the world. But there are limits to how much can be afforded for any group in
  740
  society, however deserving. Being tough on public spending means being prepared to take unpopular decisions. There is no escape from that.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Would my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the financial policy of the Labour party on this and all other matters can be summed up in the words of the late Wilfred Pickles, "Give 'em the money, Barney"?
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party promises the earth to every conceivable interest group: it cannot have it both ways. The same idea was put, almost as eloquently as my hon. Friend puts it, by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) just two months ago. Writing in The Guardian, he said:
  "Labour now has a clear choice. It can be either the party of higher taxation and proud of it, or the party of higher taxes which it is ashamed to describe, afraid to admit and incapable of calculating with any accuracy. It cannot be the low taxation party."
  That would be the honest path for the Labour party. The other would be genuinely to abandon its old tax-and-spend ways. Instead, as ever, the Labour party faces both ways at once. We have no intention of letting the Opposition get away with it. We want clear answers, and we want them now.
  The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) have tabled a reasoned amendment. Are they prepared to accept its public spending consequences? The question must be answered. Unless the hon. Member for Blackburn is prepared to answer it, he need not bother to get up to address the House; his words will not deserve a single moment of its attention.
  Mr. Michael Shersby: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the reasoned amendment is simply inaccurate? It begins:
  "That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill because it is based on cutting the cash available to compensate victims".
  It is not.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is of course right—[Interruption.] I would not expect anyone as economically illiterate as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) to understand that, but it is manifest, for reasons that I explained earlier.
  I believe that the enhanced tariff scheme provides the right balance between the needs of victims and the interests of taxpayers. It combines the benefits of a tariff-based approach, to ensure that the majority of claimants can get their compensation quickly and without undue fuss, with elements of common law damages to ensure that the needs of the most seriously injured victims are properly met.
  I hope that the House will recognise that we have listened carefully to the criticisms of the earlier scheme and have made every effort to meet them as far as is reasonably possible, given the resource limitations to which any prudent Government must sensibly pay heed. The enhanced tariff scheme is a good one for victims and for the taxpayer. The Bill provides the necessary framework for that scheme, and I commend it to the House.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, to leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill because it is based on cutting the cash available to compensate victims; because the information provided by the Home Secretary is not sufficient to enable the House to judge the Bill's likely consequences for all classes of victims; because it is being introduced without proper consultation; because its proposals fail adequately to reflect society's obligations to assist victims to recover from their experience of crime; and because it fails to place victims at the centre of the criminal justice system, since it fails to require greater consideration towards them by the Crown Prosecution Service, better information about the progress of prosecutions, greater attention to the needs of victims in court, protection and help for witnesses, support for the provision of counselling and other services by voluntary organisations, and positive action by the Government to tackle the continued rise in crimes of violence."
  I learned from yesterday's edition of The Daily Telegraph that today is the second anniversary of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's appointment as Home Secretary. In the intervening two years, confidence in the Conservatives' ability to deal with the rising tide of crime has plummeted and the Home Secretary has achieved an unenviable record as the most unpopular member of the Government—apart from the Secretary of State for Health and the chairman of the Conservative party. Little wonder, therefore, that he complained to The Daily Telegraph yesterday that he had received "a hard pounding".
  If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is wondering why such a misfortune has befallen him he need look no further than his handling of the criminal injuries compensation scheme, for on this he has shown an arrogant disregard for the proper procedures of Parliament and a contempt for the victims of violent crime, whose numbers have risen as a direct result of the Government's failure to control the increase in violent crime.
  It was, after all, the humane and acceptable face of the Conservative party—the Leader of the House—who this March warned the Prime Minister that the Government were on the
  "wrong side of an argument about the treatment of the victims of violent crime",
  and it is the Home Secretary who, almost singlehandedly, has placed the Government in this position.
  The Secretary of State's misjudgment was his view that he could ride roughshod over established parliamentary procedures and implement fundamental changes to the 1964 scheme, not by statute approved by both Houses of Parliament but by exercise of the royal prerogative approved by neither. In taking such action, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has just pointed out, the Secretary of State cannot complain that he was not warned of the probable consequences. In March last year the distinguished former Law Lord, Lord Ackner, told the other place that he found it difficult to imagine a more arrogant refusal by a
  742
  Minister to carry out his duty. He said that he awaited with interest the first set of legal proceedings for judicial review to test the legality of the Government's action.
  Mr. Garnier: Just for the record, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he agrees with the recently cited remarks by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)?
  Mr. Straw: That is a matter for another debate; I shall come to costs in due course—the hon. and learned Gentleman will just have to wait with baited breath.
  Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Lord Ackner's language, which he has just quoted with approval, was rather strong and unjustified? The hon. Gentleman and Lord Ackner may be expressing one point of view about this rather arcane legal question, which was eventually decided by the House of Lords, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, no fewer than five of Her Majesty's judges took the opposite point of view.
  Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman has asked me two questions: about whether the language was strong, and about whether it was justified. The answer to both is yes—it was strong and it was justified.
  Warnings came not only from Law Lords and respected Members of the other place but from the shadow Home Secretary of the time, now the Leader of the Opposition, who said that if the Home Secretary's action proved unlawful,
  "then the Government will have committed its worst blunder yet on its law and order package."
  He too was correct.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman duly committed his blunder. Both the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of the Lords found against him. The Lords concluded that his actions were not just unlawful but an
  "abuse of the prerogative power".
  The language used by the learned judges against the Secretary of State in both forums was strong, although it did not have to be, as was their condemnation of his actions.
  As we have heard this afternoon, instead of gracefully accepting defeat in the Lords the Home Secretary and the Minister of State compounded their offence by blithely asserting that this was just a complicated technical matter and by claiming that, while five judges had found against the Secretary of State, five had found in his favour—implying some sort of draw.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman often lectures others about the need to face up to the consequences of their actions—I have a file full of his speeches to that effect—but before he examines the mote in others' eyes he should perhaps start with the beam in his own. Our judicial system, as he well knows, is based on a hierarchy of laws and/or courts. Decisions are not made, as it were, on goal aggregate; they are made after careful argument, with the superior courts necessarily able to overrule decisions of the lower courts. The fact of the matter is that both the Court of Appeal and the Judicial Committee of the Lords found that the Secretary of State had acted unlawfully.

  743
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman's response has been not to say sorry but to put up his deputy on television to make a fool of himself—as he did—by inventing a new doctrine to trivialise the decisions of the highest court in the land.
  Before 23 May 1993 dawned, the Secretary of State used to be Secretary of State for the Environment, when I had the happy pleasure of opposing him. In that capacity, I recall that he never used to give up any opportunity to lecture Labour local councils on the prudent spending of public money. The wholly unnecessary court action in which he has been involved has cost the taxpayer an estimated £150,000—at least. I suggest—given the weight of opinion against him from the start and all the warnings issued by counsel—that if such sums had been spent by a Labour council the Secretary of State would have clamoured for the district auditor to be brought in. It is extremely fortunate for the Home Secretary that surcharge and disqualification do not apply to Ministers of the Crown.
  The Home Secretary, unlike some badly briefed Conservative Back Benchers, at least understands that the Bill cuts the amount available for criminal injuries compensation. What else could its purpose be?
  Mr. Gary Streeter: The hon. Gentleman spoke of upholding court decisions. If he is such a firm upholder of court decisions, why did he refer in his speech to the Police Federation last Thursday to a sentence passed by the courts without telling the Police Federation members present that it had been referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General for being unduly lenient?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the debate.
  Mr. Streeter rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have ruled that that is rather wide of the debate.
  Mr. Straw: I was talking about Conservative Members who are badly briefed and here we have one. Parenthetically and speedily, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may say that I made no point in my speech to the Police Federation about whether that decision had been referred to the Court of Appeal. I read out a very angry letter that had been written to one of my hon. Friends by the police officer concerned, expressing his deep concern about the way in which he had been treated by the court of first instance. I will get on, if I may.
  Mr. Streeter: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you would not like to let pass an instance of an hon. Member, perhaps inadvertently, misleading the House. I have a transcript of the hon. Gentleman's speech to the Police Federation.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled that that is going wide of the debate. There the matter stands, and that also applies to hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
  Mr. Straw: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am astonished that so many hon. Members have been excited by my speech criticising the Crown Prosecution Service.
  744
  If the Attorney-General would like to arrange time for a full debate on the matter and on other aspects of what I said to the Police Federation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us get down to the speech that the hon. Gentleman is making today, rather than the one that he made the other day.
  Mr. Straw: The part of my speech where I mentioned the criminal injuries compensation scheme was well received, too. I shall quote with approval the views of the Police Federation about the new scheme in a moment.
  I shall return to the point that I was making before the intervention of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), who was so badly briefed about other speeches that I have made. The Home Secretary has at least had the grace to recognise that the whole purpose of the Bill is to cut the compensation available. Why else should it be introduced?
  The Bill cuts the total projected budget by more than £700 million, or 40 per cent., over a five-year period. Such cuts are bound to result in much lower awards for many victims, despite the concessions that have been forced out of the Home Secretary and which are contained in the Bill.
  The Home Secretary had the cheek to talk a moment ago about the issue of honesty. Our first objection to the Government's proposals is that the Government have no mandate whatever for what they have done. They have been dishonest with the electorate. Indeed, the only mandate that could possibly be perceived from what they were saying before the election was one to continue the previous common law scheme.
  Right up to and through the last election, the Conservative party never ceased to congratulate themselves on the existing, more generous common law scheme. The 1991 Conservative campaign guide, with all the accuracy that we have come to expect of Conservative central office, boasted that the existing scheme
  "has been placed on a statutory basis"—
  with the implication that it was already in operation—
  "giving victims who suffer significant injuries an automatic right to compensation for the first time."
  The 1992 Conservative campaign guide repeated that error, claiming that
  "when a crime has taken place, the Government gives the utmost priority to supporting the victims."
  The Conservative manifesto made similar extravagant claims.
  There was not a word in any of those pre-election documents about the Conservatives' intention to slash compensation even though we now know that Ministers were considering such cuts before the last election.
  In a speech that the Home Secretary made just four days before the Law Lords decision of 5 April, he said that the
  "only party which truly believes in responsibility and duty is the Conservative party."
  When I noticed that the date of the speech was 1 April and that the newspaper that reported it was The Guardian, I assumed that it was The Guardian's awful spoof.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman has used that before.
  Mr. Straw: I have not used it before because this is the first occasion on which I have read this speech.

  745
  I have now seen the Conservative central office text of the Home Secretary's speech. I wonder whether it has occurred to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who sprays around speeches about responsibility, that responsibility and duty might have required the Conservative party to have been straight with the electorate at the last election. Of course, it would know nothing about that.
  Our second objection to the proposals is that the increase in costs has arisen not by accident or act of God but out of the failure of one Government policy and as a direct consequence of another. The policy failure is their failure to control the relentless rise in violent crime. The Conservative party came to power in 1979 on a promise to control law and order and it has palpably failed to do so. Since 1979, the risk of becoming a victim of crime has not doubled but trebled: from one in 213 when Labour was last in office to 1 in 64 today. Offences of violence are still rising. Last year alone they rose by 7 per cent. "Ah" says the Home Secretary, "but that does not explain the whole of the increase in the costs of the criminal injures compensation scheme." He is right to point to a significant increase in the value of awards and in the number of applications.
  Mr. Stephen: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that crime has been rising throughout the western world since 1979. Does he suggest that the British Government are responsible for that?
  Mr. Straw: I had better not take any more interventions from the hon. Gentleman in order to protect him from himself. It is unfortunate that he mentions that, because if he looks at the table published by the Home Office he will see that between 1979 and 1993 this country had the worst rise of any country but one for crime, and that between 1987 and 1993 it took the jackpot. I am entitled to say that the Government promised greater law and order and to control crime in this country and have palpably failed to do so.
  The Secretary of State's explanation is that the increase in the costs of the criminal injuries compensation scheme cannot be put at the door of rising crime. Of course, that is correct. There are other matters to which he draws attention, such as the increase in value of awards and the number of applications outpacing the rise in crime.
  The recorded crime statistics give little detail about the severity of violent crime and whether that has changed along with the total numbers. I suspect that the increased value of awards may partly reflect an increase in the severity of the crimes committed. The Home Secretaty needs to recognize that the increase in the overall number of applications is almost certainly a natural consequence of his Government's actions in publicizing far more effectively the availability of compensation.
  The one epitaph for the Government will be their publication of charters—citizens charters, passengers charters and victims charters. The victims charter gives pride of place to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. I wonder if it ever occurred to the Home Secretary that if the scheme was better publicized, more applications might result. Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman or his predecessor ever estimate the likely consequences of their actions when they produced the
  746
  victims charter in 1988 and republicised in 1990? Or was the charter one of the long list of cynical pre-election ploys designed to give the impression before polling day of concern for victims in the sure but secret knowledge that this insinuation of concern could be dumped once the election was out of the way?
  It is no wonder, against the background of implied promises held out in the victims charter and the fact that there was no mandate whatever for these cuts, that the public no more trust the Tories on law and order than they do on tax. Even after the election, the Government's actions to change the scheme have been characterised by evasion and double-speak.
  The White Paper issued in December 1993 was one of the most disingenuous documents produced by the Government and there is a long list of competitors for that title. "Wretchedly deceptive" was the verdict of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) on that document.
  The White Paper sought to pretend that its purpose was
  "to provide a better service to claimants."
  We have had more of such nonsense today.
  We have also witnessed Ministers having to stand on their heads. To gain any kind of parliamentary approval for the Bill, they have had to make concessions in respect of loss of earnings and medical care to which, on their merit as well as on their cost, they were wholly opposed just a few months ago. On 16 June last year, Earl Ferrers said that
  "a hybrid scheme would retain the worst elements of common law damages—that is, loss of earnings—and would make for great complexities and delay."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 June 1994; Vol. 555, c. 1847.]
  The Secretary of State said:
  "We have looked carefully at the possibility of such a hybrid scheme, but I must tell my hon. Friend"—
  the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg)—
  "that the practical difficulties which it would involve would be insurmountable."—[Official Report, 20 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 448.]
  It is strange that those practical difficulties, which were insurmountable only a few months before, should have suddenly been overcome and that the worst element of common law damages—loss of earnings—should suddenly take pride of place in the scheme.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the reference to a hybrid scheme. What was being proposed by way of a hybrid scheme and what was being urged on us, especially in another place, was a scheme under which the tariff would be the only method of compensation up to a certain level and the old common law scheme—unchanged—would apply above that level. That was being advanced as a hybrid scheme. I said then that it would be unworkable, and I remain of that view.
  Mr. Straw: That was one of the hybrid schemes but the other had a tariff plus an element for loss of earnings. I can only read out the words on the page; I am not misquoting the Secretary of State or Earl Ferrers, who said that the scheme
  "would retain the worst elements of common law damages—that is, loss of earnings—and would make for great complexities and delay."

  747
  If this scheme is not a hybrid scheme—it combines a tariff with loss of earnings—I do not know what to call it but, in order to save his blushes, perhaps the Secretary of State has thought of a new title for it.
  I shall outline some of our detailed objections to the Bill in a moment but I deal first with the issue of cost, which was raised by the Home Secretary. Throughout his sorry stewardship, he has always tried to shift the blame for unpopular policies or events on to someone else. We saw that earlier this year in his handling of trouble within the Prison Service and we see it now in his handling of the compensation scheme. If it has not been the victims of crime who are to blame for the cuts, it has been the Labour party.
  The Secretary of State has suggested from the Dispatch Box that we are as implicated as him because we have not guaranteed that a future Labour Government would make good the cuts in the scheme which he has made. We welcome his expectation of an imminent Labour Government—that is thoroughly to be welcomed—but that Government may be two Conservative Budgets away and two public spending rounds away. He cannot even tell me what the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to do tomorrow—indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot even tell me that—still less what will be in his Budget in November 1995 or November 1996, so he can hardly expect a responsible Opposition to say what their spending plans will be six months after that.
  What is more, we have always had the gravest doubts about the assumptions behind the escalating estimates given for maintaining the existing scheme. The Secretary of State states in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill, and has repeated it since, that the cost by the year 2001 would be £460 million. I do not know whether he realises that the cost estimate for the year 2001 has already dropped by £110 million in the space of just 12 months.
  Who are we to believe? Just 12 months ago, in the 1994 campaign guide, Conservative central office said—I assume that this was on the basis of information provided by the Secretary of State's special adviser and checked with the Home Office—that
  "without the changes now being made, spending would have increased to around £570 million by the year 2000."
  Who are we to believe—Conservative central office last year or the Home Secretary today?
  I am not saying that the Secretary of State has made up the arithmetic but the figures are a moving target. They have come down by £110 million in the past 12 months, so how are we to know that they will not come down even more in the next 12 months, especially given the great sensitivity in his calculations, which I have studied carefully, to the very substantial percentage increases that are assumed in the value and number of awards likely to be made in the next five years?
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman says that he cannot make a commitment to reinstate the scheme because the prospect of a Labour Government is so distant. Indeed, I would argue that it is considerably more distant than he suggests. However, if he says that he cannot commit a Labour Government to reinstating the current scheme on those grounds, why on earth has he tabled a reasoned amendment suggesting that the proposed scheme is inadequate? If he believes that it is inadequate, he must make a commitment to put in place a more adequate
  748
  scheme that will cost more. If he is not prepared to make such a commitment, he should not have tabled a reasoned amendment such as this.
  Mr. Straw: I was just about to deal with the purpose of the reasoned amendment, which is to sustain the current scheme. If the Home Secretary were to join us and keep the present scheme going at the proposed budgeted level—a level which, by the way, we think, is an overestimate—and if there were a proper public expenditure survey allocation, I can think of no circumstances in which we would seek to worsen the compensation available under this scheme and no circumstances at all in which we would do that without a clear election mandate. However, if the money to pay for the scheme has gone—if there is no PES allocation—no such guarantee can be given.
  If the Home Secretary squanders the money over the next two years—my hon. Friend the shadow Chief Secretary pointed out yesterday that a great deal of cash has been squandered elsewhere—we shall not have it to spend but, if he ensures that the money is there, we should not dream of changing the scheme.
  I note that, in his intervention, the Secretary of State did not mention the appalling and astonishing discrepancy between the cost estimate that he now puts to the House—£460 million by the year 2000—and that given by Conservative central office this time last year of £570 million. Who do we believe—Conservative central office or him?
  Mr. Howard: The former is a more up-to-date estimate. The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that inflation has gone down, which is one of the factors taken into account. In addition, the average amount of each award has decreased, which is also taken into account.
  What is significant is that the hon. Gentleman did not reply to my point about the Opposition's reasoned amendment. He suggested that its purpose is to maintain the old common law damages scheme for the next two years. I made it clear in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill how much more that would cost. The inescapable inference therefore is that, if a Labour Government were in power for the next two years, taxation would be commensurately higher under them than under the present Government. No other inference is possible.
  Mr. Straw: That is a silly point. The inescapable conclusion is that if we were in power we would not have duped the electorate by implying that we would keep the scheme going and then breaking the promise within about a year of coming to power.
  The estimate of costs is crucial and the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes my point by admitting that they have changed. He has embarrassed himself, and reduced his popularity in the country and his standing in the House by allowing himself, twice before the two most senior courts in the land, to have his actions declared unlawful, and all because of changes in the law that he tried to force through on the basis of wholly inadequate estimates which are now coming down.
  Mr. Garnier: What would be the financial consequences of the amendment?
  Mr. Straw: I have already dealt with that. We want some honesty in politics. When a party goes to the country

  749
  with express promises—in this case, I am talking about the maintenance of this scheme as outlined in the campaign guide to which I referred—we want it to follow them through when it is in power. If the Government wanted to change the scheme, and as they knew full well what the estimates were before the previous election, they should have included their proposals in their manifesto. Our purpose is to ensure that the party now in power keeps its word, which it gave to the electorate at the previous election.
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Straw: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me but I have already given way enough.
  We have a number of detailed objections to the revised scheme. I have already said that £700 million is being taken out of the scheme over five years, which is a very large sum. As a result, thousands of victims of violent crime will receive less compensation than they would have received under the old scheme. The saving is generated in part by the setting of a tariff, which is very low in some cases and is especially mean in relation to sexual offences. The tariff that is due to be implemented in April 1996 is very similar to the scheme introduced in April 1994. By the end of the first financial year of the new scheme's awards therefore, claimants will have already lost value to the tune of three years' inflation.
  In addition, although the Secretary of State has been forced into accepting that some recompense has to be made for loss of earnings, his proposals are markedly less generous than those under the common law scheme. Many individuals will be adversely affected by the decision to pay loss of earnings only after 28 weeks, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), the shadow Attorney-General, said. That period was chosen because, as the Secretary of State explained, it is the period for which statutory sick pay is payable.
  I do not know whether the Secretary of State has properly appreciated just how unfair it is to set a minimum period of 28 weeks before any account is taken of loss of earnings. Estimates prepared by the research division of the Library draw attention to the fact that if 24 million people in total were employees or self-employed, at least 9 million people would not have any entitlement to sick pay during their first 28 weeks off sick. That particularly applies to the low-paid, to those on short-term contracts and to the self-employed.
  It so happens that today a lobby of newsagents—self-employed shopkeepers who used to be natural supporters of the Conservative party—are complaining about another abuse of their position and the way in which the Conservatives have allowed large wholesalers to undermine their business. Once again, the Government's rhetorical claim to care for small businesses is contradicted by their actions. Small business people, such as shopkeepers, are often subject to the worst crimes of violence when thugs rob their shops and they are least able, given the paucity of their earnings, to insure themselves to cover that first seven months of unemployment.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right to make the point that self-employed people are not entitled
  750
  to statutory sick pay, but I hope that he is not going to leave that passage of his speech without reminding the House that such people are entitled to incapacity benefit.
  Mr. Straw: They are not entitled to loss of earnings to cover that 28-week period and they will be the subject of discrimination under the scheme. Even those employees who have occupational sick pay schemes will not necessarily obtain anything approaching their full salary when unable to work. Indeed, I have obtained evidence showing that most employees in most private sector schemes will have to have worked continuously for one employer for five years before receiving anything like full entitlement to sick pay from their occupational salary.
  It is extraordinary that, having failed to consult any victim organisations or indeed the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board before introducing his first and ill-fated tariff scheme, the Secretary of State has failed to do so again. The hon. Member for Sutton mentioned my fine speech to the Police Federation, but in an even finer speech on the day that the Secretary of State spoke to the Police Federation, Mr. Fred Broughton the chairman of the Police Federation said:
  "we very much regret that there has been no consultation about the revisions"
  made by the Secretary of State. Mr. Broughton continued:
  "The major change in the scheme to which we still object very strongly, is the failure to differentiate between the individual circumstances of victims. It cannot be right that, just because they have suffered an identical injury, the young breadwinner with his or her whole life to look forward to, is treated in the same way as the elderly person with no dependents."
  I must ask the Secretary of State again: why is he so afraid to consult those who know more about the issue than he does? After the debacle of his first attempt, it would have been far better to have spent some time in discussion with those who understand the impact of compensation on victims and to have got it right this time.
  The proposals fail adequately to recognise the experience which victims have suffered or to assist them to recover from that experience and live as normal a life as possible. The Secretary of State has undoubtedly introduced some improvements in the scheme which has been so derided. The changes have occurred not because of his great concern to improve the lot of victims, but because of his great desire to save his own political skin. The changes do not go far enough, which is why we tabled the reasoned amendment and why we shall seek to improve the Bill in Committee.
  The Secretary of State said in September in yet another of his lecturing speeches that the scales of justice had tilted too far in favour of offenders. He said:
  "Victims have had a raw deal. I want to redress that balance."
  His actions belie his words. He has sought to cut victims' compensation by half and to cut the compensation available to some victims—the most severely injured—to a tenth of what they would have received. If the courts had not intervened to stop him, the Secretary of State would have succeeded in cutting compensation in such a way. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has failed effectively to tackle the relentless rise in violent crime and is now making the victims of that violence pay for his failures. The scheme is unacceptable and I urge the House to vote against the Bill and for our reasoned amendment.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Michael Shersby: I wish to declare two interests. I am president of the Uxbridge branch of Victim Support, which is a voluntary activity on my part and is unpaid. I am also parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales jointly with the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien).
  The revised criminal injuries compensation scheme proposed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in the Bill is a great improvement on the tariff scheme that he introduced last year, for several reasons. He has clearly listened to the views of his parliamentary colleagues, their constituents and organisations with a special interest in this very important matter. Victim Support was critical of a number of features of the tariff scheme which was introduced last year. One of its principal objections, which was shared by the police, lawyers and many others, was that it did not properly take account of loss of earnings. Apart from the notional average amount, the tariff contained no provisions for loss of earnings and other financial loss.
  In the opinion of Victim Support, one of the most serious defects in the tariff scheme remained, as compensation awards were still counted as capital by the Department of Social Security when calculating means-tested benefits such as income support, so that some victims lost all benefits until the award was spent. That point still concerns my local branch of Victim Support, which points out that victims on low wages have compensation deducted from social security benefit. If a victim receives compensation of more than £3,000, for example, it is deducted from benefit. If a victim receives more than £8,000, he or she loses benefit altogether. I draw those matters to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Victim Support has, however, welcomed a number of aspects of the Bill, but it still has some concerns which I am sure can be discussed in Committee. One important point is that the entitlement to loss of earnings applies to victims who are off work for 28 weeks. Victim Support wants to know how the provisions will apply to self-employed people and those in part-time, low-paid or temporary work. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State touched on that issue in response to a point raised by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). My right hon. and learned Friend made the point that such people would be able to rely on incapacity benefit. Members of the Standing Committee will probably wish to explore that matter in a little more detail so that they may compare the amounts available under incapacity benefit.
  Victim Support set up an independent working party on compensation and put forward a number of principles on which it felt that the scheme should be based. It wanted a tariff to be based on clear principles and adequate provision for reducing earning capacity or loss of support in the case of homicide. It wanted no reduction or withdrawal of benefit because of the compensation. It also wanted no judgment about a victim's previous conduct if unrelated to the current crime. It wanted a regular, independent review of levels of compensation, and clear and prompt operation of the scheme. It also wanted compensation to be available for all injuries that were more serious than minor cuts or bruises, and for the psychological equivalent. I hope very much that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, as he gives
  752
  his customary careful consideration to the views of such an important organisation as Victim Support, will listen sympathetically as the Bill passes through Parliament.
  I have naturally also had discussions on this with the Police Federation. The federation welcomes the fact that, following the Lords' judgment, the Home Secretary has introduced a Bill rather than seeking to alter the tariff scheme by means of the royal prerogative. The federation takes the view that it is right that the scheme should have the force of statute and I share that view. It is clear from the recent public pronouncements by Mr. Fred Broughton, the chairman of the Police Federation, that in announcing revisions to the tariff scheme my right hon. and learned Friend has moved a long way towards meeting the strong criticisms of it made by the federation, by Victim Support and by trade unions whose members include potential claimants.
  The police are especially pleased, as are many of my constituents in Uxbridge, that loss of earnings will continue to be compensated for and that awards will cover special medical care and attention in long-term cases. It would be helpful to have the scope of the provisions spelled out in the Bill in a little more detail. The increase in the amounts that can be paid in awards to £500,000 is most welcome. I must ask, however, whether my right hon. and learned Friend considers that that amount would be sufficient to provide full medical care and attention for the small minority of very serious and tragic cases of which those of us who have read the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board's reports are aware.
  Can my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Minister of State tell us whether it is the Government's view that the cost of such care and attention should be paid for by the improved value of the higher awards because they will be able to provide a guaranteed, index-linked, tax-free income for life? If so, has the Department made any estimate of the improved value of the maximum award to, say, a young man or woman in his or her 20s with normal life expectancy?
  The changes proposed in the Bill do not increase the scope of compensation for victims of violent crime compared with the scope of the non-statutory scheme operated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. However, the Bill will bring about a change in the overall costs. As there is no evidence that awards to victims have been unduly generous, we must ask ourselves the reason. The reason was given, quite candidly and properly, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in an earlier debate on the matter. He made the point that the ever-rising cost to taxpayers, based on forward projections of claims, would be too expensive for them to bear in the longer term.
  As has already been pointed out in this debate, the reforms proposed in the Bill will not cut expenditure on compensation for criminal injuries, but will simply help to keep rising costs under control. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has given, in his excellent speech, a projection of the figures to 2001 which illustrate that point well. He can still claim with absolute justification, however, that the scheme provided for in the Bill will be the best available in the world. It is beyond doubt that the United Kingdom pays out more compensation than the United States and more than all the

  753
  European countries put together. I believe that that is a record of which our country can be proud and I hope that that view is shared by all hon. Members.
  It was because many groups, notably the police and Victim Support, felt that the former statutory scheme was the best way to meet society's obligations to victims that they strongly supported it, regardless of the costs. Many of us who read the gripping and often horrifying reports published by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board felt that we were discharging our obligations to people unfortunate enough to become victims of violent crime. I suspect, however, that few of us realised the extent to which the costs would escalate.
  The police accepted that a tariff-based scheme was appropriate for lesser cases involving straightforward injuries. They accepted that such a scheme could mean less bureaucracy and that compensation would reach victims sooner. Speed of compensation is an important point in our consideration of the whole matter. The police have, however, always felt that in cases of homicide, permanent disablement, mutilation and disfigurement, there should continue to be a subjective judgment which takes account of all the consequences of the attack on a victim. The Police Federation therefore regrets the passing of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. It also points out that the proposed new scheme will be administered by civil servants instead of the old board staff and that the claimant's right of appeal appears to be limited. Those points need to be investigated and clarified in Committee.
  Another issue that needs to be examined is the time limit for submitting a claim. I suggest that it should continue to be the limit which applies to a claim in the courts—three years from the date of the incident. That point is important for some victims who suffer psychological injuries or who have suffered sexual attacks.
  The new scheme does not appear to distinguish between individuals and I ask why that is. It seems rather illogical to regard the loss or damage suffered by victims as identical just because they have suffered the same kind of injury. A young person, perhaps a child, who is blinded and who will have to cope with that handicap for the rest of his or her life will be given the same compensation as an elderly person with a short life expectancy. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will seriously consider that point. Perhaps he will be willing to consider regarding the proposed tariff as the base for compensation and allowing an assessor to vary awards according to the degree of harm suffered by the claimant.
  What is the position of victims who have suffered more than one injury? Should not the new scheme be more generous in respect of a second or further injury than the 1994 scheme was? Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State will respond to that point when he winds up. The new scheme should also specify how awards will be uprated to take account of the effects of inflation. That and a number of other questions need to be considered further in Committee.
  As the House knows, I have a special interest in police officers who are, all too often, the victims of violent crimes. It is an unhappy fact that in 1995 the police will sustain about 18,000 serious injuries. However, awards to
  754
  police claimants have always been abated by the extent of their entitlements under the police regulations and the police pension scheme.
  The persons most likely to be worried about the scheme are probably those about whom Victim Support is concerned. They are those who are not covered by occupational injury and pension schemes and who are, by definition, often the weakest and most vulnerable in our society. All of us represent some of those people.
  While I fully acknowledge that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has responded in his customary positive way to the criticisms made of the 1994 tariff scheme, I hope that he will keep an open mind and that he will be ready to consider some further improvements to the proposed new scheme as the Bill passes through Parliament.
  It is important that the tariff scheme is reviewed at regular intervals. The 1994 scheme provided for a review every three years, and it would be sensible for the proposed new scheme also to be reviewed at three-yearly intervals, so that the effects of inflation—albeit the low level that we are experiencing today—can be taken fully into account, and so that the value of awards will not depreciate.
  I welcome the Bill and I shall certainly support my right hon. and learned Friend in the Lobby tonight. I hope that he will be able to take account of some of the points that I have made in the debate.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. John Morris: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) made a careful speech, in which he analysed some of the defects of the Bill. Given the totality of those defects, I wonder how he can vote to support the Bill in the Lobby tonight.
  I shall make a short speech. The Home Secretary has been forced to introduce this Bill because he adopted a high-handed approach to Parliament. As Lord Denning once said, however high a man is, no man is above the law—not even the Home Secretary.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot say that he was not warned from all sides. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) warned him, as did Lord Ackner. In a debate on 20 October 1994, I said that the attitude of the Government was
  "an affront to Parliament … The Bill ignores the 1988 Act … It is not even repealed. It will lie idle on the statute book. Instead, we have a non-statutory scheme and the Government have played ducks and drakes with Parliament and the time that Parliament gave to passing the 1988 Act."—[Official Report, 20 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 466.]
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn commented on the goal average approach of the Home Secretary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman lost in the Court of Appeal, and lost in the Judicial Committee of the other place. The Home Secretary has undoubtedly abused his prerogative power, and he and his advisers should have known better.
  The Home Secretary has brought forward an amended scheme with a double objective—first to satisfy the courts, and secondly to placate the other place in its legislative capacity. Although there are some improvements, it is still a far from satisfactory measure.

  755
  Many of the victims of crime will get much less. I trust that not even this arrogant and brazen Government will lay claim to being the friends of the victims of crime.
  Mr. Sweeney: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, while many people will be worse off, 60 per cent. of claimants will be no worse off?
  Mr. Morris: I do not accept that figure, which is not put forward by the Government. The bulk of the victims—as regards the totality of their claims—will be less well-off than they would have been under the original scheme. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) may be making a comparison not with the new scheme, but with another one.
  We have complained about the proposed tariff, and particularly that no allowance was made for loss of earnings. It is now proposed that victims of serious crime who are off work for more than 28 weeks will be eligible for an allowance for loss of earnings up to a maximum of one and a half times the average industrial wage.
  Such an allowance for loss of earnings was opposed adamantly by the Government when they brought the original proposals before the House. I am sure that the hon. Member for Uxbridge and others will want to follow in detail the reply that the Home Secretary gives about the self-employed, and I hope that the difficulties in that subject can be clarified in Committee.
  A high earner's loss is bound to be higher than that of a low earner. That is common sense. But if one insists on a tariff—this is what the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan may not have fully grasped—the high earner will still be a loser. That is the failure of the tariff, which makes no allowance for the consequences as they affect different people.
  For example, the consequences for a young girl—let alone a model—with a scarred face will be different from the consequences for a middle-aged man with a similar injury. If there is a flat-rate tariff, the same allowance will go to the young model and to the older man who unfortunately suffer similar injuries.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman moves on from that point, will he tell the House under which principle he thinks it right for the taxpayer to pay less to a man who is scarred than to a woman with a similar injury?
  Mr. Morris: The principle is clear. The original prerogative scheme was based on common law, whereby the common law sought to put the loser back in the position in which he was originally. That was the basis of the scheme, and the Home Secretary referred to it this afternoon. The Minister may not have been listening. The common law would assess the damages, assuming the case was being heard in court. For a young model of 21 with a distinguished career in front of her who unfortunately has her face scarred so that she is never able to work again, the damages would be enormous.
  Regrettably, it would be different if someone like myself, or perhaps the hon. Member for Uxbridge, suffered the same calamity. The hon. Gentleman and I are not models—no one would pretend that we were. We are much older, and our expectation of life is, unhappily, shorter. The damages in any common law court would be wholly different from those given to the young model. If
  756
  the Minister has not grasped that, he has a great deal to learn about the way in which the common law seeks to right a wrong.
  Mr. Maclean: I understand the way in which the common law works. I am merely asking whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that it is right that a taxpayer-funded scheme which is not attempting to right all wrongs but attempting to make payments to victims who have suffered injuries should discriminate against some people because of their age, or because they may be ugly.
  Mr. Morris: Under Governments of different colours, and ever since the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board was set up, the taxpayer has awarded damages on that basis. It is only the blinding light which has struck the Government in the past two years that is changing the whole situation. In no manifesto of the Conservative party has the change been put before the electorate. That is the basis on which the CICB has been working all these years, and I and the overwhelming number of electors who were not told otherwise were satisfied with that approach.
  The tariff is fundamentally flawed, and takes no account of age, sex or occupation. There are also no allowances—I can be corrected if I am wrong—for inflation until another review takes place. The Government are getting away with murder, because the tariffs for the new scheme to be introduced in April 1996 are at the same level as the original tariff proposed in April 1994. If I am wrong, I am sure that the Minister can correct me in his reply. If there is no allowance for future inflation and for giving realistic amounts to victims, the scheme will wither on the vine.
  There is concern about how the tariffs were arrived at. The Home Secretary clutches some figures for some assessments and cases, but would it not have been better if an independent outside source had confirmed what the tariffs should be, rather than having an inquiry within the Home Office? If the Home Secretary had then wanted to reduce them, we would have known the foundation.
  Concern has already been expressed about the differences in valuations. People are worried about the low awards in the tariff for sexual cases. Why is £1,000 proposed for a child who is sexually assaulted, and £1,250 for an adult who suffers a dislocated finger? I am sure that the Standing Committee will want to explore those examples, and to find out the basis for that approach.
  Finally, the poorest victims will suffer. People who receive more than £3,000 will have deductions made from their income support, and those who receive more than £8,000 will lose their entitlement altogether. If that is so, and if the rule is to survive, perhaps hon. Members who will be exploring such matters in Committee will want to consider the way in which clause 8 deals with the income tax position for annuities.
  Under that clause, awards will not be regarded as income for tax purposes, but that will not be the case when it comes to any family income support scheme. I agree with Victim Support that criminal injuries compensation should be exempt under the capital rules of the Department of Social Security.
  If we have to have this scheme, let there at least be regular reviews of compensation levels, and let every victim of crime be given the health warning, "A Tory Government will damage your expectation of compensation."
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier: I must take the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) up on one point—the little argument that we seem to be having about the number of judges who decided one way and the number who decided the other. Surely, given that five eminent lawyers decided one way on the matter and five the other, we should simply forget the argument about the hierarchical structure of the courts, as it was a matter of—
  Mr. Michael: What a silly argument.
  Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman does himself no good by making that sort of fatuous remark. If he will allow me to finish the sentence, I will make my point.
  Surely the important thing is that that decision tells us that it was an important and extremely complicated matter, that had vexed other judges and lawyers. Of course no one is arguing that we have a hierarchical courts system, or that, because the decision was 3:2 in the House of Lords, that is what the law was found to be. Surely the simple point is the one that I adumbrated—that the issue is highly complex, and no one can produce any evidence to impugn the motives of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Streeter: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, now that the Labour party thinks only in terms of soundbites, Labour Members would not know a complicated legal argument if it leaped up and bit them on the nose?
  Mr. Garnier: I will study Opposition Members' nasal probosces with interest.
  Mr. Michael: Perhaps I can heighten the quality—
  Mr. Garnier: I have not said that I would give way.
  Mr. Michael: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Garnier: Most certainly.
  Mr. Michael: I am very grateful. Perhaps we could lift the standard of debate. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledge that the Home Secretary was warned by Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members in the House, by people outside the House who specialise in the law and in the Lords long before the judgment, that he ignored them, and that they advised him that the course of action that he proposed to take would indeed breach the law?
  Mr. Garnier: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the argument, which was twofold. First, what was the law? The House of Lords reached a decision on that, and on how the prerogative should be exercised. Secondly, what was the best way to approach Parliament? My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was given plenty of warnings. People made political points— I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was foremost among them—saying that, politically, it would be more advisable if my right hon. and learned Friend did this, that or the other, but the intellectual debate on a matter of law was evenly balanced, and that is the only point that I am making. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept that, it tells us more about him than about anything else.
  758
  It would be helpful to place today's Second Reading debate and the Bill in the context of the criminal injuries compensation system. The Government established a scheme 31 years ago to compensate out of public funds the victims of criminal violence. The scheme was brought into existence through the exercise of the royal prerogative, and the payments were made ex gratia. There was no statutory authority for the scheme, although the necessary funds were voted annually by Parliament, and the victims had no right in law to claim payment.
  Compensation was given in the shape of a lump sum, which was arrived at in the same way as a civil award of damages for personal injury caused by a tort—a civil wrong—subject to an upper limit on the amount attributable to the loss of earnings. The scheme was administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which comprised a chairman and a panel of eminent lawyers.
  At first, the scheme operated on a modest scale, but by 1978 the number of awards had increased twelvefold. In that year, the Royal Commission on civil liability and compensation for personal injury recommended that compensation for criminal injuries should continue to be based on tort damages, but that the scheme, which had originally been experimental, should be put on a statutory basis. The Government, however, preferred to wait until more experience had been gained.
  Although, as the years passed, some important changes were made, the scheme retained its original shape, but its scale and costs increased remorselessly. In the first year, the board paid out £400,000. By 1984, the annual amount had risen to more than £35 million, and the backlog was approaching 50,000 claims.
  At that point, the Government decided that the time had come to put the scheme into statutory form, and they appointed an interdepartmental working party to consider how that should be done. The working party made numerous recommendations, which the Government largely accepted. The most important was that compensation should continue to be given to the victims of criminal violence on the basis of civil damages.
  Accepting that among other recommendations, the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, announced in Parliament that legislation would be introduced accordingly, and that considerable extra public funds would be made available. Within a few years, the promised legislation materialised, in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, together with its dependent schedules.
  It was decided that, when it was brought into force, the scheme would be administered by a statutory body appointed by the Home Secretary and that it would not be a servant or agent of the Crown. The Home Secretary would defray the expenses incurred by the board, and, subject to certain exceptions and limitations, claims for compensation were to be determined and amounts payable assessed in accordance with the way in which a claim in tort was determined. Of course, there was to be a right of appeal from a determination of the board, to the High Court or the Court of Session.
  In the years that immediately followed the passing of the 1988 Act, it seemed probable that, whether or not the statutory scheme took effect, the compensation regime would continue as before. Indeed, as recently as December 1991, my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), then the Home Secretary,

  759
  announced to Parliament an increase in the lower limit of entitlement, without suggesting that the general principles of the scheme might be under reconsideration. He also took the opportunity to report even greater increases in the amounts of the annual payments and the costs of running the scheme.
  In November 1992, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) gave notice of his intention to replace the existing scheme with a new tariff scheme with effect from 1994. At that time, the White Paper, "Compensating victims of violent crime: changes to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme", was presented to Parliament.
  Certain paragraphs of the White Paper are relevant to today's debate. For example, paragraph 10 suggested:
  "There is no obvious or logical way of matching a particular sum of money precisely to the degree of pain and hurt suffered by an injured person. Even under common law damages the award of damages is not an exact science. Judgments tend to be made pragmatically on the facts of the case and with regard to precedent. But the assessment is essentially subjective and any amount awarded must to some extent be regarded as artificial. There is no exactly right answer."
  The White Paper also suggested:
  "Such factors have been major elements in the consideration that led the Government to decide that awards based on common law damages are no longer appropriate for a state financed compensation scheme. Since there is no absolute or right figure for an award, the Government does not consider it appropriate to attempt the very difficult and time-consuming task of trying to assign a precisely calculated but essentially arbitrary sum to the injury suffered …The new system will accordingly be based on a tariff or scale of awards under which injuries of comparable severity will be grouped together in bands for which a single fixed payment is made. This means that people with similar injuries will get the same payment."
  The White Paper suggested:
  "Under the current scheme loss of earnings and costs of future medical care can be paid as separate heads of damage"
  under the current civil law scheme.
  "That is a feature of the common law system, though the necessary calculations can often prove to be very difficult and time consuming to make. The tariff scheme will, however, break the link with common law damages".
  That is common ground between both sides of the House.
  The White Paper also said:
  "the aim will no longer be to provide finely calculated 'compensation' … Instead a simple lump sum award related to the severity of the injury will be paid. That removes the subjective element of assessment and substitutes a more objective test which is easier to apply.
  The severance of the link to common law damages and the introduction of a straightforward tariff scheme, under which payments are made from a scale of awards related to the nature of the injury, means that the specialist skills of senior lawyers with experience of personal injury casework will no longer be needed and that cases can be decided administratively. There will accordingly be no longer term role for the present Board to play under the tariff arrangements.
  If the applicant is dissatisfied with the initial decision he may request reconsideration of his case by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. This will be an internal review of the case conducted by a more senior member of the administration.
  If the claimant remains dissatisfied after this review of his case, he will be able to appeal to an appeals panel"
  independent of both the authority and the Home Secretary.
  Finally, the White Paper pointed out—again, this must be common ground:
  "The present scheme is non-statutory and payments are made on an ex-gratia basis. Provision was made in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 for the scheme to be placed on a statutory footing. However,
  760
  at the request of the Board the relevant provisions were not brought into force, because this would have disrupted their efforts to deal with the heavy work load."
  Hon. Members may have seen in the last Parliament evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee from the noble Lord Carlisle, which supported that suggestion. The White Paper noted:
  "With the impending demise of the current scheme the provisions in the 1988 Act will not now be implemented."
  The tariff scheme departs from the basic principles of the old scheme and the statutory scheme. First, the assessment of compensation is no longer based on common law principles. There is no point in hiding behind wise or complicated words, as that is a fact, but it need not necessarily be a worry. Nowadays, there is a movement in modern law jurisdictions to codify law rather than rely wholly on common law.
  I believe that the Law Commission is to bring before those interested, and certainly before Parliament, suggestions that the whole of the criminal law should be codified, and that other aspects of the current common legal system should be codified to provide a much simpler and certain legal system. On those grounds, the fact that we are moving away from a common law-based system to a tariff system is not wrong in principle.
  The second distinction is that awards are assessed according to a fixed scale of tariffs without taking account of a victim's individual circumstances. I agree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) and the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take those points on board. There will be a number of difficult cases, which may be sorted out or be capable of being sorted out.
  This is not simply party political fencing across the Chamber. Those cases give rise to proper and deeply felt intellectual concern about the effects on claimants of differing ages and earning capacities. I hope that the scheme in its final form will take account of the points made by my hon. Friend and the right hon. and learned Member.
  The third difference is that awards will be made on behalf of the authority by persons who need not be qualified lawyers, although qualified lawyers may be involved in the hearing of appeals. That seems to be a good idea. There is in the public mind a movement away from a reliance on lawyers' formality on all occasions. Alternative dispute resolutions, taking cases to the small claims court in the county court where claimants and defendants can appear without representation, seems to be a far better way to deal with most of the ordinary cases that now come before county courts, which could more sensibly be dealt with more informally.
  I hope that the proposed scheme will attract the commendation not only of the House but of the public at large, who will, after all, have to make use of it. It is common ground that, in some cases, particularly where serious injuries involve prolonged loss of earnings, the sum payable to a victim under the tariff scheme will be substantially less than he would have received under the old scheme or the statutory scheme. When considering their final view on the set-up, I urge the Government to keep an open mind and, if an injustice or injustices should flow from a high earner suffering a disproportionate loss, to bear those changes in mind.

  761
  The general scheme of the Bill, which has been introduced to overcome what I may describe as a little local difficulty in another place not so long ago, is to be welcomed. Although we shall argue over the details, I commend it and invite all those on Conservative Benches and as many as possible on Opposition Benches to join us in supporting its Second Reading this evening.
  6.37 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The beginning and end of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) were welcome. The middle sounded like a Government brief to explain how we got here. Although it was a perfectly valid contribution to the debate and we had not heard it before, none the less it did not bear the hallmark of original thought.
  There are two themes to the debate. The first is the theme of the series of legal proceedings that drove us to this pass and the other is the much more important theme of how we deal with victims of crime.
  I have a limited amount to say on the issue of how we got here. I am glad that at last the issue is being dealt with by statute and not by royal prerogative; it is a nonsense that in 1995, we hold on to the powers of the royal prerogative and we give as much royal prerogative to Ministers of the Crown as we do. Things should be dealt with in a democratic way—via debate in the democratic assemblies of the country. There is a great danger in royal prerogative.
  Legislation can be bad enough when it goes through the House of Commons. If we can get things wrong with the Child Support Act 1991, how much more wrong can we get legislation if we do not have the opportunity to examine proposals? It is therefore a good thing that the House of Lords ruled that the Home Secretary was out of order—not for the first time. Although we do not have a Bill of Rights and a proper constitution, it is good that we at least have a House of Lords that occasionally intervenes to establish some principles. It is good that the legal system can occasionally intervene to stop the Government doing what they like. It is a good thing that the House has been driven back to re-examine the criminal injuries scheme and that the Home Secretary has been forced to think the system through again.
  We are here to debate what we can do for those who become victims. The precondition to the debate is, of course, the existence of victims. Crime, being sin, will always be with us, so, sadly, there will always be victims of crime. The most important issue that lies behind the debate is the need to reduce the number of victims. According to any objective analysis, the Government cannot be proud of their record on that. I hope that they will not be either complacent or simplistic about that aim.
  We all accept that it is not easy to reduce the level of crime, but for the Government to set their face against any argument that there might be a link between high unemployment among young people and crime strikes me as ignoring self-evident truths. If there are so many idle hands, as there are in many of our constituencies, it is not surprising that those people turn to making their living from criminal activity. That activity often becomes that which interferes with the liberties of others. The number
  762
  of victims is the first and most important consideration in our debate. I hope that the Government will appreciate that the fewer victims and the fewer crimes committed, the less the taxpayer will be asked to pay.
  The second issue is the extent to which the rights of victims are put at the centre of our criminal justice system. The Labour party is right to make that the theme of its reasoned amendment. I believe that we are still miles from putting victims at the centre of our criminal justice system. The most recent example of that failure in London concerns the rights of the survivors and bereaved relatives of those who died when the Marchioness sank. According to the recent coroner's inquest, those who died when that boat sank were unlawfully killed. Had we not, at the last moment, been able to persuade the Lord Chancellor that the survivors and relatives should be legally represented through the legal aid system, they would have been denied the opportunity to be represented and to put their questions at the inquest.
  I remember when a young man who lived a couple of doors from me in Bermondsey was attacked on new year's eve. I remember the date in particular because it was the year when I was elected, 1983. He died at Guy's hospital as a result of the injuries that he suffered. When the trial of his assailants took place, the family sat, irrelevant to the proceedings, in the gallery of the Old Bailey. The charges were subsequently reduced to less serious ones on the charge sheet and convictions on those charges led to relatively short sentences. As a result, the family felt not just deprived of a rightful verdict, but that they had had no opportunity to participate in the trial.
  The Home Office has only recently decided to allow victims and the families of victims to make representations about sentencing, particularly sentences on appeal. Although I am grateful for that change, it is a minor one. Victims who survive often do not know what happens to their case. At court they are often treated exceptionally badly, like second-class citizens and often have no opportunity to participate in the process of criminal justice. The opportunity to feel part of the system of justice delivered is as important as giving victims any amount of money.
  About two years ago, a pensioner constituent of mine, Mrs. H, had her car stolen by a 15-year-old. The local magistrates court at Camberwell eventually ordered that the culprit should pay £25 compensation as well as serve a sentence. To date, not just months but more than a year later, that woman has not even received that £25. No one appears to be doing much to chase that youngster to deliver the money or, if he has not got it, to chase his parents to deliver it. My constituent has probably lost £1,000 and the use of a car. I do not believe that she has replaced it. She is a victim whom we have not looked after.
  As a lawyer, I used to appear occasionally at hearings at the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough that it should not be a lawyers' forum. I have also appeared at that board with people since I have been a Member of Parliament. I have therefore heard the details of most unfair cases. For example, my constituent, whose husband was killed in a pub shooting in Walworth in 1990, has not only failed to receive any compensation yet, but she was told that any money that she inherited by virtue of payments to her as a widow, as a result of her husband's pension scheme, would be counted in as opposed to discounted for the purpose of assessing her income. That

  763
  decision will therefore reduce the amount of compensation paid to her for the criminal injury that resulted in the death of her husband. The way in which the system has operated in that case is monstrous. If her husband had died of a heart attack, she would have got the money. He went out for a quiet drink with his wife and was shot in a pub, but his widow has not been given any money.
  Mr. Garnier: When the hon. Gentleman mentioned that he used to practise at the Bar, it reminded me that when I spoke, I should have declared that I am a practising member of the Bar, albeit that I do not do any criminal work. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Mr. Hughes: Those of us in the Chamber understand that declaration and register it. We are all so careful now about what we declare that I would not want to stop the hon. and learned Gentleman declaring anything. I notice that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) declared that he is the voluntary and unpaid president of Victim Support, but he did not declare whether he is paid as an adviser to the Police Federation. I assume that he is and he might have done the House a service by saying that. I hope that we shall soon have to declare how much we are paid for any other work that we do as well as just saying whether we are paid for it.
  The steady rise in the number of criminal injuries payments has meant that the Government have acted, but it is fair to say that their overriding concern has been to act to limit the amount of the payments rather than for other purposes. One other issue with which we desperately need to deal is how to ensure that the criminal injuries compensation scheme acts quickly. Justice is not justice if it is denied for years and years. I am sure that the Minister would acknowledge that. The backlog of compensation claims is rather like that held by the Child Support Agency, because the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board has files and files of outstanding cases. I hope that the new system will cut through that delay and offer speedy remedies. It is no good that those who have been badly injured or whatever have to wait years and years for payments.
  There appears to be a growing consensus in the House about how the criminal injuries compensation scheme should operate. I should like to offer a tick list of what we need to do. First, the Government must tell the nation, Parliament and, in due course, the Standing Committee more about the principles upon which they are establishing the scheme. We have been offered a piece of outline legislation, but the scheme will be introduced as a result of secondary, delegated legislation, which is a dangerous route to follow. We need to be told about a few more principles that will govern the new scheme. We pass far too much legislation that says that certain things will be done, but that fails to set out the objectives clearly.
  We are driven to accept that there will be a tariff-plus system. The parallel under the old civil law is the general and special damages system. One cannot, however, ignore entirely some of the personal circumstances in cases. One cannot ignore the effect on the income of the victim. If someone was earning x and was deprived of work as a result of his injury, compensation must recognise that; and the nature of society is that we do not all earn the same amount, so there will be different payments. People do
  764
  not seek to make a profit; they seek to have the money reinstated that they would otherwise have been able to earn.
  I do not want to become involved in the debate that we were in danger of getting into, as to whether a 21-year-old female model is worth more than an approximately 60-year-old Queen's counsel Member of Parliament. However, we should consider whether age should be a factor and whether the impact of the injury should be a factor.
  Some things in the tariff list are a nonsense. For example, no distinction appears to be made between an injury to one's writing hand or using hand and an injury to a hand that is not. Obviously, that is a highly relevant consideration. No consideration appears to be given to the correctness of the relativity of the tariffs. I made that argument to the Home Secretary in my intervention.
  There needs to be an objective way of setting the tariff. That can be done externally of the Home Office and externally of Ministers, and it should be perpetually under review. Many hon. Members will find it odd that we are considering compensating someone more for a dislocated finger that gets better, than for sexual abuse. We cannot allow that anomaly to pass through the system unamended.
  I shall be troubled if the tariff does not come up for regular review, and I shall be troubled if we cannot debate and amend it in this place.
  Let me add a P.S. on the amounts of compensation that should be paid. If someone is, tragically, murdered, that murder often causes a loss of income to the family, for which compensation should be paid. It is no substitute, but when a relative loses someone, not just out of work but out of life, he should be compensated for the income that the victim was expected to go on to earn.
  I made the case for my constituent, the payment of whose husband's pension or entitlement meant that she would lose some of her compensation. Criminal injuries compensation should be a capital payment, not taken into account for the purpose of benefits and Department of Social Security payments. It should be separately regarded and fairly treated.
  The lower limit should be lowered. At the moment, it is proposed that it should start from £1,000 only and increase. If someone is beaten up—as people all too often are in London and elsewhere—and is badly bruised, he may not need £1,000, but he may be off work for several days and have to receive medication and so on. We should be less prescriptive about that.
  We must not be so prescriptive about a previous criminal record. I had better be careful what I say, but in constituencies such as mine in south London, there are plenty of people who are perfectly proper claimants who do not have an unblemished record—and, as we know, most crime is committed, not on elderly pensioners but among young people on their way out of the pub and going home at 2 o'clock on a Sunday morning. It is unacceptable that because, as happened in a case about which I went to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, a 25-year-old had once in the past been involved in an incident and had been arrested and convicted, he was at severe risk of losing all compensation—the lot, unqualifiedly, because of that blemished record. That is unjustifiable.
  Other colleagues, including the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), have rightly argued that it is nonsense that the first 28 weeks should be disregarded

  765
  for someone who is self-employed or lacks the statutory entitlements. Twenty-eight weeks without pay can make an incredible difference to one's survival, one's sanity, and probably one's ability not to think of ending one's life in certain circumstances.
  I support entirely the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris)—which I think was also made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough—that people should be able to apply for three years from the date of the incident, as one can if one is a civil claimant.
  People are willing to accept the broad thrust of the legislation, but considerable work needs to be done to make it fair. There was a more or less fair system. We then got a dire system until the House of Lords intervened. We now have a better system again. It is not yet right, but if we work hard it may become more so.
  Justice needs to be done and to be seen to be done.
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman said that we had a fair system in the common law damages system, but a few moments before, he criticised the awards in the tariff for sexual abuse and damage to a finger, condemning them as being unfair or not being relatively correct. Does he not realise that those awards in the tariff were based on exactly what the board had allocated beforehand through the common law system, which he thought was fair?
  Mr. Hughes: Of course I do. I understand that 20,000 cases were examined and the work was done. When I said that we had a fair system, that had a double meaning; I should have been more specific. Perhaps I should have said that the old system was "not bad". I am sorry; I did not mean to mislead the Minister or the House.
  The old system was not bad, but it was rough and ready. We then had the tariff system under the temporary arrangements, which were brought to a speedy end. That was a bad system. We now have a better proposal. I accept the process by which we arrived at the system, but it does end up with some anomalies. That is why it should be perpetually open to review and independent of the Government. I hope that that will be better.
  We must not have something that is perceived as a criminal justice lottery system, in which for certain things one gets the jackpot and for other things one gets one's £10, one's £1 or even worse. I hope that we end up with a system which recognises how important it is to people and which processes the applications quickly, but which does not preclude the opportunity of the individual's circumstances being submitted, considered and taken into account. However, at the end of the day, it is much more important that the Government take steps to reduce crime and make the reduction of crime their priority, rather than concentrating on victims. The victims need an enormous amount of support—far more than they have had—but the nation is calling on all politicians to make the reduction of crime their priority.
  6.56 pm
  Mr. Gary Streeter: I am pleased to take part in the debate and to follow the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), whose speech I much appreciated. The House recognises that he has long been a champion of the underdog, and his speech reflected that.
  766
  If I am fortunate enough to serve on the Standing Committee that will examine the measure, it will certainly—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentlemen means that he wants to be on it.
  Mr. Streeter: It will certainly be my intention to liaise very closely with the victim support group in Plymouth. It does excellent work in supporting victims, and I know that it holds strong opinions about the way in which the Government can improve the lot of victims, which is what we all wish to do. I shall consider the measure carefully if I am fortunate enough to be selected, although I broadly— [Interruption.] I would not wish to presume. I support the measure firmly, but there is no legislation that cannot be improved in Committee, and I am sure that we shall all seek opportunities to do that.
  I welcome the scheme, especially its flexibility and simplicity, compared with the rather cumbersome, rather bureaucratic, rather slow machinery that we have come to know for so many years in the criminal injuries compensation scheme and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
  When victims have suffered the pain, humiliation and indignity of being on the receiving end of crime, they really want a fast procedure whereby whatever money is coming their way is delivered swiftly, without quibble, to meet their special needs. The measure will help us to go firmly along that track.
  There are benefits set out in the Bill that are worth pondering on in detail. I welcome the fact that those claimants incapable of work for more than 28 weeks will qualify for payments to cover the cost of special care from the date of the injury and loss of earnings from the end of the initial 28 weeks. There has been some criticism of the 28-week period, but the measure must be viewed in the context of welfare provision generally. Other forms of compensation and support are also available to help people through difficult periods. I welcome the fact that the maximum compensation payable has increased from £250,000 to £500,000. That gives the lie to the claim by some Labour Members that the legislation is a cost-cutting measure—nothing could be further from the truth.
  I welcome the fact that in fatal cases payments will include elements for dependency and loss of mother's support fixed at £2,000 per year with a multiplier. The fatality payment will be a minimum of £10,000 per family. Where there are two or more qualifying claimants, they will each receive £5,000.1 also welcome the fact that it will be possible to make structured settlements in the case of large awards. They will provide a guaranteed, index-linked, tax-free annual payment that will enhance the net value of the award. These are constructive measures.
  The victims of crime want to receive justice from the courts. In a moment, I shall develop some thoughts about the measure. We must recognise that our first priority as legislators is to ensure that justice is delivered through our legal system. It adds insult to injury if families who have been the victims of crime feel that inadequate sentences are passed by the courts.
  I raise again the constituency case that grieved me so much two years ago. Jonathan Roberts was killed at age 17 by a young thug who was stealing from a supermarket

  767
  at which Jonathan worked to fill in his out-of-school hours. It was a brutal killing, although the young thug had no intention of committing murder. He was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to five years in prison.
  Mr. and Mrs. Roberts, with whom I have spent a lot of time since the incident, are not interested in money; they do not seek compensation of that kind. However, they want to feel that justice has been done: they want to know that their son's killer has been severely punished. They do not believe that his sentence is sufficient, and nor do I. I think it is important to put on record that the most crucial way of supporting victims is by ensuring that the punishment fits the crime.
  It is important to recognise that we have introduced the unduly lenient sentence measures which are being actively applied. The victim support compensation is very important as a third tier of assistance. Clause 2(3) is the heart of the Bill and I shall refer to it in some detail. It states:
  "Provision shall be made for the standard amount to be determined—
  (a) in accordance with a table ("the Tariff') prepared by the Secretary of State as part of the Scheme and such other provisions of the Scheme as may be relevant".
  Clause 2 does two things, which are important to understand fully. It sets out the basis on which compensation payable under the scheme shall be determined: first, by way of the tariff, to which I have referred; and, secondly, through the provision of the payment of additional amounts of compensation in cases of fatal injury and in respect of loss of earnings or special expenses.
  I welcome the coming together of those two separate measures: the tariff system, which is easy to understand and administer in relation to straightforward compensation claims, and a sensible additional provision which compensates on a greater scale. Labour Members have referred to it as a hybrid system. I do not care what they call it; I know that it is a common sense system which meets the needs of victims in our society.
  As I have listened to the debate this afternoon I have been slightly worried by some of the attacks on the measure. Labour Members said that it should have been announced before the last general election, as though a party in office must do strictly and to the letter only those things that are set out in its manifesto. That suggestion was made by a party that tells us that it wishes to embrace a minimum wage if it wins the next election but refuses to tell us at what level the minimum wage should be set. It is an exercise in utter hypocrisy for Labour Members to criticise us for not including the changes in our last manifesto. We all know that in relation to a minimum wage—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. An allusion is acceptable, but it does not need to be developed in this Second Reading debate.
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The argument that we should have placed the measure in our manifesto is spurious. I cannot imagine that the Labour party said in its 1974 manifesto that within two or three years it would call in the International Monetary Fund to run the country, having made such a mess of running it itself. Governments are not restricted to introducing measures that are set out in their manifestos; parties must deal with the circumstances
  768
  that arise when in government. We are elected to be prudent legislators and to introduce measures to meet the needs of the time. That is what the Government have done on this occasion. I shall leave the matter at that point.
  Mr. Maclean:I am very grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. I checked the Conservative campaign guide and it points out that we have the most generous compensation system in the world. In 1989 the board paid out £91 million to victims of violent crime and last year it paid out £165 million. We continue to maintain the most generous scheme in the world. My hon. Friend should not be ashamed to quote from the manifesto and the campaign guide.
  Mr. Streeter: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. My point has taken on an even greater dimension than I expected and I am glad that it is on the record.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's comments. Will he tell the House what importance he attaches to the promises that his party makes at election time? Does the electorate have any reason to believe what his party says, or is it irrelevant?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is perfectly acceptable for the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) to answer in relation to the criminal injuries compensation scheme, but we are not engaging this evening in a wide Second Reading debate about manifestos.
  Mr. Streeter: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am very grateful for your guidance on that point. I simply emphasise that we are not restricted, as a Government, to only those issues, matters and policies that are set out in a manifesto if events develop during our period in office. I think that it is critical that every Government and every party should stand by the firm promises that they make at the time of general elections, and we have always done that.
  I turn to loss of earnings to which I referred earlier. It is important that our compensation provisions should recognise the risk taken by those people in our society who create wealth and jobs—I refer, of course, to the self-employed. The point was developed earlier in the debate and I would address it very carefully in Committee. It is important that we should not ignore their need to be compensated for loss of earnings and profits as a result of violent crime.
  Self-employed people are risk-takers; they create wealth. If we relied only on the public sector to create wealth, we would be in a sorry state. I am delighted that, at this stage in our country's history, small businesses are developing and flourishing. They are creating jobs and reducing unemployment. It is important that our compensation system recognises financial loss as well as physical pain and loss.
  I have examined carefully the Labour party's reasoned amendment to the Second Reading which appears on the Order Paper. It criticises the Government's measure for failing adequately to reflect society's obligations. The Labour party is calling for more money to be pumped into the scheme. As has been said earlier in the debate, it simply will not do for Labour Members to appear on television day after day and say that spending and taxation will not increase under any future Labour Government and then to come to the House week after week and call for more taxpayers' money to be pumped into provisions such as the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

  769
  It seems that too many Labour Members have a short-circuit in their minds. They do not understand that what the Government spend must be linked to what the Government raise through tax or borrowing. It will not wash to say that they want to spend more but it will not cost the country or the taxpayer anything. I wish that Labour Members would learn the lessons of the 1970s and understand that they cannot spend or tax their way out of difficulties.
  I look forward to hearing answers to the questions that have been put to Labour Front Benchers. How much more money should be pumped into the scheme? They must tell us. From where will that money come? Have they costed those pledges and claims? By how much will they increase the burden of taxation? Unless they can answer those questions in the winding-up speech tonight, they will demonstrate yet again that they are unfit to govern the nation. That applies not only to this measure but to a related measure that we were discussing a few weeks ago in respect of legal aid.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We may have been discussing it a few weeks ago, but we are not discussing it tonight.
  Mr. Streeter: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Labour Members told us today that not enough cash, dosh or loot is being put into the criminal injuries compensation scheme, but they do not have the guts to say how much should be pumped in and where it should come from.
  The scheme, even as we have shaped and focused it in the Bill, remains the best criminal injuries compensation scheme in the world. My hon. Friend the Minister of State was right to encourage me to be proud of the scheme. It is a better scheme than those in all the European countries put together. We hear so often that Britain has the best pension scheme for our elderly citizens, the best national health service and the best student support scheme. Now we learn tonight that we have the best scheme for compensating criminal injuries.
  The Opposition seek to run us down and rubbish us, but they should consider the facts. It is a scheme of which we can be proud and Conservative Members are proud of it.
  7.12 pm
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice: I am delighted to follow the fascinating fairy tale that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) told us about the wonderful things that are happening in Britain, but I want seriously to discuss why the Bill should have been unnecessary, and why it is inadequate.
  The Bill should have been unnecessary because the original scheme that was set up in 1964 with all-party support was a serious attempt to compensate those people who had been tragically injured by criminal acts. Each case was assessed individually using the common law. Unfortunately, the scheme before us tonight attempts to put too many people in simple categories. Individuals cannot be assessed in that way.
  The scheme that the Secretary of State introduced last year was obviously intended to cut costs and it is outrageous that Conservative Members are now trying to
  770
  deny that. If they had listened to the Secretary of State's speech in opening today's Second Reading debate, they would have heard the implication that it was part of the reasoning behind the Bill. It was not intended to help victims, or to improve the service; if anything, victims were being used to pay for the Government's failed economic policies.
  Fortunately, the Bill includes some concessions, as a result of the response of lobby groups, victim support groups and points that my right hon. and hon. Friends have raised in the past. For example, there is an important concession on compensation for loss of earnings, although we are not happy that it does not apply until after 28 weeks. It is important that dependency and loss of support in some fatal cases are included, as are structured settlements.
  Mr. Hartley Booth: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady. Will she explain how victims are paying for Government policy? Will she make that point?
  Mrs. Prentice: I am sorry, but I missed the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Mr. Booth: The hon. Lady alleges that victims are paying for Government policy. How could that be?
  Mrs. Prentice: If the hon. Gentleman had been here at the beginning of the debate instead of wandering in a couple of minutes ago, he might have understood my point. I shall repeat it. If the Government reduce the money available for victims of crime, those victims lose out financially. I believe that part of the reason why the Government are reducing the money available to victims of crime is their failed economic policies, and that they are trying to square the circle.
  There are several problems with the Bill. It sets specific and inflexible figures for some specific injuries. We have heard examples from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), among others. For example, right and left hands are treated in the same way, but for those of us who are right-handed, an injury to the left hand would not be as devastating as an injury to the right hand, and vice versa.
  Different people are affected in different ways. For example, the public might consider that the loss of an eye to a police officer would require greater compensation than the loss of an eye to a Member of Parliament. The public might consider that a severe injury to the hand of an artist might deserve greater compensation than if such an injury had been suffered by a Member of Parliament, as we would have other means by which we could continue to do our job.
  Mr. Streeter: Does the hon. Lady not understand that an artist who loses the use of the hand with which he draws or paints would be entitled to loss of earnings compensation that would not apply to Members of Parliament, as we could still do our job, so there would be compensation for such an injury?
  Mrs. Prentice: To some extent, there would, but in those circumstances there is much better compensation in civil law. I remind the hon. Gentleman that loss of earnings compensation does not apply until after 28 weeks. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board stated that the

  771
  "effect on an individual varies so widely that a tariff, even with the gradations proposed is in practice unworkable".
  The maximum levels of compensation available are much lower than under the common law scheme. I make no apology for using the same example as my hon. Friends. The public would find it difficult to understand that a child who has been sexually assaulted is entitled to only £1,000 and that an adult who has a dislocated finger is entitled to £1,250.
  The Secretary of State has made the measure too rigid and inflexible and has produced a scheme that the public will not consider fair and equitable. I have a number of questions in respect of the gaps in the Bill and I hope that the Minister will answer them. Why are people not compensated in the same way they would be if they sued their assailant in court? Why are the tariff levels not to be determined by an independent body of experts? We have not yet heard whether the tariff levels will rise in line with inflation. If they will, why has that not been incorporated in the Bill?
  The Bill also gives no clear definition of the likely time limits involved. Other Labour Members have recommended an extension to three years, and I think that that is probably right. Of course, we cannot have an open-ended commitment, but the present common law limit of three years seems entirely reasonable. Nor does the Bill make room for exceptional cases in which the victim might apply when time had run out: a child who had suffered sexual or physical abuse, for instance, might not be able—or psychologically ready—to complain to the police until many years later.
  An anomaly in the Bill relating to multiple injuries highlights the unfairness and lack of flexibility of tariff schemes. Loss of sight in one eye will attract compensation of £20,000, while loss of hearing in one ear will be worth £15,000. A victim who suffers both injuries, however, will receive only £21,500. That is not adequate compensation.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey cited a number of constituency cases, and many of us who represent London constituencies could give similar examples. One in 43 people in London is likely to be a victim of violent crime—the highest proportion in the country. London Members therefore take the Bill very seriously.
  The aim of the scheme is to cut the money available to compensate victims of violent crime, which is economically illogical as well as mean-spirited. Cutting such compensation will probably force us to exert pressure on social and health service expenditure. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey welcomed the statutory framework, saying that it would mean less use of the royal prerogative; I too welcome that, but I hope that the Home Secretary will make an early announcement about the qualification rules for the new scheme. Will they be subject to parliamentary approval?
  The Labour party's reasoned amendment reflects the needs of victims in our criminal justice system. I have mentioned the cutting of the cash available to victims and the lack of consultation, among other problems. Although I am pleased that the Home Secretary has had to return to the House to present a change to the scheme that he originally intended, that change is inadequate: if we really want to put victims at the centre of our criminal justice system, we shall have to consider it in detail in
  772
  Committee. Victims of crime have enough problems in recovering without having to worry about inadequate financial settlements.
  Labour Members—and, no doubt, Conservative Members—could give many examples. Let me simply repeat that victims of crime should be at the centre of the criminal justice system. They should not have to pay for the inadequacies of the system, mentally, physically or financially; it is the job of Government and Parliament to ensure that they are protected. I do not believe that the Bill goes far enough in that regard, and I hope that in Committee we have an opportunity to make detailed amendments and ensure that the scheme reflects our responsibilities to the victims of our criminal system.
  7.24 pm
  Mr. Hartley Booth: It is a pleasure to follow the Member for Lewisham, East (Mrs. Prentice), who has shown that she is indeed concerned about victims of crime—as I assume every hon. Member participating in the debate to be.
  When it is claimed that the Government have a poor record in this regard, my hon. Friend the Minister and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) reply that we have the best compensation scheme in the world. I shall say more about that shortly, first, I must declare some relevant interests—none of which, sadly, involves payment. I am a trustee of the Police Dependants Trust Appeal. Policemen are frequently victims of violent crime; they are compensated by the trust fund, and I hope that the Bill will result in further compensation. I dealt with matters of this kind as a practising barrister, and also with the compensation referred to by the hon. Member for Lewisham, East in civil cases. I have been concerned about the issue for some time, and have even written a booklet on the subject.
  The remarks of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) were enough to spark me into life. He began by saying that we had done very little for victims. If so, why does the Bill refer to a necessary repeal of legislation passed as recently as 1988? We are so anxious to help victims in our legislation that we have taken parliamentary time to legislate twice in the past seven years, and we are now trying to improve what is already a generous scheme. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey criticised the ignoring of the initial 28 weeks, but that is a false criticism: we have a generous welfare benefits system for everyone who is injured, which helps people during those 28 weeks.
  The common law system has been described as complicated. It is not yet clear how the tariff scheme will operate. Clause 10 explains that the Home Secretary will be able to legislate for the calculation involved in the scheme. I am sorry that I could not be present for the first part of the debate—I came in during the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier)—but we have heard that the tariff scheme will involve a set of monetary amounts calculated in accordance with the description of an injury. For the first time we shall have a codified set of compensatory amounts. That is a useful reform, which could well be copied later for the purposes of the civil courts. To predict

  773
  that there will be other legislation on this subject over the next 10 years would be a digression, but it helps me to welcome the Bill.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: My hon. Friend makes a good and interesting point. Does he agree that to some extent compensation paid by the courts is something of a lottery? A tariff scheme such as that proposed in the Bill would put an end to such uncertainties.
  Mr. Booth: I was beginning to develop that point. Hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of lawyers are daily involved in the complicated exercise of calculating someone's loss after injury. That is another form of lottery. Although the Home Secretary will have power to make changes, he has made an honest stab at determining a once-and-for-all compensatory calculation. That is welcome, because it will not only clarify obfuscation but give victims compensation within a reasonable time.
  It has been suggested that Conservative Members do not think about victims. If that were so, why would clause 7 bother to go into detail about the awards being inalienable? The Bill seeks to help only the victim. Some commentators have suggested that it is merely a tinkering exercise, but it is more than fine tuning. It will introduce an excellent scheme although to some extent it may be inchoate because clause 10 allows the Home Secretary to progress only some aspects of the Bill. Perhaps he can elaborate on that towards the end of the debate. The big question is whether the House again trusts the Home Secretary to introduce regulations that will flesh out the Bill. Conservative Members certainly trust him.
  It would be wrong to say that welcoming the Bill is the end of the matter because the House should always try to push reform. I agree with hon. Members who have said that we should always put the victim first. The Minister and I have had discussions on how to frame legislation that would make it the first duty of every criminal court to consider the victim. Perhaps now or in Committee the Government will use the analysis of criminal compensation to stress the absolute priority of the victim's needs.
  An infinite number of consequences would flow from the addition of a clause to put the victim first. I do not need to go into detail because hon. Members can visualise the results of such a clause. It would make sure that a person who had been found guilty of an offence would be assessed to find out how much he could pay in compensation. There is a gap in the Bill and I should like to see it filled. Perhaps it is too late to include in the Bill a provision to the effect that, where possible, the culprit should pay compensation to the victim. Such a link should be enshrined in statute law and this is an admirable opportunity for the Government to create such a link.
  The Bill is part of the excellent matrix of help that we are offering victims. I hope that I have pointed the way to further help for victims and that the Bill is only a staging point for much more help. I welcome the measure and I hope that it has Opposition support.
  7.35 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: As I shall later make a number of criticisms of the Bill, it is perhaps appropriate to start by welcoming two aspects of it. I am
  774
  pleased to see that the Home Secretary is back in his place. I am glad to note that the Bill represents two small but significant U-turns by the Home Secretary—one voluntary and the other involuntary. The voluntary change, which I welcome, is that we are to have what the Home Secretary calls an enhanced tariff scheme that will, to some extent, take account of loss of earnings and other expenses that might be incurred by victims. I am pleased to see that some provision—although, regrettably, it is inadequate—has been made.
  The involuntary change is that the Bill is here at all. Its presence results from the decision by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords on this matter. Some hon. Members counted judges and balanced one thing against another, and it was interesting to note that in speaking about the legality of his action the Home Secretary said that it was a grey area. I admit that there is a grey area because there is uncertainty about whether the action was lawful. We are dealing with matters of significant constitutional import, but rather than coming before the House and making sure that his action was lawful and constitutional, the Home Secretary decided to try to push ahead and chance his arm to see how far he could go.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman, most uncharacteristically, misunderstands. It was only as a result of the court decisions that it was appreciated that this was a grey area. When I looked at the matter in advance I took advice and went into it very carefully. I took the view, and I was supported by the judgments that were delivered in the case as it went through its various stages—as the hon. Gentleman will discover if he reads them all, although it may take him a long time—that it was not a grey area. My view was that I was clearly entitled to do what I did. The statutory provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 had never been brought into force and, just as the existing scheme was operating perfectly adequately under the royal prerogative, my view was that a new scheme could so operate. As a result of what happened in the courts I am now obliged to accept that it is a grey area.
  Mr. Trimble: The Home Secretary is right to say that I misunderstood him. I thought from what he said that he had been of the opinion before he launched on what we can call the 1994 tariff scheme that he was dealing with a grey area. He now says that it was only as a result of court decisions that he discovered that he had been in a grey area.
  I am even more appalled by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said. He has said that the advice he was given before he started the 1994 scheme— and hence his view of it—was that what he was doing was perfectly lawful. I am astounded to learn that that was the advice given him by the Home Office. I should have thought that any lawyer familiar with the Padfield case would have realised that the Home Secretary was acting dangerously by ignoring what Parliament specified in the 1988 Act. My only surprise is that so many lawyers were not prepared to conclude that the Home Secretary's action was unconstitutional, as I had no doubt it was. I am amazed to hear that he did not receive advice along those lines. The Home Secretary should perhaps carefully consider the quality of the advice that he has been receiving on this matter.

  775
  I am happy to see the Bill here. The 1988 Act was not enough; there should have been legislation even before that, because the 1964 scheme was itself operating in a grey area. As long ago as 1983 Lord Elwyn-Jones commented that the non-statutory scheme was a constitutional anomaly. He was right. Remarkably, the scheme operated under the royal prerogative without statutory authority. It should have been put on the statute book and I am glad that it now will be—although I intend to comment on the Bill's defects presently.
  The chief feature of this scheme is that it operates with a tariff. In principle there may be nothing wrong with that. To some extent the courts operate to a tariff. Common law damages cover a number of items—pain and suffering, loss of amenity and then loss of earnings. For pain and suffering and loss of amenity the courts have worked out what are sometimes referred to as a conventional scale of damages. Looking through common law decisions to assess damages in tort actions one can identify the conventional sums paid in respect of pain and suffering and loss of amenity, so the idea of a conventional sum is not unusual.
  The proposed tariff is based on tort compensation. I was surprised to hear some hon. Members claim that we were moving away from the common law scheme: we are not. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board operated on common law principles. The tariff is derived from its decisions, or rather from a survey of its decisions, so ultimately it derives from common law damages, but in a curious way. The tariff does not try to identify the conventional sum paid for loss of amenity and pain and suffering. The survey of the board's decisions took into account not just the conventional sum but the extent to which there would be compensation for loss of earnings.
  Thus, with the 1994 scheme and the unenhanced tariff, the Government justified the latter by saying that it already included an element of loss of earnings. Now, with the enhanced tariff, there remains conceptual confusion over how we are proceeding. I could understand it if the tariff operated by reference to the conventional sums that the courts have worked out for loss of amenity and pain and suffering, adding loss of earnings to that; but now that that is not to happen, we seem to be operating in some confusion.
  What is more, the procedure is too rigid and inflexible. In a debate in the other place Lord Carlisle criticised the scheme, saying that
  "a tariff of its nature, for example, means that no regard can be had to such fundamental matters as the age, sex, occupation or way of life of the victim, all of which are reflected enormously in the effect which an injury may have on an individual."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 March 1994; Vol. 552, c. 1081.]
  Loss of earnings is a separate issue, but the effect of an injury leading to loss of amenity will vary tremendously depending on the age and circumstances of a victim. The tariff makes no allowance for that.
  Would it have been possible to set out some form of tariff that did make such allowance? The survey of CICB cases, we were told in the White Paper of a couple of years ago, resulted in a median being selected as the amount to go for. Was that possible because the claims identified fell into a narrow range? Would it have been possible to formulate the tariff in terms of a range? There is nothing unusual in guidelines, after all. The courts lay them down for sentencing, and for tort cases they use a conventional scale which is not rigid and which can vary depending on circumstances.
  776
  I well appreciate that any element of individual judgment of this sort may include an element of delay and of cost, and one of the Bill's objectives is to reduce delays and costs. I appreciate that there may be a trade-off, but I believe that there may be problems with the precision in the proposed tariff.
  I mentioned earlier my pleasure at noting that some provision for loss of earnings is being made, but it is wholly inadequate. It is not just a question of one and a half times average earnings, or of arguing about people getting disability allowance or other statutory benefits during the first 28 weeks; it is a question of the actual loss of earnings that a person may suffer. People with high incomes will suffer the most in this respect. Statutory benefits will be of no significant recompense to them while they suffer loss of earnings, and those who suffer the greatest loss will lose out most under this scheme. It is likely that they will have commitments that they cannot meet because the compensation that they receive is inadequate.
  When this issue was raised before, the Home Secretary defended his approach by saying that people with high earnings should take out insurance to cover themselves against the possibility of loss of earnings arising out of a criminal injury. I doubt whether that is a viable option, and that is a serious flaw in the whole scheme. The provision made in the legislation will not suffice for people who suffer the heaviest losses, and the points that have been made about the self-employed serve to reinforce that.
  Mr. Howard: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the cap of one and a half times average earnings, but that is a feature not only of the proposed scheme but of the current common law-based scheme. It is not a new feature resulting from a tariff.
  Mr. Trimble: My point is that people will lose out during the 28 weeks when they are reduced to statutory benefits alone, and that they will lose out because of the one and a half times earnings cap. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the same applied to the previous scheme, which I am happy to say was different from the one with which I am most familiar: the scheme in Northern Ireland, the best in the world. That is another reason for my desire not to have the legislation extended to Northern Ireland in any circumstances—it is much worse than our scheme.
  These points alone would incline my right hon. and hon. Friends and me to oppose the scheme, but I oppose it on other grounds as well. The whole Bill is defective. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) mentioned the mistakes the House made in the legislation on child support. We agreed to a framework Act; the meat was in the regulations, and they in turn did not get it right. We have had a lot of difficulty since then trying to get the legislation right and to correct past mistakes. Much the same could happen with this Bill, which is merely a framework or outline. The meat will be in the scheme, which we do not have before us. While the Bill gives statutory authority to the scheme, it does not put it on the statute book. That is a fundamental flaw and a bad way to legislate.
  There is an element of parliamentary control over the scheme. Clause 10 provides that certain matters have to be approved by resolution of this House. That is not adequate parliamentary control. There will be a brief debate before the resolution is passed.

  777
  The procedure will be very similar to the debates we have in respect of Northern Ireland Orders in Council. Those debates are extremely frustrating because one cannot discuss detail, make changes or have the equivalent of a Committee hearing. I was interested to hear hon. Members on both sides of the House say that they will look at this or that aspect in Committee, but the meat of the Bill will not be considered in Committee. The meat of the legislation is in the scheme and that will not be subject to line-by-line examination in Committee. That manner of legislating effectively bypasses Committee consideration in this House. That is wrong in principle as a form of legislation. A serious mistake has been made.
  Important matters will be in the scheme and we know what some of them will be. Paragraph 27 of 1993 White Paper said:
  "The Government believes that these basic criteria have stood the test of time and worked well in practice. No fundamental changes to the current rules are therefore proposed."
  When the scheme came into operation in 1994 some of those basic fundamental rules were repeated such as the provision that personal injury must be "directly attributable" to a crime of violence and the provisions for withholding awards where persons fail to take all reasonable steps to inform or co-operate with the police or have failed to give reasonable assistance to the authority or where there is a problem about the conduct of the applicant.
  Those provisions existed under the old common law scheme and under the first tariff scheme and, presumably, will be carried forward into the new scheme. They are familiar to me because they are in the Northern Ireland legislation. Indeed, Northern Ireland case law contains scores of cases on the interpretation of the phrase "directly attributable". Such provisions are in Northern Ireland legislation. Why will they not be on the statute book in respect of this legislation? There is no reason why these basic principles, which were contained in the previous schemes, cannot be included in the Bill.
  Those provisions will not be subject to any form of parliamentary scrutiny because the provisions in clause 10 on what shall be subject to parliamentary scrutiny are drawn very tightly and leave out the basic provisions about qualification, entitlement and the conditions in which people may have their compensation reduced or disallowed. The administrative provisions are also left out. Such provisions should be in the Bill and for that reason, the legislation is defective.
  I have a further example. Hon. Members have referred to the three-year time limit of the original scheme, which was dropped to one year under the first tariff scheme. The Home Secretary announced a two-year time limit. I looked back over the note that he give us, entitled "Proposals for a Tariff-based Scheme". I did not read it in that note. Perhaps it has been published elsewhere or perhaps it was announced for the first time in the Home Secretary's speech. It is nowhere in the material before us, as far as I am aware. That is a fundamentally wrong way to proceed.
  There are other questions that I could ask but I will content myself with one more. Frequent reference was made by Conservative Members to their belief that this is the most generous scheme in the world. That is not quite accurate. It is an understandable mistake in the sense that
  778
  it follows the tradition of the House of always ignoring Northern Ireland, because the most generous scheme exists in Northern Ireland and long may that continue. Apart from that, it is accurate to say that this is the most generous scheme in Europe. Certainly, the old scheme was and the proposed scheme probably will be.
  I hope that the Minister will deal with the question of whether the scheme is entirely in accordance with the European convention on the compensation of victims of violent crime, which the United Kingdom ratified in 1991. I think that the scheme is within its provisions but I want an assurance that no derogation from the convention's provisions is intended in the scheme. However, the scheme is more generous than those elsewhere in Europe. It is good that that is being continued, even if not quite as generously as heretofore. It is not as good as that in Northern Ireland. I trust that the Northern Ireland scheme will be left alone.
  For the reasons that I gave earlier about the defective way in which we are legislating and because of the failure to deal adequately with the loss of earnings issue, I cannot support the Bill. I will vote for Labour's reasoned amendment.
  7.57 pm
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) into the Lobby tonight, though he speaks on these matters with great authority.
  The hon. Gentleman questioned whether this was the most generous scheme in the world. I looked at the figures produced by the Library, which tend to support the suggestion that it is indeed the most generous scheme, although the hon. Gentleman is right that there is a very generous scheme in Northern Ireland. The scheme is the most generous scheme in the world, including the United States of America. One could argue about these figures indefinitely if one chose to do so. I rely for my information on that provided by the House of Commons Library.
  I very much welcome the Bill, which I believe will establish a faster system of payment to the victims of crime. It will also be fairer due to the greater transparency which will result from the tariff system introduced by the Bill.
  I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State not just on coming up with a scheme based on a clear and transparent tariff but on his persistence, because the proposal has not been without its detractors, both in another place and here. It has not been without its setbacks, either, although it is important to remember that the principal setback that the proposal suffered was not from criticism of the principle but from a matter of detail. My right hon. and learned Friend therefore deserves congratulations on perseverance.
  There will always be immense problems in trying to devise an entirely satisfactory scheme which tries to match physical injury with monetary value because no scheme that anybody can or ever will devise can truly place an accurate monetary value on the loss of a limb, life or happiness. It cannot be done. The best that one can do is to look clearly and objectively at cases and come up with a tariff of the type that my right hon. and learned Friend envisages.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but is he suggesting that the common law

  779
  basis on which personal injuries are now assessed in the civil courts must be changed as well? Is that what he is advocating that the Government should do?
  Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman was present when my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) made that suggestion. I said at the time, and I say again now, that there is some merit in considering the idea because of the lottery element which currently exists under common law. I concede that, for the sake of clarity and consistency, there would be some merit in considering a switch to that line of thought.
  It says a great deal about our culture that increasingly we seem to be weighing monetary value against the physical damage caused not only, as in this case, by criminal activity but by misfortune and accidents. In considering the Bill, I was reminded of a case which appeared in the newspapers about 18 months ago. A gentleman had gone for a walk along the Cobb at Lyme Regis which, if we have read our Jane Austen, we know can be a dangerous place. In any event, he fell off and damaged his leg. He took the local district council to court over the damage that he suffered and local council tax payers ended up giving him some £75,000 in compensation, if my memory serves me correctly.
  The lottery aspect of common law, to which the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) is apparently oblivious, is graphically illustrated by that example. The man damaged his leg while walking in a place where hundreds of people have walked for hundreds of years. Yet he was able to take the taxpayer to task for £75,000 while the surviving members of the family of a person who has been murdered will receive a minimum of £10,000, although it can be a great deal more. That illustrates the immense difficulty of placing a monetary value on physical loss and damage.
  I am not saying that the answer to the anomaly is necessarily to increase massively the amounts paid under the compensation arrangements for criminal injury. I would suggest that the answer is to have in place a more sensible system for awarding damages in those cases dealt with under common law. The criminal compensation scheme is clearly very different from that which applies in common law cases and in cases of accidental damage. It has been accepted for very many years that society as a whole has a responsibility to shoulder in cases of criminal injury.
  Mr. Booth: My hon. Friend is developing the important point that we must focus always on achieving some clarity in the definition of compensation for injury. Does he agree that it is also important to deal with the other head of damages, or loss of earnings, which is much easier to quantify?
  Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend is right. It is a welcome innovation that the Bill deals with precisely that matter.
  Given that we accept, probably rightly, the approach that "We Are All Guilty", to quote the title of a novella by Kingsley Amis—a title probably used with a degree of irony—the system set out in the Bill is sensible and fair. However, I welcome especially the changes that have been introduced since the proposal first saw the light of day. The proposal is now more generous to those who lose earnings as a result of becoming victims of criminal activity. I welcome the introduction of an element to deal
  780
  with dependency costs and the fact that the number of qualifying injury descriptions has been substantially increased to the tune of about 100. As I said, no amount of money can ever truly compensate for the loss or damage caused by criminal behaviour—there is no matching the two—but I believe that the Bill, with its clear tariff and reasonable terms for victims, is a sensible way forward.
  The key issue for the Government—for any Government—is to crack down on violent crime in the first place. As I and my colleagues know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is engaged in a far-reaching and radical reform of the criminal justice system which will do exactly that. It will crack down on those who perpetrate violent crime and it will lead to tougher sentences; it will mean more police, better use of high technology in detection and higher levels of detection. That is what will lead ultimately to a reduction in violent crime, which is what we are united in wishing to see.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) that we need to be tough in dealing with criminals. Unfortunately, however, it seems that the Home Secretary is being tough on victims of crime, which is not what Members of Parliament are supposed to be about.
  I must declare that I am a parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. Although I receive no personal income from that position, I receive help with research and office expenses, and it is right that I should declare that fact. The views of the Police Federation have been eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), who also has the honour of advising the federation. Suffice it to say that the federation, which represents 126,000 police officers, regards the Bill as deeply flawed and in need of substantial amendment. I associate myself entirely with those criticisms of the Bill expressed by the hon. Member for Uxbridge, but I have some further points to make.
  The Home Secretary keeps telling us that his new tariff scheme will be the most generous in the world. The problem is that we already have the most generous scheme and the Government intend to make it much less generous. That is not something of which they should be proud.
  The hon. Member for Surrey, East has some interesting ideas, and it is important that the Minister who winds up the debate should comment on some of them, especially the notion that the civil courts should perhaps look again at the way in which they award personal injury compensation and should consider doing so on the basis of a tariff scheme. The hon. Gentleman rightly suggested that there is a certain consistency in introducing the tariff scheme in the awarding of other personal injuries. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I hesitate to say this, but now that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has left the Chamber, albeit briefly, perhaps I could say that not the least benefit of moving to a tariff scheme in

  781
  civil cases would be a reduction in lawyers' fees. I am aware, of course, that the hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) is also a lawyer.
  Mr. O'Brien: Yes, I am, as are many other hon. Members. However, I do not practise at the moment, so I would not benefit from such a change.
  I acknowledge openly that the Bill is not so bad as the scheme originally suggested by the Home Secretary. It is, however, a defective Bill which will make many potential victims of crime worse off. The fundamental problem with a tariff-based system is that victims are not treated as individuals. The Home Secretary seems more intent on setting up a cheap administrative system than on responding to the very reason why the scheme was set up in the first place—the fact that society has sympathy with the victims of crime and wants to help them to recover from their injuries. It is right that individuals should be treated as individuals when compensation is assessed, certainly when injuries are very serious. To deny victims their individuality—the reality of very different expectations and losses—is to make them victims of a bureaucratic injustice.
  A provision for loss of earnings is welcome, but what of the provision for those who are off work for fewer than 28 weeks? Cannot we acknowledge them as deserving victims? Why must they rely on statutory sick pay? Why must self-employed people fend for themselves? Although the overall cap of £500,000 sounds a lot—it is double the amount that the Home Secretary originally wanted under his unlawful scheme—we must remember that a 20-year-old breadwinner with a family, who is the victim of a very serious criminal assault leaving him or her a quadriplegic or with serious brain damage, may well have to struggle on £500,000 to provide for the family for the next 60 years. For an 80-year-old pensioner £500,000 may be some compensation, but for a 20-year-old breadwinner it is not.
  There are three criticisms of the Bill. First, it is a cynical attempt to save money at the expense of victims. The Home Office estimated that under the original common law scheme compensation would rise to £500 million by the turn of the century, compared with a rise to £260 million under the new tariff scheme. That is out of a criminal justice budget of around £10 billion. Victim Support said:
  "it is not justified considering the small proportion of the criminal justice budget currently available to victims".
  Will the Minister say why spending only one twentieth of his budget on the victims of crime is too much?
  Mr. Maclean: Before I answer that, will the hon. Gentleman tell me what other part of the budget I should cut?
  Mr. O'Brien: The Minister might look at all the various schemes for privatisation, for creating boot camps, which he is considering, and at all the various reports that he has commissioned to get the private sector involved—all of which will lead to bad practice in prisons and in the criminal justice system generally. Let him also look at the organisation of the Crown Prosecution Service and at the various ways in which our criminal justice system is inefficiently and ineffectively administered. Let him look at the way in which the victims of crime are not dealt with sensibly when they get to court and how they are required to wait for long periods at great loss to
  782
  themselves. Let him look at the cost to the police service of having officers sitting around for long periods, which he has allowed to occur for many years.
  Mr. Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to reply to the Minister, who has asked me an important question.
  Let the Minister deal with the amount of time that prison officers waste waiting around in courts. Let him deal with the time during which courts lie empty or are kept open when they should not be. Let him deal with those inefficiencies in the criminal justice system before he starts cutting the budget available for the victims of crime.
  The second criticism is that the amended scheme will lead to unfairness.
  Mr. Sweeney: How long has the hon. Gentleman been out of practice? I suspect that if he had been in court recently he would have seen that the Government are addressing issues such as the conditions in which witnesses and victims have to wait, the waiting periods generally and the organisation of the courts to which he referred. All those matters are being addressed—no doubt at considerable expense. Will the hon. Gentleman now respond to the Minister's inquiry about which areas of expenditure he would cut to increase the amount spent on victims?
  Mr. O'Brien: I would certainly seek to cut crime, which the Minister has had great difficulty in doing. It is three years since I practised regularly in the criminal courts. I am a full-time Member of Parliament. I remind the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) that the Government have been in power for an awful long time. How long has it taken them to deal with those inefficiencies? How long have victims needed to wait before the Government have responded to the inefficiencies which have caused victims such inconvenience in court? How long will police officers have to wait before they are no longer required to hang around courts for long hours? The Government have had ample opportunity over the years to deal with such problems and they have simply failed to do so.
  I return to the second criticism of the Bill. I was commenting on the general unfairness of the way in which the system will operate. A system which does not distinguish between injuries to dominant and non-dominant hands or arms, which, self-evidently, will affect people in different ways depending on whether they are left-handed or right-handed, raises questions of unfairness. A system which does not distinguish between the life expectancy of a young person who has been blinded, perhaps, and that of an elderly person and his very different needs leads to unfairness.
  The Home Secretary has already had to increase the list of basic injuries from 187 in his unlawful scheme to 310 in his new Bill. That is a reflection of his recognition that increased flexibility is needed, but I suspect that, as we proceed, other categories will have to be added to the 310 to cope with the various cases of unfairness which will inevitably arise. Will the Minister confirm that he will be prepared to add to that list if unfairnesses become obvious? It is important, as I am sure that he will accept,

  783
  that we try to minimise unfairness if we are to have a tariff system. Will he therefore adopt an open mind on increasing that list?
  The basic unfairness of the Bill lies between the present victims of crime and future victims of crime. Recently I heard the story of a young man from Hillingdon, Mr. Andrew Hay, who was attacked by three masked robbers during a night-time break-in three years ago in which his girlfriend was also terrorised. He received £12,000 under the old criminal injuries compensation scheme and his girlfriend Susan received £6,000. Under the Home Secretary's new scheme, Mr. Hay would be awarded £2,000 and his girlfriend would get nothing. A victim of rape received £75,000 under the common law system but would receive only about £15,000 under the new scheme. Why is one victim worth a certain sum now but a similar victim will be worth a fraction of that sum in future? That is a fundamental unfairness which the Government must answer.
  The third problem is that the Bill raises several administrative concerns. Will the Minister confirm that decisions on amounts and on tariffs will be made by relatively junior civil servants? The taking of such decisions is not a problem when it is a straightforward case. If we operate a tariff system, presumably a junior civil servant will be able to make the decision. However, many cases are very complex and difficult. For example, should a claim for compensation be discounted because of provocation or failure fully to co-operate with the police and, if so, by how much? Problematical judgments need to be made and junior civil servants are not suitable arbiters in such contentious situations.
  What of cases in which there is multiple injury, psychiatric injury or the consequences of sexual attack? Will the Minister say how those decisions will be dealt with? The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board included experienced personal injury practitioners, but the people who are to run the new system will not have the benefit of the same degree of experience when assessing various claims.
  The Bill is not about helping victims; it is about cutting the cost to the Government of helping victims. Despite changes in policy, it remains a callous and unpleasant little Bill. It is not just that it puts the Government on the wrong side of the argument about the victims of crime— the phrase used by the Leader of the House. It is that it communicates to people outside this place that the British Parliament cares less about the victims of crime than it used to do because they have got too expensive for the Government.
  The Home Secretary mouths an awful lot of pious statements about his concern for victims, but he cuts their compensation to fund the Treasury's wrongdoings in economic policy. We have a Government who talk tough on crime, but who have presided over the biggest crime rise in history during the past 16 years. The Government have done some very shabby things in the past 16 years, but cutting compensation to victims of crime must be right down there among the worst of them. We do not do enough for victims in our criminal justice system and if the Bill is passed we shall do even less.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Walter Sweeney: I begin by
  784
  declaring an interest as a solicitor, albeit only in very occasional practice, who could conceivably act for a claimant under the new scheme.
  I warmly congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary on introducing the Bill. I welcomed his original scheme, and I was sorry to see its enforced withdrawal. The extra wait forced on the Government by the courts has proved helpful, in that we now have an even better scheme. The new scheme will provide quicker and more transparent payments to more people than the old common law scheme, and will enable loss of earnings and other important factors to be taken into account.
  It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) deride the levels of proposed payments to victims. It was interesting partly because it demonstrated, as so rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen), that the Labour party has still not learnt, after 16 years in opposition, that throwing more and more of other people's money at problems is not good for taxpayers, and not good for the economy.
  The remarks by the hon. Member for Blackburn were also interesting for the insight they gave into the way in which the Labour party's consciousness is blind to its own failings in the past. To listen to the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am a little concerned about the impression that the hon. Gentleman may be giving; I am sure that it is not his intention. He spoke about throwing money at other people's problems. Does he accept that the victims of crime are the problem of all of us?
  Mr. Sweeney: The problems of all of us are the criminals who are hurting the victims. It is a mistake to see the Government in the role of a criminal who is being forced to pay compensation. The Government do not commit these crimes. The Government provide an ex gratia system of compensation which is designed to help victims, and that system, as I shall explain, is extremely generous.
  Listening to the hon. Member for Blackburn, an innocent bystander who knew nothing of Labour's record in the 1970s would assume that, when Labour was in office, it was far more generous to victims than the Government now plan to be. Not so. In 1978–79, £15.7 million of compensation was paid to 17,460 victims of crime. That represents an average award of £2,258 at 1994–95 prices. In 1996–97, the average award is likely to be £2,500 at 1994–95 prices, but the number of awards is predicted to be 55,100.
  In other words, even after allowing for inflation, each victim is likely to receive slightly more than when Labour was in power. The big difference is that more than three times as many victims will be compensated. It is true that the average payment to each victim will be substantially less than in recent years, but, given the big increase in the number of payments made, only an irresponsible Government would fail to look for ways in which to slow down the growth in the total amount of compensation paid.
  I was interested in the contribution by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), in which he suggested that a young girl should receive more compensation for facial injuries than should a middle-aged man. I am pleased that he at least is not

  785
  obsessed with political correctness as are so many of his political colleagues, and that he is prepared to risk their wrath by being sexist and agist at the same time.
  I am inclined to agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, in an ideal world, assessment of damages under the common law would more fairly reflect the needs of victims in terms of the amount of compensation paid. If claims are dealt with individually, the principle of common law compensation—as far as possible, putting people back in the position they were in before the act complained of—can be applied more accurately.
  If the victim of a crime brings a civil action against a wealthy criminal, that principle should be applied. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood the nature of criminal injuries compensation. As I said earlier in response to an intervention, these payments are made not by the guilty parties, but by the state on an ex gratia basis. The important factors in a state compensation scheme are that payments should be prompt, that there should be transparency, and that individual payments should be generous, but tempered by concern for public funds.
  A number of hon. Members have rightly pointed out that Great Britain has the most generous criminal injuries compensation scheme in the world. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) claimed that Northern Ireland deserved the laurels. Indeed, its figure of £26.6 million paid out in 1993–94 represents more in terms of the size of the population than the figure for Great Britain.
  Some £165.1 million was paid out in the same year, which represents 36.2 per cent. of the total amount of compensation paid to victims in the whole world. Our wealthiest competitors, Germany and Japan, pay only 1.4 per cent. and 0.5 per cent. respectively of the total. Even the United States, with almost five times the population, pays out less than we do. In that context, we can be proud of the Bill, which will enable us to continue to provide the best help for victims in the world.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon did not agree when I intervened to say that 60 per cent. of claimants would be at least as well off under the new scheme. I shall make the basis of my contention clear.
  The average award under the new scheme will be lower, but only because the average under the old scheme was raised by a small number of very high awards, which will be lower in future. Under the old scheme, most people received less than the average, which means that most claimants under the new scheme will receive as much as or more than before. Claimants who receive less will have the not inconsiderable consolation of receiving their money much more quickly. Under the old scheme, some claimants had to wait years for their money.
  The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) acknowledged that we had the most generous compensation scheme in the world, and criticised the Government for making it less generous. The overall bill for compensation is likely to rise, not fall. It is not true, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, that the Home Office spends only one twentieth of its budget on victims. With respect to the hon. Member, the reality is that the whole of the Home Office budget—leaving aside the funds for the fire service—is spent on the victim, and we are all potential victims. The Home Office is doing a good job,
  786
  and is at last reversing the rising trend in crime, unlike many other countries worldwide. I commend this Bill, and will support it.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. Robin Corbett: First, I apologise to the House for not being here earlier.
  The Minister of State typically interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien)—in doing so, he implicitly acknowledged that this is a skinflint scheme—to ask where the money would come from if we were to make the scheme more generous. I can tell the Minister where the money would come from, and he knows the answer. The way to ensure that the costs of the criminal injuries compensation scheme are contained is for the Government to put the lid on rising crime. The cost of the scheme has escalated over the years because the Government have virtually abandoned any serious attempt to contain, prevent and detect crime.
  The Minister will know that the risk of becoming a victim of a crime of violence was about one in 213 in 1979. It is now one in 64. The Minister should not take comfort from a fall in some categories of recorded crime. Recorded offences of violence against the person are still rising, and rose by 7 per cent. last year.
  I find it deeply offensive for the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) or anyone else to bandy around average figures. Victims of crime are not average. They are unique, and dividing sums of money to get an average result is totally meaningless. However, that is what lies at the heart of the new scheme. The Government say that every victim of crime who has suffered an unwanted injury is exactly the same as any other victim. That is patently not true.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) sensibly made the point that a young woman of 20 who suffers a severe facial disfigurement after an attack will suffer more serious consequences than a man of my age or older who suffers a similar facial injury. The notion of the tariff goes against the grain of what the system should be, although there may well be problems with the common law basis for an assessment of damages.
  Can the Minister, who is so keen on bobbing up to the Dispatch Box, tell us how many victims of crime who have received compensation payments under the present scheme he has met and spoken to? I take it that the answer is none. That is what I suspected. I doubt very much whether any of his officials have done so either. I have spoken to such victims, as I shall tell the Minister and the House in a moment.
  I find it offensive for the Home Secretary to issue press releases boasting that we have the most generous compensation scheme in the world, and that the Government are providing more money than the United States and the rest of the European Union. So what? Victims of crime who are knocked about and who have their lives threatened live here. Those violent crimes are carried out against our citizens here, and not in the United States or in other countries in the European Union. Those comparisons are totally irrelevant. [Interruption.]
  The Minister is mumbling again. He can get up at any time to explain why crime has trebled under the Government, why crimes against the person are still rising, and why the Government show no sign of getting a handle on crime.

  787
  In the story that I shall tell the House, I shall not use my constituent's full name. It would not be fair, as I have not sought explicit permission to refer to the case. I hope that the facts will speak for themselves, and that the Minister will look at the matter when he winds up.
  My constituent is self-employed, and works with her husband running an off-licence. I understand that, under the proposals in the Bill, loss of earnings can—on second thoughts—be taken into account in compensation scheme awards. Does that mean full loss of earnings for self-employed people and, if so, will those lost earnings be substantiated on the basis of the normal business tax returns which those people submit to the Inland Revenue? If the answer is no, on what basis will the scheme be assessed? Under the scheme that the Government are proposing, the self-employed will suffer.
  We will call my constituent Mrs. A. She and her husband run an off-licence in a residential part of Erdington, within a few hundred yards of a parish church. In 1988, she and her husband were in the off-licence when a youth came in and found that he did not have enough money to pay for his beer. He then produced a knife and stabbed my constituent through the heart. It is only by accident that Mrs. A is still alive. She was taken to Queen Elizabeth hospital, such was the seriousness of her injury.
  It was said that there were probably only two heart surgeons in the country with the necessary skills and experience to carry out such an emergency operation. By good chance—or perhaps it was something else—one of those surgeons happened to be visiting a friend in the city of Birmingham that weekend. He was asked whether he would attend the operating theatre. He did so, and literally snatched back the life of my constituent for her.
  I do not know what level of compensation it would be proper to award in such circumstances. I find it wholly impossible to put a sum to that. My instinct would be to see Mrs. A., offer her a cheque book, sign it, fill in her name and tell her to put a figure on it, because I do not know what it is worth. Of course, I am not arguing that as a serious point, but that is one reaction to such an horrendous attack.
  The Minister and the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan should not insult my constituent by mentioning average compensation figures to her, either for those horrendous injuries or for loss of earnings. She has still not got over that attack—that will surprise no one—and is unable ever again to serve behind the counter of the shop, which is wired up like Fort Knox and has closed circuit television cameras.
  As is typical with such small businesses, the family live over the shop. Most of the time, my constituent lives in real terror—terror from the dreadful memories of what happened to her on that night, and terror because of the gangs of aimless youths who gather nearby, and it is not the only off-licence where that happens. Occasionally, the youths get up to mischievous pranks, but in the past few months the pranks have become more serious, and an adult was assaulted within a hundred yards of the off-licence. Frankly, I wonder how the family can go on in those circumstances.
  Mr. Stephen: There can be no hon. Member who would not share the hon. Gentleman's sympathy for his constituent. Many of our constituents have suffered similarly. As he said, however, no amount of money can compensate that lady for what she suffered. Does he not
  788
  agree, therefore, that the allocation of any sum of money on behalf of the taxpayer must, of necessity, be a somewhat artificial process that can never really express what society wants to express to her?
  Mr. Corbett: I am grateful for that intervention, because the hon. Gentleman makes my point very nicely. I cannot agree with him. Of course I acknowledge that compensation for the horrendous injury is exceptionally difficult to determine. At the time of the accident, the lady was in her early 50s. I have described her injuries, and it is difficult to put a figure on them. I would find it virtually impossible to do so.
  The point is that loss of earnings, which can be measured, is swept away under the Government's tariff scheme. That loss is of particular importance to the self-employed such as my constituent Mrs. A. Under this most generous scheme in the world, such arguments are bound to arise.
  As I explained, my constituent was in hospital for a long time and received treatment for much longer. It was necessary to hire additional staff to keep the business going, because she was unable to help her husband to run the shop. The cost of the extra staff is known and it is quantifiable, as was demonstrated to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board under this most generous scheme in the world. The figures are there and there is no argument about them.
  The claim for what is known as special damages amounted to £37,405.82. The House will quickly detect that both a lawyer and an accountant had been involved to arrive at such a precise figure. In its wisdom, however, the board decided that the entitlement by way of special damages should be only £16,898. That demonstrates a problem with the existing non-tariff scheme, and I took the matter up with the board and its distinguished chairman, as any other hon. Member would have done.
  Figures were provided to demonstrate the extra costs incurred running the business—in some senses, it was the reverse of loss of earnings—because my constituent was unable to play her proper part, for understandable reasons. I do not think that any hon. Member would criticise my constituent. That is the reality of the situation, and it is inconceivable that anyone who had suffered such an experience could go back behind the counter in what is necessarily a vulnerable position still, despite all the security precautions that have to be taken. In an off-licence, as with many other types of shop, large areas have to be open to customers, who want to walk around and select their purchases.
  I do not think that there is any argument about the figures. To be fair, I do not think that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board disputed the amount of the claim for special damages. The figures were real, those amounts had to be paid, and that fact was demonstrated. The board still felt unable, however, to compensate Mrs. A. and her husband fully for the extra cost of keeping the business going, which is in fact the same as loss of earnings.
  In the light of some of the comments of Conservative Members, it is my strong feeling and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends that we have a collective duty to people who have been the victims of the most violent crimes—crimes from which we have collectively failed to protect them. Let us take the responsibility on all our shoulders.
  There is no argument about the fact that the crime happened, and it is not good enough for the Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends to say, "Okay, we

  789
  recognise that something has to be done. We'll come up with an average figure. Think yourselves lucky." As one of the Minister's hon. Friends acknowledged, 40 out of every 100 people will get a lot less than they would have done under the original scheme, and it is not good enough the Government saying, "That's tough: just get on with it."
  I have berated the Government for their lack of action to deter and to detect crime, and, in some ways, that is a party political point. I regret the fact that the criminal injuries compensation scheme has had to become a party political football.
  The Minister was unable to tell me that he had consulted one victim of crime who had been awarded compensation by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. Outside the House, a range of organisations have criticised the Government for not consulting them about the proposals in the Bill, which I very much regret. No doubt the Minister will go through his ritual performance when he replies, but he must not be surprised that the Opposition are critical, if that is the way in which he goes about his business.
  My constituent, Mrs. A., and other people out there who now have a one-in-64 chance of becoming victims of crime, simply will not understand why the Government did not listen first to their experiences. They will not understand why the Government have rolled the figures up into averages and said, "This crime affects everybody in the same way," regardless of their age or sex, which is patent nonsense.
  While violent crime continues to increase, the bill will increase, and the Government should be ashamed that, since they cannot get a handle on violent crime, which is still rising, they are making the victims of crime pay for their neglect and mistakes.
  8.47 pm
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Clearly, it is the duty of any Government to protect their citizens against crime, but none of us is so unworldly as to suppose that any Government could eliminate crime entirely. There will always be criminals and victims of crime.
  It is also clear that no amount of money can compensate a victim of crime for the injury that he or she has suffered. Money is merely a token that society can offer as some form of compensation. Of necessity, the amount must be calculated by a rather artificial process.
  When the criminal injuries compensation scheme was set up, 30 years ago, £400,000 of taxpayers' money was spent on compensating the victims of crime. Last year, £165 million were spent in Great Britain, plus a further £26.6 million in Northern Ireland. It is projected that £175 million will be spent in Great Britain next year. Although those are large sums, the word "generous" would not be appropriate. We are not being generous to our fellow citizens when we compensate them for crime; we are simply offering them a token of our understanding of the injury that they have suffered.
  The money paid to victims of crime has doubled since 1988. Our concern for the victims of crime compares extremely favourably with that in other countries which can reasonably be compared with ours. For example, France spends £27 million and Germany a mere £6.2
  790
  million. Although it is immaterial to victims of crime who have suffered their injuries in this country what the German or French Governments pay their injured citizens, when the House is considering the allocation of our national resources and the proportion that should be spent on the victims of crime, it is right and relevant, no matter what Opposition Members say, to make international comparisons. The Opposition are always ready to make international comparisons when those would reflect badly on this country, but they are more reluctant to make them when they reflect well. We spend more than all the other members of the European Union put together.
  I am sure that the whole House wishes that we could spend more on compensating victims of crime, but we have a responsibility to consider and represent not only the recipients of the money but those who pay, the taxpayers. The Opposition speak as though the Government somehow seek to save their own money. They should realise that Governments have no money of their own; the only money they have is taken from the pockets of our constituents, and we must consider them as well.
  Under common law, if the perpetrator of the tort or crime is to pay, money is no object and he must be forced to pay to the full extent of his personal resources. But if the taxpayer is to pay, he has not committed a crime and has no legal responsibility to pay; he has only a moral responsibility to pay, and his resources and ability to pay must be taken into account. Parliament would be abdicating its responsibilities to taxpayers if it did not consider their interests.
  It is easy for the Opposition to say that we should spend more. Almost every point that I have heard from Opposition Members today could be met by getting out the national cheque book, but that would be too easy. One can do that in opposition, but Governments must find the cash. I consider that our constituents already pay too much tax, for a wide variety of reasons which you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not permit me to go into this evening. I would be extremely reluctant to increase without good reason the burden that taxpayers already face. I notice that no Opposition Member has said that he has the authority of his Front-Bench economic spokesman to commit his party to greater expenditure on compensating victims of crime.
  We must consider not just the taxpayer but the allocation of resources. Every pound that we spend on the criminal injuries compensation scheme is not available to spend on the national health service, education or all the other things that our constituents want. The money that the Government give to the criminal injuries compensation scheme is not the whole story. Victim Support, an organisation to which I give my whole-hearted support, received £10.8 million this year from the Government—or, more accurately, from our fellow citizens, the taxpayers. That sum is 8 per cent. more than last year, when it rose by 20 per cent. on the previous year.
  The most effective way to help victims is to protect them from criminals, and I am pleased that we at last have a Home Secretary who is determined to roll back the half-baked left-wing attitudes to crime which have caused so many problems over the past 30 years. A major start has been made to protect people from crime. We spend more on the police than ever before in our history. They are better paid, better manned and better equipped than

  791
  ever before. Last year in my county of Sussex, the Government allocated a huge increase in resources to our police authority. We have taken action against bail bandits through my private Member's Bill, followed by the Government's provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. We are introducing secure schools to deal with young hoodlums who are running out of control. We have introduced DNA testing and dealt with the so-called right of silence. It is absurd that a man can refuse to answer questions in the police station and that fact is kept from the jury, if the case goes to trial.
  Opposition Members, particularly Labour Members, say that they are tough on crime and the causes of crime, but when it comes to the crunch and they must go into the Lobby to support measures introduced by the Government to protect people from criminals, we must judge them by their deeds.
  Mr. Michael: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to be ungenerous. Does he recall that Labour Front Benchers supported his Bail (Amendment) Bill and ensured that it did not die?
  Mr. Stephen rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues his speech, I remind him of the content of the Bill which we are currently giving a Second Reading. He is now straying wide of that remit.
  Mr. Stephen: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. But during the debate, the issue has arisen of how the money available to the Home Office is spent. It is therefore relevant to point out that the most effective way of spending money to benefit victims of crime is to protect them from criminals in the first place.
  I acknowledge the support from Labour Front Benchers, particularly the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), which enabled my Bail (Amendment) Bill to pass through the House. But on other occasions, especially when the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill was being considered, Opposition support was less than whole-hearted. Money that is spent on the police and on measures to protect victims of crime from crime is, therefore, money well spent.
  The Opposition have argued that the crime rate is now higher than when the Conservative party came to office in 1979. I pointed out to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), that that is a worldwide phenomenon and that, since that time, crime has risen inexorably in all the developed countries of the western world. He dodged that point by quoting selectively from the period covering 1979 to 1983. He did not deal with my argument, and I submit that he cannot, that rising crime is a worldwide phenomenon. It is no use trying to blame the British Government for that, even if some specific argument were made for why the British Government are to blame. However, argument on that issue from the Opposition came there none.
  There are complex reasons for our current high level of crime. If I might trespass on your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but not too far, I should like to mention some of them briefly. Those reasons include the breakdown of respect between citizens—between men and women and parents and children—which started in the 1960s and has carried on inexorably, as well as
  792
  people's lack of respect for all forms of authority. The rise in crime is also to do with the breakdown of religion, drugs and the effect of television when, night after night, low standards of personal behaviour are portrayed on our screens. The rise in crime is also due to greater mobility among criminals and, finally, poverty. It is, of course, the responsibility of all Governments to manage the economy in such a way that people are—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend also agree that crime has risen because of the breakdown of discipline in schools in many areas, but thankfully not in mine?
  Mr. Stephen: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Child-centred education has a lot to answer for. If one teaches a child that he is the centre of the universe, one must not be surprised if he then finds it difficult to comply with the rules that society expects him to obey.
  In addition to the financial support that the Government give to Victim Support, they have introduced the victims charter. It is derided by the Opposition because it does not involve large sums of money. It is a mission statement for those involved in the criminal justice process in the courts, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. It tells them what the public are entitled to expect from them and enables us, as democratically elected representatives of the people, to keep them up to the mark if they fall below those standards. I talk a great deal to those involved in victim support organisations and they tell me that the victims charter is working in their local areas. It still has some way to go, because it has not been entirely successful, but we are getting there. Victims and witnesses are now treated much better.
  I was a practising barrister for 15 years and, although I do not practise any more, I was involved in a good many personal injury cases when I was at the Bar. I saw that it was a costly business to ascertain the correct amount of compensation to be paid to a plaintiff. Perhaps I am ashamed to admit that a good deal of that money went into my own pocket as a lawyer. That money should have been better spent on compensating the injured parties rather than being paid to lawyers, even though I was one of them.
  I also noticed from my experience that the time it took to resolve those cases was impossibly long. We, as practitioners, did our best to reduce that time scale, but we failed because all too often we had to await medical reports. Doctors also had to wait until the prognosis was clearer and sometimes they wanted to review their opinion. There were a host of reasons why cases could not be resolved quickly. That delay was not the fault of lawyers and doctors, but was inevitable given the methods that we adopted under the old system of criminal injuries compensation, and that are still adopted in the civil courts to ascertain the amount of damages to be paid.
  Under the old system, the cost of ascertainment amounted to 10 per cent. of the total cost—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—which represented a substantial sum of public money. I would have preferred to see it going to the victims of crime, not lawyers. For that reason, I was prepared to consider the tariff scheme constructively when it was introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. We must admit that it is an inflexible scheme—that is the nature of tariff schemes. Opposition Members have argued for more flexibility, and perhaps there are some

  793
  areas where we can offer that; but if we introduced too much flexibility, we would be back to the old expensive, time-consuming system.
  I talk to victims of crime and many say, "I would have settled for a lot less money if I'd got it quickly. The time I needed it was in the few weeks and months after my injury, not years later when I'd more or less recovered." The speedy delivery of the money to the victim is therefore vital.
  I should say something about the allegation that my right hon. and learned Friend acted unlawfully when he sought to change the non-statutory scheme for another non-statutory one. I do not blame Opposition Members for seizing on that, going on television and talking as though the Home Secretary had been caught with his fingers in the till, doing something that any one of us would have recognised as unlawful. Of course he did not do that.
  The Home Secretary drew attention to the fact that, on that rather arcane question of constitutional law, five of Her Majesty's judges took one view and five took another. He is not suggesting that our court system is one where the number of judges should be totted up and the largest number carry the day—the courts are not as democratic as that. The argument that he made, which appears to have been lost on Opposition Members, was that, if five of Her Majesty's judges thought that the Home Secretary was right in doing what he was doing and had the power to do it, he himself—a mere lawyer, and a non-practising one at that—can hardly be blamed if he was of the opinion that it was in his power.
  I confess that, if I had been in the Home Secretary's position, I would probably have thought so, too. He was not seeking to overturn a statute, because one cannot do that—one must return to Parliament and obtain the passage of another statute. He sought simply to change one non-statutory scheme into another non-statutory scheme. The fact that there was on the statute book a statutory scheme that was not implemented would have seemed to me, in his position, to be irrelevant.
  The Home Secretary did not start the lengthy, costly process of litigation. That was forced on him by the Fire Brigades Union, which took him to court. The divisional court, which was the first court that considered the case, found for the Home Secretary. It said, "Yes, you do have the power to do this." It was not he who embarked on the second stage, in the Court of Appeal, but the Fire Brigades Union. It took him to the Court of Appeal, and won.
  Having one court saying that he is right and one court saying that he is wrong, what is the Home Secretary to do? He gets the matter decided by going to the House of Lords, which will decide it once and for all. Having obtained that decision, what does the Home Secretary do? Of course he abides by the decision of the court, which is why the Bill has been brought before the House today.
  I do not think that the Home Secretary can be charged with having behaved high-handedly. Even though he received what are described as warnings from Opposition Members and others, they were no more than expressions of a point of view at the time, albeit a point of view which five of the 10 judges eventually held to be correct.
  No victim of crime has suffered, because all will be paid under the original scheme until the new scheme that we are debating comes into force—if and when it does.
  794
  Indeed, some people have benefited, because those who have received more than they would have received will not be asked to pay the difference back. Those who received less than they would have received will have their compensation made up.
  I am pleased to see that, under the new scheme before the House today, greater recognition will be given to those who have suffered loss of earnings. Even under the previous scheme, which the House of Lords ruled against, there was an element in the compensation for loss of earnings, because the tariff figures had been fixed, not by considering the damages awarded in the civil courts or by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for pain, suffering and loss of amenity only, but by considering the total award, including an element, in many cases, for loss of earnings.
  Under the new scheme, those who are out of work for more than 28 weeks will receive an additional element reflecting their actual loss of earnings up to a limit which has to be imposed in view of the ability of the taxpayer to pay.
  Uncharacteristically, Opposition Members have complained on behalf of the high rollers of this world— the high earners—the people who, under the new scheme, will receive less by way of compensation than they would have suffered in loss of earnings. However, as has been said, the high earners are the very people who are in a position to insure themselves, should they so wish. They are adults and they must make their own decisions, but the opportunity is there for them to do so.
  I would pose a question to my hon. Friend the Minister, however. Will he assist the House in understanding when a self-employed person is deemed to be off work for the purpose of compensation for loss of earnings?
  Incapacity benefit will often be paid, so the compensation for loss of earnings under the scheme is not the only source of benefit. I would hope that the period of 28 weeks will be reduced, if and when the economy develops to the point when the taxpayer can afford it.
  In some occupations, such as the police force, compensation is paid under employment contracts in addition to the money provided by the state. I am glad to see that the tariff for rape victims will increase from £7,500—which I always considered to be a wholly inadequate sum—to £17,500 in certain circumstances. Under the common law scheme operating in civil courts, often a nominal conventional amount is awarded for bereavement. I welcome the increased payment of £5,000 for each qualifying dependant and £10,000 when there is only one such dependant.
  We should keep the tariff under review, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed to anomalies. For example, should not a right-handed man who loses his right hand receive more by way of compensation than if he loses his left hand? Should not young people receive more compensation than older people? Should not the system keep pace with inflation and should not the civil servant who administers the scheme be encouraged to refer difficult decisions to more senior people?
  As to income support deductions, I see no case for making a deduction from the money awarded for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. However, in so far as a sum is awarded for loss of earnings, an applicant would be compensated twice if he were compensated by the scheme

  795
  for loss of earnings and also received income support. I think that there is a case for set-off, in that instance. However, some taxpayers will say, "My duty as a taxpayer is to support this man only if he cannot support himself and I do not believe that he cannot support himself if he has £50,000 sitting in the bank." We will have to answer to those taxpayers if we decide to go down that road.
  I must mention the plight of rape victims who in the past have been reluctant to pursue their cases to criminal trial. It must be an horrendous experience not only to be raped but to have to endure a criminal trial to the point of conviction. I can well understand why many rape victims could not bring themselves to do that. Under the new scheme, I hope that we will be very sympathetic to women in that position—it usually is women—and that we will not force them to go through with a criminal trial or lose their entitlement to compensation. I hope also that when the economy improves—it is already showing signs of improvement—we will be able to reduce the £1,000 limit to £500 or so to allow those who have suffered minor but important injuries to receive compensation.
  I believe that our scheme was, and will continue to be, the best in the world. The Government, on behalf of the taxpayers, have struck the right balance between the interests of those who pay compensation and those who receive it. I think that it is a scheme that we can explain to our constituents and of which we can proud. I shall support the Government in the Division Lobby this evening.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. John Gunnell: I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen) say that a relative of this scheme suffered as a result of decisions by the courts. He was at pains to demonstrate that the Home Secretary had behaved in a perfectly proper manner—I think that the Home Secretary behaved in the way that was expected of him. I liken the right hon. and learned Gentleman's experience to that of boxers who enter the ring looking for a points victory and who are prepared to accept any degree of punishment along the way. He has certainly demonstrated persistence, stubbornness and meanness of spirit. One could use a number of other descriptions, such as obduracy.
  I was on the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, and I heard the earlier proposals mauled in Committee and pilloried on Report. They were defeated in the Lords and that decision was reversed again in the Commons. There were four debates on the earlier measures. On each occasion there were reactions and a clear focus to the Government's intentions.
  It has been obvious throughout that the purpose of changing the scheme has been to save money. The Home Secretary made that clear to the House. The hon. Member for Shoreham said that compensation was only a token. However, token is not the right word. We are not talking about a gift or a birthday offering, where such tokens are frequently received.
  The purpose of compensation is to aid victims and to provide some recognition of the difficulties that they have encountered, the injuries that they have suffered or the experience that they have undergone, and to compensate them financially. For those who suffer real loss of
  796
  earnings, compensation is an essential part of their standard of living thereafter. That was true while loss of earnings compensation was provided as part of the scheme, and it is much less so now, but it is not reasonable to describe it as a token, except in the sense that a token is frequently less than it should be.
  Certainly in material terms, saving money on the scheme has reduced its quality and the assistance that it gives victims. That motivation has been clear throughout. It is clear in the Bill, it is among the reasons in our reasoned amendment for rejecting the Bill and it is central to the debate.
  The second theme that is central to the debate is the unfairness to victims of reducing a more generous scheme to the one before us now. The Government have made some U-turns; they have not gone far enough, but they have increased the provisions in certain respects. Although we welcome that, we do not consider those increases to be sufficient. The scheme remains mean in comparison with the present system, which the Government thought had been abolished when the earlier measure was passed.
  Mr. Stephen: I understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks and I agree that we would all like to be more generous to the victims of crime, but he cannot avoid the issue. Does he have a commitment from the shadow Chancellor to make the necessary money available to put into practice his pious hopes—perhaps that would be a churlish way of putting it—the generous wishes that he has expressed? How will they be put into practice?
  Mr. Gunnell: We must take the whole thrust of the policy into account. The leadership of my party is committed to a law and order policy that will reverse the trend in crime levels that has persisted for so long. As we have pointed out, the number of victims has increased enormously: it has increased by a third. That is one of the factors in the inflation of the cost of the present scheme. The scheme costs far more because there are far more victims of crime, which means that more people must be compensated.
  I believe that our policy, which is based on tackling the causes of crime, will reduce the incidence of crime and, in so doing, lower the costs of a compensation scheme. My answer to the hon. Member for Shoreham is that the policy—the whole policy—that we shall implement will provide the cash to finance a scheme of the sort that currently exists; although, of course, it is not for me to commit my Front Bench to specific amounts of compensation. The downgrading of the existing scheme and the rigidity of its successor would not feature under a Labour Government, who would not have tampered with the current scheme in this way.
  There has been an increasing public reaction against the scheme. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Shoreham to talk about the financial implications; it must be pointed out that the £700 million that will be saved over the next five years as a result of the change will be taken from victims. I do not believe that spending should always be squeezed at the expense of those who least deserve to bear the burden—but that is the thrust of Government policy: when money is to be saved, it must be taken from those who are most in need. Pensioners, for instance, lose a disproportionate amount of income in comparison with other groups.

  797
  It is not just natural supporters of the Labour party who consider this a mean scheme; indeed, there is clearly dissent in the Government ranks. The Leader of the House warned the Government that they were on the wrong side of the argument about the treatment of victims of crime, but the Government clearly have not noted even those words.
  I urge the House to support our reasoned amendment, which deals with some of the most unsatisfactory features of the Bill.
  9.23 pm
  Mr. Alun Michael: In October 1994, I warned the Home Secretary that he was acting wrongly, unfairly and illegally in trying to cut compensation for crime victims without seeking the approval of Parliament. During that debate, I also warned the House that the Government's new scheme would have a dramatic effect on those who were most seriously injured in criminal attacks; and I warned Conservative Members that
  "Neither the Government nor the Conservative party will ever again be able to claim concern for the victims of crime in future when they are treating them so callously today."
  I put it on record that
  "No Conservative Members of Parliament will be able to claim an interest in victims in their speeches or election material if they vote to disagree with the Lords amendment today."—[Official Report, 20 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 457.]
  Time and again we gave Conservative Members the chance to join us in voting for victims. Not a single Tory Member backed them or us, and neither will any of them tonight. The failure of Conservative Members to stand up for victims in that debate was overshadowed by news of more scandal and sleaze at the heart of government. But it returns to haunt them today.
  The Bill has been produced for only two reasons. First, it is before us because the courts and the Law Lords declared that the Home Secretary had acted unlawfully and, secondly, because Ministers are determined to slash the cash that is spent on compensating the victims of crime.
  During the debate, Conservative Members have tried to dress up as a technicality the fact that the Home Secretary was found to be ignoring the law. But as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) said when he castigated the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Home Secretary presented an affront to Parliament for which he has never apologised. This measure does not expunge that failure and, as my right hon. and learned Friend rightly said, the Government are arrogant and brazen and are failing to listen.
  The Home Secretary's action was not just a minor infringement of the law: it has been described as an abuse of prerogative power. Just as Conservative Members seem not to understand being greedy and sleazy, they seem not to understand that they are guilty of abusing power in government. Equally outrageous was the attempt to dupe the House and the public about the Home Secretary's plan
  798
  to cut compensation. Incredibly, as recently as March the Home Secretary was trying to pretend that he was not cutting the cash at all. On 9 March I said:
  "Does the Home Secretary still not realise that his rhetoric about victims has no effect when people can see the indelible effect of his one genuine policy, which is to cut the total sum available to victims, and especially to cut the level of compensation available for the victims of the most horrific crimes?"
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman's response was shameless because he said:
  "Far from being cut, the sum will continue to increase."—[Official Report, 9 March 1995; Vol. 256, c. 443.]
  When he spoke those words and made that wild claim, the Home Secretary had already published his annual report projecting swingeing cuts in compensation this year and for each of the next three years. After his partial U-turn, which appears in the Bill, of conceding some compensation for loss of earnings, on his own admission the Bill contains a cut of £200 million a year.
  The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) made a bizarre contribution to the debate. He implied that the cut in compensation arose because the Government were buffeted by unforeseen events.
  Mr. Straw: They were back in government.
  Mr. Michael: The Conservatives were planning the cut even before the last general election and perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) suggests, the buffeting by events was unexpectedly finding themselves back in government.
  The hon. Member for Sutton said that the Conservative party keeps election promises. What a set of promises it has kept! In home affairs, where were the 1,000 extra police that it promised for the year following the general election? Where are the real measures to tackle crime? The hon. Gentleman asked for more money to be pumped into the criminal injuries compensation scheme and challenged us about our intentions. We have a simple summary and I shall set it out in case Conservative Members have not yet understood it. It is, "If you do not cut the scheme, we will not."
  We have made it clear that the future is in the Government's hands. There is no problem for the Opposition, but there is a problem for the Government because they are setting out to cut the scheme while we have made our position clear. The Minister's response to the hon. Member for Sutton was that the Conservatives have maintained a generous scheme. If the Minister is so proud of maintaining a generous scheme, why is he cutting it? It is made explicit in the Bill that money for the compensation of victims will be cut. But that is not the only betrayal of victims perpetrated by the Conservatives. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn laid bare the failures in the Bill. In Committee we shall try to improve it, but at its heart is the intention to cut.
  What is as bad, if not worse, is the fact that so many people become victims because of the Government's failure to tackle crime and its causes. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) was right to highlight the increase in violence. Violence against the person was up 7 per cent. again last year.

  799
  Victims of crime, he said, are not just statistics but people—a point that escaped all Conservative Members who contributed to this debate. My hon. Friend made a powerful speech about the plight of victims.
  By contrast, the Home Secretary treated us to a calculation of the rising cost of the old scheme over the next five years. That calculation appears on the face of the Bill too, but on what are the increases based? My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, but there was no answer. Did the Home Secretary undertake a detailed analysis of crime and its impact on victims? Did he look at the fact that violent crime continues to rise by 7 per cent. a year? Has he made a calculation based on facts? Has he looked at any facts at all?
  The answer is no, because the Home Secretary does not have the facts. That is revealed in answers to parliamentary questions that I have asked him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman looks puzzled, as he often does. Perhaps he is unaware of the answers provided by his ministerial colleague to a number of serious questions. What was the average award for rape plus serious injury given under the criminal injuries compensation tariff scheme operated from April 1994? He was asked to list for each of the past five years the number of claimants for criminal injuries compensation incapacitated for more than 28 weeks, and the percentage that they represented of the total number of claimants—and the total cost of claims in each of those years. I asked about the number of awards, and the total value of awards made in respect of rape, and of rape plus serious injury, in each of the past six financial years. Those were all facts on which we could base an understanding of the costs of the present scheme and of the Home Secretary's intentions for the future.
  The answers were very short and very simple—that the information was not recorded centrally. In other words, Ministers do not have a clue. So how did the right hon. and learned Gentleman reach what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has described as the moving target?
  Dr. Kim Howells: He made it up.
  Mr. Michael: As they say in Pontypridd, he made it up. More technically, it was an extrapolation of cash figures leading to a cash-driven policy instead of one driven by concern for victims. That led in turn to a misunderstanding of the nature of the problem. In short, the Home Secretary based his new policy on unsound information.
  Mr. Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw his slur on the people of Pontypridd? They have a very clear understanding of the difference between making up figures—as the hon. Gentleman, without a scintilla of evidence, alleges we did—and extrapolation, which we have always made clear was the basis for our estimates. It is a perfectly sensible basis which I am sure will be recognised and approved by the people of Pontypridd.
  Mr. Michael: The Home Secretary's methods are so well respected that they keep changing every time he gives us an estimate. The people of Pontypridd, so ably
  800
  represented by my hon. Friend, will see the matter with as much clarity as he does. They will also see how the Home Secretary dragged out events all the way to the House of Lords even though it was clear that he was wrong.
  It adds insult to injury and neglect when the Conservative lie machine time and again repeats untruths that the Ministers here today must know are untruths. Not just victims of crime but communities throughout Britain are calling out to Ministers to face up to the facts of their failure and to stop using crime as a political football. They want them to join Labour in confronting the real issues.
  As our reasoned amendment makes clear, criminal injuries compensation is only one aspect of the Government's failure adequately to deal with the needs of victims, support for victims and the protection of the public from the danger of becoming victims. The Government must do much more to put the victim at the heart of the criminal justice system. As we say in our reasoned amendment, the Government fail to require greater consideration towards victims from the Crown Prosecution Service. Last year, we put forward an amendment, which was rejected by the Government, to require the CPS to keep people informed and consult victims before dropping or downgrading the charges against their attackers. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn has highlighted many other problems with the CPS in recent weeks.
  We have urged the Government to do more to give greater attention to the needs of victims in court, to protect and help witnesses and to support the provision of counselling and other services by voluntary organisations. We have managed to embarrass the Government into keeping some of their promises to Victim Support, but still the victims are not placed at the heart of the criminal justice system.
  As we say in our reasoned amendment, above all, the Government have failed to take positive action to tackle the continued rise in crimes of violence. The Labour party has exposed that failure on many, many occasions but we have gone further. We have come forward time and again with positive proposals to deal with crime, from faster intervention with young offenders to increased penalties for weapons offences.
  I could give a whole series of well-documented examples, but as the Conservative party's lie machine has made the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 the test, let us get the record straight. The Labour party opposed what was bad in that legislation and supported what was good. We sought to replace ill-considered and half-baked clauses with effective provisions to deal with crime and the causes of crime and made a number of new and practical suggestions.
  When it comes to violent crime, the contrast between the Conservative party and the Labour party is clearest of all. There was nothing in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill to deal with violence, drugs or drug-related crime or to punish firearms offenders until Labour proposed amendments. Violent crime was so far from the Government's mind that increased penalties could be brought only by tacking additions on to the sea fisheries and shellfish legislation. It is important that that should be clear.

  801
  Conservative Members and the Home Secretary should understand that he has been rumbled. That is what happened with the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act last year.
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Mr. Michael: As ever, the tough talk from the Tories was exposed as meaningless and it was Labour Members who were willing to engage in serious debate in Committee, based on their practical experience of co-operating with the—
  Mr. Howard rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The rules of the House are well known. If the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, the other hon. Member must resume his seat and that includes the Home Secretary.
  Mr. Michael: I shall gave way in a moment, but this is a sentence that the Home Secretary should hear.
  It was Labour Members who were willing to engage in serious debate in Committee based on their practical experience of co-operating with police and local authorities in their constituencies, to tackle the scourge of crime that affects our people in our areas and so often devastates their lives. We did that. It was a pity that the Ministers who took part in the Committee were not willing so to engage.
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's attempts to rewrite history are based on fantasy. Before he pursues that path, he ought to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition because the line that he is taking strays radically from that taken by his right hon. Friend.
  The centrepiece of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act was the 27 points that I announced in my speech to the Conservative party conference. [Interruption.] It is interesting that the Labour party mocks them, when a moment ago the hon. Gentleman was trying to take credit for them. Those 27 points were denounced by the Leader of the Opposition as a set of gimmicks. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. Are they gimmicks or do they support them?
  Mr. Michael: I understand the Home Secretary's need to try to intervene because he does not like what he is being told, which is the truth. He reminds us that that Bill brought in the 27 points, or 27 gimmicks, that he put forward in his conference speech. It was the Michael Howard conference speech implementation Bill. When we came forward with serious proposals that would have tackled and cut crime, protected people, helped victims, nipped in the bud problems with young offenders and dealt with weapons and violent offences, what did the Home Secretary and his team do? They rejected them, voted against them and ignored them. It is the Home Secretary who is seeking to rewrite history, but he has failed. He should apologise for what he said. He has shown disrespect for the way in which we are trying to tackle crime properly.
  We see in the Bill a series of complications with which we shall have to deal in Committee. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) referred to serious concerns about
  802
  the cost of the lifetime care and attention to be given to a person after an attack. There are serious questions about when the tariff will be updated. It is clear, again from parliamentary answers, that the Home Secretary intends to bring in the tariff as outlined in his advisory note, which is already two years out of date and will be three years out of date when the system comes into operation. A parliamentary question answered today states:
  "It is intended that the tariff levels will be reviewed every three years",
  not annually. It continues:
  "No criteria for such review have yet been set, but might be expected to include reference to inflation more generally and other pressures on public expenditure."
  The Home Secretary has not thought the issues through.
  Adjudicators will be appointed and controlled by the Home Secretary, yet he disclaims responsibility for them. Clause 5 on page 4 of the Bill states:
  "The Scheme may include provision—
  (a) for adjudicators to be appointed."
  It continues:
  "Any person appointed … under this section by the Secretary of State—

  (a) shall be appointed on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate; but

  (b) shall not be regarded as having been appointed to exercise functions of the Secretary of State or to act on his behalf.

  (5) No decision taken by an adjudicator shall be regarded as having been undertaken by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State."
  In the Bill, the Secretary of State seeks in advance to clear himself of any responsibility for those who are appointed by or responsible to him. He does not want to take responsibility for anything in future.
  The contributions made to the debate by Conservative Members have often been ill-founded and fractious interventions revealing the malaise that lies at the heart of the Government. Last Thursday, we saw Conservative Members reacting with shock and horror at the prospect of having their trough taken away from them. They clearly did not understand why the public were so outraged.
  Today, Conservative Members have sounded ludicrous as they tried to pretend that the Home Secretary had not really been defeated in the House of Lords. The President of the Board of Trade was turning over the entrails of another decision earlier today. It seems that the rule now is that the Government set up a system and then, if they do not like it, they do not change the system properly, but pretend that it happened differently.
  The public know the central truth about the Bill. We shall consider it clause by clause and seek to improve it in Committee. We welcome the partial U-turn that the Home Secretary has already undertaken, but the public know that the measure is about cutting costs and doing less to help victims. Today, the Home Secretary and those around him are failing to grasp the depth of their own failure to tackle crime and protect victims, but the public understand all too well. I know that the Conservatives do not, but the public understand that only the Labour party will be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. Only Labour will put the victims where they should be—at the heart of the criminal justice system.
  9.43 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The House has just been treated to an

  803
  outrageous charade by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). Sadly, it made him look silly, as one can see from the faces of his colleagues behind him.
  The party that professes to be tough on crime is the party that voted against almost every criminal justice measure in the 1980s and always voted against the prevention of terrorism Act. The key elements of the latest criminal justice legislation related to bail bandits but Labour tried to tear the guts out of it. We sought to lock up young hoodlums but Labour tried to tear the guts out of that proposal. It also opposed our reform of the right to silence.
  The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that most of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 was the Labour party's invention. If so, why did it abstain on Third Reading? He cannot have it every way.
  Some interesting points were made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) that of course we shall want to monitor the enhanced tariff scheme, and I take on board his support for the Bill. He asked whether the money available will be sufficient to deal with victims properly in future. I refer him to the structural settlement scheme, which is a recent innovation in damages litigation and which is terribly important. Under the structured settlements provided in the Bill, payments will be tax exempt. It is possible that at today's prices that could mean an award of up to £20,000 index-linked, tax free for life for the most seriously injured victims. That is a very sensible provision.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge asked about multiple injuries under the tariff. We shall treat multiple injuries under the enhanced tariff scheme in largely the same manner as they were treated under the common law damages scheme: 100 per cent. award for the most serious injury, 10 per cent. more for the second most serious injury and 5 per cent. more for the third most serious injury. That is no real change of substance from the present modus operandi. We propose to uprate that scheme about every three years. I hope that that assurance satisfies my hon. Friend.
  I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) volunteered to serve on the Committee. He should consider himself nominated. He rightly pointed out that during the 28-week period a range of welfare arrangements are available. He was right to expose the hypocrisy of the Labour party in calling for more money for practically every good cause and at the same time saying that it will not increase expenditure.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Ainsworth) and other hon. Friends were right to point out that the tariff scheme is the most generous in the world, and more generous than the schemes of all the countries in Europe put together. We are proud of that fact. [Interruption.] It is a fact that the scheme is more generous than the compensation available in every other country in Europe put together. That will continue to be the case under the new, enhanced tariff scheme unless every other country in Europe does something drastic to increase its payments.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) made some important points. He asked whether we would lay all the details before Parliament. We will lay all the most important elements of the scheme before Parliament and they will be subject to parliamentary control and
  804
  affirmative resolution. It would not be a good use of Parliament's time to lay all the minutiae before it. We shall, however, ensure that the key elements are laid before Parliament.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann also suggested that the tariff scheme was illogical as it included an element for loss of earnings beneath the 28-week period, although that is now paid separately. It is true that tariff payments include an unquantified element for loss of earnings. We considered shaving that off but decided that it would be better to leave the levels as they are. Many people who are incapacitated for fewer than 28 weeks will in fact receive some element of compensation for loss of earnings. It also explains why the tariff levels have not been uprated since 1994. In effect, they contain that cushion already: the loss of earnings which we have not shaved off.
  The hon. Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. O'Brien) asked whether the scheme would be kept under review. Of course the tariff scheme will be kept under review. He was worried about the level of civil servants who will be dealing with cases. The civil service has a structure and difficult cases are passed upwards so that senior management may deal with them. Some of us may complain that, at times, too many senior managers are involved in paperwork on files going upwards, but there is of course a structure.
  Mr. Mike O'Brien: The other point that I made was about the number of injuries on the basic list of injuries, which has been increased to 310. Will the Minister keep an open mind on increasing that number further as unfairness becomes evident?
  Mr. Maclean: Yes, of course. That is one of the benefits of not having the tariff scheme on the face of the Bill but in statutory arrangements or in regulations. It allows us to change according to circumstances, new ailments or injuries. It is a very sensible provision.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) was concerned about loss of earnings for the self-employed. Those losses will be calculated from examination of business accounts and Inland Revenue returns. We can even employ forensic accountants, if necessary, to analyse those returns. The loss to be taken into account will be the same as under the present scheme—one and a half times national industrial average earnings. I hope that that offers some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
  I now turn to the comments made by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). I shoot down straight away his assertion that the only reason why the cost of the scheme is rising is rising crime. That is nonsense. There is no clear correlation between crime figures and the number of applications under the scheme. In 1964, when the scheme was introduced—
  Mr. Straw: I can spare the Minister's breath. I did not say what he claims. I said that the rise in crime was one of the factors that led to the increase in the cost of the scheme. I also said that the other factors were the increase in the severity of individual crimes and that other matters had to be taken into account.
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman put great stress on the crime rise, but I happily apologise to him for misrepresenting his point of view.

  805
  Since 1964, when the scheme was introduced, violent crime has increased by 500 per cent. The number of applicants under the scheme has increased by 3,000 per cent. and the amount of compensation paid has increased by no less than 40,000 per cent. It is because of that enormous increase in the amount of compensation—way over and above the level of inflation—that the Government believe that we must have not only a fair scheme for victims, but some sensible controls.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn quoted, highly selectively, from the speech made by Fred Broughton, the president of the Police Federation. Perhaps you will permit me, Madam Speaker, to give some other quotations from Fred Broughton's speech. Turning to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, he said:
  "You've conceded one of our main points which was that loss of earnings should continue to be taken into account. You have also agreed that payments can be made in respect of special medical care and long-term cases. You have agreed to increase some of the maximum awards for various types of injury from those you intended to impose and you have agreed to double the proposed maximum limit on any award from £250,000 to £500,000. We are able to give a qualified welcome to your revised proposals."
  That puts a slightly different light on the speech.
  The hon. Member for Blackburn did not quote at all from the news release issued by the Law Society, which said:
  "The new scheme will combine some of the administrative advantages of the tariff, particularly for smaller claims, with the greater fairness of individual assessment of awards in larger cases. This should mean that the victims with the more serious injuries will receive much larger awards than under the tariff, including compensation for loss of earnings and medical care costs."
  The heading on that news release reads:
  "Law Society welcomes new criminal injuries compensation scheme."
  The hon. Gentleman did not mention that.
  I shall now deal with one of the key questions and one of the key myths that has been bandied about by the Opposition today—the so-called cuts in compensation. Let us go back only 10 years to 1985. This Tory Government paid out £41 million in 1985, then £48 million, then £52 million, then £69 million, then £72 million, then £109 million, then £143 million, then £152 million and, last year, £165 million—some cuts!
  What are we planning to do in future? We expect—this is on the face of the Bill—to make provision for liabilities of £176 million, then £190 million, then £205 million, then £240 million and then £260 million. Let us have no more lies about cuts in compensation for victims. There are no cuts; that is more cash from the taxpayer—
  Mr. Michael: Lies from where?
  Mr. Maclean: Those who are responsible will know what I mean—[Interruption.]
  I am proud to quote from the Conservative campaign guide, the key boast in which is:
  "The criminal injuries compensation scheme is now one of the most generous in the world."
  Mr. Michael: Does the Minister share the view of the Home Secretary, who points a finger at Opposition
  806
  Members from a sedentary position, or does he accept that we have stated our position truly and clearly during the debate?
  Mr. Maclean: That was a silly intervention—rather like the hon. Gentleman's speech earlier.
  The Conservative campaign guide pointed out our proud boast that we had the most generous victim compensation scheme in the world, and we stated what we paid out in 1989. I can tell the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth that we can make that boast for 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. We shall be making that boast in our next manifesto, because the scheme will still be the most generous in the world. It will pay out more than the amounts paid out by every country in Europe put together.
  Let us look at the diversity of view within the Labour party on what we should do with victims and how much we should pay out. Last night—I had the pleasure of reading the speech today—the Leader of the Opposition called himself "an unashamed long termist", but even as he was speaking his Front-Bench team was tabling an amendment condemning the world's most generous criminal injuries compensation scheme as not generous enough. For the Labour party, it seems that the long term is the time it takes for a soundbite to travel around the airwaves.
  Last night, the Leader of the Opposition spoke of the "long and gruelling slog" to control public expenditure, but today his lieutenants call for more spending. The "long and gruelling slog" which the Leader of the Opposition was talking about is him trying to get anyone else in his party to take him seriously on economic policy. We all know that increasingly he is a one-man band, and we have seen once again tonight that the right hon. Gentleman is on his own in calling for restraint. He has no troops behind him who will back that.
  Last night, the Leader of the Opposition could talk of the failure of Keynesian economics, but does anyone seriously believe that the shadow Chancellor, the shadow Foreign Secretary and the deputy leader of the Labour party share his apparent conversion to Milton Friedman economics?
  We have heard a lot today from the Opposition about their concern for victims. They have positively oozed compassion and high-minded rhetoric, and they have scattered caring soundbites through every speech like golden hailstones, but we have not heard what they would do. Let me remind the House of the Government's position, which is crystal clear. We will have an enhanced tariff scheme with a separate calculation for loss of earnings for serious cases. We estimate that the cost of that in each of the next five years will be £175 million, £190 million, £205 million, £240 million and £260 million, making a grand total of £1,070 million. There is no bluster and no equivocation there—we are honestly putting up front the costs—but today we have heard not a single word from the Opposition about how much they would spend.
  When we announced the tariff scheme, the hon. Member for Blackburn—he does not want to listen, as it is embarrassing for him—said:
  "These concessions are nothing like enough".
  So there we have it. The £1 billion which we expect to pay out is "nothing like enough" according to the shadow Home Secretary, but he did not tell us what would be

  807
  enough. Would it be £1.5 billion, £2 billion or £2.5 billion? Of course, he would not tell us because—like all shadow spokesmen—he has had to swear a pledge to the shadow Chancellor, the doctor of Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown): "I swear that all my promises of a golden tomorrow will have no price tag attached which Tory central office can cost."
  That is why the Labour party is now a policy-free zone. If there are no policies, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary cannot total up the costs so we can all find out how much taxes will need to go up to pay for them. But Labour Members will have to produce policies some time, and end their empty waffle calling for more investment in education, housing, health, transport, people, communities, the infrastructure, the environment and the planet. At some time, they will have to tell the British people what they would do and how much it will cost. That is the question that they did not answer tonight—what is it going to cost?
  The Opposition have condemned our plans as mean and niggardly. Every one of them has suggested that we should spend more money, but this Government will spend more than £1 billion. We say that that is exceptionally generous—the most generous scheme in the world—but that it is all that we can afford. Unless they tell us how much they would spend, we shall be entitled to assume that it would the full amount of the old, unreformed scheme.
  By voting against the Bill, the Opposition are committing themselves to £700 million of extra expenditure. By voting against, they are showing that they will not put their principles where their mouths are. That is not surprising because the new, vacuous, soundbite Labour party has no ideas, no policies and no principles, which is why I invite my hon. Friends to support me in the Lobby tonight.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 274.

  Division No. 156]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Ainger, Nick

  Cann, Jamie

  Allen, Graham

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Chidgey, David

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Ashton, Joe

  Clapham, Michael

  Austin-Walker, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Clelland, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Barron, Kevin

  Coffey, Ann

  Battle, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbett, Robin

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Berry, Roger

  Corston, Jean

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Cousins, Jim

  Boateng, Paul

  Cox, Tom

  Bradley, Keith

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

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

  Dafis, Cynog

  Burden, Richard

  Dalyell, Tam

  Byers, Stephen

  Darling, Alistair

  Caborn, Richard

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  808

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

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Denham, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dewar, Donald

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dixon, Don

  McAllion, John

  Dobson, Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Donohoe, Brian H

  McCartney, Ian

  Dowd, Jim

  Macdonald, Calum

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McKelvey, William

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Eastham, Ken

  McMaster, Gordon

  Enright, Derek

  MacShane, Denis

  Etherington, Bill

  McWilliam, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Madden, Max

  Fatchett, Derek

  Maddock, Diana

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mahon, Alice

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Mandelson, Peter

  Flynn, Paul

  Marek, Dr John

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Foulkes, George

  Martlew, Eric

  Fraser, John

  Meacher, Michael

  Fyfe, Maria

  Meale, Alan

  Galbraith, Sam

  Michael, Alun

  Galloway, George

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Garrett, John

  Milburn, Alan

  George, Bruce

  Miller, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Morley, Elliot

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Mudie, George

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mullin, Chris

  Grocott, Bruce

  Murphy, Paul

  Gunnell, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hain, Peter

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hall, Mike

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hanson, David

  O'Hara, Edward

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Olner, Bill

  Harvey, Nick

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Henderson, Doug

  Pickthall, Colin

  Heppell, John

  Pike, Peter L

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Pope, Greg

  Hinchliffe, David

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Hoey, Kate

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Purchase, Ken

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Hoyle, Doug

  Randall, Stuart

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rendel, David

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov NW)

  Illsley, Eric

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Ingram, Adam

  Rogers, Allan

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Rooney, Terry

  Jamieson, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Janner, Greville

  Ruddock, Joan

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Short, Clare

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Jowell, Tessa

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

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

  Keen, Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Khabra, Piara S

  Snape, Peter

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Soley, Clive

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lewis, Terry

  Spellar, John

  Litherland, Robert

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Livingstone, Ken

  Stevenson, George

  809

  Stott, Roger

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Straw, Jack

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wilson, Brian

  Timms, Stephen

  Winnick, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wise, Audrey

  Touhig, Don

  Worthington, Tony

  Trimble, David

  Wray, Jimmy

  Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Wallace, James

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Walley, Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Watson, Mike

  Mr. Dennis Turner and

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Alexander, Richard

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Day, Stephen

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Amess, David

  Devlin, Tim

  Arbuthnot, James

  Dicks, Terry

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Dover, Den

  Atkins, Robert

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Elletson, Harold

  Baldry, Tony

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bates, Michael

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Evennett, David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Faber, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Booth, Hartley

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Boswell, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Forth, Eric

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Bowis, John

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Brandreth, Gyles

  French, Douglas

  Brazier, Julian

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Gale, Roger

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Gallie, Phil

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Burns, Simon

  Garnier, Edward

  Burl, Alistair

  Gill, Christopher

  Butcher, John

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Butterfill, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Carrington, Matthew

  Gorst, Sir John

  Carttiss, Michael

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Cash, William

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Churchill, Mr

  Hague, William

  Clappison, James

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hannam, Sir John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Colvin, Michael

  Harris, David

  Congdon, David

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hawksley, Warren

  Couchman, James

  Hayes, Jerry

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

  Heald, Oliver

  810

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Pawsey, James

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hendry, Charles

  Pickles, Eric

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Hicks, Robert

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Horam, John

  Richards, Rod

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Riddick, Graham

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

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

  Robathan, Andrew

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jack, Michael

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Jessel, Toby

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Key, Robert

  Shersby, Michael

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knapman, Roger

  Soames, Nicholas

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Knight, Greg (Derby N)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Knox, Sir David

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spring, Richard

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sproat, Iain

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Legg, Barry

  Steen, Anthony

  Leigh, Edward

  Stephen, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Stern, Michael

  Lidington, David

  Stewart, Allan

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Sweeney, Walter

  Lord, Michael

  Sykes, John

  Luff, Peter

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacKay, Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Maclean, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Thomason, Roy

  Madel, Sir David

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Malone, Gerald

  Thumham, Peter

  Mans, Keith

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Marland, Paul

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Marlow, Tony

  Tracey, Richard

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Trend, Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Mates, Michael

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Merchant, Piers

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Mills, Iain

  Viggers, Peter

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Walden, George

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Waller, Gary

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Ward, John

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Waterson, Nigel

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Watts, John

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Wells, Bowen

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whitney, Ray

  Page, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Wilkinson, John

  811

  Willetts, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Wolfson, Mark

  Mr. David Lightbown.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Order [19 December],
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required by the Secretary of State in respect of—

  (i) compensation payable in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme established under the Act;

  (ii) payments to or in respect of persons appointed under the Act;

  (iii) any other expenditure incurred by him under or by virtue of the Act;

  (b) payments into the Consolidated Fund—[Mr. Burns.]

  Question agreed to.

  LAW REFORM (SUCCESSION) BILL [LORDS]
  Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

  Age Discrimination
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]
  10.17 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: I wish to raise the subject of agism. It is a matter of great concern in my constituency, which has many professional middle-class people who have had the misfortune to find themselves redundant and who, as a result of their age, are unable to work their way back into the job market.
  Legislation has been considered by the House in relatively recent times against discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of disability, gender, sexual orientation and ethnic origin. I am sure that the entire House shares the widespread public distaste for any act of discrimination, and I am sure that the majority of employers in the United Kingdom have come to realise the foolishness of allowing such prejudice in the workplace.
  Legislation does not mean that discrimination has been overcome. Ethnic minorities in this country continue to experience higher rates of unemployment, people with disabilities continue to feel that they are regarded as second-class citizens in the workplace, and there are still too few women in senior positions in the UK.
  However, a primary cause of prejudice in the workplace, agism, remains an accepted practice, unregulated in law, with no commission responsible for tackling the problem and no formal course of redress for those discriminated against on the ground of age. It is ironic that one cause of discrimination that can affect all of us at one time or another is the one that has been given the lowest priority by Governments and employers.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment is to reply to the debate, since she herself said:
  "We know that as many as 40 per cent. of employers discriminate simply on the grounds of age. They set age bars to recruitment—sometimes as low as forty, or even thirty in some occupations. They refuse to promote or train older workers and they select the oldest first for redundancy".
  My hon. Friend attempted to address the problem with her Department's campaign "Getting On", which sought to highlight the unfairness of age discrimination and to persuade decision makers at all levels that we must solve that problem if we are to have a healthy and a thriving economy. I recognise and welcome the efforts of the Government in that regard, and I applaud my hon. Friend for finally getting the matter on the agenda where it belongs.
  Although the Government and other institutions, such as the Institute of Personnel Management, argue that age should not be used as a primary discriminator, research suggests that such discrimination at the point of recruitment is still widespread. Recent advertisements suggested that an audio secretary in Scotland and an assistant manager of a department store in Nottingham should be in the 23 to 35 age group. To be a secretary for a firm of accountants in central London, one would be considered past it if one had reached the grand old age of 26.
  People who happen to be 26 may feel comforted by the knowledge that they are in the most desired age group, as more than 69 per cent. of employers stated in a recent

  813
  survey that they were seeking candidates of that age. However, if one is unfortunate enough to be 45 years old, one is six times less likely to be considered for employment than one's younger counterparts.
  A recent survey undertaken by Labour Research found that 46 per cent. of job advertisements effectively excluded applicants aged more than 40 years. Out of 250 advertisements open to the middle age band, a 26-year-old was deemed to be eligible for 173; a 34-year-old had access to 133; but the chances of 36-year-olds were already diminishing, with only 93 jobs open to people of that age.
  I recently visited the Victoria street job centre in Westminster. Of 16 advertisements for clerical jobs in February, four specified an age range from 21 to no more than 28 years—more than 35 years from retirement age, and one is already considered too old to be employed in a clerical position.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my hon. Friend not agree that, despite the very best efforts and the extreme good will of our hon. Friend the Minister, age discrimination exists in the Westminster employment agency here on the Back Benches? Many people who are more than 50 years old come to this place and find that their talents are ignored because of their age.
  Mr. Ottaway: I must disagree with my hon. Friend. I have no idea how old she is—perhaps thirty-something—but her talents are well recognised on the Back Benches. I think that she is underestimating her talents and those of her colleagues who are of a similar age.
  I have been informed that job centres now encourage employers to advertise job vacancies without a specific age criterion. When employers refuse to do that, I am assured that the job centre will send any suitably qualified person for an interview, regardless of whether he or she falls within the age range sought by an employer. Reasonably often, that supposedly unsuitable candidate is appointed to the position. I think that that clearly shows the folly of age specifications in advertisements and the fact that the requirement that candidates be of a certain age is based purely on prejudice.
  I have spoken to many people in their early 40s or 50s who feel that their age has been a serious disadvantage when seeking employment, especially if they are trying to find work after a period of unemployment. After several unsuccessful interviews, omitting information or even lying about their age on a curriculum vitae or application form became an accepted practice in an attempt to overcome age prejudice.
  My constituent Mr. Todd has been unable to get back into the job market, having been made redundant at just over the age of 50. [Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) are quite old enough to know that I deplore seated interventions.
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: She is winding me up.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a very feeble excuse.
  Mr. Ottaway: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) and the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) are feeling their age.
  814
  The Institute of Personnel Management recently stated that all its 50,000 members should be aware that decisions based on age are never justifiable, are based on fallible suppositions and lead to the ineffective use of human resources. Although, within 15 years, more of the population will be over 60 than in the 16-to-44 age group, most commentators would agree that the position is getting worse.
  The problem, however, is not limited merely to vacancies. The same stereotyped attitudes often prevent management from selecting older workers for training programmes or promotion. The idea that older workers are harder to train and the adage "You can't teach an old dog new tricks" are quite ridiculous.
  A senior employee with perhaps 30 years' service has probably altered his way of working several times over the years, and is usually more than capable of learning new skills and techniques. Older workers bring the welcome addition of experience and maturity to training courses.
  Early retirement packages are considered preferable to redundancy programmes, yet they are often the sole method of reducing staffing levels, and they directly target older workers. However, it is not all bad news. Some employers, notably B and Q, W. H. Smith, the Nationwide building society and Sainsbury, recognise the waste produced by agism, and are starting to take advantage of the untapped potential in the unemployed aged 40 to 50 who have been overlooked by other employers in favour of younger workers.
  In 1989, B and Q reassessed its employment policy and decided to target older workers. Its store in Macclesfield was set up as an experiment, using staff all over the age of 50. The managers who developed the plan hoped that such a move would provide the company with a stock of experienced and customer-friendly staff. Their faith in older workers was repaid threefold. In the words of B and Q's personnel manager, the workers were found to be
  "reliable, conscientious staff who have shown a built-in regard for customer service".
  No significant productivity difference was discovered and, although some workers were perhaps slower than others, that was more than compensated for by the greater likelihood of older workers getting things right first time, and the lower risk of accidents due to their taking greater care.
  The entire work force benefited from the presence of older workers. Relationships with younger members of staff were good, particularly when the older employee took on the role of mentor to his younger colleague. Another store has since been opened along the lines of the one in Macclesfield and the chain is seeking to increase the number of older workers in all its outlets throughout the country.
  Dr. Robert Spink: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the experiment found that sickness and other absence was actually lower?
  Mr. Ottaway: I can confirm that trend. Older workers tend to be more reliable. Having been trained, they stay longer and there is less absenteeism.
  In my opinion, companies such as B and Q deserve praise for having the foresight to develop such schemes. They do not, however, deserve our thanks. They are not doing society a service by taking on older workers; they

  815
  are making a sound business decision by doing so, and their businesses are becoming fitter and more profitable for it.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does that mean that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) will not only be a purchaser from B and Q DIY departments, but she will be able to work for one when she leaves the House after the next election?
  Mr. Ottaway: Following the theme of the debate, I hope that anyone of any age and of any party will be able to work for B and Q after the next election. It is dangerous for the hon. Gentleman to count his chickens before they are hatched.
  The Carnegie Third Age Programme inquiry was set up to examine the specific problems of people aged 50 to 70. It discussed at length whether to press for immediate legislation against age discrimination, as operates in the United States, but concluded that the best approach would be first to do everything possible on a voluntary basis, and to press for legislation only when it was clear that employers had failed effectively to deal with discrimination.
  I feel strongly that enough time and energy has been spent in recent years trying to promote such a voluntary approach. Despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Minister, it has been only a partial success. The time has now come to legislate against such foolish and bigoted practice.
  There is a great need to raise public awareness of agism to the same level as that of discrimination on any other grounds, such as gender or race. That need can be met only by legislation against agism, in a form that will demonstrate society's disapproval of such morally unacceptable behaviour.
  I do not argue that changes in the law will in themselves eradicate discrimination, just as I would not argue that the presence of the criminal law has eliminated burglaries and assaults. The fact that the problems may still exist after legislation, however, is not a valid argument against seeking change.
  Other acts of discrimination are, unfortunately, still taking place regularly in our society, but that would not be seen as a valid reason to repeal the Race Relations Act 1976 or the Sex Discrimination Acts. Just as a job advertisement must not specify gender or racial exclusions, so it should no longer be possible to specify an age range.
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I apologise for missing the opening of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I hope that I may intervene on my Member of Parliament. Is he concerned about the fact that employment rates among older workers have declined during the last 15 years of Conservative government?
  Mr. Ottaway: Of course one would be concerned about that. If the hon. Gentleman had been present for the earlier part of mmy speech, he would know that I initiated the debate precisely because I believe that there is prejudice against older workers who have been forced into redundancy and are finding it difficult to get back into the job market.
  The vital role that the law can play in discrimination cases is to allow any individual the opportunity to seek redress through an industrial tribunal or court. Those who
  816
  are treated prejudicially owing to gender or race are already afforded that right; it is now time to ensure that those who suffer the same discrimination through agism are given the same standing in law.
  10.31 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on obtaining the debate, and on raising such an important subject. It has generated far more interest than debates of this kind, at this hour, usually generate. I should record the presence throughout the debate of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), and the presence of the hon. Member for Croydon, some compass point that I never get right—
  Mr. Wicks: North-West. Labour gain in 1992.
  Miss Widdecombe: Labour gain in 1992; Conservative gain later in the 1990s, whenever it may be.
  My hon. Friends the Members for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) and for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) have also come along, because they recognise the supreme importance of the subject. There have, indeed, been many interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay suggested that there was age discrimination even in the House. I always give the same advice to people who complain to me about age discrimination: never, ever give up. I commend that advice to my hon. Friend.
  The hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) interrupted at a late stage to say that there had been a decline in the employment of older workers under the Conservative Government. He should distinguish between unemployment and economic inactivity. He will, I am sure, appreciate that there has been a rising tide of early retirement. Whether or not he makes a value judgment on that one way or the other, it is not the same as unemployment, and does not necessarily stem from redundancy or forced early retirement.
  Let me turn to the main thesis of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South, who set out the problem so ably. Despite the light-heartedness of some of tonight's debate—I think that all the participants should have declared their interest; we are all of a certain age—a serious problem exists. By the year 2000, some 40 per cent. of the work force will be aged 45 or over.
  But we know from surveys that about 40 per cent. of employers openly admit to practising some form of age discrimination—and those are only the ones who openly admit it. It is practised primarily in recruitment, but also in promotion, and certainly in training and in retention policies when putting redundancy programmes into effect.
  Such discrimination is bad for the individual who faces being on what is sometimes popularly called the scrap heap. It is also bad for the economy, because if we do not make use of our older workers, we will be sentencing to economic inactivity a growing percentage of our work force because of the way demographics are moving. It is also extremely bad for British business and for employers, who are missing a great wealth of talent and a great deal of experience. Therefore, it is essential for us to address this problem.
  There are great myths about employing older workers, the first of which is that somehow they are not trainable. I recently ran a nationwide competition to find older

  817
  trainees, not people training at home in the hope of getting work or people taking an Open university course, but people who were in work, whose employers believed that they were a worthwhile investment, and who were training for a qualification. We found many people in their late 50s and early 60s. Furthermore, they were training in quite unusual subjects, such as information technology, which employers sometimes, quite erroneously, believe older workers cannot be trained in. Therefore, I know it is not true that people cannot be trained in later life.
  Some people hold the view that somehow older people are unfit and cannot keep going quite as long as their younger counterparts. I ran another competition to find the oldest worker in Britain, and found that the oldest male worker who was still working six days a week and giving full satisfaction to his employer was aged 93. The oldest female worker, also working six days a week and giving full satisfaction, was 92. If people of 92 and 93 can give satisfaction to their employers, what is the problem about taking on people who are 40 years younger? The point of that campaign was not to persuade people to work into their 90s but to be able to say to employers, "If people in their 90s can do well, what is your problem with people in their 50s?"
  The other great myth is that somehow older workers are not as committed as younger people, that the employer will not get as long a work period out of them. But precisely because it is so difficult for older workers to find a job, particularly if they are in their late 50s, those who have jobs tend to be extremely committed to them. An employer who takes on a man of 55 is likely still to have him at the age of 65. Statistically, it cannot necessarily be said that a man taken on at the age of 20 is likely to be with that employer when he is 30.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South proposed legislation as the answer. I disagree, but I do not do so lightly or because of some preconceived notion. We carefully studied some 20 countries, and looked particularly at those which have some form of anti-agism legislation. We particularly studied the United States, which has just about the most comprehensive anti-agism package of them all. The United States has approximately the same percentage of unemployed older workers as Britain, so that legislation is not delivering. We took the view of people in those countries with legislation, and their view was that it was not delivering.
  I am not interested in cluttering up the statute book for the sake of it. I want to persuade employers to change their minds and to see the errors of their ways. That is what has informed my "Getting On" campaign. To put it cynically, if the way to convince an employer of the desirability of doing something is by commercial advantage, then all employers should be convinced of the advantages of a mixed-age work force.
  The campaign that I launched so far has consisted of a very successful booklet giving advice to employers—not advice from Ministers, but advice from other employers who have already got mixed-age work forces and who have found solid business benefits from them. They have them not because they are a nice thing to have but because they
  818
  bring them solid benefits: customer satisfaction, productivity, the use of experience. That is what the first part of the campaign was about.
  Mr. Wicks: I agree with the Minister and my hon. Friend—he is my friend—the Member for Croydon, South, (Mr. Ottaway) but I disagree with her about legislation. Inevitably, the state has an interest; despite the Minister's campaign, economic activity rates, especially among male older workers, are in decline. If, because of so-called downsizing, people are retiring or being made redundant—there is a fine balance between the two—in their early 50s, they may be retired people for a third of their lives. That in turn has major implications for state expenditure.
  Perhaps the Minister should therefore think again about the implications for legislation.
  Miss Widdecombe: Indeed the state does have an interest, and, as I was saying, the British economy too has an interest in using the talents and experience of older workers. So far, we can agree.
  The hon. Gentleman is a little ungenerous to say, however, that my campaign has not worked. He should spare me a little; I launched it in 1993, and we are not even halfway through 1995 yet. He will well know that statistics are not precise over that sort of period, but we know that surveys done three years ago were showing 40 per cent. of employers openly practising discrimination, whereas a survey done at the end of last year showed that about three quarters of employers expect to take on older workers in the foreseeable future.
  I do not suggest that there has been a swing of that order of magnitude—the surveys were not done in exactly the same way, or with the same groups—but we can see that employers are becoming seized of the problem and expect to have to change their ways. So a little patience is called for before we start rushing into legislation, which has not worked elsewhere.
  The second stage of my campaign was to give older workers the advice that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay: never give up. It came in one of the Department's best-ever selling booklets, called "Too Old … Who Says?" It is aimed at employees, not employers, giving them advice on what to do.
  The next part of the campaign will be aimed at recruitment agencies, which is where many of the problems start. Advertisements for people to work as recruitment consultants include stringent age bars, so it is not surprising that they work through into employers' recruitment policies.
  Finally, the Government have tried to be our own best example of what we want. We have raised training for work from an upper age limit of 59 to 63. We have scrapped age limits in central civil service recruitment. We have instructed our job centres to resist age bars in advertisements. When they have no choice but to take an advertisement, we have instructed them to send along people outwith the specification as well as those within it. I take every opportunity I have to promote the older worker. It is this sort of campaign which I believe will work. At any rate, we ought to try it, and to do so seriously, before we rush into legislation which may prove to be more decorative than useful.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to privatise the Meteorological Office. [24812]

  Mr. Freeman
  There are no such plans.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to meet Professor Julian Hunt, chief executive of the Meteorological Office to discuss the accuracy of weather forecasts. [24814]

  Mr. Freeman
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence maintains regular contact with the chief executive of the Meteorological Office.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of introducing competition for the Meteorological Office on the quality of weather forecasts. [24813]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Meteorological Office and the private sector have been competing for a number of years for commercial contracts for meteorological services. The competition helps to ensure that the Met Office maintains a very high-quality forecasting service.

  Base Closures
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the MOD bases where closures have been announced in the last five years; and in which parliamentary constituency they are located. [25188]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department does not hold information in the form requested and it could not be provided without disproportionate cost. I would, however, refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) of 3 May,Official Report, columns 234–38. which listed bases sold by my Department since 1990.

  Nuclear Emergencies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the total number of departmental staff and members of the armed services available for mobilisation in the event of a nuclear accident emergency as described at pages 39–40 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates, 1995, Cm. 2800; and what level of training is given to departmental staff on nuclear emergency response. [25263]

  Mr. Soames
  In addition to a small full-time staff in MOD headquarters, the Nuclear Accident Response Organisation could draw on the skills of many hundreds of personnel across the armed forces and the MOD. Their precise number and specialisation would be dependent on the particular circumstances of an accident but it might include medical experts, health physicists,502
  technical/design specialists, radiation monitoring experts, engineering teams and associated logistic and other support staff. In addition to the training given to ensure day-to-day expertise in these functions, appropriate training is also provided to ensure familiarisation with specific procedures relevant to a nuclear accident; the exercises described in the Statement on the Defence Estimates are an essential element in ensuring an effective response organisation.

  Auxiliary Oiler Replenishment Vessels
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he is now in a position to announce the agreed final costs for AORO1 and AORO2; and if he will make a statement. [24868]

  Mr. Freeman
  The total cost to the end of April 1995 to my Department is £154.890 million and £204.701 million, actual prices, for AORO1 and AORO2 respectively. Final costs for both vessels have still to be agreed.

  Princess Alexandra Hospital
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total amount of money spent by his Department on civilians receiving medical treatment at the Princess Alexandra hospital, RAF Wroughton, in each of the last five years. [25598]

  Mr. Soames
  No separate records are maintained of the costs of treating civilian NHS patients at service hospitals. The element of total running costs at the Princess Alexandra RAF hospital, Wroughton, proportionate to the percentage of patients treated on behalf of the NHS in each of the last five years is as follows:

  1990–91: £8,100,000

  1991–92: £6,200,000

  1992–93: £7,600,000

  1993–94: £8,400,000

  1994–95: £8,100,000

  These figures include fixed costs which would in any case have been incurred in the treatment of service patients. In addition, because of changes in budgetary responsibility and accounting procedures during the period, the costs are not entirely comparable year on year.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 15 May,Official Report, column 49, what was the total cost of the damage done to 28 Tornado aircraft based at RAF Coningsby; who will carry out the repairs to the damaged aircraft; when the investigation into the contamination will be concluded; and if he will make a statement on the conclusions of the investigation when he has received it. [25597]

  Mr. Soames
  Necessary work to allow the aircraft to resume normal operations was conducted by service personnel immediately after the contamination was discovered. Once full and careful consideration has been given to the investigation I will write to the hon. Member.

  Tri-service Hospital, Haslar
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated total cost of accommodation at the proposed tri-service hospital at
  503
  Haslar. [25599]

  Mr. Soames
  Existing single accommodation will be made available for the staff of the Royal hospital, Haslar. Although some refurbishment may be necessary, the cost of this work is as yet unquantified. Estimates for the requirement of additional married quarters, which will be met in the short term by hiring property or payment of excess rent allowance, are not yet available, although these costs will be partially offset by savings at current locations.

  Personal Protection Weapons
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the removal of personal protection weapons from soldiers in the Royal Irish Regiment. [25353]

  Mr. Soames
  There has been no change in our policy on soldiers from the Royal Irish Regiment holding personal protection weapons. The requirement for individual soldiers to retain army-issue weapons is kept under review on a case-by-case basis, and there are no plans to institute a general policy of withdrawing such weapons.

TREASURY

  Inflation
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to alter the inflation target. [24876]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The Government's aim is to keep underlying inflation in the range 1 to 4 per cent. and to bring it down into the lower half of this range by the end of the present Parliament. I have no plans to change the objective for that period.

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it remains his policy to keep RPIX inflation below 2.5 per cent. at the end of the current Parliament. [24552]

  Mr. Nelson
  The Government's policy is to keep underlying inflation, as measured by the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments, in the range 1 to 4 per cent, and to bring it down to the lower half of the range by the end of the present Parliament.

  Capital Gains Tax
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for 1995–96 the number of individuals whose gross income and capital gains exceed(a) £70,000, (b) £80,000 and (c) £100,000, in each case specifying the number paying capital gains tax. [25011]
  504
  Sir George Young
  Available information is in terms of taxable income and capital gains. Provisional estimates are given in the table:

  Number of individual taxpayers, excluding trusts, 1995–96

  Taxable income1 and gains2 over:

  Total

  Paying capital gains tax3

  £70,000

  220,000

  19,000

  £80,000

  170,000

  17,000

  £100,000

  110,000

  14,000

  1 Taxable income is defined as gross income for income tax purposes less those allowances and reliefs which are available at the taxpayer's marginal rate.

  2 Taxable gains are chargeable gains net of reliefs and the annual exempt amount.

  3 Figures exclude gains made by companies which are included under corporation tax.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Government intend to publish provisional outturn figures for public expenditure in 1994–95. [25997]

  Mr. Aitken
  The Government propose to replace the annual Cash Limits Outturn White Paper by a comprehensive outturn document covering not just cash limited expenditure but all expenditure within the control total. The aim is to publish the first document in the new early July, a week or so before the normal publication date for the CLOWP. The document will show provisional outturn for 1994–95 for the control total by Department compared with plans, and for individual votes and voted cash limits, non-voted cash limits, external financing limits, and gross and net running costs limits compared with original and final provision.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the figures contained in tables 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 of the public expenditure statistical supplement to the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1995–96 to show the outturn for 1994–95 and estimated outturn for 1995–96. [25193]

  Mr. Aitken
  My answer today to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Banks) described the arrangements for publishing provisional outturn data on public expenditure for 1994–95. For 1995–96, following usual practice, forecast outturn figures will be published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97 for the control total by Department, and in more detail in the statistical supplement to that report.

  Private Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer with what frequency the Inland Revenue performs spot checks on the accounting practices of owners of private nursing homes. [25488]

  Sir George Young
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: All businesses are liable to have their accounts inspected by the Inland Revenue and investigations are carried out where there is reason to believe the accounts may not be correct. Specific figures relating to nursing homes are not compiled.

  Banks (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been granted in tax relief to United Kingdom banks against possible default on third world debts in each of the last 10 years; and what is the rationale for such tax relief. [25373]

  Sir George Young
  Provisions by banks operating in the United Kingdom for doubtful sovereign debt—mostly of third world countries, but which may include relatively small amounts for other countries—are estimated to have reduced corporation tax receipts in the last nine years by the following amounts:

  £ million

  1986–87

  70

  1987–88

  190

  1988–89

  550

  1989–90

  490

  1990–91

  880

  1991–92

  120

  1992–93

  120

  1993–94

  120

  1994–95 (provisional)

  120

  Estimates for earlier years are zero or small.

  Third world debt is a feature of banking and losses on sovereign debt represent real losses arising in the normal course of such business. Losses or potential losses on sovereign debt therefore attract relief in broadly the same way as losses or potential losses on trading debts of other businesses.

  Exporters
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has asked the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England to substantiate the claim of December 1993 that exporters were profiteering by raising prices excessively instead of increasing sales. [25478]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I regularly discuss a wide range of economic issues with both the Governor and Deputy Governor of the Bank of England. Export sales have clearly increased since December 1993, growing by 11 per cent. in 1994, the strongest increase in more than 20 years.

  VAT on Spectacles
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will make a statement on the state of discussions between British ophthalmic physicians and his Department relating to the overpayment of tax under European directives; and how much his Department estimates is owed by the Customs and Excise to British opticians in overpaid tax. [25343]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs and Excise met opticians' representatives on 11 May and discussed the matters arising from the recent High Court decision on the VAT liability of supplies of spectacles. Proposals are awaited from the trade representatives on a number of the issues discussed and these will be considered at a further 506
  meeting planned for mid June. It is difficult to estimate the total amount of tax to be refunded to opticians, because the impact of the High Court decision will vary significantly from business to business; Customs estimate that the figure may be of the order of £250 million including statutory interest.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  South Africa
  Mr. Caborn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will make a statement on the draft negotiating mandate for a new trade regime between the European Union and South Africa; [25610]

  (2) if he will undertake a study into the effect of the proposed free trade area between the European Union and South Africa on the economies of the other member states of the Southern African Customs Union and the Southern African Development Community. [25609]

  Mr. Needham
  The draft negotiating directives presented by the European Commission propose that the EU should respond positively if the South African Government were willing to negotiate a bilateral free trade agreement. The Government believe that such an agreement offers the greatest potential for delivering improvements in access to the EU market for South African products and promoting our long-term trade relations.

  We therefore support the Commission proposal, on the understanding that any free trade agreement negotiated between the EU and South Africa is compatible with World Trade Organisation rules and takes account of South Africa's regional commitments. I believe that this is in line with the recommendation on the future relationship between the EU and South Africa made in the Trade and Industry Select Committee's report on trade with southern Africa published on 27 July 1994. In the process of negotiation, we will urge the European Commission to take into account the possible effects of such an agreement on the economies of South Africa's neighbours and we will also listen carefully to the views of South Africa's partners in the Southern African Customs Union and the Southern African Development Community.

  Balance of Trade
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what has been the balance of trade in oil in 1994 prices for each year since 1978; [25191]

  (2) what has been the balance of trade in manufactured goods in 1994 prices for each year since 1978. [25190]

  Mr. Needham
  The information is published for 1994 by the Central Statistical Office in the "Monthly Review of External Trade Statistics", available in the Library of the House. The information is not available in 1994 prices for other years, although data at 1990 prices is available from the CSO's central shared database, also in the Library of the House.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Trading Standards Services, Cleveland
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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 trading standards services in Cleveland after the division of those services among four unitary authorities as a result of local government reorganisation. [25215]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) on 17 May,Official Report, column 283. The same considerations apply in Cleveland as in Berkshire.

  Animal Health and Veterinary Group
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now publish the Lebrecht report. [24955]

  Mrs. Browning
  This report on an internal management review of the functions and organisation of the Ministry's animal health and veterinary group was not written with publication in mind and is not suitable for publication. My right hon. Friend did, however, issue a consultation document last October setting out the basis for his provisional conclusions following the review and took the many comments received into account in reaching the decisions that he announced in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on 4 May.

  Fisheries
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why Irish vessels currently enjoy fishing rights off Spitzbergen. [25383]

  Mr. Jack
  For 1995 the European Union has a cod quota of 24,220 tonnes at Spitzbergen and Bear island. In accordance with the traditional allocation key, Council Regulation 3362/94 divides this between the member states as follows:

  Tonnes

  France

  2,130

  Germany

  4,820

  Portugal

  2,390

  Spain

  11,500

  United Kingdom

  3,130

  Other member states except France, Germany, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom, Finland and Sweden

  250

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what red fish quotas were offered in Iceland waters in 1994 and 1995 to(a) Britain and (b) Germany; which British firms were offered catches there by his Ministry; and whether they took up the offer. [25384]

  Mr. Jack
  Germany and the United Kingdom were allocated quotas for respectively 1690 tonnes and 1160 tonnes of red fish in Icelandic waters for both 1994 and 1995. The Fish Producers Organisation of Grimsby was offered the UK quota for 1994 but did not take up the 508
  opportunity. For 1995 the United Kingdom quota has not yet been allocated; it is not available before 1 July each year.

  Regional Service Survey
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the results of the recent survey of satisfaction with the levels of service his Department's regional organisation provides for the farming public. [26098]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In accordance with the principles of the citizens charter, a survey of customers of the MAFF regional service centre was carried out by a firm of independent consultants in early 1995. The overall results are very positive and show that nearly nine in 10 customers felt their MAFF centre had done a good, very good or excellent job in dealing with their most recent scheme or licence application. We will be considering carefully what can be done to address those areas where our customers feel that there is scope for improvement in our performance.

  I have placed copies of the consultants' report in the Library of the House.

  Baby Milk
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations she has had with community nurses, health visitors, midwives and other professionally involved groups concerning the effect of banning the advertising of baby milk within national health service premises on levels of breast feeding commencement; and if she will make a statement. [25605]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) on 14 March 1995, Official Report, columns 550–51.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, what information he has on which European Union member states permit the advertising of baby milk(a) in generally available media and (b) health-specific premises on what dates changes in permission for either category of advertising was amended in either direction what subsequent changes occurred in breast feeding commencement levels; and if she will make a statement. [25604]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: I have no such information; there is no requirement on member states to supply it to one another.

  Spanish Veterinary Inspections
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 24 April,Official Report, column 379, how many vets are employed by the Spanish authorities; how many of these have undertaken spot checks of sheep being imported into Spain; how many spot checks were undertaken by the Spanish authorities in the last year for which figures are available; and what assessment he has made as to the extent to which the welfare of British sheep exported to Spain is adequately provided for. [21851]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: The level of spot checking and the resources devoted to it are matters for the Spanish authorities. We maintain contact

  509
  with them, and understand from them that they are satisfied on the basis of their checks that the animals' welfare is satisfactorily protected.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inspections of live animals for export were made by Ministry vets at(a) Shoreham and (b) Brightlingsea, since 1 January. [24736]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 18 May 1995]: Between 1 January and 12 May there were 60 sailings from Shoreham carrying animals for slaughter or for further fattening and 70 from Brightlingsea. Veterinary inspectors were present at the ports for each sailing, when visual checks were made of the animals on board lorries and export paperwork checked. Veterinary inspection of animals for fitness to travel is carried out at point of departure, not at the port.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) calves and (b) sheep arriving at (i) Shoreham and (ii) Plymouth, in the period between 1 November 1994 and 30 April 1995 were (1) dead on arrival, (2) judged to be unfit to travel and (3) destroyed because of injury or disease; and if he will make a statement. [24735]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 16 May 1995]: The figures for the period specified are as follows:

  Number of animals

  Dead on arrival

  Unfit to travwel

  Destroyed

  Port

  calves

  sheep

  calves

  sheep

  calves

  sheep

  Shoreham

  none

  1

  1

  2

  none

  none

  Plymouth

  none

  none

  none

  none

  none

  none

PRIME MINISTER

  North-West Kent
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit north-west Kent. [23845]

  The Prime Minister
  Although I have no current plans to do so, I hope such a visit will be possible in the near future.

  Scotland
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Scotland. [23846]

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May 1995. [24304]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 May. [24304]

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

  Intelligence and Security Committee
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has yet received a report from the Intelligence and Security Committee on the discharge of its functions under the Intelligence Services Act 1994. [25998]

  The Prime Minister
  I can confirm that I have recently received an interim report from the Intelligence and Security Committee, setting out the broad pattern of its work to date and outlining some of its future priorities for inquiry. I do not consider that the report contains any matter whose publication would be prejudicial to the continued discharge of the functions of the Secret Intelligence Service, Security Service or Government Communications Headquarters, and I have therefore today placed copies of it, as submitted by the Committee, in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Nolan Committee
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will seek to extend the recommendations of the Nolan Committee concerning the conduct of Ministers and officials to include the Governor of the Bank of England and all senior members of his staff. [25379]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no plans to do so.

  Antanas Gecas
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Prime Minister for what period Antanas Gecas was employed by British intelligence. [25622]

  The Prime Minister
  It remains the Government's policy not to provide information on the operations at the security and intelligence agencies.

  Majority Shareholdings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Prime Minister 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. [25722]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: None.

  Bank of England
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister if the statement of Government policy set out in paragraph 5 of the Bank of England press release of the text of the Deputy Governor's speech to the City branch of the Institute of Directors on 13 December was authorised by him. [25683]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 29 March 1995 Official Report, column 640.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Recycling
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to introduce recycling programmes as part of the work of the Overseas Development Administration. [24991]
  511
  Mr. Baldry
  We are ready to consider support to recycling programmes whenever invited to do so by partner countries. We are, for example, discussing recycling as part of current environmental management projects in India and Egypt.

  Micro-enterprise Development
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with regard to the Grameen trust's training programme application for support. [25090]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: We are keen supporters of micro-enterprise development. We have advised the Garmeen trust that the managers of our micro-enterprise projects in recipient countries will seek to identify suitable opportunities for project beneficiaries to use the trust's training facilities.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the amount donated by the Overseas Development Administration department for primary health care in Bangladesh, excluding family planning provision, for the last year in which figures are available. [25309]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: Our expenditure on primary health care projects in Bangladesh in 1993–94 was £2.55 million.

  Aid and Trade Programme
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the total expenditure on the aid and trade programme in each of the last five years; and which British companies have won contracts under this programme. [24884]

  Mr. Baldry
  The final outturn of expenditure for ATP in 1994–95 is not yet available.

  Expenditure for ATP for each of the previous five years was:

  Financial year

  ATP actual expenditure £ million

  1989–90

  61.671

  1990–91

  94.424

  1991–92

  101.183

  1992–93

  93.019

  1993–94

  84.687

  For lists of which British companies have won contracts under the ATP in the last five years I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) Official Report, 16 May, column 121, covering 1993–95 and, for the years 1991–1992, to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 23 November 1994 at column 199.

  Population Control
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what action the Overseas Development Administration takes to ensure that money donated by Her Majesty's Government for family 512
  planning purposes is not used as part of a coercive family planning programme or to free resources in recipient countries for such programmes; [25313]

  (2) what legal provisions govern the funding of coercive population programmes overseas; and what plans he has to promote legislation banning such funding. [25316]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: Bilateral programmes are designed and monitored to ensure that they promote reproductive choice on an entirely voluntary and informed basis. We ensure that organisations to which we give funds for reproductive health activities operate similar policies and approaches. We do not believe that it is necessary to introduce legislation to ensure that aid funds for reproductive health programmes are used effectively and in accordance with our policies.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Overseas Development Administration's policy on the provision of financial, personal or community incentives to encourage contraceptive use in developing countries. [25312]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: We believe that decisions by couples and individuals about the use of particular methods of contraception should be made on an entirely voluntary and informed basis and that the use of incentives which are likely to prejudice this principle should be discouraged.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the officials from the Overseas Development Administration who sit on any board, committee, or regular meeting of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the UN Family Planning Association. [25299]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: The British Government have a seat on the executive board of the United Nations development programme, which is also the governing body of the United Nations fund for population activities. Part of each board meeting is devoted to UNFPA business. The United Kingdom is invited to the annual donors meeting of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. In both cases meetings are attended by officials from the Overseas Development Administration's health and population division.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits officials from his Department have made to China to assess the Chinese population control programme or the work of the Chinese Family Planning Association or the UN fund for population activities in China; and what reports exist on such visits. [25303]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: Officials from the British embassy in Peking have regular meetings with the relevant Chinese authorities to discuss a range of issues, including China's population policies.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to which countries the Overseas Development Administration donates money, directly or via a non-governmental organisation, where overseas aid is tied to acceptance of family planning programmes; and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on tying overseas aid to acceptance of family planning programmes. [25311]
  513
  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: None. We do not support making the provision of overseas aid conditional on the implementation of family planning programmes.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what considerations underlie the policy of donating funds from the Overseas Development Administration budget to the core funds of the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the UN Family Planning Association rather than to specific earmarked projects undertaken by those organisations; [25298]

  (2) if he will list those organisations involved in family planning projects to which the Overseas Development Administration makes donations to their core funds, together with the amount donated for the last year for which figures are available. [25306]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: The United Nations Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation have the capacity to allocate and spend their resources in an effective manner. Together with other Governments we set policy for UNFPA and provide guidance for IPPF on the use of resources. Her Majesty's Government representatives seek to ensure that funds are used in ways which are fully in line with British aid policy and priority objectives. On this basis, we and other Governments provide the large majority of funds without earmarking. The efficiency and effectiveness of both organisations would be impeded if the United Kingdom and other donors earmarked their contributions for specific activities.

  In 1994 we gave £7.5 million to the general funds of IPPF and £8.5 million to those of UNFPA.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will place in the Library all reports submitted to the Overseas Development Administration since 1989 by the International Planned Parenthood Federation on population policies in China. [25317]

  (2) what written statements by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the UN Family Planning Association or the Chinese Family Planning Association condemning or disassociating themselves from any instance of coercive population control in China are held on the files of his Department; and if he will list in each case the instance condemned and the date of the document. [25301]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: The latest annual report from the International Planned Parenthood Federation covering its worldwide operations, together with a sample of statements, by both the United Nations Population Fund and the IPPF, opposing coercion, have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on links between the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the British eugenics movement and the Gaton Institute. [25300]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: We understand from the International Planned Parenthood Federation that some individual members at its founding in 1952 may have had links with the eugenics movement. However, eugenics views have never influenced IPPF's policies or programmes. IPPF makes it an unequivocal condition for membership that each autonomous family
  514
  planning association commits itself to fight all discrimination and coercion based on social or economic status, gender, race, colour, creed or political beliefs.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what definition the Overseas Development Administration uses of what constitutes coercive population control; and in which countries such practices have been identified. [25307]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: Population activities would be considered coercive if they sought to infringe the basic right of couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly the number and spacing of their children. Population programes funded by the Overseas Development Administration safeguard and promote this right and facilitate the exercise of such a right by individuals. The Overseas Development Administration does not hold authoritative information on instances of coercion in overseas countries.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the numbers of volunteers provided by the Chinese Family Planning Association to assist in family planning initiatives in China; what assessment he had made of the level of independence of the Chinese Family Planning Association from the central Chinese Government; what information he has on the role played by the Chinese Family Planning Association in recent Chinese "population high tides"; what information he has on the liaison between the Chinese Family Planning Association and the International Planned Parenthood Federation; and what documentation the Overseas Development Administration has received arising from such liaison. [25310]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: The China Family Planning Association is a member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. We understand that there are some 75 million volunteers in CFPA, including many doctors and nurses, who assist with counselling and providing information on family planning. The CFPA does not provide clinical services.

  The CFPA is a non-profit, non-governmental organisation, governed by a board of volunteers drawn from all sections of national society. The CFPA has been appointed by the Chinese Government to monitor the national family planning programme and help to ensure that coercion does not take place in the programme. The IPPF provides information on the activities of CFPA as and when required.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessments his Department has made for the unmet need for family planning overseas; and on what assumptions such assessments are made. [25308]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: We use estimates of unmet demand for family planning prepared by the United Nations Population Fund and other organisations with expertise in this area. Such estimates are based on demographic and health survey data collected from individual countries. These surveys collect information about couples using family planning and about couples who do not, but who express a desire to limit their family size. Where necessary, we also undertake our own small-scale studies to assess specific reproductive health needs.

  Child Mortality Rates
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional bilateral aid will be provided to meet the goals set at the 1990 world summit for children, to reduce(a) infant mortality rates and (b) under-five mortality rates, by one third by 2000. [25089]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: We are increasing our support for reproductive health programmes, which will enable children and women to enjoy better health through improved child spacing, safer childbirth, and improved access to other essential health care. We expect to commit, over the years 1994 and 1995, at least £100 million for these purposes and in support of other reproductive health goals.

HEALTH

  Nursing Services
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make a statement on the change in episodes in(a) health visiting, (b) community nursing services, (c) district nursing, (d) community mental handicap nursing and (e) occupational therapy between 1988–89 and 1992–93. [21743]

  Mr. Sackville
  The information available is set out in the table.

  New episodes of care

  1988–89 (000's)

  1992–93 (000's)

  Community psychiatric nursing

  229.7

  303.4

  Community mental handicap nursing

  21.2

  20.5

  District nursing

  2,383.2

  2,152.5

  Occupational therapy1

  774.1

  879.4

  1Figures for occupational therapy are provisional.

  New episodes of care have increased by 32.1 per cent, in community psychiatric nursing and by 13.6 per cent. in occupational therapy. Numbers of new episodes in community mental handicap nursing have remained virtually constant over the period 1988–89 to 1992–93.

  The number of new episodes has reduced by 9.7 per cent. in district nursing. This may reflect the increasingly complex treatment they provide, requiring a longer time to be spent with each patient, and also their role as team leaders. Simpler treatments often administered by district nurses in the past may now increasingly be provided by other members of the care team or through self-medication by patients, enabling district nurses to devote more time to individual patients who require their specialist skills.

  Information on episodes of care for health visitors is not held centrally.

  Surgeons (Suspension)
  Mr. Cann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many surgeons suspended on full pay by NHS hospital trusts have later been(a) dismissed and (b) reinstated; and how many cases await a decision on the surgeon's future; [24729]
  516
  (2) how many surgeons have been suspended on full pay because of concern about their professional competence by NHS hospital trusts since their inception; [24728]

  (3) what discussions she has had with the General Medical Council on the employment of suspended surgeons in hospitals, other than those in respect of which they were suspended; and what further discussions she plans to have; [24726]

  (4) what advice her Department gives to NHS hospital trusts about the employment of surgeons who have been suspended by other NHS hospital trusts. [24727]

  Mr. Malone
  The General Medical Council, an independent statutory body, is responsible for protecting the public by regulating the medical profession. Its professional conduct committee may attach conditions to a doctor's registration, or suspend or remove a doctor from the register, if the doctor is found guilty of serious professional misconduct. The committee may immediately suspend a doctor, notwithstanding that he may appeal. In exceptional circumstances, interim suspension for two months may be imposed pending a hearing by the professional conduct committee. A doctor whose name is suspended or erased cannot practise in the national health service.

  The GMC's powers are being widened. We have introduced the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill this Session, based on proposals by the GMC, to allow it to take action in cases of seriously deficient professional performance by doctors. This action may include suspension of registration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will meet the new president of the GMC, when he is elected, to discuss these and other matters.

  A doctor suspended by a NHS trust needs the trust's permission to work elsewhere. We would expect the trust to consider carefully the circumstances in which the doctor was suspended before agreeing to any other employment. Working without permission is a breach of contract. All NHS trusts should obtain references from previous employers as part of their duty to ensure that the competence and integrity of a doctor is not in doubt.

  A decision to disqualify a general practitioner is made by the NHS tribunal. We have supported the Bill introduced this Session by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker)—the NHS (Amendment) Bill—which will enable the tribunal to protect patients by suspending a GP before a full hearing takes place.

  Guidance on doctors' registration and employment was issued in EL(92)84, copies of which are available in the Library. Figures on the number of suspensions by NHS trusts are not available centrally.

  London Health Services Report
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response she has made to the report on London health services prepared by the Greater London Association of Community Health Councils for London Members of Parliament, dated 10 May, a copy of which has been sent to her. [24739]

  Mr. Malone
  No formal response has been made. However, the report on admissions times which monitors the progress of hospitals towards the new patients charter standard, launched in January 1995 is welcomed. From April 1995, all patients should be given a bed within three to four hours. The community health council figures show
  517
  that progress has been made and it is encouraging to note the relatively small numbers outside the target last year before management attention was focused on this important issue.

  Northern Birmingham Mental Health Trust
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when a negotiating body was formed by Northern Birmingham Mental Health trust to deal with pay and other trade union related matters. [24777]

  Mr. Malone
  This is a matter for the trust. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman, Mrs. Judith Mackay, for details.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) letters and (b) other representations she has received in the current year concerning the need to compensate those people who are infected by the hepatitis C virus from contaminated blood; and if she will make a statement. [24946]

  Mr. Sackville
  Representations about payments include four parliamentary questions, a short debate in the House of Lords and three early-day motions. In addition, Ministers have received 196 letters.

  Bull Bars
  Sir Nicholas Scott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many admissions to hospital in(a) the London area and (b) nationally have to a significant extent been due to accidents involving bull bars on road vehicles in the latest available year. [25262]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not available centrally.

  Abortions
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many abortions involving admission and discharge the same day were performed on women resident in each district health authority and in each regional health authority in England and Wales in 1993; and how many of these operations were performed in NHS hospitals. [25047]

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

  Medical and Dental Education
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to introduce the model of the Scottish Council for Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education for the delivery of postgraduate medical and dental education in England; and if she will make a statement. [25048]

  Mr. Malone
  None. The national health service executive is considering the future arrangements for postgraduate medical and dental education in England and a document entitled "Options for the Future Management of Postgraduate Medical and Dental Education" was issued for consultation on 27 March 1995, copies of which are available in the Library. Responses to the document are being considered.
  518
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the NHS has to support medical undergraduates' education. [26202]

  Mr. Malone
  I have placed in the Library a copy of the report, "SIFT into the Future", from an advisory group on future arrangements for the service increment for teaching—SIFT—chaired by Dr. Graham Winyard, health care director of the national health service executive.

  I welcome the direction of change proposed by the advisory group. The report recommends development in the way we meet the additional NHS costs to hospitals, community trusts and general practitioners associated with teaching medical undergraduates. Payments will be based progressively on the demonstrated costs of clinical placements and of facilities to support teaching, within a sound framework of responsibilities, relationships and accountability. The report has been welcomed by the steering group on undergraduate medical and dental education and research.

  I am sending copies of the report to health authorities, family health services authorities, trusts, universities and other interested bodies, seeking views on the detailed recommendations and on plans for implementation.

  Comments are also sought on separate proposals for changes in the service increment for teaching dental students, which follow from the recommendations of the dental hospital subgroup of SGUMDER. I have placed in the Library a copy of the consultation paper about the proposals for change.

  Subject to consultation and to detailed development work, changes will take effect from 1 April 1996.

  London Initiative Zone, Newham
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 16 May,Official Report, column 166 how much of the amount allocated has been spent in (a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96 on each scheme funded through the LIZ initiative in Newham listed in her answer. [25214]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table:

  Capital spend £

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Newham

  Essex Lodge (primary care centre)

  22,373

  40,439

  Shrewsbury Road

  217,000

  432,000

  Improvement grants to GP premises

  283,472

  97,373

  Star Lane (primary care center)

  470,128

  130,533

  Stratford Corridor (primary care centre)

  304,132

  188

  Cyprus Dock (resource centre)

  192,000

  138,495

  Notes:

  1. Figures for 1995–96 schemes are not yet available.

  2. Some 1994–95 projects have been carried over into the 1995–96 financial year. These are 533 Barking road, 1 Kennard street, Newham GP Forum and security improvements to GP surgeries.

  Thalidomide Trust
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures she has considered in response to the 1994 report of the Thalidomide Trust National Advisory Council, with particular reference to the actuarial projections on the life of the trust. [24972]
  519
  Mr. Sackville
  The Government have not been asked to respond to this report. Representations have, however, been made by Thalidomide disabled people that the moneys held by the Thalidomide Trust are insufficient to meet their needs, and the Government have brought these concerns to the attention of the trust. The Government welcome the further financial help promised by Guinness plc to secure the future of the Thalidomide Trust and underpin the beneficiaries' needs, but have made it clear that adequacy of the settlement with Distillers—now Guinness—is not a matter in which the Government can intervene.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the number and percentage of the population(a) across the United Kingdom, (b) in the north-west and (c) in Lancashire which have dental treatment outside the NHS for each year since 1979. [25152]

  Mr. Malone
  Information about the number and percentage of the population who have dental treatment outside the national health service is not available centrally.

  New Hospitals, London
  Mr Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will list the number of new hospitals which have opened in central London in the last 10 years, together with their numbers of beds. [25136]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact Sir William Staveley and Mr. William Wells, chairmen of North Thames and South Thames regional health authorities respectively, for details.

  Contraception
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost of(a) the registered morning-after pill and (b) the equivalent oral contraceptive; and if she will make a statement. [25046]

  Mr. Sackville
  Schering PC4 is the only product marketed in the United Kingdom for use as a morning-after pill. The cost of a pack of four tablets is £1.40. Oral contraceptives range in price from 37p to £2.77 per cycle, but none is licensed for post-coital use.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps her Department is taking to inform(a) people of Afro-Caribbean origin, (b) diabetics and (c) individuals aged over 40 years with a family history of glaucoma of the increased risks that they face of developing glaucoma; [25029]

  (2) what steps her Department is taking to inform blood relatives of glaucoma sufferers of the availability of free glaucoma checks after they reach the age of 40 years. [25030]

  Mr. Sackville
  All close relatives aged 40 and over— parents, brothers and sisters, and children—of diagnosed glaucoma sufferers are entitled to free national health service sight tests. All optometrists are required to display in their practices a notice advising of the services available under the general ophthalmic services.520
  Information about glaucoma, and the groups most at risk from it, is also available from the International Glaucoma Association. It would not be appropriate to disclose information about a person's health to third parties.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statistical evidence she has on whether improvements in the early detection of glaucoma have occurred in the last five years. [25031]

  Mr. Sackville
  There is no centrally collected statistical data on prevalence of glaucoma.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps her Department is taking to ensure that uneven standards in testing for glaucoma are minimised. [25032]

  Mr. Sackville
  Screening for diseases of the eye, of which glaucoma is one, is part of the routine sight test procedure carried out by optometrists and ophthalmic medical practitioners. We have no evidence which would lead us to believe that standards of sight testing are uneven.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration her Department has given to widening the availability of free eye tests to all groups that face a significantly higher than average risk of developing glaucoma. [25036]

  Mr. Malone
  Close relatives—parents, children, brothers and sisters—aged 40 or over of diagnosed glaucoma sufferers are already eligible for free sight tests. We have no plans to alter these categories.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Serious Fraud Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Attorney-General how much was paid to leading counsel for the Serious Fraud Office in the prosecution against Roger Levitt; and how much was paid to the counsel team prosecuting in the Barlow Clowes case. [25780]

  The Attorney-General
  Leading counsel for the prosecution in the Roger Levitt case acted for the Serious Fraud Office from January 1991 to December 1993 and was paid a total of £137,405 in fees.

  Over the period 1988 to 1993, covering preparation, trial, and appeal, a total of nine counsel were instructed at different times as part of the prosecution team in the Barlow Clowes case. Five of those nine either were Queen's Counsel or were appointed queen's counsel during the course of the case. The total paid to the team in fees was £1,109,261.80.

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

ENVIRONMENT

  Industrial Waste
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what new steps he is taking to maximise the recycling of industrial waste materials; [24987]
  521
  (2) what plans he has to encourage the minimisation of industrial waste. [24989]

  Mr. Atkins
  The "Waste Strategy for England and Wales", a consultation draft published in January 1995, sets out the steps the Government are taking to minimise the production of and maximise the recycling of industrial waste materials. A copy is in the Library.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of industrial waste is recycled. [24988]

  Mr. Atkins
  The "Waste Strategy for England and Wales", a consultation draft published in January 1995, includes an estimate that approximately 18 per cent. of industrial waste in the UK is recycled or re-used—table 1.2, page 6. A copy is in the Library.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next expects to meet representatives from local authorities to discuss waste minimisation and recycling issues. [24990]

  Mr. Atkins
  Representatives from local authorities have regular meetings with the Department to discuss a wide range of waste related issues, including proposals set out in the draft "Waste Strategy for England and Wales".

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the additional administrative staff who will be required by the four unitary authorities created as a result of local government reorganisation in Cleveland. [25219]

  Mr. Curry
  Staffing structures are a matter for the newly elected councils.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about both the transitional and continuing administrative costs of the reorganisation in Cleveland; and what was the outcome of those consultations. [25218]

  Mr. Curry
  Government decisions are collective. The Cleveland (Structural Change) Order 1995, which implements reorganisation in Cleveland, was made on 30 January.

  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the views he has received from the business community in the Teesside area, prior to and since the decision to divide the Teesside conurbation among three unitary authorities. [25224]

  Mr. Curry
  Following publication of the Local Government Commission's final recommendations for Cleveland, we received representations from the local business community both in support of and opposing the commission's proposals. We took these into account, together with other representations, when we decided to put the Cleveland (Structural Change) Order 1995 before the House.

  European Regional Development Fund
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment at what stage is Teesside airport's bid to gain the funding from the ERDF; and what guidelines he proposes to issue in respect of future bids by airports for funds from the ERDF. [24979]
  522
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The application from Teesside airport for ERDF grant is being considered alongside other bids which have been submitted under the north-east objective 2 structural funds programme for funding. There are no proposals to issue guidelines in respect of future bids by airports for funds from ERDF.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made to the European Commission to reconsider the priority that airports have within the European regional development fund. [24976]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  None.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what(a) European and (b) national alternatives there are for bidders who fail to gain funds for capital projects from the European regional development fund through overbidding. [24978]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Competitive bidding for resources available under the structural funds programme plays a major part in ensuring good value for money. Bids for European regional development fund grants have generally exceeded the resources available under current programmes. This has helped to ensure that grant has been made only to those projects which best met the aims and objectives of each programme. Bids which fail to gain ERDF funding may be eligible to receive resources available under other European or national programmes. However, this will depend very much on the activity concerned and whether this is eligible for support under a particular programme.

  Staff
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many posts were lost in(a) the Department of the Environment and (b) agencies for which the Department of the Environment 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. [25076]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The numbers of staff employed by my Department and each of its executive agencies in 1993–94 and 1994–95, and plans for 1995–96, are published in my Department's annual report, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. This shows the reduction of posts between years.

  Pollution
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by volume, and rivers affected, the annual discharges from abandoned mines and tips in the Yorkshire National Rivers Authority area. [24909]

  Mr. Atkins
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: The information requested, so far as it is available, has been provided by the National Rivers Authority and is as follows:
  523

  Discharges from abandoned mines and tips in the southern Yorkshire NRA area

  Location

  Type

  Receiving river

  Volume of Minewater (M3/day)

  Clayton West

  AM

  Dearne Tributary

  1,360

  Silkstone

  AM

  Banks Bottom Dyke

  not known

  Flockton

  AM

  Flockton Beck Tributary

  not known

  Flockton

  TL

  Flockton Beck Tributary

  not known

  Dodworth

  TL

  Silkstone Beck Tributary

  not known

  Wath on Dearne

  CL

  Groundwater

  not known

  Killamarsh

  TL

  Park Brook

  not known

  Upstream of Silkstone Sewage Treatment Works

  AM

  Silkstone Beck

  not known

  Wooley

  PM

  Dearne

  17,000

  Sheffield

  CL

  Rother

  not known

  Chesterfield

  CL

  Rother

  not known

  North Doncaster

  TL

  Swan Sike Drain

  not known

  A1 North of Doncaster

  TL

  Groundwater

  not known

  Castleford

  CL

  Carr Beck

  not known

  Thornton

  AM

  Pitty Beck

  not known

  Todmorden

  AM

  Mitgelde Brook/Calder

  1,000

  Todmorden

  AM

  Beater Clough/Calder

  500

  Holmfirth

  AM

  Calder

  1,000

  Chesterfield

  AM

  Hipper

  60

  Dronfield

  AM

  Barlow Brook

  1,100

  Dronfield

  AM

  Drone

  1,100

  Dronfield

  AM

  Drone

  45

  Dronfield

  AM

  Drone

  1,100

  Dronfield

  AM

  Drone

  25

  Chesterfield

  AM

  Whitting

  110

  Chesterfield

  AM

  County Dike

  45

  Chesterfield

  AM

  Drone Tributary

  50

  Chesterfield

  AM

  Rother

  100

  Chesterfield

  AM

  Hipper

  50

  Chesterfield

  AM

  Rother

  40

  Chesterfield

  AM

  Redlead Mill Brook

  50

  Chesterfield

  AM

  Whitting

  50

  Penistone

  AM

  Don

  2,900

  Stocksbridge

  AM

  Little Don

  1,000

  HMIP prosecutions 1992–1993 (1 April-31 March)

  Division

  Name

  Act

  Offence

  Date of hearing

  Verdict

  Fine

  Cost

  West

  Bloxham Laboratories

  HSW 1974

  Failure to comply with conditions of registration to ensure supervision of the competent use of radioactive material.

  28 April 1992

  G

  £750

  £500

  East

  Harrow Health Authority

  HSW 1974

  Failure to use the best practicable means in operating incineration plant.

  5 May 1992

  G

  £1,000

  £3,468.75

  East

  Esselte Letraset

  RSA 1960

  Failure to comply with condition of registration to prevent unauthorised access to a radioactive source.

  29 June 1992

  G

  £100

  £1,000

  East

  Foster Yeoman

  1906 alkali

  Operating without a certificate of registration.

  2 July 1992

  G

  £3,000

  £2,000

  East

  White Mountain Roadstone

  HSW 1974

  Failure to use the best practicable means in operating roadstone coating plant.

  9 July 1992

  G

  £500

  £1,000

  524

  Discharges from abandoned mines and tips in the southern Yorkshire NRA area

  Location

  Type

  Receiving river

  Volume of Minewater (M3/day)

  Sheffield

  AM

  Don

  500

  Stocksbridge

  AM

  Don

  200

  Sheffield

  AM

  Don

  200

  Sheffield

  AM

  Loxley

  100

  Notes:

  Type of discharge.

  AM Abandoned Minewater.

  TL Tip Leachate.

  CL Contaminated Land.

  PM Pumped Minewater.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many court actions were taken in each of the last three years by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution; what were the gross and net legal costs of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in each of the past three years; how many of the court actions taken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in each of the last three years resulted in prosecution and fines; and what were the total fines imposed by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in respect of pollution incidents in each of the past three years. [25778]

  Mr. Atkins
  The tables give details of the court actions taken by Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution in each of the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95. Fines imposed by the courts and details of costs are also included. All this information is available in HMIP's annual reports, the latest one of which, for the year 1994–95, is due for publication on 21 July. When considering what level of enforcement action to take, HMIP considers not only the environmental consequences and operator culpability, but whether it will be sufficient to ensure that remedial action to prevent a recurrence is carried out. Prosecution is not the only solution in every case, as HMIP endeavours to make the level of enforcement action proportionate to the offence. Enforcement may take the form of a letter of admonishment, an enforcement notice, a prohibition notice, prosecution or even revocation of the authorisation.
  525

  HMIP prosecutions 1992–1993 (1 April-31 March)

  Division

  Name

  Act

  Offence

  Date of hearing

  Verdict

  Fine

  Cost

  North

  Gath Drums (Shipley) Ltd.

  HSW 1974

  Failure to comply with two improvement notices.

  26 August 1992

  G

  Conditional discharge

  £3,905

  West

  Xidex (UK) Ltd.

  RSA 1960

  Breach of conditions relating to storage of radioactive material.

  7 September 1992

  G

  £6,000

  £5,000

  West

  British Coal

  RSA 1960

  Breach of conditions relating to storage of radioactive material.

  12 October 1992

  G

  £20,000

  £6,410

  North

  Pozzolanic Lytag Ltd.

  HSW 1974

  Failure to use best practicable means to prevent emissions of noxious or offensive substances into the atmosphere.

  21 October 1992

  G

  £3,500

  £3,500

  West

  British Steel

  HSW 1974

  Failure to use best practicable means to prevent emission of noxious or offensive substances.

  26 October 1992

  G

  £2,000

  £19,000

  West

  Rhone-Poulenc

  HSW 1974

  Failure to use the best practicable means to prevent emission of sulphur dioxide from their sulphuric acid plant.

  16 November 1992

  G

  £10,000

  £4,048

  West

  West Midlands Regional Health Authority

  RSA 1960

  Breaching 17 offences under Section 13(1)(c)of the RSA.

  18 December 1992

  G

  £51,000

  £8,000

  East

  Knauf UK

  HSW 1974

  Failure to use BPM to prevent unfiltered processed gypsum from escaping into the atmosphere.

  26 January 1993

  G

  £1,500

  £3,270

  West

  Brookridge Timber Ltd

  EPA 1990

  First HMIP prosecution under EPA 1990. Breach of Section 6(1) and section 23(1)—using a toxic substance without authorisation.

  16 March 1993

  G

  £1,650

  £3,000

  Summary detail:

  Total prosecutions: 14.

  Total fines: £101,000.

  Total costs: £64,101.75.

  HMIP Prosecutions 1993–1994 (1 April–31 March)

  Region

  Name

  Act

  Offence

  Date of hearing

  Verdict

  Fine

  Cost

  Anglian

  Nichols Institute Diagnostics

  RSA 1960

  Breach of conditions relating to accumulation of radioactive waste without authorisation.

  6 April 1993

  G

  £10,000

  £2,726

  Southern and HMNII

  UK Atomic Energy Authority

  RSA 1960

  Failure to use BPM to limit the activity of radioactive waste released and to make a record of the means employed.

  16 April 1993

  G

  £5,000

  N/A

  Wales

  Evans Group Ltd.

  Alkali Act 1906 and HSW 74

  Failure to apply for registration for crushing equipment operated on site and failure to apply BPM to prevent emissions into the atmosphere.

  17 May 1993

  G

  £6,000

  £5,000

  Anglian

  Plessey GEC Semiconductors Ltd.

  RSA 1960

  Holding a radioactive source without a certificate of registration.

  17 May 1993

  G

  £1,000

  £2,261

  Anglian

  Essex University

  RSA 1960

  Exceeding their authorised limit for the incineration of radioactive waste.

  21 May 1993

  G

  £800

  £2,651

  North West

  North West Aggregates Ltd.

  HSW 1974

  Failure to use BPM to prevent the release of offensive and noxious fumes.

  7 January 1994

  G

  £8,000

  £11,000

  Wales

  Glan Clwyd District Hospital NHS Trust

  RSA 1960

  Unauthorised disposal of radioactive waste.

  9 February 1994

  G

  £5,500

  £1,775

  526 527

  HMIP Prosecutions 1993–1994 (1 April–31 March)

  Region

  Name

  Act

  Offence

  Date of hearing

  Verdict

  Fine

  Cost

  Southern

  National Power Littlebrook "D" Power Station

  EPA 1990

  Two offences involving discharges of oil to the River Thames.

  16 February 1994

  G

  £7,500

  £13,248

  South West

  ICI Nitram Plant, Severnside, Bristol

  HSW 1974

  Failure to use BPM to prevent discharge of ammonia to atmosphere.

  18 February 1994

  G

  £2,000

  £9,195.18

  Summary Detail:

  Total prosecutions: 9

  Total fines: £45,800

  Total costs: £47,856

  HMIP prosecutions 1994–95 (1 April—year to date)

  Region

  Name

  Act

  Offence

  Date of hearing

  Verdict

  Fine

  Costs

  Midlands

  AGA Gas Ltd., Bardon Filling Plant, Leics

  EPA 1990

  Operation of an unauthorised acetylene plant.

  10 May 1994

  G

  £10,000

  £5,135

  Midlands

  Wednesbury Tubes Ltd., Bilston, W Midlands

  HSW 1974

  Failure to use BPM to prevent the emission into the atmosphere of noxious or offensive substances.

  11 May 1994

  G

  £4,000

  £1,540

  Southern

  Acal Auriema, Slough

  RSA 1960 /IRR 1985 /HSW 1974

  Two charges—failure to hold an authorisation certificate to collect waste radioactive sources for disposal/damage of a waste source.

  20 May 1994

  G

  £14,000

  £2,842.61

  Southern

  Drum Laundry Services Ltd., Aldershot

  EPA 1990

  Failure to prevent a release to controlled waters.

  20 June 1994

  G

  £5,000

  £5,000

  North East

  Safety-Kleen UK Ltd., Rotherham

  EPA 1990

  Failure to prevent a release to controlled waters.

  5 September 1994

  G

  £7,500

  £6,040

  Southern

  Enichem Elastomers Ltd., Hythe, Hampshire

  EPA 1990

  Failure to use BATNEEC to prevent an unauthorised release of styrene.

  9 November 1994

  G

  £5,000

  £12,062

  North East

  British Coal, Wearmouth

  RSA 1993

  Breach of RSA93 over the loss of a radioactive source.

  14 November 1994

  G

  £5,000

  £7,561

  Wales

  Coalite Products Ltd., Beddau

  EPA 1990

  Exceedance of ammonia release limits for discharges to controlled waters.

  21 November 1994

  G

  £22,500

  £10,000

  South West

  Rhone-Poulenc Chemicals Ltd.

  HSW 1974

  Failure to use BPM to prevent an unauthorised release of ammonia.

  28 November 1994

  G

  £12,000

  £5,400

  South

  CET Flexitec Ltd.

  RSA 1993

  Failure to comply with registration condition relating to storage of radioactive source.

  30 November 1994

  G

  £7,000

  £2,500

  South

  Southern Refining Services Ltd.

  EPA 1990

  Failure to comply with conditions of authorisation.

  5 December 1994

  G

  £12,000

  £6,571.85

  North West

  Vinamul Ltd.

  EPA 1990

  Unauthorised escape of substances and failure to ensure control during production.

  31 January 1995

  G

  £19,000

  £13,716

  North East

  ICI Wilton

  EPA 1990

  Failure to prevent an unauthorised release of degraded organic peroxide.

  2 February 1995

  G

  £10,000

  £10,250

  528 529

  HMIP Prosecutions 1994–95 (1 April-year to date)

  Region

  Name

  Act

  Offence

  Date of hearing

  Verdict

  Fine

  Costs

  North East

  Hickson Fine Chemicals

  EPA 1990

  Failure to prevent a release to controlled waters.

  13 February 1995

  G

  £5,000

  £10,694.50

  Anglian

  IGE Medical Systems

  RSA 1993

  Loss of radioactive source.

  24 February 1995

  G

  £5,000

  £5,754.75

  Summary detail:

  Total prosections: 15.

  Total fines to date: £143,000.

  Total costs: £105,066.71.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many court actions were taken in each of the last three years in total and in each authority area by the waste regulation authorities; what was the gross and net costs to each waste regulation authority and in total of legal action taken in each of the past three years; what were the total fines imposed by each waste regulation authority and in total in respect of pollution incidents in each of the past three years; and how many of the court actions taken by waste regulation authorities in each of the past three years resulted in a prosecution and fine. [25779]

  Mr. Atkins
  The information requested is not held centrally. Information on the number and description of prosecutions brought by waste regulation authorities under part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 must be included in the annual reports authorities are required to publish under section 67 of the Act. Authorities are required to publish their reports within six months of the end of each financial year and the first such reports will be those for the financial year 1994–95.

  Contracting Out
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what work has been contracted out(a) by his Department and (b) by agencies for which his Department is responsible in (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) projected for 1995–96; [25524]

  (2) for each piece of work subject to a bidding process under the auspices of (a) the Department of the Environment and (b) agencies for which the Department is responsible where work was contracted out who were the successful bidders; and which contracts were won by in-house bidders in (i) 1993–94, (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) projected for 1995–96. [25526]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Under the competing for quality programme, results during the 1 October 1993 to 30 September 1994 market testing year are:

  Department of the Environment project

  Successful tenderer

  Security guarding:

  (daytime hours)

  Royal British Legion Attendants Co. Ltd.

  (silent hours)

  Security Facilities Executive

  Management Audit Services

  In-house team

  Construction research:

  Ventilation of underground car Parks

  TBV Science

  Scoping study for HVAC System

  Centre for Configurational Studies—The Open University

  Water economy

  BSRIA

  530

  Department of the Environment project

  Successful tenderer

  Identification and development of source datafor fire risk assessments, part 1

  Four Elements Ltd.

  Identification and development of source data for fire risk assessments, part 2

  Fire SERT Centre (University of Ulster)

  Alternative aggregates

  Mott MacDonald Consultants

  Fire resistance behaviour of trussed rafters

  Trada Technology

  Performance of emulsion preservatives

  Building Research Establishment

  Sprinkler system cost benefit study

  Building Research Establishment

  Comparative strength of masonry walls

  Building Research Establishment

  Agencies

  Successful tenderer

  Security Facilities Executive:

  Cleaning of Ponton Road premises

  Mayfair Window Cleaning Co Ltd.

  Inter-Departmental Despatch Service

  In-house team

  Planning Inspectorate

  Secretarial and typing

  In-house team

  Building Research Establishment:

  Office and printing services

  In-house team

  Audio Visual

  In-house team

  1994–95 Department of the Environment

  Successful tenderer

  Construction Research

  Organically coated metal phase 2

  BDA

  Masonry clad steel frame buildings

  Taywoods

  Timber panels Assessment of ground defamation properties

  CERAM Building Research Establishment

  Notes:

  No other results are available, and no results can be projected for 1995–96.

  Results of market tests are published in the monthly Market Testing

  Bulletin, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements he has made in regard to the allocation of capital resources for local authorities to tackle contaminated land in 1995–96. [26101]
  531
  Mr. Atkins
  The Department of the Environment has today written to 49 local authorities and waste disposal authorities informing them of the Secretary of State's intention to issue supplementary credit approvals for 1995–96 totalling nearly £8 million in respect of capital expenditure on 109 new projects to investigate or carry our remedial work to contaminated land.

  The Department has already written to 40 authorities about making SCAs totalling £6.7 million available this year in respect of 127 on-going projects from previous years.

  Between 1990–91 and 1993–94 SCAs worth nearly £40 million were issued to enable work to be undertaken on over 800 contaminated sites. A figure for SCAs spent for 1994–95 is not yet available as authorities are in the process of submitting final returns for that financial year.

  The SCA programme for contaminated land is aimed at tackling problems on sites in local authority ownership or where they have responsibility to take action and cannot recover their costs. The Department operates an assessment and prioritisation procedures to ensure that the available funding goes to projects representing the greatest threat to health or the environment.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what decisions he has reached on the Local Government Commission's final recommendations on electoral, boundary and other non-structural matters. [26203]

  Mr. Curry
  The Local Government Commission made a number of recommendations on boundary and electoral matters in its final reports on the future of local government in the shire countries of England. My right hon. Friend has now reached decisions on these recommendations.

  Among other factors, he has had regard to the possible interaction between these recommendations and the programme of fresh structure reviews of individual districts which he announced on 2 March. Where the commission has recommended further reviews of boundaries or electoral arrangements he has considered the implications for the commission's programme of periodic electoral reviews and other work. In each case he has considered the commission's reports and the representations he has received, and is satisfied that these decisions will best reflect the identities and interests of local communities and will best secure effective and convenient local government.

  My right hon. Friend accepts the recommendations made for a boundary change in Gloucestershire between the parishes of West Dean and Coleford in the district of the Forest of Dean, and the consequential changes to parish, district and county electoral arrangements. He also accepts the recommended change in boundary between Colchester borough and Tendering district in the Wivenhoe area of Essex, the recommended re-warding of East Hertfordshire district and the recommended re-warding of Newbury district in Berkshire.

  Basildon, Thurrock and Peterborough will be subject to fresh district reviews. My right hon. Friend has already announced that the recommended boundary changes around Basildon which would transfer Wickford to Rochford and Billericay to Brentwood will not be acted upon pending the fresh reviews. It follows that he should
  532
  defer a decision on the recommended changes in electoral representation in Wickford, Billericay, Basildon and the county, which are based on this boundary change. He considers that a decision on the electoral change recommended for Thurrock—an extra two councillors— should also await the fresh review. Similarly, in Peterborough, a decision on the recommended boundary change which would transfer the southern township area from Huntingdonshire to Peterborough will be made in the light of the outcome of the fresh review of Peterborough. He also expects the commission to look again at the re-warding of Peterborough as part of that review.

  In a number of cases the commission suggested it be directed to undertake further reviews. My right hon. Friend will be considering the case for undertaking a review of Cambridge City's boundaries in due course. As he has already announced, he will consider asking the commission to look again at the proposed boundary change around Southend airport. On electoral matters, the commission recommended an early review of electoral arrangements at district and county level in those areas of Essex affected by structural change, the six districts in Berkshire which will gain unitary status and the Suffolk Coastal district. He accepts the case for each of these, and will be discussing with the commission how they may be given priority in its programme of work.

  Decisions in principle on all the commission's structural recommendations have now been announced. Decisions on the remaining planning recommendations were announced on 11 April, and an announcement on the parishing recommendations will be made very shortly. Other matters, such as recommendations for police and fire service arrangements, flow directly from the structural decisions, and will be set out in draft orders for structural change which are the subject of consultation. Similarly, ceremonial matters will be covered in general regulations and in structural change orders which are subject to public consultation.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those gifts received by Ministers in their official capacities and reported to the Permanent Secretary in each of the last five years. [23783]

  Mr. Goodlad
  The details of gifts received by Ministers are not made public. Their retention or disposal is dealt with in accordance with "Questions of Procedure for Ministers".

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he will take to support the international action plan and fund proposed by Norway to address(a) safety at nuclear installations, (b) the sound management of nuclear waste and (c) problems associated with the dumping of nuclear waste and arms-related environmental hazards in the Kola peninsula. [25182]
  533
  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  We share Norway's concerns about nuclear safety and radioactive waste management problems in Russia. The majority of international assistance in this area is currently focused on improving the safety of nuclear reactors. Our main contributions to these efforts are channelled through the European Union's PHARE and TACIS programmes, as well as the G7 multilateral programme of action. As projects in these nuclear safety related programmes begin to bear fruit, increasing emphasis is likely to be placed on the specific problem of radioactive waste management.

  Immigration
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance is being offered to Mrs. Abida Noreen and her daughter, Muneeza Khan (Ref: Imm/C8970) by the United Kingdom post in Islamabad to return as residents of the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [25699]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have asked the high commission at 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.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the main constitutional issues on the Government's agenda for the 1996 inter-governmental conference. [25776]

  Mr. David Davis
  We shall not make proposals at the 1996 intergovernmental conference which would involve significant constitutional change. We will also, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 23 May, block any attempt to extend Community competence into intergovernmental areas such as foreign affairs, defence and home affairs.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Order
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether comments on the draft proposals to change the Police (Northern Ireland) Order will be placed in the Library at the conclusion of the period of consultation on 6 June. [24322]

  Sir John Wheeler
  No substantive comments on the draft order have yet been received. I will, however, keep the suggestion under review, bearing in mind that some comments may be offered on a confidential basis.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce into Northern Ireland proposals in relation to the capping of housing benefit similar to those made for England and Wales. [24749]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The implications for Northern Ireland of the proposals for amending the housing benefit scheme in Great Britain are currently being considered.534
  Account will be taken of the different arrangements in Northern Ireland for administering the housing benefit scheme.

  Health Service Contracts
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on all contracts placed by(a) each health board and (b) each health trust with Grafton Recruitment. [24505]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 17 May 1995]: There are currently 52 nursing agencies licensed by the Department, of which two have been issued in respect of Grafton Recruitment. Information on contracts placed by the health and personal social services with these agencies is not held centrally, but by individual health and social services boards and trusts.

  Majority Shareholdings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those companies in which the holder of his office is the majority shareholder which(a) are currently in existence and (b) have been wound up in the past five years. [25711]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: None in either category.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many civil servants applied to the advisory committee on business appointments for approval for a job offer in the private sector in each of the last five years; and in how many cases the application was refused. [25016]

  Mr. Horam
  The information requested, including information on members of the diplomatic service, is set out in the table. Separate applications must be submitted for each appointment or consultancy commission an individual wishes to accept. Under the business appointment rules applications cannot be rejected outright, but approval may be made subject to behavioural conditions or to waiting periods of up to a maximum of two years.

  Number of applications (number of applicants)

  Financial year

  Unconditionally approved

  Conditionally approved

  Total

  1990–91

  12

  9

  21 (16)

  1991–92

  17

  14

  31 (21)

  1992–93

  11

  25

  36 (20)

  1993–94

  8

  15

  23(13)

  1994–95

  13

  17

  30(16)

  Note:

  The figures in brackets refer to the number of individuals who applied; all other figures refer to the number of applications received.
  535
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list by name and profession the members of the advisory committee on business appointments. [25017]

  Mr. Horam
  The members of the Prime Minister's advisory committee on business appointments are:

  The right hon. the Lord Carlisle of Bucklow QC—Chairman

  The Lord Bridges GCMG—Deputy Chairman

  Sir John Blelloch KCB

  Sir Denys Henderson

  Sir Charles Huxtable KCB CBE

  Sir Robin Ibbs KBE

  The right hon. Peter Shore MP

  The right hon. the Lord Thomson of Monifieth KT

  Lord Carlisle, Lord Thomson and Mr. Peter Shore are senior parliamentarians and former Ministers. Lord Bridges is a retired diplomat; Sir John Blelloch is a retired senior civil servant; Sir Charles Huxtable is a retired senior army officer; Sir Robin Ibbs is chairman of Lloyds Bank plc; and Sir Denys Henderson is chairman of the Rank Organisation.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list by Government Department the number of civil servants who have applied to the advisory committee on business appointments for approval to take a job in the private sector in each of the last five years. [25018]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of civil servants, including members of the diplomatic service, who have applied to the advisory committee for approval to take a job in the private sector in each of the last five financial years is set out in the table:

  Number of applicants

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Cabinet Office

  2

  0

  2

  1

  1

  Ministry of Defence

  4

  2

  1

  2

  1

  Department for Education

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Department of Employment

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Department of Energy

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Department of the Environment, including PSA

  1

  3

  1

  2

  1

  Export Credits Guarantee Department

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  5

  9

  12

  3

  5

  Department of Health

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  Home Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Northern Ireland Office

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Scottish Office

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Department of Social Security

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Department of Trade and Industry

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Department of Transport

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Her Majesty's Treasury

  2

  1

  0

  1

  1

EDUCATION

  Dance and Drama
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she has met the Secretary of State for National Heritage to discuss the future of dance and drama training. [23818]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend has done so.

  Higher Education Review
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are the aims of her departmental review of higher education. [23824]

  Mr. Boswell
  My right hon. Friend is reviewing the aims and purposes of higher education with a view to determining its appropriate shape and size at the end of the century and beyond.

  Mathematics and Engineering
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to letters to the hon. Member for Linlithgow from the Minister of State, what proposals Her Majesty's Government have for relating mathematics teaching in schools to the requirements of the engineering profession as set out by the Engineering Council. [23825]

  Mr. Forth
  The mathematics curriculum is relevant to many professions, including engineering. As the hon. Member is aware, the Government are committed to higher standards and higher quality teaching in mathematics for all pupils.

  History Teaching
  Mr. Hawkins
  to ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to review the teaching of history in schools. [23826]

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  School Funding
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what representations she has received asking her for increased funding for school budgets in 1996–97. [23827]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My. right hon. Friend has received a number of representations on school finances, many of which have requested increased funding for school budgets in 1995–96.

  Mr. Skinner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many representations she has now received from(a) parents, (b) teacher and (c) governors regarding school funding for 1995–96. [23834]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend has received a number of such representations. It is not possible to break down this total into separate categories.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what estimate she has made of the effect of a national funding formula for primary and secondary schools on financial distribution to local education authorities. [22835]
  537
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The detailed effects of a national funding formula would depend on how it was constructed. It is clear, however, that redistributing a national funding total using identical formula factors across the country would result in large numbers of schools gaining, and large number of schools losing compared with their existing levels of funding.

  Selective Grammar Schools
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement about the Government's policy towards selective grammar schools. [23828]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government believe that schools which select pupils by ability, or which specialise in particular subjects, have an important part to play in giving parents a choice of schooling for their children.

  Nursery Education
  19. Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what assessment she has made of the need for nursery education in Hampshire. [23829]

  Mr. Forth
  It is for local education authorities to determine the need for education provision for children below compulsory school age.

  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what are her future plans for the development of nursery education; and if she will make a statement. [23832]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set a target to provide, over time, a pre-school place for all four-year-olds whose parents wish to take it up. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the official task force have been consulting widely with a view to drawing up detailed proposals for the expansion.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State what has been the amount of money given from her Department to London borough councils to help with the provision of nursery schooling in each of the last two years. [23823]

  Mr. Forth
  In 1994–95 local education authorities in London received in total in their education standard spending assessment some £189.870 million in respect of the population of children aged 0 to 4 in their area. In 1995–96 the figure was £199.198 million. How much each local authority spends on nursery provision is a matter solely for the local authority concerned.

  Primary School Pupils
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidelines her Department issues on the optimum number of pupils per class in primary schools. [23830]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. It is for the governors and head teachers of individual schools to decide how to organise their classes.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many grammar and high schools in Kent have successfully applied for grant-maintained status; and if she will make a statement. [23831]
  538
  Mr. Robin Squire
  Eighteen grammar schools and 46 other secondary schools in Kent have successfully applied for grant-maintained status. This means that half the state secondary schools in the county are now self-governing— a clear illustration of the extent to which Kent parents have appreciated the benefits of GM status for their children's schools.

  Assisted Places
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of pupils on the assisted places scheme receive a free place. [23836]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Over 42 per cent, of assisted place holders are receiving a free place in the current academic year 1994–95.

  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what plans she has to review the assisted places scheme; and if she will make a statement. [23833]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The assisted places scheme is an outstanding success and popular with parents. It is here to stay under this Government. We will continue to keep its detailed operation under regular review.

  Further Education
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she expects to maintain the unit of resource per student in the further education sector over the next two years. [23837]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Government's expenditure plans mean that the funding available for colleges will increase by 4 per cent, in 1995–96 and by a further 3 per cent, in 1996–97. The plans assume that FE sector colleges will make real terms efficiency gains of 5 per cent. in 1995–96 and 3 per cent. in 1996–97.

  Ethnic and Religious Facilities
  Mr. Dykes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education to what extent her Department wishes to encourage the development of additional ethnic and religious facilities in English primary and secondary schools in the future. [23838]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend considers proposals from promoters of a variety of new voluntary and grant-maintained schools. She takes into account a number of factors, including the extent to which the proposals would enhance the choice, diversity and quality of education in the area; the overall need for additional school places locally and therefore the cost-effective use of public money; and evidence that the new school would be able to deliver the national curriculum.

  Teaching Methods
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education what guidance her Department is giving for methods of teaching classes of all sizes; and if she will make a statement. [24302]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  None. The Teacher Training Agency and Ofsted are to take joint action to identify good teaching methods and improve teachers' effectiveness. The agency is conducting a fundamental national review of in-service training.

  Autism
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for education what plans she has to increase the level of provision for autistic children in north-east London; and if she will make a statement. [24046]

  Mr. Forth
  The assessment of autistic children and the identification of a suitable school for them is the responsibility of the LEA in whose area they live. Not every LEA will be able to, or need to make its own specialist provision. In some cases collaboration between LEAs might be desirable; if this led one or more LEAs to publish statutory proposals for new schools or units, or to the development of additional provision in non-maintained special schools, the Secretary of State would consider any proposals carefully.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she or her ministerial colleagues will agree to meet medical student representatives from the British Medical Association to discuss the current level of student loans and other relevant matters. [23817]

  Mr. Boswell
  The pressure of other commitments means that my right hon. Friend and I are unable to meet representatives of the medical students committee. I am well aware of the arguments advanced by the BMA medical students committee, and have answered the points raised by them in correspondence.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list by local education authority those secondary schools which are grant maintained, giving for each the number of pupils with a statement of special educational needs for each year since the school became grant-maintained. [25678]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested will take a little time to assemble. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy in the Library.

  Statements of special educational needs are drawn up by the local education authority and name the school which the pupil in question should attend, taking account of parents' preferences and consultation with the schools' governors. A grant-maintained school can neither draw up a statement itself nor refuse admission to a pupil whose statement names that school.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Assaults (Police Officers)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many physical assaults on police officers were recorded in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight for each year since 1990. [25034]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information available centrally relates to assaults on police officers recorded for the Hampshire police force area as a whole. Separate information for the Isle of Wight is not available centrally. There were 343 assaults in 1990, 374 in 1991, 388 in 1992 and 355 in 1993. Information for 1994 is not yet available.

  Asbestos Ash
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions his Department has given to police force and fire brigade services to co-ordinate strategies in evacuating communities that are at risk from dispersed asbestos ash following fires on buildings containing asbestos material. [25035]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  Guidance has been issued to fire brigades on dealing with incidents involving asbestos and to the police on any type of incident where evacuation is to be considered.

  Prison Statistics
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the total number of sentenced offenders, including fine defaulters, received into prison in(a) 1993 and (b) 1994; and how many had committed offences involving (i) violence, (ii) sex and (iii) robbery; [25319]

  (2) what was the total number of sentenced offenders, excluding fine defaulters, received Into prison in (a) 1993 and (b) 1994; and how many had committed offences involving (i) violence, (ii) sex and (iii) robbery. [25320]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Alun Michael, dated 23 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the total number of sentenced offenders, both including and excluding fine defaulters, received into prison in (a) 1993 and (b) 1994; and how many had committed offences involving (i) violence, (ii) sex and (iii) robbery.
  Provisional information for receptions of sentenced prisoners in 1993 and 1994 is contained in the attached table.

  Receptions into Prison Service Establishments, 1993 and 1994, by offence group, including and excluding fine defaulters

  Receptions:

  Receptions:

  Including fine defaulters

  Excluding fine defaulters

  Principal offence

  1993

  1994

  1993

  1994

  Violence against the person

  8,823

  9,979

  7,317

  8,667

  Sexual offences

  1,926

  1,905

  1,899

  1,895

  Robbery

  2,934

  2,933

  2,895

  2,912

  Other offences

  59,283

  69,165

  38,452

  47,784

  All offences

  72,966

  83,982

  50,563

  61,258

  Prison Golf Courses
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the estimated cost of providing a golf course at Swaleside prison on the Isle of Sheppey; what costs had been incurred when the work was stopped; what is the estimated cost of restoring the land to its original condition; what amount was spent to purchase golf clubs and balls; and how many clubs and balls were brought. [17340]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 3 April 1995]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.
  541
  Letter from Derek Lewis to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 23 May 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the costs incurred in the abandoned project to construct a three hole golf course at Swaleside prison. I am sorry for the delay in replying to your Question.
  At the time of the cancellation of the project, the cost that had been incurred as a result of labour costs, plant hire and materials was £14,275. Some of the aggregate materials that had already been delivered to the site were recovered and used for construction purposes elsewhere in the prison estate. There have subsequently been cancellation costs of £8,043.
  Some ground work had already been carried out at Swaleside. The work to restore the land will be done by prisoners under the supervision of staff and will need no additional resources.
  The cost of 24 golf clubs, 150 golf balls and 200 practice balls was £709. It is hoped to recover some of this cost through negotiation with equipment suppliers.
  As a result of what happened at Swaleside, it has been made clear to governors that there should be no further proposals to use public funds in this way.

  Al Fayed Brothers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department who signed(a) notices refusing applications by Mr. A. and Mr. M. Al Fayed to be granted British citizenship and (b) letters refusing to explain the reasons for such refusal notices submitted by either applicant or their representatives; and on whose behalf such notices or letters were signed. [25700]

  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  It is not our practice to disclose details relating to individual applications for British citizenship.

  Police Vehicle Accidents
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the percentage of police vehicles involved in(a) serious and (b) fatal accidents in each of the last 15 years. [25426]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information on the number of police vehicle accidents in England and Wales is for the period 1988–1993 and is given in the table. The figures shown for casualties relate only to death or serious injury in the course of either police pursuits or responses to emergency calls.

  Police vehicle accidents (England and Wales)

  Year

  Total police vehicle accidents

  1Fatal injuries

  1Serious injuries

  1988

  18,917

  22

  282

  1989

  18,481

  39

  333

  1990

  18,941

  24

  317

  1991

  18,445

  32

  271

  1992

  19,560

  30

  300

  1993

  19,504

  34

  300

  1Arising in the course of police pursuits or responses to emergency

  Criminal Injuries Compensation
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average award for rape plus a serious injury given under the criminal injuries compensation scheme under the tariff scheme operating from April 1994; [24887]
  542
  (2) if he will list for each of the last five years the number of claimants for criminal injuries compensation who were incapacitated for more than 28 weeks and the percentage they represented of (a) the total number and (b) the total cost of claimants in each year; [24889]

  (3) what was the number of awards and total value of awards made (a) in respect of rape and (b) in respect of rape plus a serious injury in each of the last six financial years. [24888]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 May 1995]: This information is not recorded centrally.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the criteria he intends to use in reviewing the criminal injuries compensation tariff once it is in place; [24891]

  (2) if it is his policy that the tariff published with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill should be uprated to allow for inflation; and if it is his policy to ensure that the tariff rates are subsequently uprated each year; [24896]

  (3) if it is his policy that the tariff published with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill should be implemented as it stands. [24895]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 May 1995]: It is the intention that the tariff which was published on 11 May should be the one which is used when the enhanced tariff scheme starts.

  The injury descriptions in the tariff will be monitored on a continuing basis, and can be adjusted as necessary with the consent of Parliament. It is intended that the tariff levels will be reviewed every three years. No criteria for such reviews have yet been set, but might be expected to include reference to inflation more generally and other pressures on public expenditure.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy that the time limit for applications under the criminal justice compensation tariff should be not less than three years; [24899]

  (2) what will be the time limit for applications under the recently announced tariff scheme for criminal injury compensation. [24898]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 May 1995]: The intention is to set the time limit at two years. Police and other records are often weeded at about three years and this can make it more difficult to obtain documentary evidence to substantiate claims. However, there will continue to be discretion for the scheme administrators to waive the time limit in exceptional cases.

  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will define the terms dependency/loss of support payments used in note 4 to his paper on the proposed tariff scheme published with the Criminal Injury Compensation Bill, together with the circumstances in which they are relevant and the means by which this relevance would be assessed in a specific case. [24890]
  543
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 18 May 1995]: Payments for dependency and loss of support will be made to those relations who are able to show that they were financially dependent on the deceased at or before his or her death, or a probability that the deceased would have provided some sort of financial support in the future had he or she lived. They will be calculated by reference to the deceased's contribution to the household budget and the probable length of the dependency.

  Europol Drugs Unit
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff(a) in his Department and (b) in other Government Departments have specific duties relating to the Europol drugs unit. [25051]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: Within the National Criminal Intelligence Service two members of staff currently work full-time on liaison duties associated with the Europol drugs unit. Other members of NCIS, the Home Office and Customs and Excise undertake duties associated with the work of the unit as part of their wider responsibilities for national and international police and customs co-operation.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost in 1994–95 of the United Kingdom's participation in the Europol drugs unit. [25052]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: For the financial year 1994–95 the United Kingdom's contribution towards the running and staff costs of the Europol drugs unit in The Hague was £849,000. Some additional costs were incurred in the United Kingdom as a result of staff time spent on representational, liaison and other duties associated with the work of the unit.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many United Kingdom police officers are currently serving(a) full-time and (b) part-time with the Europol drugs unit. [25057]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: (a) Three; (b) none.

  National Criminal Intelligence Service
  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many United Kingdom police officers are currently serving(a) full-time and (b) part-time with the National Criminal Intelligence Service. [25053]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: As at 1 May there were 248 police officers serving with the National Criminal Intelligence Service, all full-time. Of these, 229 were seconded on central service terms and 19 were on periods of attachment.

  Dr. Howells
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the cost in 1993–94 and 1995 of the National Criminal Intelligence Service. [25054]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: In 1993–94 the net outturn for the National Criminal Intelligence Service was £20.068 million. The outturn in 1994–95, which has yet to be confirmed, is estimated to be £23.508 million.

  Forensic Science Service Agency
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what targets he has set for the Forensic Science Service agency for 1995–96. [26102]

  Mr. Howard
  During 1995–96 I expect Forensic Science Service to continue to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. The financial targets for the year are recovery of full economic costs; and a cash unit cost target of £484.91 based on an efficiency gain of 1.98 per cent. The service level targets are to meet 90 per cent. of delivery dates agreed with customers; and to maintain accreditation to national measurement accreditation service and BS5750 standards.

  Boards of Visitors
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has reviewed the role of boards of visitors. [26103]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  On 1 February 1995 I made an announcement in the House that I would conduct a review of the role of boards of visitors. My right hon. and learned Friend and I place great value on the work of boards and on the participation of lay people from the local community in the prison system. There has been considerable change within the Prison Service, particularly after it became an agency, which has placed new and increased demands on boards of visitors. The objective of the review was to find ways to strengthen the role of boards and help them undertake their duties more effectively.

  My review group consisted of Mrs. Lindsay Addyman JP, Mrs Mary Bentall OBE JP, Mr. Colin Edwards, Ms Freda Evans, Mrs Denise Hurst, Mr. Alfred Mossop JP, Mrs Sylvia Peach JP, Mr. Jim Romer, and Mrs Judy Veale OBE JP, all of whom are current or past members of boards of visitors, and Judge Stephen Tumim, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. The governor of HM prison, Maidstone was co-opted. Support was provided by a small team of officials.

  Written representations within the terms of reference were invited by 3 March from a wide variety of groups interested in penal affairs including boards of visitors, prison governors and others. I chaired a number of meetings during March and April at which the review group considered these representations and in the light of their own wide practical experience, developed the recommendations.

  The main recommendations are that:
  the title "board of visitors" should be replaced by "advisory council";
  a code of practice should be produced and all boards should follow it; a statement of purpose and a common constitution should be adopted by all boards;
  all training for new and experienced members and new chairmen should become mandatory; and a training-needs analysis should be completed;
  there should be a new elected body under the title "national advisory council" to represent to the Secretary of State matters of common concern to boards;
  there should be a director of boards, appointed by open competition, supported by a secretariat based in the Home Office; additional funds of about £300,000 per annum will be necessary; the director's role will be to provide support to boards and to enhance their performance of the watchdog role on behalf of ministers;

  545
  the chairman and vice-chairman of a board should be appointed by the Secretary of State after they have been nominated by a secret ballot of its members;
  the role of the board chairman should be strengthened, his duties should include ensuring the best use of resources within a notional budget set by the Secretary of State, and agreeing with the governor (or prison director) in writing the level of administrative support required from the clerk to the board and other secretarial staff; and
  a 12-month probation period should be introduced for all new members; a new power should be introduced enabling the Secretary of State to suspend a member from duty as a matter of urgency; and objectives should be introduced for members and chairman together with a system of open appraisal.

  One of the remarkable features of the review group was the unanimous agreement on the nature of the problems faced by boards and about their solutions. I am confident that the recommendations will command widespread support. The aim is to have them in place by January 1996.

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

  Crime Statistics
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the percentage change in each category of recorded crime and in total recorded crime(a) between the last two years for which figures are available and (b) between 1979 and the last year for which figures are available (i) in England and Wales and (ii) in each police force area. [25258]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is contained in the tables:

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the consultation paper on identity cards. [26104]

  Mr. Howard
  I will lay before Parliament and publish tomorrow a Green Paper on identity cards.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many shops and businesses were successfully prosecuted for selling fireworks to children under the apparent age of 16 years by(a) the police

  Percentage change in numbers of notifiable offences recorded by police force area and offence group 1993–94

  England and Wales

  Percentage change

  Police force area

  Total

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Criminal damage

  Other offences

  Avon and Somerset

  -5

  +18

  +22

  -8

  -8

  -6

  -14

  +4

  +30

  Bedfordshire

  -11

  +2

  +2

  +7

  -17

  -11

  -18

  -1

  +34

  Cambridgeshire

  -6

  +7

  +7

  -21

  -6

  -10

  -18

  +10

  +6

  Cheshire

  -7

  +9

  +17

  -19

  -13

  -10

  -3

  +4

  +46

  Cleveland

  +4

  +6

  +9

  +39

  -2

  +4

  -14

  +14

  +24

  Cumbria

  -3

  +11

  +2

  (-19)

  -6

  -7

  +11

  +7

  +5

  Derbyshire

  -6

  -3

  +3

  +18

  -6

  -10

  +2

  +1

  +11

  Devon and Cornwall

  -10

  +12

  -9

  -5

  -7

  -12

  -15

  -13

  +16

  Dorset

  +7

  +9

  +39

  +8

  2

  +6

  -16

  +38

  +1

  Durham

  -3

  +11

  +3

  -9

  -8

  -5

  -11

  +6

  +8

  Essex

  -7

  +8

  -23

  -2

  -13

  -9

  -11

  +4

  +15

  Gloucestershire

  0

  +22

  +220

  +5

  -8

  -4

  +13

  +28

  +30

  546
  and (b) trading standards officers, in each year since 1985. [23572]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: Statistics relating to prosecutions undertaken by trading standard officers cannot be identified centrally.

  The table shows the number of police and non-police prosecutions and convictions under section 31 of the Explosives Act 1875, as amended, from 1985 to 1993: 1994 data will not be available until autumn 1995.

  It should, however, be noted that the statistics of court proceedings are based on returns made by the police to the Home Office and although these include offences where there has been no police involvement, such as those prosecutions instigated by Government Departments, local authorities—in this case, probably trading standards officers—and private organisations and individuals, the reporting of these types of offence is known to be incomplete.

  Number of defendants prosecuted and convicted at magistrates courts for selling fireworks to any child apparently under 16 years of age 1 by type of proceeding 1985–1993

  England and Wales

  Prosecutions

  Convictions

  Year

  Police

  Others

  Police

  Others

  1985

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19862

  6

  —

  —

  —

  19873

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1988

  1

  1

  —

  1

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1990

  —

  1

  —

  1

  1991

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1992

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1Section 31 of the Explosives Act 1875 as amended by the Explosive (Age of Purchase, etc) Act 1976, s1 and the Consumer Protection Act 1987, sch 4.

  2 A further offender found guilty at the Crown Court.

  3 A further offender found guilty at the Crown Court.

  Telephones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations his Department has made to the Department of Trade and Industry concerning the need for legislation to prevent the cloning of mobile telephones. [23467]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 9 May 1995]: None.
  547

  Percentage change in numbers of notifiable offences recorded by police force area and offence group 1993–94

  England and Wales

  Percentage change

  Police force area

  Total

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Criminal damage

  Other offences

  Greater Manchester

  -7

  -8

  -10

  -1

  -7

  -11

  -17

  +6

  -11

  Hampshire

  -4

  +7

  -25

  +4

  -10

  -4

  -24

  +7

  +11

  Hertfordshire

  -3

  +4

  +11

  -3

  -10

  -3

  -14

  +5

  -16

  Humberside

  -4

  +2

  -13

  +4

  -8

  -1

  -11

  -2

  +35

  Kent

  -4

  +15

  +17

  +1

  -13

  -5

  -10

  +3

  +20

  Lancashire

  -5

  +3

  +7

  +1

  -8

  -9

  +2

  +5

  +17

  Leicestershire

  -1

  +29

  +31

  +11

  +4

  -6

  -6

  +1

  +10

  Lincolnshire

  -9

  +2

  +26

  -25

  -14

  -12

  -10

  +2

  +9

  London, City of

  -6

  -47

  (0)

  (-43)

  -13

  -2

  -13

  +3

  (+11)

  Merseyside

  -4

  +4

  +5

  -8

  -2

  -4

  -39

  -1

  -1

  Metropolitan Police

  -7

  +17

  +8

  +4

  -8

  -11

  -5

  -4

  +41

  Norfolk

  -13

  +7

  +1

  -14

  -23

  -13

  -9

  +2

  +32

  Northamptonshire

  -4

  -5

  +26

  +2

  -9

  -6

  -14

  +12

  +2

  Northumbria

  -5

  -3

  +5

  -1

  -9

  -7

  -4

  +4

  +2

  North Yorkshire

  +7

  +4

  -1

  +52

  +3

  +3

  -13

  +39

  -3

  Nottinghamshire

  -4

  0

  -2

  -1

  -13

  -8

  -10

  +22

  +8

  South Yorkshire

  0

  +4

  +4

  +13

  -2

  -3

  +24

  +7

  +28

  Staffordshire

  -5

  +6

  +6

  0

  -11

  -6

  +1

  +2

  +20

  Suffolk

  -9

  +1

  +3

  +1

  -15

  -14

  -14

  +13

  +18

  Surrey

  -11

  +25

  +23

  -23

  -21

  -12

  -21

  +1

  +37

  Sussex

  -4

  +5

  +8

  +8

  -9

  -3

  -10

  -3

  -2

  Thames Valley

  -7

  +18

  +11

  +24

  -5

  -8

  -18

  -9

  +20

  Warwickshire

  -6

  -3

  -13

  +4

  -12

  -5

  -21

  -1

  +21

  West Mercia

  +1

  +4

  +13

  +9

  -7

  -2

  +1

  +23

  +54

  West Midlands

  -4

  -5

  -10

  +18

  -9

  -5

  -14

  +6

  +5

  West Yorkshire

  -4

  +2

  +3

  -6

  -7

  -5

  -8

  +5

  +10

  Wiltshire

  -8

  -5

  -5

  -7

  -11

  -10

  -16

  +1

  +8

  Dyfed Powys

  -13

  +8

  -31

  (+32)

  -25

  -16

  -20

  -3

  +41

  Gwent

  -4

  +6

  -14

  (-32)

  -6

  -9

  +2

  +3

  +91

  North Wales

  -10

  -9

  -37

  -15

  -15

  -11

  -3

  +2

  +35

  South Wales

  -5

  +2

  -8

  -13

  -2

  -1

  -14

  -17

  +30

  England and Wales

  -5

  +7

  +4

  +3

  -8

  -7

  -10

  +2

  +19

  Note:

  Figures in brackets are based on totals of less than 100.

  Percentage change in numbers of notifiable offences recorded by police force area and offence group 1979–94

  England and Wales

  Percentage change

  Police force area

  Total

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Criminal damage

  Other offences

  Avon and Somerset

  +227

  +239

  +120

  +965

  +313

  +200

  +68

  +286

  +708

  Bedfordshire

  +87

  +36

  +71

  +299

  +172

  +73

  +7

  +93

  +65

  Cambridgeshire

  +150

  +201

  +54

  (+426)

  +237

  +119

  +57

  +207

  +370

  Cheshire

  +147

  +128

  +75

  (+435)

  +188

  +107

  +167

  +215

  +1,847

  Cleveland

  +135

  +69

  -12

  (+718)

  +133

  +132

  -40

  +243

  +778

  Cumbria

  +118

  +188

  +82

  (+208)

  +165

  +86

  +3

  +192

  +836

  Derbyshire

  +122

  +108

  +21

  (+378)

  +197

  +100

  -34

  +158

  +442

  Devon and Cornwall

  +152

  +133

  +55

  (+343)

  +296

  +113

  +42

  +175

  +1,017

  Dorset

  +139

  +196

  +93

  (+224)

  +135

  +130

  +39

  +267

  +375

  Durham

  +138

  +109

  +119

  (+217)

  +108

  +136

  +85

  +200

  +1,382

  Essex

  +96

  +111

  +6

  +166

  +130

  +75

  +18

  +157

  +676

  Gloucestershire

  +269

  +312

  +447

  (+867)

  +427

  +220

  +243

  +229

  +1,198

  Greater Manchester

  +100

  +93

  -13

  +985

  +133

  +63

  +6

  +238

  +330

  Hampshire

  +111

  +144

  +28

  +179

  +136

  +98

  -5

  +172

  +909

  Hertfordshire

  +41

  +65

  +14

  (+267)

  +163

  +24

  -62

  +64

  +230

  Humberside

  +182

  +90

  +12

  +431

  +303

  +147

  +147

  +168

  +459

  Kent

  +181

  +257

  +111

  +443

  +157

  +170

  +43

  +276

  +462

  Lancashire

  +123

  +62

  -7

  +363

  +118

  +108

  +39

  +221

  +345

  Leicestershire

  +227

  +243

  +100

  (+1,159)

  +358

  +172

  +147

  +297

  +312

  Lincolnshire

  +172

  +165

  +29

  (+358)

  +242

  +134

  +58

  +261

  +1,110

  London, City of

  -23

  -25

  (+53)

  (-33)

  -41

  -20

  +4

  -41

  (+82)

  Merseyside

  +26

  +102

  +62

  +134

  +6

  +13

  -10

  +123

  +270

  Metropolitan Police

  +52

  +189

  +153

  +309

  +38

  +26

  +26

  +136

  +457

  Norfolk

  +148

  +168

  +83

  (+313)

  +224

  +123

  +34

  +184

  +229

  Northamptonshire

  +151

  +154

  +16

  (+260)

  +226

  +112

  +21

  +270

  +365

  548 549

  Percentage change in numbers of notifiable offences recorded by police force area and offence group 1979–94

  England and Wales

  Percentage change

  Police force area

  Total

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Robbery

  Burglary

  Theft and handling stolen goods

  Fraud and forgery

  Criminal damage

  Other offences

  Northumbria

  +105

  +87

  +10

  +519

  +112

  +51

  +22

  +358

  +720

  North Yorkshire

  +184

  +130

  +11

  (+367)

  +250

  +162

  -16

  +281

  +685

  Nottinghamshire

  +110

  +97

  +20

  +479

  +110

  +77

  +35

  +326

  +134

  South Yorkshire

  +179

  +70

  -6

  +548

  +307

  130

  +56

  +234

  +784

  Staffordshire

  +146

  +103

  +57

  (+486)

  +234

  +114

  +35

  +194

  +45

  Suffolk

  +95

  +130

  +85

  (+219)

  +173

  +67

  +13

  +162

  +159

  Surrey

  +73

  +163

  +29

  (+166)

  +112

  +58

  -20

  +114

  +695

  Sussex

  +120

  +74

  +18

  (+495)

  +162

  +100

  -7

  +238

  +513

  Thames Valley

  +146

  +144

  +34

  +436

  +176

  +129

  +21

  +254

  +813

  Warwickshire

  +205

  +146

  +89

  (+216)

  +291

  +181

  +87

  +220

  +918

  West Mercia

  +139

  +104

  +30

  (+373)

  +182

  +140

  -8

  +144

  +294

  West Midlands

  +102

  +75

  0

  +580

  +127

  +69

  +75

  +180

  +420

  West Yorkshire

  +125

  +86

  +28

  +517

  +172

  +99

  +51

  +154

  +436

  Wiltshire

  +86

  +244

  +29

  (+140)

  +131

  +66

  +9

  +89

  +326

  Dyfed Powys

  +84

  +334

  +2

  (+71)

  +104

  +61

  -38

  +129

  +286

  Gwent

  +87

  +143

  +6

  (+126)

  +100

  +70

  -8

  +147

  +2,055

  North Wales

  +84

  +127

  +8

  (+156)

  +119

  +61

  -48

  +224

  +641

  South Wales

  +120

  +153

  +17

  +152

  +109

  +106

  +24

  +207

  +806

  England and Wales

  +107

  +131

  +49

  +379

  +131

  +81

  +24

  +190

  +454

  Note:

  Figures in brackets are based on totals of less than 100.

  Body Armour
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which European countries routinely supply their police officers with body armour. [25149]

  Mr. Maclean
  We do not have this information.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) bullet-proof and (b) knife-proof vests have been supplied to police officers in each police division in England; [25148]

  (2) how many police officers have been supplied with (a) knife-proof body armour and (b) bullet-proof body armour; and what proportion this constitutes of all police officers. [25141]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not kept centrally.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department is carrying out into body armour for police officers which is both knife and bullet proof. [25155]

  Mr. Maclean
  The police scientific development branch of the Home Office has a continuous programme of evaluating the latest developments in this field. It has in addition, developed test standards and procedures which are provided to manufacturers.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects body armour to be supplied to all police officers in England and Wales. [25142]

  Mr. Maclean
  This is a matter for chief officers of police. I understand, however, that all officers involved in firearms operations are issued with ballistic protection.

  Police Discipline
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) further to the recent report of the Police Complaints Authority, how many police officers were allowed to retire early on medical grounds while facing disciplinary charges in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [25015]
  550
  (2) how many police officers facing disciplinary charges retired early on medical grounds in each of the last five years. [25740]

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1993, 39 officers retired on the grounds of ill health during the course of investigations into their conduct or whilst facing disciplinary action or criminal proceedings.

  Information for earlier years is not available in the form requested.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) further to the recent report of the Police Complaints Authority, what form of disciplinary action was imposed on 1,228 police officers in 1994; [24983]

  (2) further to the recent report papers of the Police Complaints Authority, what was the nature of the 1,228 offences for which disciplinary action was imposed in 1994. [24982]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information available on punishments resulting from disciplinary hearings, including those originating from a complaint, will appear in the Home Office's annual statistical bulletin on police complaints and discipline, which is expected to be published in June.

  Information on the types of complaint which resulted in disciplinary action recorded by the Police Complaints Authority in 1994 will appear in the authority's annual report, which is due to be published shortly.

  Police Training
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 11 May,Official Report, column 555, what estimates were made of the training costs needed to enable police in England and Wales to be fully aware of the provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; and to what extent these were taken into consideration when assessing police funding. [25232]
  551
  Mr. Maclean
  No additions to funding have been made for local training requirements in relation to this Act which were expected to vary according to individual and operational needs. Police funding generally takes into account increasing costs, but forces have to work within budgets to meet changing demands.

  Name Badges (Prison Service)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the policy of his Department that all members within the Prison Service should wear name badges. [22206]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have asked the Prison Service to review the policy.

WALES

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what review he is making of nursery school provision in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [24849]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend and I are considering a number of options on how to fulfil the Government's commitment to provide pre-school places for all four-year-olds whose parents wish to take them up.

  In Wales the office of Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools is undertaking a survey of existing provision in the maintained and voluntary sectors.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning school funding in 1995–96 from(a) teachers, (b) governors and (c) parents; and if he will make a statement. [24853]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend and I have received many representations concerning school funding in 1995–96 from many parties. The funding of schools is a local government responsibility. We have made it clear that in our view there is sufficient scope for local authorities in Wales to fund schools appropriately from within the overall settlement they have received. By longstanding arrangement, it is for local authorities in Wales to decide their priorities for spending.

  Doctors (Suspension)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what measures he will take to ensure that general practitioners found guilty of professional misconduct do not continue to practise pending the outcome of their appeal; [24860]

  (2) how many general practitioners found guilty of professional misconduct are continuing to practise pending their appeal; and if he will make a statement; [24839]

  (3) what representations he has received concerning general practitioners who continue to practise pending their appeal; and if he will make a statement. [24859]
  552
  Mr. Richards
  The General Medical Council is the independent statutory authority responsible for regulating the medical profession. In the last two years the GMC has used its powers to suspend doctors in almost 50 per cent. of cases. Representations have been received on individual cases, but these are matters for the GMC, not the Government.

  A Bill currently before Parliament would give the NHS tribunal new powers of suspension.

  School Class Sizes
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines his Department issues on the optimum number of pupils per class in primary schools; and if he will make a statement. [24851]

  Mr. Richards
  Class sizes are a matter for individual school governing bodies.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the amount of Government funding given to each of the public schools in Wales via the assisted places schemes in(a) 1993–94 (b) 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [24852]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:

  Total payments to APS schools 1993–94 and 1994–95

  Name of school

  Total payments 1993–94 £

  Total payments 1994–95 £

  Monmouth Boys

  456,071

  468,332

  Penrhos College

  295,428

  309,809

  Howells, Cardiff

  430,751

  452,598

  Rydal School

  252,589

  289,112

  Llandovery College

  256,648

  279,489

  Christ College

  389,754

  410,476

  Howells, Denbigh

  353,064

  365,186

  Monmouth Girls

  186,956

  196,502

  Total expenditure

  2,621,261

  2,771,504

  National Lottery
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the sports bodies in(a) Wales and (b) Clwyd to which grants from national lottery proceeds have been made; and if he will give the amounts given. [24840]

  Mr. Richards
  The first allocation of grants from Sportlot, the Lottery Sports Fund for Wales, has been distributed throughout Wales as follows:

  Applicant

  Amount of grant £

  Cardiff Central Youth Club

  95,192

  Llandaff Rowing Club

  150,623

  Y Pant Comprehensive School

  4,500

  Builth Wells Rugby Club

  60,398

  Llanfapley Cricket Club and Llanfapley Sports and Social Committee

  34,498

  Llanwrda Cricket Club

  10,675

  Clwb Rygbi Castell Newydd Emlyn

  100,000

  Dyffryn Cricket Club/Bryncoch Sports Club

  4,000

  553

  Applicant

  Amount of grant £

  Lampeter AFC

  20,000

  Aberporth and District Youth Club

  45,000

  Pembroke Dock Bowling Club

  10,000

  Dale Yacht Club

  5,000

  Solva Rowing and Watersports Club

  5,000

  Rhydymwyn Football Club

  26,125

  Total

  571,011

  In Clwyd one grant of £26,125 has been made to Rhydymwyn football club.

  Welsh Patients Treated in Chester
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the percentage of beds taken annually by people from Clwyd in Chester hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [25163]

  Mr. Richards
  Reliable information is not available centrally.

  Infertility Treatment
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning treatment for infertility. [25162]

  Mr. Richards
  The NHS in Wales provides a wide range of services for the investigation and treatment of infertility. It is for individual health authorities to determine the extent and type of services in the light of local needs and priorities.

  The Welsh Office has provided guidance in the protocol, "Investment in Health Gain for Health Living", and has drawn attention to the advice contained in "The Effective Health Care Bulletin on the Management of Subfertility", published for the NHS management executive by a consortium of Leeds and York universities and the research unit of the Royal College of Physicians, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists publication "Infertility—Guidelines for Practice". Copies of these documents are available in the Library of the House.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contributions are planned from his Department during 1995–96 for funding to facilitate the optimising of take-up of EU grants under the objective 5b programme in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [25008]

  Mr. Redwood
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 11 May,Official Report, column 585.

  (a) Income from residential care and nursing placements in registered independent homes for the elderly 1993–941

  £000

  Total income

  (i) Government grants2

  (ii) Sales

  (iii) Fees and charges

  (iv) Other income

  (v) Joint arrangements

  Clwyd

  27

  0

  0

  27

  0

  0

  Dyfed

  1,248

  0

  0

  1,248

  0

  0

  Gwent

  1,203

  0

  0

  1,203

  0

  0

  Gwynedd

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  554
  Support for the objective 5b programme can come from a variety of public sector sources, including my own Department. The amount of assistance actually made available from any source in direct support of objective 5b projects will depend on the nature and quality of projects put forward.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the working so far of care in the community in Wales. [25164]

  Mr. Richards
  Local authorities in Wales have made generally good progress since April 1993 with community care. The Welsh Office departmental report, Cm2815, records that in the first year of the new arrangements local authorities assessed over 50,000 people for community care services and over 28,000 were provided with care to help them stay in their own homes.

  Contracting Out
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what work has been contracted out(a) by his Department and (b) by agencies for which his Department is responsible in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) 1994–95; and what is projected for 1995–96. [25544]

  Mr. Redwood
  As a result of my Department and its agency's competing for quality programmes the following services have been contracted out: 1993–94 building maintenance management; 1994–95 staff training; 1995–96 to date, architects and surveyors services and careers service in Wales. Contracting out of further work in 1995–96 is dependent on the outcome of current market testing exercises.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total income in 1993–94 to each local authority and in total from placements of old people in(a) registered and (b) unregistered independent residential care and nursing homes, inside and outside the local authority area and from placements in local authority homes for older people; and if he will break down by income from (i) government grants, inside aggregate external finance and outside aggregate external finance, (ii) sales, (iii) fees and charges, (iv) other income and (v) joint arrangements. [25393]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is given in the following tables, based on revenue outturn forms from local authorities in Wales. Local authorities received no income in 1993–94 from placements in unregistered independent residential care and nursing homes.
  555

  (a) Income from residential care and nursing placements in registered independent homes for the elderly 1993–941

  £000

  Total income

  (i) Government grants2

  (ii) Sales

  (iii) Fees and charges

  (iv) Other income

  (v) Joint arrangements

  Powys

  121

  0

  0

  121

  0

  0

  South Glamorgan

  94

  0

  0

  94

  0

  0

  West Glamorgan

  5

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  Total Wales

  2,698

  0

  0

  2,698

  0

  0

  1Provisional. Includes placements in independent sector homes which are not required to register under the Registered Homes Act 1984 because they are managed or provided by an exempt body.

  2Includes specific government grants inside and outside Aggregate External Finance.

  (b) Income from Local Authority Homes for the elderly 1993–941

  £000

  Total income

  (i) Government grants2

  (ii) Sales

  (iii) Fees and charges

  (iv) Other income

  (v) Joint arrangements

  Clwyd

  2,252

  0

  107

  2,036

  109

  0

  Dyfed

  4,537

  0

  21

  3,812

  704

  0

  Gwent

  3,103

  54

  19

  2,548

  474

  35

  Gwynedd

  2,621

  0

  0

  2,559

  62

  0

  Mid Glamorgan

  5,146

  35

  43

  5,068

  0

  0

  Powys

  1,502

  0

  10

  1,475

  17

  0

  South Glamorgan

  1,876

  0

  22

  1,637

  209

  8

  West Glamorgan

  2,371

  17

  33

  2,201

  120

  0

  Total Wales

  23,435

  106

  255

  21,336

  1,695

  43

  1Provisional. Includes income from placements of the elderly mentally infirm, the physically disabled and blind and deaf people. Excludes income form sheltered accommodation.

  2Includes specific government grants inside and outside Aggregate External Finance.

  Schools Inspectors
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of all schools inspectors indicating those who have undertaken further training to become registered inspectors and are able to tender for school inspections and lead inspection teams. [25391]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector to deal with and I have arranged for him to write to the hon. Member about it.

  Radioactive Waste
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to allow radioactive waste from the nuclear power industry to be accepted by local landfill disposal sites. [25773]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is one of the issues being considered in the current review of radioactive waste management policy, as part of which a major consultation exercise was undertaken last autumn. The Government's conclusions on this matter and other aspects of radioactive waste management policy will be published in a White Paper in the summer.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the local landfill disposal sites that accept low level radioactive waste for disposal; and if he will make a statement about the sources of such waste. [25775]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In Wales only one landfill site has been authorised for this purpose—Cilgwyn quarry, near Caernarfon. The very small amounts of waste involved 556
  have come from the university sector and have been regulated in accordance with the Radioactive Substances Act 1993.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that the privatised utilities in Wales develop comprehensive bilingual policies. [25774]

  Mr. Richards
  It was not intended that the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993 should apply to the private sector. However, many private companies, including privatised utilities, have produced Welsh language schemes voluntarily and in response to customer demand. The privatised utilities have, I believe, a particularly good record of operating bilingual policies successfully.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Income Support
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations his Department and its agencies have received since 1 January about delays in paying income support in respect of persons with extreme difficulties in specialised units(a) nationally and (b) in Somerset; what trends there have been in the time taken to settle these claims; and if he will make a statement. [24285]
  557
  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. David Nicholson, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about delays in making payment of Income Support to customers with extreme difficulties living in specialised units in Somerset and elsewhere in Great Britain.
  I understand that the Manager of the Benefits Agency's District Office in Somerset wrote to you on 17 May concerning the Income Support claims of four residents of a specialised unit, two of whom had their cases immediately resolved. Since that date the two outstanding cases have also been resolved and full entitlement to benefit including all arrears due has been sent.
  I am very sorry that there have been difficulties in respect of these particular cases. I am assured, however, that this is an isolated matter and we have no evidence or indication that there is a problem of delays in the payment of Income Support either in Somerset or nationally to customers in these circumstances.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been refused income support after failing the habitual residence test since its introduction, in the Euston district office of Glasgow; how many have appealed against this decision; how many of those appeals have now been heard by a tribunal; how many claimants won their appeals; how many are still waiting for an appeal date to be given; and how many of those claimants appealing, have applied for an interim payment, and how many of those applicants have been refused. [25403]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of income support is. a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the operation of the habitual residence test (HRT) for Income Support customers of the Benefits Agency (BA) District Office in Euston.
  The full range of information is not available. Information about the number of customers who pass or fail the HRT is collected and maintained centrally for BA management information purposes. Information is not routinely collected about appeals specifically against HRT decisions, the result of those appeals, or of requests for interim payments on account of Income Support entitlement.
  However, as an aid to their resource planning and management team at Glasgow Benefit Centre has kept an informal record of appeals against Income Support disallowances from customers of Euston District Office who fail the HRT, and of the decisions of the Social Security Appeal Tribunals, for which a notification has been received, in those appeals. The data available is:

  Habitual Residence Test disallowances—3966

  Habitual Residence Test appeals—364

  Appeals heard—97

  Appeals allowed—72

  Hearing date awaited—116

  It should be noted that in a number of cases the local adjudicating authorities revised the disallowance of Income Support as part of a routine review of the decision following receipt of an appeal; a number of appeals have been heard but notification of the Tribunal decision is awaited; and in a number of cases hearing dates have been notified to customers.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will re-institute the collection and publishing of data on the length of time claimants have 558
  been drawing income support by each year of duration above two years, and up to 20 years plus. [25140]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  It is no longer possible to collect reliable information on durations of claims for those people who have been in receipt of income support for relatively long periods. A full explanation is given in the introduction to the 1993 annual statistical enquiry, a copy of which is in the Library.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how far back computerised records of national insurance contributions extend. [25040]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The administration of national insurance is the responsibility of Mrs. Faith Boardman, the chief executive of the Contributions Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Jon Owen Jones, dated 19 May 1995:
  As Chief Executive of the Contributions Agency, I have responsibility for answering questions about operational matters relating to the National Insurance scheme, I have been asked to reply to your question about how far back computerised records of National Insurance contributions extend.
  A cumulative total is held on each contributor's computer account of all National Insurance contributions from April 1948 to March 1975.
  From April 1975, detailed annual records of all National Insurance contributions are held on each contributor's account.
  I hope you will find this reply helpful. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know.

  HIV Infection
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps his Department is taking to disseminate the guidance to Benefits Agency medical services on HIV infection to doctors and staff. [25247]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Mr. Ian Magee, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ian Magee to Mr. Frank Field, dated 22 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the guidance that is issued by the Benefits Agency on HIV infection.
  "A Guide to Benefits and HIV" was produced by the Benefits Agency in June 1993. It was written in co-operation with many organisations including the Terrence Higgins Trust. The Guide was distributed widely throughout the Agency, and provides advice for staff, including the Agency's medical advisors, and customers about the benefit and welfare issues which affect people with HIV positive related illnesses. There is also advice on other agencies and outside organisations from whom help may be obtained; a list of related publications is also included.
  Additionally, during 1994 guidance was issued to staff, including the Agency's medical advisors, on the following topics:-

  i) the safe disposal of hypodermic needles discarded by the public in Benefits Agency District and Branch Offices.

  ii) precautions to be taken by those administering First Aid, particularly in the avoidance of blood contact.

  iii) the Benefits Agency Policy Statement covering employees and clients who may have AIDS or be HIV positive.

  I have enclosed both "A Guide to Benefits and HIV" and the further guidance I have mentioned, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefit Take-up
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received social security benefits(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of the eligible population in each year since 1979. [25757]

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

  Sickness and Maternity Pay
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many people have been denied statutory sick pay because their earnings were too low in the last year for which figures are available; [25001]

  (2) how many women in the last year for which figures are available have been denied statutory maternity pay because their earnings were too low. [24994]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available. Employers are not required to keep information on exclusions.

  Single Person—Aged 25 or over

  £

  Hours Worked

  Rate per hour

  Gross earnings

  Tax and N.I. Contributions

  Take home pay

  Unemployment benefit

  Income support

  Family Credit

  Child Benefit

  Rent

  Rent Rebate

  Council tax

  Council tax benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and Council tax

  Net income after rent and Council tax if no UB entitlement

  16

  2.50

  40.00

  0.00

  40.00

  30.97

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  18.25

  6.60

  2.71

  91.93

  54.42

  40.00

  16

  3.00

  48.00

  0.00

  48.00

  30.97

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  13.05

  6.60

  1.11

  93.13

  55.62

  48.00

  16

  3.50

  56.00

  0.00

  56.00

  30.97

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  7.85

  6.60

  0.00

  94.82

  57.31

  52.18

  16

  4.00

  64.00

  1.76

  62.24

  30.97

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  3.80

  6.60

  0.00

  97.01

  59.50

  53.11

  16

  4.15

  66.40

  2.00

  64.40

  30.97

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  2.39

  6.60

  0.00

  97.76

  60.25

  53.44

  40

  2.50

  100.00

  11.80

  88.20

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  7.06

  6.60

  0.00

  95.26

  57.75

  —

  40

  3.00

  120.00

  17.80

  102.20

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  0.00

  6.60

  0.00

  102.20

  64.69

  —

  40

  3.50

  140.00

  24.34

  115.66

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  0.00

  6.60

  0.00

  115.66

  78.15

  —

  40

  4.00

  160.00

  31.34

  128.66

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  0.00

  6.60

  0.00

  128.66

  91.15

  —

  40

  4.15

  166.00

  33.44

  132.56

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  0.00

  6.60

  0.00

  132.56

  95.05

  —

  Notes:

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

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

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

  4. Benefit Rates reflect increases from April 1995—apart from rent and council tax which remain at April 1994 rates.

  Married couple—Non earning partner

  £

  Hours Worked

  Rate per hour

  Gross earnings

  Tax and N.I. Contributions

  Take home pay

  Unemployment benefit

  Income support

  Family Credit

  Child Benefit

  Rent

  Rent Rebate

  Council tax

  Council tax benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and council tax

  Net income after rent and council tax if no UB entitlement

  16

  2.50

  40.00

  0.00

  40.00

  50.07

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  26.31

  8.60

  7.19

  123.57

  84.06

  40.00

  16

  3.00

  48.00

  0.00

  48.00

  50.07

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  21.11

  8.60

  5.59

  124.77

  85.26

  48.00

  16

  3.50

  56.00

  0.00

  56.00

  50.07

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  15.91

  8.60

  3.99

  125.97

  86.46

  56.00

  16

  4.00

  64.00

  1.76

  62.24

  50.07

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  11.86

  8.60

  2.74

  126.91

  87.40

  62.24

  16

  4.15

  66.40

  2.00

  64.40

  50.07

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  10.45

  8.60

  2.31

  127.23

  87.72

  64.40

  40

  2.50

  100.00

  6.84

  93.16

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  24.31

  8.60

  6.57

  124.04

  84.53

  —

  40

  3.00

  120.00

  12.84

  107.16

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  15.21

  8.60

  3.77

  126.14

  86.63

  —

  Incomes
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the weekly income of(a) a single person aged 25 years or over, (b) a married couple with a non-earning partner and (c) a married couple with a non-earning partner with two children aged four and six years when the person in work was employed for (i) 16 hours and (ii) 40 hours a week at (1) £2.50 an hour, (2) £3 an hour, (3) £3.50 an hour, (4) £4 an hour and (5) £4.15 an hour, assuming full take-up of benefits and assuming that they lived in local authority accommodation paying average council tax and local authority rent. [25045]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the tables.

  From July, families working 30 or more hours per week will be entitled to an extra £10 family credit A new benefit to provide help to couples and single people without children in low-paid work of 16 or more hours per week is to be piloted from October 1996.
  561

  Married couple—Non earning partner

  £

  Hours Worked

  Rate per hour

  Gross earnings

  Tax and N.I. Contributions

  Take home pay

  Unemployment benefit

  Income support

  Family credit

  Child Benefit

  Rent

  Rent Rebate

  Council tax

  Council tax benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and Council tax

  Net income after rent and Council tax if no UB entitlement

  40

  3.50

  140.00

  19.37

  120.63

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  6.45

  8.60

  1.07

  128.15

  88.64

  —

  40

  4.00

  160.00

  26.37

  133.63

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  0.00

  8.60

  0.00

  133.63

  94.12

  —

  40

  4.15

  166.00

  28.47

  137.53

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  0.00

  30.91

  0.00

  8.60

  0.00

  137.53

  98.02

  —

  Notes:

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

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

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

  4. Benefit Rates reflect increases from April 1995—apart from rent and council tax which remains at April 1994 rates.

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

  Hours Worked

  Rate per hour

  Gross earnings

  Tax and N.I. Contributions

  Take home pay

  Unemployment benefit

  Income support

  Family credit

  Child Benefit

  Rent

  Rent Rebate

  Council tax

  Council tax benefit

  Total net income

  Net income after rent and Council tax

  16

  £2.50

  40.00

  0.00

  40.00

  0.00

  0.00

  67.90

  18.85

  36.42

  35.38

  11.00

  10.68

  172.81

  125.39

  16

  £3.00

  48.00

  0.00

  48.00

  0.00

  0.00

  67.90

  18.85

  36.42

  30.18

  11.00

  9.08

  174.01

  126.59

  16

  £3.50

  56.00

  0.00

  56.00

  0.00

  0.00

  67.90

  18.85

  36.42

  24.98

  11.00

  7.48

  175.21

  127.79

  16

  £4.00

  64.00

  1.76

  62.24

  0.00

  0.00

  67.90

  18.85

  36.42

  20.92

  11.00

  6.23

  176.14

  128.72

  16

  £4.15

  66.40

  2.00

  64.40

  0.00

  0.00

  67.90

  18.85

  36.42

  19.52

  11.00

  5.80

  176.47

  129.05

  40

  £2.50

  100.00

  6.84

  93.16

  0.00

  0.00

  53.79

  18.85

  36.42

  10.00

  11.00

  2.87

  178.67

  131.25

  40

  £3.00

  120.00

  12.84

  107.16

  0.00

  0.00

  43.99

  18.85

  36.42

  7.27

  11.00

  2.03

  179.30

  131.88

  40

  £3.50

  140.00

  19.37

  120.63

  0.00

  0.00

  34.56

  18.85

  36.42

  4.64

  11.00

  1.22

  179.90

  132.48

  40

  £4.00

  160.00

  26.37

  133.63

  0.00

  0.00

  25.46

  18.85

  36.42

  2.11

  11.00

  0.44

  180.49

  133.07

  40

  £4.15

  166.00

  28.47

  137.53

  0.00

  0.00

  22.73

  18.85

  36.42

  1.35

  11.00

  0.21

  180.67

  133.25

  Notes:

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

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

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

  4. Benefit Rates reflect increases from April 1995—apart from rent and council tax which remain at April 1994 rates.

  Home Responsibilities Protection
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration his Department is giving to the treatment of a male claimant of home responsibilities protection credits, for looking after and taking responsibility for his children while his partner is working, in a way which differs from what would apply if the roles were reversed; what plans he has to equalise the treatment; and if he will make a statement. [25789]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Home responsibilities protection protects a person's basic retirement pension by reducing the number of years of contributions otherwise needed for a full pension. The provisions apply equally to both men and women. HRP is available to those with child-caring responsibilities provided that they are entitled to child benefit for a child under age 16. In cases where the caring roles are reversed, it is open to a woman to forgo her 562
  CHB entitlement so that her partner can claim it and thus have access to HRP.

  In-work Benefit Scheme
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made regarding the setting up and running of family credit pilot schemes for families without children; and for how long he intends these pilot schemes to run. [25802]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The pilot of a new in-work benefit for those not able to take advantage of family credit is one of a number of measures which we announced last November to help unemployed people move back into work more easily and increase the opportunities and rewards of work.

  The pilot will run for three years to enable the impact of the new benefit to be properly evaluated. A Green Paper to be published shortly will set out our proposals in detail.

EMPLOYMENT

  Unemployment
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many people are recorded as having been unemployed for more than six months; and what proportion this is of the total number recorded as unemployed. [22318]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In April 1995 there were 1,361,160 claimants who had been unemployed for six months or more. This represents 57.3 per cent. of the total number of claimant unemployed. In autumn 1994, according to the labour force survey, there were 1,499,000 people who had been unemployed for six months or more on the internationally standard ILO definition. This represents 59.6 per cent. of the corresponding ILO total. Both figures are on the unadjusted basis.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is the minimum wage in other EC countries; which EC countries have a minimum wage of £180 per week equivalent; what assessment he has made of the effect of these minimum wages on jobs and the economy; and if he will make a statement. [23692]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The table gives the most up-to-date information available on national minimum wages in other European Union countries:

  Minimum wage level

  Own currency

  UK equivalent converted at market exchange rates £ per hour (estimated)

  Belgium

  42,808 BF monthly

  5.30

  France

  35.56 FF hourly

  4.60

  Greece

  4,934 Dr daily

  1.70

  Luxembourg

  42,677 LF per month

  5.30

  Netherlands

  2,163.2 Hfl monthly

  4.90

  Portugal

  52,000 Esc monthly

  1.30

  Spain

  62,700 Pts monthly

  1.80

  Note:

  Table uses latest information available in April 1995. Wage rates converted to UK equivalent using spot exchange rates for May 9 1995.

  On the above estimates, on the assumption of a 40-hour working week, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg would have minimum wages of £180 per week or more.

  Minimum wages destroy jobs, particularly among young people. This was the conclusion of the OECD jobs study.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment when he intends to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Monklands, West of 27 April, regarding the access to work programme. [25159]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The letter was replied to on 16 May 1995, before the hon. Member tabled this question and well within the normal time scale for ministerial reply.

  Health and Safety Executive Publications
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how the price for the Health and Safety Executive's publication, "New and Expectant Mothers at Work—A Guide for Employers", HS(G) 122, was arrived at; what the profit margin is; what profit he expects to make on sales; and what assessment he has made of the deterrent effect of the price on availability of this information to those who need it in order to comply with legal duties. [25211]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  In accordance with Treasury guidelines the Health and Safety Executive aims to recover the costs of production and distribution of its priced publications. There is no profit element built into the price.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what considerations underlie the refusal by the Health and Safety Executive to allow trade unions to photocopy the Health and Safety Executive publication, "New and Expectant Mothers at Work—A Guide for Employers", HS(G) 122, for use by union health and safety representatives. [25213]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I understand that there has been no such refusal by the Health and Safety Executive.

  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment how many copies of the Health and Safety Executive publication, "New and Expectant Mothers at Work—A Guide for Employers, HS[G]122, have so far been sold; how many would need to be sold to give a substantially complete coverage of employers; and what percentage of employers he estimates will have been reached so far. [25212]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Over 10,000 copies of this guidance have been sold since it was published in December 1994. It is not feasible to estimate the size of the market for the publication.

  Staff
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what changes there have been in the numbers of staff employed by(a) the Department of Employment and (b) agencies for which the Department of Employment 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. [25059]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Information on staff numbers for the Department can be found in annexe A to table (iii) of the Department's annual report, Cm 2805. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment (1) what inter-departmental discussions he has conducted to prohibit age discrimination in the civil service; [24996]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of age discrimination legislation in Canada and New Zealand; [24999]

  (3) what discussions (a) have been held or (b) are proposed to be held by his Department with employers' organisations on age bars on young and older people. [24995]
  565
  Miss Widdecombe
  The Government are firmly committed to countering discrimination on age grounds in the workplace. I launched a campaign in 1993 to highlight the unfairness of such discrimination. As part of the campaign the Employment Department published in 1994 a booklet, "Getting On", aimed specifically at employers. It urges them to recruit on merit and drop age bars in job vacancies. A series of regional seminars is currently spreading this message among locally invited employers and their organisations.

  Staff in Employment Service jobcentres have been given clear guidance to challenge employers over restrictive upper and lower age limits and to try to persuade them to consider all jobseekers on merit.

  Responsibility for promoting equality of opportunity in the civil service, in particular in the areas of gender, race and disability, but including age discrimination, lies with the Office of Public Service and Science. Civil service policy is that all eligible people have equal opportunities for employment and advancement on the basis of their suitability. A 1990 ruling not to set age limits on recruitment was extended in 1994 to cover those adverts which give preferred age ranges of applicants. This enables the civil service to benefit from the skills, experience and commitment which older workers can offer. Discrimination on grounds of age alone is now permitted only in exceptional circumstances—for example where there are statutory requirements, and with the prior consent of OPSS.

  In June 1994, the Employment Department published a report entitled "An International Overview of Employment Policies and Practices Towards Older Workers", research series No. 29, containing research into the policies and practices towards older workers in 22 countries, including Canada and New Zealand. The research found no evidence that anti-discrimination legislation has been successful in improving either the economic activity rates of older workers or their employment prospects. A copy of the report is available in the Library.

  Wage Studies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what studies he has initiated to ascertain how many workers receive less than £66.50 per week. [24997]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Department has undertaken no such study.

  Statutory Employment Rights
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment to what extent he monitors the impact of statutory employment rights on the economic effectiveness of the work force. [24953]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Department conducts research from time to time to assess the effect of statutory employment rights, including on employment and the economy.

  Graduate Unemployment
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what percentage of graduates was unemployed one year after leaving higher education(a) currently (b) in 1979. [25020]
  566
  Mr. Oppenheim
  The latest available estimates for Great Britain from the spring 1994 labour force survey show that 16.6 per cent. of graduates of working age who were not full-time students when interviewed, but were full-time students one year prior to interview were ILO unemployed. There is no information for 1979.

  Access to Work Programme
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy regarding items of equipment purchased under the access to work programme where the beneficiary has ceased to be employed but is actively seeking work. [25323]

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

  Letter from A. G. Johnson to Mr. Tom Clarke, dated 23 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me, in the absence of the Chief Executive, to reply to your question about the policy regarding items of equipment purchased under the Access to Work programme where the beneficiary has ceased to be employed but is actively seeking work.
  Special aids and equipment are supplied under the Access to Work programme to help overcome work related needs that arise because of disability. Where a person in receipt of such help is no longer employed but is actively seeking employment and continued use of that equipment would benefit them in finding work, they may retain the equipment for an agreed period at the discretion of the Employment Service. The equipment may then be used in their new job if appropriate.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Majority Shareholdings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment, 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. [25719]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: None.

  Job Clubs
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what is his policy regarding smoking at job clubs. [25750]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 23 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the smoking policy in Jobclubs.
  In 1994 a policy on smoking in all Employment Service (ES) programmes, including Jobclub, was introduced. The principle of the policy is that participants shall be entitled to a smoke free environment. In practice this means that unrestricted smoking is not allowed on any ES workshops, seminars or courses, including Jobclub. Wherever possible, designated areas and times should be provided for smokers.
  Jobclubs continue to be both popular with the people who join and an effective way of helping them back to work. We are now able to help more members than at any time before and over 266,000 unemployed people joined Jobclub last year.

  567
  I hope this is helpful.

  Disqualification Periods
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what are the latest statistics of the periods of disqualification for benefit for those who have voluntarily left employment. [25427]

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

  Letter to M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Paul Flynn dated 23 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about statistics held on the periods of disqualification of benefit for clients who have voluntarily left employment.
  The regular statistics regarding disqualifications are broken down into subjects, not the length of disqualification and I am therefore unable to provide the information you have requested. I am however able to advise that the number of decisions affecting clients who have left employment voluntarily during the three months to 31 December 1994 was 58,425. Of these, 50.2 percent were Adverse Decisions.
  These figures are taken from the unemployment benefit statistics. A copy of this quarterly publication which is an Analysis of Adjudication Officers' Decisions has been placed in the Library.
  A one-off survey, which was part of a larger project looking at adjudication issues carried out in late 1994, gave a snap shot picture of average periods of disqualification during October 1994. The findings showed that for those who left their employment voluntarily, 25 percent were disqualified for the maximum period of 6 months.
  I hope this is helpful.

TRANSPORT

  Driving Theory Test
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how he proposes to implement the driving theory test; and if he will make a statement. [26194]

  Mr. Norris
  The previous Secretary of State set in hand detailed developmental work on a separate theory test,Official Report, 9 February 1994, columns 270–71. I announced earlier today that the test will be in the form of a written test lasting about half an hour and consisting of about 35 multiple choice questions on the main principles of safe driving and the responsible use of vehicles on the road. The theory test will need to be passed before a candidate can take the practical test. We see the new test as making an important contribution to safer driving, especially by new drivers.

  Introduction of the new theory test will be the responsibility of the Driving Standards Agency, which plans to contract out the practical implementation work to the private sector. Tenders will shortly be invited from non-governmental bodies for the operation of the theory test through a network of local centres. We shall be seeking a reputable body with experience in conducting assessments and with no financial interest in driving tuition.

  We have carefully considered the alternative of a computerised test involving hazard perception and concluded that for the present this option would be too costly and needs further development. We shall be
  568
  monitoring the effect of the separate theory test with a view to developing it in ways which will further improve road safety, one of which may well be the use of computers.

  We shall be making further announcements in due course on the details of the test.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 10 May,Official Report, column 457 (1) if he will make it his policy to ensure that the public expenditure cover he will make available to the British Railways Board in regard to the contractual and other obligations of the board will be sufficient to cover all industrial injury claims brought by retired British Rail employees following privatisation of British Rail; [25028]

  (2) whether the amount of public expenditure cover that will be made available by his Department to the British Railways Board in regard to the contractual and other obligations of the board will be financially limited. [25027]

  Mr. Watts
  In setting the annual level of public expenditure provision to support British Rail, the Government have regard to all aspects of the board's financial position, including any contractual obligations and any need to make payments arising from industrial injury claims awards.

  Collision Research
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to make road vehicle fronts more absorbent to the force of collision. [25428]

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom has taken a leading role on pedestrian protection research for many years. We have in particular encouraged the preparation of a draft EU directive which would require car fronts to be designed with pedestrian accidents in mind and will continue to press the European Commission to bring forward a proposal without further delay.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will investigate the evidence on the safety value of the use of airbags on the front of cars in Japan. [25529]

  Mr. Norris
  No. Very little information is yet available on this system.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has evaluated into the effects on driver and passenger on vehicles with bull bars when involved in accidents, listing the studies(a) conducted in the United Kingdom and (b) conducted overseas. [25425]

  Mr. Norris
  None. We are not aware of any relevant research.

  Majority Shareholdings
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [25706]

  Dr. Mawhinney
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: On (a), majority shareholdings are currently held in the following five companies: Railtrack Group PLC, Union Railways Ltd, European Passenger Services Ltd, National

  569
  Bus Company Pension Trustees Ltd and National Bus Nominees Ltd.

  On (b), a majority shareholding was held in the Red Sea Lights Company, prior to the company being wound up in 1991.

  Marine Safety Exercises
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of the passengers and crew involved were able-bodied; and in what time periods the passengers were evacuated and succoured ashore in the evacuation exercises carried out by the coastguard. [25573]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: This is an operational matter for the Coastguard Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 23 May 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question as the question deals with an operational matter, for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive.

  PQ 1811/94/95 The information requested in this PQ is detailed below:

  Exercise

  Number of evacuees

  Percentage able bodied1

  Time: evacuation to reception ashore

  Common

  Aim 3

  183

  91

  2 Hrs

  Claymore

  234

  66

  2 Hrs 44 min

  Goodwin

  160

  94

  2 Hrs 17 min

  Liverpool

  Bay

  42

  86

  2 Hrs 17 min

  Eddy stone

  277

  84

  2 Hrs 54 min

  Webex

  50

  0

  3 Hrs 15 min

  Seafire

  207

  69

  3 Hrs 32 min

  Beauforts

  Dyke

  210

  62

  4 Hrs 02 min

  Sovereign

  250

  94

  2 Hrs 30 min

  1 Remainder In (simulated).

  Munitions Transport
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if permission was granted by the Civil Aviation Authority for British Airways to transport munitions from Hong Kong to London on 4 April. [25571]

  Mr. Norris
  I understand that British Airways was granted permission by the Civil Aviation Authority to carry munitions of war from Hong Kong on 4 April.

  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what controls exist to regulate the transport of weapons and ammunition as cargo on scheduled civil air services. [25568]

  Mr. Norris
  Article 46 of the Air Navigation Order 1989—Article 51 of the 1995 order—sets out the conditions under which weapons and munitions of war can be carried on civil aircraft. The Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 1994 set out the conditions under which dangerous goods, including ammunition, can be carried on civil aircraft.

  Vehicle Licence Payments
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring in a scheme to allow the 570
  payment of the vehicle licence by monthly instalments, at no extra cost. [25540]

  Mr. Norris
  No. This would be costly to administer, and is unnecessary since, under the existing stamp saving scheme, £5 stamps can be purchased at post offices throughout the year for use towards payment of the vehicle licence.

  Contracting Out
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) for each piece of work subject to a bidding process under the auspices of(a) his Department and (b) agencies for which his Department is responsible (i) where work was contracted out, who were the successful bidders and (ii) which contracts were won by in-house successful bidders in (1) 1993–94, (2) 1994–95 and (3) 1995–96; [25664]

  (2) what work has been contracted out (a) by his Department and (b) by agencies for which his Department is responsible in (i) 1993–94 (ii) 1994–95 and (iii) projected for 1995–96. [25662]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is given in the table. It is not possible to forecast which work will be contracted out in 1995–96 but items in the Department's competing for quality programme which are not yet completed are listed.

  Results of competing for quality programme for 1 April 1992–30 September 1993

  DOT or Agency

  Activity

  Outcome

  Winner where contracted out

  DVLA

  Despatch

  In-house team won

  —

  DVLA

  Security

  In-house team won

  —

  DVOIT

  IT and facilities management for DOT

  Privatised

  EDS

  MSA

  Register of shipping and seamen

  In-house team won

  —

  TRL

  Research commissions

  In-house team win and contracted out

  1Various

  1 Various covers those case where a number of different firms have been awarded contracts or where a range of call-off contracts has taken the place of single supplier.

  Results of competing for quality programme for 1 October 1993–30 September 1994

  DOT or Agency

  Activity

  Outcome

  Winner where contracted out

  Coastguard

  Property management

  Contracted out

  Various1

  DOT

  Computer bureau facilities

  Contracted out

  Digital

  DOT

  Eastcote services: distribution

  Contracted out

  EROS Marketing Support

  DOT

  Other distribution

  In-house team won2

  HMSO

  DOT

  Stationery supplies

  Contracted out

  Dudley Stationery Ltd

  DOT

  Book and periodical procurement

  Two items: One contracted out and one in-house team Won

  Dawson UK Ltd and HMSO

  571

  Results of competing for quality programme for 1 October 1993–30 September 1994

  DOT or Agency

  Activity

  Outcome

  Winner where contracted out

  DOT

  Office machinery

  Contracted out

  Various1

  DOT

  Reprographics

  Transferred to HMSO

  HMSO

  DOT

  Reprographics

  In-house team won

  —

  DVLA

  Telesales

  Contracted out

  Teledata Ltd

  DVLA

  Forms design

  Contracted out

  Claydon Heely international

  VCA

  Microfilm, data storage and reprographics

  Contracted out

  REM Office Systems (Bristol) Ltd

  VI

  IT strategy support

  Contracted out

  EDS

  VI

  Roller brake testing maintenance

  Contracted out

  VL Test Systems

  VI

  Weighbridge Maintenance

  Contracted out

  Metler Toledo

  VI

  Library Services

  Contracted out

  Various1

  VI

  Building and estate management

  Contracted out

  Various1

  VI

  Workshop and stores

  Contracted out

  VLT Limited

  1 Various covers those cases where a number of different firms have been awarded contracts or where a range of call-off contracts has taken the place of a single supplier

  2In-house team for these items is a team from another Government Department.

  Results of competing for quality programme for 1 October 1994–31 March 1995

  DOT or Agency

  Activity

  Outcome

  Winner where contracted out

  DOT

  Managed voice telephony service

  In-house team won1

  CCTA

  DOT

  Records service

  Two items: one contracted out, one in-house team won

  Brittania Data Management (BDM)

  DSA

  Driver test booking service

  In-house team won

  —

  DVLA

  Waste collection

  Contracted out

  ISS Contract Clean (Southern) Ltd.

  DVLA

  Stores and waste management

  In-house team won

  —

  DVLA

  Messenger services

  In-house team Won

  —

  DVLA

  Internal Audit

  Contracted out

  Ernst and Young

  1In-house team for these items is a team from another Government Department.

  Competing for quality items not yet completed

  DOT or Agency

  Activity

  DOT

  Payroll

  DOT

  Library

  DOT

  Enquiry service

  DOT

  New HQ:

  572

  Competing for quality items not yet completed

  DOT or Agency

  Activity

  Telecommunications Post and messengers

  DOT

  Central Services: IT communications network

  DOT

  Correspondence location unit

  DOT

  IDS and couriers

  DOT

  Telecoms

  DOT

  Printing

  DOT

  DOT publications

  Coastguard

  Training

  Coastguard

  Messengers and post room services

  DVLA

  Personnel group

  Highways

  Topographical/architectural model making

  Highways

  Management of land and property acquired for roads programme

  Highways

  Procurement and maintenance of vehicles for winter maintenance of motorways

  Highways

  Administrative arrangements for public inquiries into road schemes

  TRL

  Privatisation of Agency

  Stationary Buses (Pollution)
  Mr. John Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration he is giving to the practice of stationary tourist buses with their engines running for long periods. [25407]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government deplore the actions of any motorist who leaves an engine running unnecessarily. It is already illegal to do so in certain circumstances.

  London Transport Staff
  Mr. Dowd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff were employed by London Transport on 1 April. [25790]

  Mr. Norris
  London Transport employed 18,602 permanent staff, full-time equivalent, on 31 March, the nearest date for which figures are available from its management accounts.

  Train Repair Services
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what facilities are currently available to repair a train on the InterCity west coast service which develops a fault on its southbound journey; and what facilities will be available in six months' time. [24810]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter which is the responsibility of British Rail.

  I understand that scheduled maintenance activities on InterCity west coast are carried out principally at Glasgow Polmadie, Manchester Longsight, Wolverhampton Oxley and London Wembley. BR is in consultation with the rail regulator about the future of Wembley depot.

SCOTLAND

  Public Bodies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce, further
  573
  (a) non-governmental departments, (b) arms-length bodies, (c) trusts and (d) executive agencies in Scotland.

  Mr. Lang
  The three new water authorities are expected to be public corporations. In 1996, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration and the Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council, all of which will be non-departmental public bodies, will come into operation. No decisions have yet been taken on the establishment of bodies under section 18, residuary bodies, or section 19, property commission, of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994. There are no plans at present to create further NHS trusts. Forest Enterprise, which has a Great Britain-wide remit and for which I am lead Minister, will be established as an executive agency within the Forestry Commission later this year. In addition, the Scottish Office fisheries research services is a potential candidate for agency status.

  Housing (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if and when he will take steps to make barrier-free standards mandatory for new Scottish housing. [25132]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend is currently considering a number of options for amendment of the Building Standards (Scotland) Regulations to extend access for disabled people to new dwellings, taking into account responses to a consultation document issued by the Scottish Office on 8 February 1995.

  Child Witnesses
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which recommendations contained in the report "Live Television Links: An Evaluation of its use by Child Witnesses in Scottish Criminal Trials", central research unit, Scottish Office, 1995 he plans to implement; and if he will make a statement. [24462]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: Provisions in the current Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill implement a number of the recommendations in this report which was published last month. The other recommendations in the report are being carefully examined and decisions on the outcome will be announced in due course.

  NHS Consultants
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from(a) health boards and (b) NHS trusts about difficulties in the recruitment and selection of consultants and other hospital-based medical practitioners in (a) Strathclyde and (b) Scotland; which specialist areas have the greatest problems on such recruitment and selection; and if he will make a statement. [24866]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: We are aware of the difficulties of NHS trusts in recruitment of senior house officers, particularly in accident and emergency medicine and in paediatrics, and
  574
  of consultants. NHS trusts last year reported 120 consultant vacancies with the largest numbers in anaesthetics and general psychiatry. To increase the number of candidates for consultant posts, the establishment of senior registrars in Scotland this year has been increased from 473 to 500. Increases have been made in anaesthetics, general medicine, medical paediatrics, diagnostic radiology, ear, nose and throat surgery, ophthalmology, orthopaedic surgery and urology.

  Coronary Heart Disease
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made towards the eradication of premature deaths caused by coronary heart disease in Scotland. [24906]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: Deaths from coronary heart disease among people under 65 have fallen from 94 per 100,000 population in 1986 to 72 per 100,000 in 1993, the latest year for which figures are available. The target set in "Scotland's Health—A Challenge To Us All", the policy statement issued in 1992, is to reduce mortality in this age group by 40 per cent, between 1990 and 2000. This will require a further decrease to 46 deaths per 100,000 population. A wide range of initiatives is in train to facilitate progress towards the target by addressing the risk factors associated with coronary heart disease and encouraging the life-style changes which can help prevent it.

  A77
  Mr. McKelvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if there is to be a public inquiry into the upgrading of the A77 from Fenwick to Malletsheugh; and if he will make a statement. [25246]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: There are a number of objections to the order published for the scheme and negotiations are continuing to see whether these can be resolved by agreement. A decision on whether a public local inquiry will be required will be taken later this summer.

  Nurses' Pay
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary for State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley,Official Report, 16 May 1995, column 216 if he will list which NHS trusts have offered nurses a wage increase (a) in excess of 3 per cent., (b) at 3 per cent., with no attached conditions, (c) at 3 per cent., with conditions, (d) under 3 per cent. but above 1 per cent., (e) at 1 per cent. and (f) under 1 per cent. [25248]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: The information requested is as detailed. This

  575
  covers formal offers and notice by trusts of intent to offer. All the offers are, of course, subject to local negotiations.

  NHS Trust

  (a) offers in excess of 3 per cent.

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  Edinburgh Healthcare

  Scottish Ambulance Service

  (b) offers at 3 per cent. with no attached conditions

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  East and Midlothian

  Grampian Healthcare

  Lanarkshire Healthcare

  North Ayrshire and Arran

  (c) offers at 3 per cent, with conditions

  Argyll and Bute

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare

  Caithness and Sutherland

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity

  Dundee Healthcare

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  Fife Healthcare

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals

  Highland Communities

  Inverclyde Royal

  Law Hospital

  Lomond Healthcare

  Monklands and Bellshill

  Perth and Kinross

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  Raigmore Hospital

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  South Ayrshire Hospitals

  Southern General Hospital

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  West Glasgow Hospitals University

  West Lothian

  Western General Hospitals

  Yorkhill

  (d) offers under 3 per cent. but above 1 per cent.

  Borders Community Services

  Borders General Hospital

  Central Scotland Healthcare

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Services

  Edinburgh Sick Children's

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services

  Moray Health Services

  Renfrewshire Healthcare

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  Stobhill

  (e) offers at 1 per cent

  Victoria Infirmary

  (f) offers under 1 per cent.

  None.

  Drumkinnon Bay
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 16 May,Official Report, columns 207–208, on what date (a) his predecessor as Minister with responsibility for industry and (b) officials in his Department were first informed of Dunbartonshire Enterprise's interest in the acquisition of Drumkinnon bay from the Drumkinnon Development Company. [25265]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: I understand that, during his tenure as a Minister, my predecessor was not advised of Dunbartonshire Enterprise's interest in acquiring Drumkinnon bay.
  576
  Officials of the Scottish Office Industry Department first became aware of that interest in early December 1994, although the matter was not formally referred to the Department.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the criteria for owning a registered nursing home in Lanarkshire; and if he will make a statement. [25487]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: The requirements for the registration of nursing homes are set out in the Nursing Homes Registration (Scotland) Act 1938 as amended. Health boards, as registering authorities, make copies of relevant guidance available to those seeking registration. A copy of the Lanarkshire health board guidance notes on "Registration and Inspection of Nursing Homes" has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will initiate an independent inquiry into the care for the elderly in the Lanarkshire health board area. [25485]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: My right hon. Friend has no plans to initiate an independent inquiry into the care for the elderly in the Lanarkshire health board area.

  Rural Child Care
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will undertake to carry out the recommendations of the European Commission network on child care on child care services for rural families. [25582]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: My right hon. Friend understands that the European Commission's report on child care services for rural families was launched in Scotland earlier this month. He will study it with interest.

  Socialist Education Association
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will include the Socialist Education Association in any relevant lists of bodies to be consulted on educational matters. [25583]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: Yes.

  Technical Plastics Ltd.
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the investigation by Strathclyde police into matters arising from a television documentary programme relating to ICL Technical Plastics Ltd. in Glasgow was concluded; and if any prosecution arises as a result. [25615]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: The investigation is not yet concluded.

  Torness Power Station
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what funds were provided by the European Commission for the building of Torness nuclear power
  577
  station; and what terms were applied to the provision of the funds. [25493]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: No funds were provided by the European Commission for the building of Torness power station.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he received from the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee its report on the radioactive contamination arising from the nuclear waste disposal deep shaft at Dounreay, and what remedial action he intends should be taken to clean up the contamination. [25411]

  Sir Hector Monro
  My right hon. Friend awaits the committee's report on the radioactive particles found at Dounreay and will consider it carefully as soon as he receives it.

  Number of prescriptions issued

  Health Board

  1979–80

  1980–81

  1981–82

  1982–83

  1983–84

  1984–85

  1985–86

  1986–87

  Argyll and Clyde

  3,020,887

  3,119,305

  3,080,779

  3,215,820

  3,308,346

  3,387,998

  3,416,920

  3,477,819

  Ayrshire and Arran

  2,917,102

  2,950,691

  2,925,920

  2,995,259

  3,034,920

  3,072,132

  3,057,375

  3,108,628

  Borders

  696,541

  713,847

  718,828

  727,461

  741,681

  750,546

  762,220

  771,461

  Dumfries and Galloway

  998,184

  1,016,422

  1,006,361

  1,047,110

  1,066,906

  1,070,408

  1,083,736

  1,116,269

  Fife

  2,302,688

  2,330,990

  2,325,161

  2,361,160

  2,383,291

  2,418,429

  2,435,329

  2,460,693

  Forth Valley

  1,885,324

  1,888,929

  1,850,223

  1,929,467

  1,989,505

  2]024,173

  2,044,775

  2,087,639

  Grampian

  3,181,513

  3,232,774

  3,194,810

  3,291,698

  3,333,170

  3,356,741

  3,350,591

  3,387,637

  Greater Glasgow

  7,429,534

  7,430,775

  7,292,301

  7,506,305

  7,665,852

  7,776,269

  7,745,029

  7,882,635

  Highland

  1,220,693

  1,228,673

  1,215,931

  1,234,509

  1,240,427

  1,233,964

  1,227,784

  1,248,755

  Lanarkshire

  4,011,256

  4,152,073

  4,094,760

  4,225,707

  4,360,576

  4,468,827

  4,472,930

  4,543,104

  Lothian

  4,551,022

  4,665,377

  4,598,347

  4,721,963

  4,801,780

  4,854,429

  4,872,711

  4,962,619

  Orkney

  127,037

  130,326

  129,043

  132,617

  132,909

  134,321

  132,101

  134,106

  Shetland

  167,798

  174,244

  167,464

  165,460

  162,268

  159,572

  161,387

  165,194

  Tayside

  2,595,660

  2,659,792

  2,621,910

  2,708,202

  2,775,500

  2,829,288

  2,865,689

  2,931,406

  Western Isles

  187,125

  211,517

  203,002

  207,764

  216,435

  221,481

  221,113

  222,552

  Total

  35,292,364

  35,905,735

  35,424,840

  36,470,502

  37,213,656

  37,758,578

  37,849,690

  38,500,517

  Number of prescriptions issued

  Health board

  1987–88

  1988–89

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  Argyll and Clyde

  3,616,334

  3,732,573

  3,942,096

  4,079,891

  4,300,725

  4,508,277

  4,682,393

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3,226,280

  3,316,494

  3,518,006

  3,604,259

  3,788,332

  3,940,976

  4,073,508

  Borders

  803,902

  821,439

  865,944

  891,690

  947,609

  1,007,194

  1,049,644

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,152,765

  1,190,874

  1,262,296

  1,308,771

  1,382,936

  1,443,633

  1,514,202

  Fife

  2,540,786

  2,632,029

  2,757,067

  2,841,090

  2,967,220

  3,071,638

  3,186,806

  Forth Valley

  2,156,792

  2,199,241

  2,297,756

  2,394,187

  2,537,797

  2,649,311

  2,761,543

  Grampian

  3,556,224

  3,653,754

  3,813,054

  3,898,337

  4,007,418

  4,137,204

  4,288,124

  Greater Glasgow

  8,203,693

  8,344,864

  8,779,589

  8,919,678

  9,374,723

  9,756,522

  10,143,448

  Highland

  1,304,758

  1,349,094

  1,441,004

  1,503,594

  1,603,834

  1,677,624

  1,771,531

  Lanarkshire

  4,735,156

  4,886,894

  5,179,521

  5,270,290

  5,557,051

  5,831,177

  6,105,927

  Lothian

  5,160,088

  5,289,043

  5,517,844

  5,656,233

  5,848,567

  6,021,362

  6,249,471

  Orkney

  136,015

  136,385

  140,905

  146,725

  154,508

  162,625

  167,126

  Shetland

  174,867

  172,265

  178,670

  184,071

  186,501

  190,354

  203,180

  Tayside

  3,076,554

  3,200,984

  3,344,626

  3,465,036

  3,611,409

  3,686,056

  3,783,897

  Western Isles

  228,612

  224,569

  237,024

  237,018

  242,910

  254,958

  276,615

  Total

  40,072,826

  41,150,502

  43,275,402

  44,400,870

  46,511,540

  48,338,911

  50,257,415

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the guidance he has issued to Scottish health boards concerning the issuing of private medical prescriptions to patients where the costs of obtaining the medication on an NHS prescription are greater than those in buying the medication through a private prescription. [25330]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No such guidance has been issued to Scottish health boards.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prescriptions were issued by general practitioners in each health board in Scotland in each year since 1979–80. [25351]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information for each health board for the financial years 1979–80 to 1993–94 is set out in the tables. The figures include prescriptions written by general medical practitioners and dentists, as well as hospital-generated prescriptions from England and prescriptions written for personnel serving in the armed forces.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will notify Scottish local authorities of the relevant date under the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 when they should statutorily consult the new unitary authorities before taking decisions with revenue implications for the new councils. [25331]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Section 55 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 requires existing local authorities to gain the agreement of their successors from a date to be specified by my right hon. Friend before committing themselves to major financial transactions. Existing and new authorities are currently being consulted on the proposal that the specified date should be 1 August 1995. A copy of the consultation letter has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the framework which will be adopted for transferring staff on 1 April 1996 from existing regional and district councils to their successor bodies. [26100]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Following discussions with the Local Government Staff Commission (Scotland) and consultations with Scottish local authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and staff representative bodies, I have today laid before Parliament the Local Authorities (Staff Transfer) (Scotland) Order 1995 which requires outgoing local authorities and their successor bodies to draw up and agree detailed schemes for the transfer of staff to the new bodies on 1 April 1996.

  This is an important step in the reorganisation process. The order is designed to ensure a fair and ordered transfer of staff to the new councils, the water and sewerage authorities and the Scottish children's reporter administration. Successful transition to the new authorities is dependent on the efforts of both councillors and staff.

  Education Consultation
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he uses to establish which bodies should be consulted on educational matters. [25589]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 May 1995]: Consultees are selected from lists held by the Scottish Office Education Department of organisations which may have an interest in educational matters. As account is taken of the relevance of each subject to particular bodies, all the organisations listed do not necessarily receive all consultation papers as a matter of course. The aim, however, is always to include the widest appropriate range of interests in any consultation exercise.

  Traffic Calming
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidelines his Department has issued to the roads departments of Scottish local authorities relating to the provision of traffic calming measures with particular reference to the traffic flows necessary to justify these measures. [25333]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office Industry Department issued guidance on traffic calming to local roads authorities in October 1994. This refers to traffic flows and advises local authorities that traffic calming is more suited to roads which have lower traffic 580
  levels and is likely to be inappropriate on high-speed roads with high volumes of through traffic. The guidance also indicates that traffic calming should not be discounted on busier routes since such treatment may be used to tackle a particular road safety problem. The final decision on which roads, other than trunk roads, should be treated with traffic calming rests with the local roads authorities themselves.

  Ayr Road
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much policing operations at the Ayr road route arising out of roads construction at the location have cost thus far. [25335]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As at 14 May 1995, policing costs associated with the construction of the Ayr road route amounted to £145,526.

  Expelled Pupils
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many pupils were(a) suspended and (b) expelled in each financial year since 1979–80 in each education authority in Scotland. [25336]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information sought is not at present held centrally. However, following a circular issued by the Scottish Office Education Department last year, education authorities are to collect and provide information on exclusions on a school-by-school basis with effect from the current school session as part of the annual exercise to collect statistics on attendance and absence.

  Returns provided in 1993 by education authorities for a working group, comprising representatives from the Scottish Office and the Association of Directors of Education in Scotland, indicated that there were around 25,000 exclusions from school in total during the school year 1992–93.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the amount of regional selective assistance recovered from Scottish companies and (b) the number of companies involved for each financial year since 1979–80; [25348]

  (2) if he will list for each financial year since 1979–80 those Scottish companies where regional selective assistance was recovered because of the original terms of the offer not being met. [25349]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Recovery figures are given in the table for all assisted projects in Scotland. Details of grant recoveries from individual companies are commercially confidential and are not divulged.

  Financial year

  Amount recovered £000

  Number of companies

  1989–90 or earlier

  67

  4

  1990–91

  1,106

  10

  1991–92

  557

  7

  1992–93

  491

  4

  1993–94

  1,817

  12

  1994–95

  866

  7

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the total number of public inquiries held by the Scottish Office into planning applications, (b) the total costs of these inquiries and (c) the number of public inquiries for each Scottish local authority, for each financial year since 1979–80. [25340]

  Mr. Kynoch
  This information is available only by callendar year. The answer to part(a) is set out. Regarding part (b), the Scottish Office is responsible for the reporter's salary, travelling and subsistence expenses and the hire of the accommodation. The remainder of the costs are borne by the participating parties. It is therefore not possible to give details of the total costs of these inquiries. Information regarding part (c) is not available.

  Calendar Year

  Public Local enquiries held

  1979

  163

  1980

  121

  1981

  166

  1982

  155

  1983

  158

  1984

  123

  1985

  116

  1986

  122

  1987

  95

  1988

  99

  1989

  96

  1990

  116

  1991

  87

  1992

  78

  1993

  88

  1994

  47

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total number of(a) planning applications passed to the Scottish Office for consideration and (b) planning application refusals overturned by the Scottish Office for each year since 1979–80. [25341]

  Mr. Kynoch
  This information is only available by calendar year and is as set out.

  Calendar year

  Planning appeals

  Appeals allowed

  1Applications notified to the Secretary of State

  1979

  446

  68

  62

  1980

  569

  75

  65

  1981

  549

  117

  60

  1982

  500

  136

  63

  1983

  533

  144

  54

  1984

  566

  149

  42

  1985

  606

  166

  75

  1986

  723

  193

  87

  1987

  724

  223

  129

  1988

  764

  233

  93

  1989

  959

  247

  63

  1990

  1,139

  348

  85

  1991

  1,130

  313

  67

  1992

  1,019

  294

  45

  1993

  916

  267

  41

  1994

  871

  177

  56

  1 These figures relate to the number of applications, in each given year which planning authorities were minded to grant consent to, but which, for various reasons, were required to be notified to the Secretary of State so that he could decide whether or not to call them in for his own determination.

  Scottish Prison Service
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what targets he has set the Scottish Prison Service for 1995–96, its third year of agency status. [26099]

  Mr. Lang
  I have set the chief executive of the Scottish Prison Service the following targets:

  Performance measures

  Key targets

  The number of prisoners unlawfully at large.

  —No A category prisoners should escape.

  —The number of escapes by B category prisoners should be no higher that 2.3 per 1,000 prisoners.

  The number of significant incidents.

  The number of significant incidents should be no higher than 10.

  The number of serious assaults on staff and prisoners.

  —The number of serious assaults on staff should be no higher than four per 1,000 staff.

  —The number of serious assaults on other prisoners should be no higher than 10 per 1,000 prisoners.

  Basic quality of life for prisoners.

  By April 1996, 63 per cent. Of available prisoner places will have access to forms of night sanitation.

  The amount of available opportunities for prisoners' self development.

  85 per cent. of convicted prisoners should have the opportunity of at least seven hours per working day of programmed activities.

  Time out of cell for unconvicted prisoners.

  On average, 30 per cent. Of unconvicted prisoner hours— seven in 24— should be available for out of cell activities.

  Average annual cost per prisoner place.

  To keep costs within £26,724 per place available for use.

  The level of absence through staff sickness.

  To reduce the average number of days lost per person per year through staff sickness to 17.

  Councils (Political Restrictions)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was(a) the total number of appeals lodged against the classification of posts in Scottish councils as politically restricted and the total number of successful appeals against political restriction, (b) the number of these appeals lodged for each local authority in Scotland, (c) the number of successful appeals against political restriction for each Scottish local authority and (d) the percentage figure for successful appeals for each Scottish local authority, for each financial year since 1989–90. [25337]
  583
  Mr. Kynoch
  Appeals relating to the rules on political restrictions are considered by the political restrictions exemptions adjudicator. Information supplied by his office indicates that the total number of applications for exemption from political restrictions since 1989–90 is 584
  168. Of these, 141 have been granted. Of the remaining 27, 20 were unsuccessful, two were withdrawn, four were declared invalid and one case has still to be determined. The percentage of successful applications was 84 per cent. Statistics are not recorded on a local authority basis.

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.

Armed Forces: Exclusion of Homosexuals
Lord Boardman Lord Boardman asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to permit known homosexuals to become and remain members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence, (Lord Henley): My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we have no plans to change our policy of excluding homosexuals from the Armed Forces.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. However, does he consider it as being rather revealing—or perhaps rather distressing—that, while government policy has the wholehearted support of the country and particularly of the Armed Forces, nevertheless the shadow spokesman for defence in another palace is reported to have said that the ban would be scrapped within one month of the Labour Party coming into government?
Noble Lords: Rubbish!
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of a number of Labour policy announcements on the subject as reported in the press and as further clarified—if I can call it that—by the honourable gentleman in another place. I have to say that there is some confusion as to what is the Labour Party's policy. If there is a policy, I find it rather odd that this seems to be the only subject upon which the Labour Party has announced any proposals in the defence field.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, has the Minister had the opportunity to read the Official Report of another place on the debate regarding the Royal Air Force on 4th May? In that debate, my honourable friend Mr. David Clark said that if the Labour Party came to power and the problems which are outstanding in the courts still remained, we would set up a commission, which obviously would include the Chiefs of Staff, to study the best practices in other armed forces in the world and find what was the best solution for our own Armed Forces. Does the Minister agree that that is a very reasonable way to set about things? Does he further agree—I have not quoted directly so the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can put down his copy of the Companion; indeed, I put it in indirect speech—that it is wise for noble Lords when tabling Starred Questions to do some research before making party political mischief on what is a serious and delicate matter?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I reject that allegation. I think my noble friend conducted quite the appropriate degree of research. I have to say that I believe the policy
914
set out by the noble Lord's honourable friends in another place is somewhat confusing. I was merely making the point that if they were going to announce a policy there were slightly more important matters in the defence field upon which we would welcome the thoughts of the party opposite.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the Minister understand that memories of yesteryear prove that his statement is completely incorrect? Indeed, there is a question mark over some of our most famous figures in history and their sexual tendencies. Why does the Minister try to hide that now? If the ban had been applied in the past, we may have lost some of our most famous commanders.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord's point takes us any further. I merely announced what our policy is. I announced that our policy is lawful and that we shall continue to defend it robustly.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, is it not a key point that the inclination of gay activists and whether they make good soldiers, sailors or airmen is not the point at issue but rather whether all the other members of the Armed Forces would be prepared to work in harmony and in trust alongside people with those sexual inclinations?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord brings considerable experience to the debate. We greatly welcome his contributions. I believe that the point that the noble and gallant Lord is trying to make—and it is one I should like to underline—is that the nature of service life is very different from civilian life. That point must be borne in mind when making our decisions on the matter.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, irrespective of who is in office, if homosexuals are in Her Majesty's forces there is one problem that confronts them and the officers of their divisions; namely, that they could only operate in very low classification security work?
Lord Henley: My Lords, there are a number of reasons why we believe that it is right to exclude homosexuals from service in the Armed Forces. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to one of those—the security risk. We do not believe that the acceptance of homosexuals into the Armed Forces would necessarily entirely remove that security risk.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that it must be said that many homosexuals in the Armed Forces have performed their duties well without any problems as, indeed, I would suggest, they have done in all other occupations? Fifty years after the war, is it not worth remembering some of the things that happened then? I remember my late father-in-law telling me that one of the most conspicuous acts of gallantry and bravery that he saw in Italy was one performed by a well-known homosexual.
Lord Henley: My Lords, again I am not prepared to discuss what might or might not have been the position in the past. However, I can assure the noble Viscount

915
that in the past homosexuals were excluded from the Armed Forces. Homosexuality was then a criminal offence, and homosexuals were thrown out.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that within the Armed Forces homosexuality causes great offence to others? It undermines military discipline; it damages morale and unit efficiency; and, finally, in some cases it leads to bullying.
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend provides further cogent reasons for the belief that our policy is right. If it affects the ability of the Armed Forces to perform their functions it is right to continue that policy.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that should Her Majesty's Government be impleaded before the European Court of Human Rights in this context they will defend the proceedings by exercising their rights of derogation on grounds of national security, or any other grounds? At the same time, will they undertake not to review the Navy, Army and Air Force legislation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the matter is before the courts at the moment. He will also be aware that we have robustly defended our position at recent hearings. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that should we be taken before any other court, whether it be the European Court of Human Rights or any other, we would robustly defend our position.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lord not go so far as at least to agree that there is a large and growing proportion of jobs in the services where sexual orientation is wholly irrelevant and should be disregarded?
Lord Henley: My Lords, whether in some jobs sexual orientation is irrelevant is itself irrelevant. The fact is that all members of the Armed Forces are expected to be able to do virtually every job which is open to them. It is not right that people should be allowed into the Armed Forces purely to do one job in which, as the noble Lord puts it, sexual orientation does not matter and therefore be excluded from others.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that the Government will not consider changes to their present policy with regard to a ban on homosexuals on the basis of practices in other countries? Secondly, if the ban is challenged in the European courts will Her Majesty's Government do their utmost to resist that challenge?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that the practices of other countries are relevant. There are different rules—for instance, conscription—or different domestic employment laws which influence the policies of those countries. As to whether we might change our policy, this is a matter which is still under consideration by the courts. It would not be appropriate for me to comment in advance of a ruling. However, I can say that we have no present plans to change our policy.

National Curriculum
2.46 p.m.
Lord Quirk Lord Quirk asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the most recent reports from Ofsted, they now feel that the national curriculum in schools might usefully be supplemented by a national curriculum in teacher-training institutions.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the best way to improve standards is to ensure that training is focused on essential teaching competences. The Government have set out those competences and revised them in recent years to reflect national curriculum requirements. We believe that it is unnecessary to be more prescriptive about course content, which is a matter for the provider, in higher education or elsewhere.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. But is it not alarming that in the 12 subject reports just issued by Ofsted there runs a dismal leitmotiv concerning teachers in all of the subjects who are deficient and regarded as incompetent by the inspectors? Is it not particularly alarming that in three of the subjects concerned, arguably the most fundamental for our future—English, maths and science—inspectors found and complained that one teacher in five is either bad at teaching, or bad at the subject that she or he is paid to teach, or both? Is it not the case that if it were one in five of our surgeons or our airline pilots we might be taking more urgent action?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, first, I should like to praise Ofsted for the production of these booklets. If noble Lords have not had a chance to consult them I recommend that they do so. They provide a very thorough and full picture of the state of teaching in our state schools and of what remains to be done to improve it. One thing that clearly remains to be done, as the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, pointed out, is to improve the quality of teaching. I should say that Ofsted reports on the quality of lessons, not the quality of teachers. It could just as well be a case of a good teacher on a bad day as a bad teacher in his or her permanent condition. There is clearly a lot to be done, and the Teacher Training Agency, as it has been set up and as it makes progress, will clearly be a major instrument in putting the matter right.
Baroness David: My Lords, does not the Minister think that it would be very helpful if the inspectors could follow up the inspections and the criticisms that they have made and give active advice and go back to the schools with help, as the LEA inspectors did. They had an advisory as well as an inspectorial role. That seems to me to be what is lacking at the moment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very good point.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, I may have misunderstood the Minister but is it not the case that in each of these admirable documents there is a section not on the quality of the pupils but on the quality of teaching?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, I may not have expressed myself well. The reports address the quality of teaching. I agree with the figures that the noble Lord quoted. It is a matter which we are addressing with great seriousness.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, did my noble friend see an article in the Daily Mail a week ago which reported enormous differentials in the cost of similar teacher training courses at different institutions? For instance, is he aware that it was alleged that one course can cost as much as 18 times more than a similar course at another institution?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yes, I saw that report; and, indeed, I believe that the facts are true. I understand that the Teacher Training Agency has appointed Coopers & Lybrand to look into the reasons which underlie that position. Into each young accountant's life a little joy must fall. Had I been a young accountant at Coopers & Lybrand now, I should have been pushing to get on to that investigation. Such extraordinary differences are rare. They may be common in university accounting, but in the world outside such extraordinary differences create excitement in the heart of every accountant. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, shares that excitement. It would be a wonderful investigation to be on.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, does Her Majesty's Government accept that, in order to improve the subject competence of those teachers in subjects where it is known to be difficult to recruit the most able students to the profession, it is necessary not simply to impose a curriculum but to increase the wages of all teachers?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no, I do not follow that argument. The route by which to increase the status and remuneration of the teaching profession is to increase its competence and quality.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, since the passing of the education legislation have special inspectors been taken on to deal with the section of the Act relating to special needs children? A number of teachers do not seem to know how to deal with children with special needs.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cannot answer my noble friend's question, but I shall write to her.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is most important for teacher training institutions to obtain the right balance between the academic study of education and the practical training of teachers? Both factors are important. However, perhaps I may suggest that the Government have got the balance wrong in their most recent legislation. Will the Minister give an assurance that what has been proposed and what is being undertaken is monitored continually to ensure that we achieve the best results?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we monitor what is going on exceptionally closely because we believe that it is the principal area through which we can greatly affect in the near future the quality of what takes place in our schools. However, the initial reports from Ofsted and
918
the Teacher Training Agency indicate that the balance between schools and the higher education institutions is now about right. The balance is now more equal. Higher education institutions used to dictate the terms; it is now much more a partnership. In those cases where the training takes place principally in schools—it is a small proportion of teacher training places—it provides an excellent education in particular for adults coming new to teaching with wide experience of the outside world.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be for the education of the House if acronyms such as Ofsted were printed in full?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I believe that that is a matter for Hansard. However, it is certainly quicker to say "Ofsted" than the "Office for Standards in Education" on every occasion.
Since the noble Lord raises that matter—the subject of quangos is much in the press at present—I ask him to agree that in particular Ofsted and the Teacher Training Agency, being independent from the Department for Education, do a job which could not be undertaken as well or as effectively were they merely a group within the department. Those bodies demonstrate what a valuable organ a quango is when properly set up.

Rwanda: Humanitarian Aid
2.55 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their latest estimate of the humanitarian aid needed in Rwanda, Burundi and adjacent areas of central Africa and what response they are making both bilaterally and multilaterally.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the United Nations Department of Humanitarian Affairs estimates 1995 humanitarian needs for Rwanda and the sub-region at £500 million. United Nations agencies report that current humanitarian needs are being met. Since April 1994, the UK has provided nearly £91 million of emergency and rehabilitation aid, including our share of EU assistance.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. Can she assure the House that there will be no question of refugees from the genocide and its consequences in Rwanda being forced to return to an uncertain and perhaps dangerous future by the denial of food, adequate security in the camps and other support? In that context, does she realise that she and the Government will have the full support of this side of the House in persuading the European Union to continue its support and to reverse its hasty decision to freeze aid?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's supplementary question. We conclude that the emergency phase is now over. We need to concentrate on rehabilitation and to continue efforts to create conditions for the safe voluntary return of the refugees.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, will the Minister say what contribution the UK Government are making to help to stop the spread of the Ebola virus? What precautions are taken about people coming to this country from Zaire?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, we are providing £75,000 to the International Federation of the Red Cross in response to its appeal. The European Union has provided around £200,000 of emergency aid. We remain in close touch with the World Health Organisation and are monitoring the situation carefully. The UK's assistance will help to strengthen disease control activities, boost existing support to hospitals and continue the Red Cross's public information campaign.
With regard to the noble Lord's second point, appropriate precautions are in place to monitor UK entry points for anyone exposed to the virus. The risks of travellers from Zaire carrying the virus are extremely low. It is not easily passed on to others.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how are the humanitarian agencies attacking the problem with regard to those who committed genocide and who are located in some of the camps? Some of the aid given by the West is being used to sustain and improve the physical conditions of people who plan to return and restart the genocide.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, humanitarian assistance is the most important factor. It is reaching those in need. The strengthened security measures, the improved relief distributions and the thorough registration exercise have significantly reduced diversion.
Lord Judd: My Lords, in the context of security, do the Government agree that there is a close and growing interrelationship between the instability in Rwanda, Burundi and Zaire and indeed the region as a whole? Will the Government do everything possible to support the early convening of a conference to examine the economic, social and political issues of the region in endeavouring to find a comprehensive solution?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I must make a plug. The UK has responded quickly and generously since the start of the crisis in April 1994. We continue to monitor the situation and are ready to do more. A meeting of the Development Council on 1st June will be attended by my noble friend Lady Chalker.
We have been following the events in Burundi for some time. That is the reason that my noble friend Lady Chalker went there last summer. We continue to monitor the situation and keep in close touch with British NGOs and other bodies.

Schools: Parental Choice
2.59 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that their policy of meeting parental choice in schools is being met.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, our policy is to increase the opportunities for parental choice. As a result of government reforms, parents now have more rights, more information and access to a wider choice of schools than ever before.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at this time of the year thousands of parents have come to realise that choice of schools is a myth? Is he further aware that this is also the time when examinations, tests, assessments and interviews of both pupils and parents have no place in the choice of the school? It is not possible to give parents universal choice. Will the Government be honest and agree that that is the case and that the result of their policy is not what they pretend it to be?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as regards the last part of what the noble Lord said, of course I agree completely that it is not possible to give parents universal choice. What is possible is to try to improve it.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, is it not a fact that the official DFE figures given in parliamentary Answers show that appeals against the refusal of school places rose from 20,981 in 1989–90 to 41,927 in 1992–93—the latest date for which figures are available? That is an increase of 99.8 per cent. Is it not proof positive that parental choice is becoming more limited?
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords, I do not think so at all. It is proof that parents are taking a much more active interest in which school their children should attend. I welcome that, as do some members of the party opposite.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, would my noble friend care to join me in congratulating the Benches opposite on their conversion to parental choice and their decided move away from local education authority dictatorship which they used to support so fervently?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it appears that that view is held at least by the leadership of the party opposite. I am not sure that every single Member of the Benches I spend my time looking at would agree with my noble friend.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that one area where there has been little parental choice is nursery schools? Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm my belief that before the next election the Government have plans to increase parental choice. Can he elaborate on that?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I very much look forward to elaborating on it but not today.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that between 1974 and 1979 I sat on an appeals committee? In Cambridgeshire we gave parents choice and we had an appeals committee. So it was fair. I hope that the Minister will take back the suggestion that parental choice is a recent invention of the Conservative Party.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am aware that some local authorities encouraged choice well before the Government came into office. However, we have consistently improved and increased it and that we shall continue to do.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, it is interesting that twice in answer to me the Minister said that the Government continually seek to increase parents' choice of schools. I have seen little or no evidence of that in the past two or three years. Will the Minister say what has been done in that respect?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, a great deal has been done. We have grant maintained schools which we never had before; schools are specialising, which they never did before; and the city technology college movement continues. In many different ways, schools are taking on more individuality than they had. We are encouraging parents to look around and choose between their local schools and to take a more active interest about which school their children should attend.
With local authorities, we are pursuing the ways in which they may make it easier for parents. Many of the difficulties which parents experience are because of obstacles put in their way by the structures employed by local authorities. We hope that they will continue to remove them, as has happened in many instances but not all. It is a gradual and difficult process but one which we shall continue to push on with.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question I put to the Minister. I have been considering what he said in answer to me. Instead of being delighted and pleased at the increasing number of dissatisfied parents shown by the figures I quoted—and those figures are considerable—can the Minister tell us what Her Majesty's Government are doing about the increasing levels of parental dissatisfaction, as evidenced by the number of parents appealing against the schools to which their children are allocated?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we continue to try to increase choice in a whole variety of ways. The fact that that does not keep pace with the expectations and hopes of parents is a matter for regret. Nonetheless it is a condition which we expect to persist from now until doomsday.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, having heard the Minister's reply to my noble friend regarding nursery education, do I understand that he does not wish to reveal the Government's commitments at this stage? Will he give an assurance that the Government's avowed principle of supporting parental choice will be part of the commitment to all parents in all places that they will have choice in access to free nursery education? That is a quite logical and inevitable conclusion of the statements that government Ministers have made.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as has been clear from other answers I have given today, the question is not one of choice. It is of giving parents the right to express a preference. The ability to give first choice to everyone is not within the gift of this Government or anyone else.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, may I press the Minister to say whether parental choice, or preference, that a child should enter nursery education is a logical continuation of the ethos of parental choice?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, put that way, I agree entirely.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, will the Minister make it absolutely clear in any documents published by the Government that government policy is that parents have the right of preference but not the choice of schools?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I believe that that is what we do.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Astor will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on media ownership.

Business of the House: Debate, 24th May
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lady Saltoun of Abernethy set down for tomorrow shall be limited to 5 hours.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Jobseekers Bill
3.8 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [The jobseeker's allowance]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert ("but until such tune as a jobseeker's allowance is payable in accordance with the provisions of this Act, nothing in this Act or in any regulations made under it shall reduce the period of payment for unemployment benefit calculated in accordance with section 26 of the Benefits Act.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at the Report stage the Minister caught us somewhat by surprise when he made an announcement to the House of a change in the Government's policy. He said:
"the Government have decided that the jobseeker's allowance should be introduced in October 1996"——
not, as originally planned, in April 1996. He continued:
"The transitional arrangements for JSA will be such that the duration of an unemployed claimant's entitlement to unemployment benefit will, from April 1996, be the same as it would have been had JSA been introduced on that date".—[Official Report, 16/5/95; col. 418.]

923
That was not a written statement, we did not have the advantage of the words in front of us. It was an announcement made by the Government, perfectly correctly, and inserted into an answer on an entirely different amendment. We were unclear then and remain unclear what will be the full import of the Minister's statement. For that reason we tabled this amendment to seek to understand what the Government have in mind by slip-starting the JSA from the April 1996 original date to October 1996.
None of us, certainly on this side of the House, quarrels with delaying the introduction of this new arrangement. It is right that when two benefits are amalgamated—in this case unemployment benefit and income support, which is what the jobseeker's allowance represents—the process should proceed as smoothly as possible, employment officers should be fully trained, and the computer systems should function smoothly. Frankly, this is such a nasty Bill that any delay is very welcome—except in so far as that may not be quite what we shall get.
The Government have persistently—and I believe honourably—told us that the jobseeker's allowance represents a package of measures. Perhaps I may quote the Minister's words at Second Reading in this House:
"The jobseeker's allowance is part of a much larger package"—
I emphasise the words "package"—
"of incentives announced in the last Budget and social security statement. The package of measures included in jobseeker's allowance legislation underpins the Government's determination to remove barriers to finding work and helping every unemployed person to find a job quickly".—[Official Report, 3/4/95; col. 14.]
Later in the same speech, at col. 15, the Minister talked of,
"a package of measures which will provide an approved means of delivering benefit to unemployed people".
A few days later, in Committee, the Minister stated:
"We are closely monitoring progress towards implementation … to ensure that all the necessary arrangements are put in place … If … there is an unacceptable risk that things might go wrong … one of the alternatives would be to delay the date of introduction. One of the objectives of the jobseeker's allowance is to improve the service we offer to jobseekers. We certainly do not intend to put that at risk".—[Official Report, 20/4/95; col. 590.]
That approach is entirely correct.
The emphasis throughout has been that the Jobseekers Bill offers a package, one that consists of the "carrot" of jobseeker measures such as the jobseeker's agreement, the national insurance holiday for employers and the run of housing benefit and council benefit. Back-to-work benefit was only ever to have been introduced from October. Those were among the incentives to get people back to work. The other side of the package—the "stick"—was the cut in contributory benefit from 12 months to six months. Thereafter people were to go on to means-tested benefit and, in the process, if a person claimed for a dependant or was under 25 he or she would immediately suffer a reduction in benefit.
What does the Minister's announcement mean in this context? What has happened to that package? From the Minister's statement and from, I have to say, an extremely opaque letter I received today, it seems that
924
the carrot part of the package is to be delayed until October but the stick part is to be introduced six months before that—in April. So much for the package. The cuts in benefit start in April, but the so-called goodies that were mentioned in the winding-up speech of the Minister in the other place are not to start for another six months. When it suits the Government, the concept of a package appears to be ripped apart. The Bill is transparently clear in what it seeks to do; namely, to cut benefits first and only as an afterthought seek to encourage people to find work.
What makes matters almost even worse is that this cut is not the result of a new benefit being introduced; namely the jobseeker's allowance. What the Minister appears to be doing is cutting an existing benefit, unemployment benefit. So this measure is as harsh as the new JSA, but without any of the attendant advantages that the Minister claims for JSA.
My reading may be incorrect. I gave the Minister brief notice of the questions that I wanted to ask, but I received the Minister's reply only today and therefore could not give him earlier notice. Will he clarify, for example, what happens if someone becomes unemployed on, let us say, 1st February 1996? Is it the case now, as it was before the Minister made the statement, that such people will receive unemployment benefit up until April 1996 and will thereafter continue to receive unemployment benefit only up to October 1996—in other words, as they would have done under the old unemployment and JSA arrangements? What happens to those who are under 25? The under-25s who are on unemployment benefit receive the same rate of benefit as those who are over 25. Under JSA they receive a lower rate. What happens now? What now happens to adult benefits, to dependants and their benefits—for example, to the spouse who looks after children? Such people were entitled to unemployment benefit as part of contributory benefit. Under JSA, they are not. Will the Minister help us to clarify the situation? On the basis of his explanation we may wish to seek the opinion of the House. But, first, let us ask the Minister whether what we fear is the case; namely, that he is cutting benefit as of April 1996 but introducing the "carrots" only from October 1996 and that therefore all the talk of a package goes out of the window when it suits the Minister's computer system? I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I listened with great attention to all the questions put by the noble Baroness. I wonder if she can help me. Is it the concept of this clause, as I read it, that if unemployment benefit under Section 26 of the benefits Act is currently received, it continues until the jobseeker's allowance is paid but not thereafter? If that is so, I ask the question only because the use of the phrase,
"It shall reduce the period of payment for unemployment benefit calculated",
left matters somewhat open as to whether the intention was that there should be, as it were, a hangover. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for indicating that that is so.

925
What worries me is whether this amendment relates to the essential transitional provisions expressly dealt with in Clause 40(2) of the Bill. I shall not quote the clause at length because that would be to waste time. The clause states:
"Regulations under this section may in particular make provision … for the termination or cancellation of awards of unemployment benefit or income support".
I ask, with respect to the noble Baroness: is this not the part of the Bill under which transitional provisions need to be dealt with, rather than under Clause 1. The amendment relates this matter to Clause 1, which is primarily concerned with entitlement.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, indicated that she simply wished for clarification of the statement I made to the House at the beginning of Report stage on 16th May. At that point I announced that, in the light of our review of the project, we had decided that the implementation of JSA should be deferred until October 1996. Perhaps I may try to answer the questions that she put, which, if my recollection is correct, related to the second paragraph of my statement and the position regarding unemployment benefit.
There is a common misconception that entitlement to unemployment benefit automatically lasts for up to a year. In fact, unemployment benefit is awarded on a daily basis for each day on which the claimant meets the necessary conditions—one of which is that the claimant has not already received the benefit for 312 days in the period of interruption of his employment. Unemployment benefit will continue to be awarded on this basis, subject to its normal rules and conditions, until JSA is introduced.
When the Jobseekers Bill comes into effect in October 1996, the relevant parts of the contributions and benefits Act will be repealed. Furthermore, existing awards of unemployment benefit and income support will be terminated under powers in Clause 40(2) of the Bill. Thus unemployment. benefit will cease to exist and nobody will have any entitlement to it. Instead, all eligible claimants will be able to claim JSA in accordance with the conditions set out in this Bill, including those in Clause 5(1) which limit entitlement to contribution-based benefit to a total of 182 days.
However, Clause 40(2) (b) of the Bill provides powers for those on benefit at the point of change to be subject to transitional provisions which will themselves be set out in regulations. We intend to use these powers, and those in Clause 40(2) (g) and (h), to provide that days of unemployment prior to October 1996 should count towards the 182 days' maximum entitlement to contribution-based jobseeker's allowance.
The noble Baroness will no doubt accuse the Government of cutting unemployment benefit—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is exactly right.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: There is nothing new in the Government's proposals. We have always made clear that contribution-based benefit would be limited to six months for people who claimed from April 1996. Therefore, those people will not be any worse off
926
than they would have been if JSA had been implemented as originally planned. They will continue to be eligible for benefit at rates equivalent to unemployment benefit, including adult dependency increases, provided that they have not exceeded the 312-day maximum period without requalifying. We also intend that the current unemployment benefit earnings rules should continue to apply to all those who make their claims before JSA is introduced.
I should emphasise that the duration of benefit for those who claim before April will not be affected. Regulations will also provide that where a person's period of unemployment began before April 1996, he may still qualify for up to 12 months' contributory entitlement. That transitional protection will end in April 1997.
Perhaps I may answer the questions that the noble Baroness indicated that she had given me, which might illustrate what will happen. She asked me first when the clock would start to run for the 182 days. The answer is that it will start to run when JSA starts on 7th October. However, days of unemployment from 8th April will count towards the 182-day entitlement after 7th October.
The noble Baroness asked about the position of under-25s and the position of dependants. Those changes will not come in until October with JSA implementation. She also asked me about what she called the "carrots"—the NICs holiday and the housing benefit run-on. Both are still planned for April. We also still intend, as she rightly said, to start the in-work benefit pilot from October and the back-to-work bonus from October, as was always the intention.
Perhaps I may deal with someone who becomes unemployed on 1st October this year. He will have 12 months' unemployment benefit. Somebody becoming unemployed on 1st February 1996 will have eight months' unemployment benefit followed by, from October, four months of contributory based JSA. It will be transitional. I think it was the noble Baroness who asked me about 1st April. On 1st April it will be six months and six months. In fact, the key date is 8th April. So somebody first of all becoming unemployed on 7th April will have six months and six months. That will not change. But somebody becoming unemployed on 8th April will have, as we always intended, only six months' unemployment benefit. Thereafter, for example, on 31st July, he will have two months' unemployment benefit and then four months on the contribution based JSA. So nothing will be different from what we had originally intended so far as unemployment benefit is concerned.
I have tried to answer the questions asked by the noble Baroness. It may not satisfy her that the Government's policy is right but I hope that it at least explains what will actually happen to people who register on those four or five dates about which she specifically asked me. I am happy to make clear what we intend to do. We shall not be making any changes to legal entitlement prior to October 1996. We shall be laying the regulations that I mentioned before April 1996, so that everybody will be clear, although, as I said, the position will not change until October 1996 so far as concerns the points that I have made.

927
I hope that that will satisfy the noble Baroness, at least as an explanation. I realise that she still does not approve of the policy. If she decides to put it to the test, I hope that my noble friends will support me.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I regret very much that we are at Third Reading. Were we in Committee or at Report stage, I should very much have liked to press the Minister on the implications of some of the details of his answers to me, had the Chamber given me consent. Given that the questions are quite elaborate and the Minister's reply requires some detailed attention, particularly as we both misquoted dates at various stages in our replies, it is not entirely clear what are all the intentions.
What I gather to be the effect is that nonetheless somebody on unemployment benefit will from 7th or 8th April be eligible for only six months' contributory benefit before going on to means tested benefit. So when JSA comes into effect as of October, he will be immediately onto means tested benefit. However, I also understand from the Minister that the situation of dependent spouses will continue as under the unemployment rules between April and October. The under-25s will also continue under unemployment benefit between April and October. The Minister nods his head to confirm that that is the case. So it is in the record.
Nevertheless, perhaps I may first comment on the helpful intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I apologise to the House if I was not clear when introducing the amendment. What he said was indeed the case. The thrust of the amendment is that if the Government are to delay the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance to October, there should be a clean, clear and transparent introduction of that benefit at once, as a package. It is the very package that the Minister, through Second Reading, and Committee and Report stages, has told us that JSA was supposed to produce. It was tougher on benefits but at the same time, so the Minister believes, the jobseeker's agreement and other associated aspects of JSA nonetheless will actively help people back into work. It was a package.
We disagree with the JSA and the principles of it. But my amendment seeks to ensure that if JSA is introduced, it should be introduced cleanly, clearly, comprehensively and comprehensibly to claimants and staff together as an integrated package—that is what the Minister has always led us to believe—as at October. It means therefore that unemployment benefit on the one hand and income support would remain as they are until October. We should not have a splintered package with overlapping benefits, transitional arrangements, some income support, some UB, some under-25s, some over-25s and some dependent spouses—all that utter confusion.
The Minister and those of us on these Benches who have been dealing with the Bill for two months now are still confused and trying to understand it. If we are confused, what do the Government expect the people out there to be? What hope do they have of understanding the intentions? Is it fair? The
928
Government, for their convenience—not as a result of our amendment—have delayed by six months the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. That is not because we asked for it, although we should have liked it, but because it suited the Government so to do.
It seems only fair that if the Government are to delay the introduction until October, they should delay the entire package until October, so that everyone knows where they stand. Unemployment benefit and income support should run through to October and thereafter the new benefit would start cleanly, crisply and clearly for all concerned. We should not have the confusion that exists even today between two overlapping benefits and transitional arrangements.
In all fairness to the claimants, and because the Government at the very last moment have changed their policy in this respect, I ask the House to support us in clearing up the mess and confusion that will otherwise follow. I seek the opinion of the House.
3.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Annan, L.

Howell, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Avebury, L.

Hylton, L.

Bancroft, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Barnett, L.

Jay, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Birk, B.

Jeger, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Judd, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carter, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Kintore, E.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lawrence, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

David, B.

Lockwood, B.

Dean of Beswick, L.

McCarthy, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

McNair, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mar, C.

Falkender, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Falkland, V.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Mayhew, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Gallacher, L.

Merrivale, L.

Geraint, L.

Meston, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Monkswell, L.

Moms of Castle Morris, L.

Grey, E.

Nelson, E.

Halsbury, E.

Nicol, B.

Hamwee, B.

Ogmore, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Palmer, L.

Haskel, L.

Peston, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

929

Rea, L.

Stallard, L.

Richard, L.

Stedman, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Stokes, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Rochester, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Bp.

Turner of Camden, B.

Walpole, L.

Scanlon, L.

Warnock, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Whaddon, L.

Serota, B.

Wharton, B.

Shaughnessy, L.

White, B.

Shepherd, L.

Wigoder, L.

Simon, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Stafford, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Addison, V.

Gainford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Geddes, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Alport, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Ampthill, L.

Goschen, V.

Arran, E.

Granard, E.

Astor, V.

Grantchester, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Balfour, E.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gridley, L.

Blaker, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Blatch, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Blyth, L.

Boardman, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Borthwick, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Henley, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hertford, M.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Hives, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hogg, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Burnham, L.

Hood, V.

Butterworth, L.

Howe, E.

Cadman, L.

Inglewood, L.

Caithness, E.

Ironside, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kimball, L.

Cawley, L.

Kimberley, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Knollys, V.

Chesham, L.

Knutsford, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Lindsay, E.

Cockfield, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Coleridge, L.

Lucas, L.

Colnbrook, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Lyell, L.

Courtown, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

McConnell, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cross, V.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Davidson, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Manchester, D.

Dormer, L.

Marlesford, L.

Downshire, M.

Mersey, V.

Dundonald, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elibank, L.

Milverton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elles, B.

Morris, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mountevans, L.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Munster, E.

Father, B.

Newall, L.

Foley, L.

Norrie, L.

930

Northesk, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Slim, V.

Orkney, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strange, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Pender, L.

Sudeley, L.

Prior, L.

Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

Quinton, L.

Swinton, E.

Radnor E.

Terrington, L.

Rawlings B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renton, L.

Ullswater, V.

Renwick, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

St. Davids, V.

Vivian, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Salisbury, M.

Wolfson, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Sandys, L.

Wynford, L.

Sharples, B.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Media Ownership
3.38 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.
The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about media ownership.
"Because of the extreme market sensitivity of this issue, I arranged for the substance of the Government's decisions to be announced by my department before the Stock Exchange opened for business this morning. I am making this Statement at the earliest opportunity thereafter. I hope that the House will accept this way of proceeding, for which there are clear precedents, and which discussed last week with the honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury, as well as the honourable Member for Caithness and Sutherland and the right honourable Member for Manchester Gorton.
"Following the relaxation of some of the restraints on the ownership of ITV companies in December 1993, the Government announced in January 1994 that they were to review the existing rules governing media ownership. I am now in a position to announce the Government's conclusions on this issue. I am today publishing a policy document which sets out our proposals. Copies are available in the Vote Office. In developing these proposals, we have taken account of advice, ideas and comments from a wide variety of sources. I am grateful to all those who wrote to us and participated in the constructive debate on this issue.
"Media ownership policy must balance two key objectives. First, it must underpin the diversity of viewpoint that is necessary in any healthy democracy.

931
The Government believe that this requires additional safeguards on plurality of ownership, beyond those required by competition law alone. Secondly, it must ensure that the media industry is able to respond to the changing demands of the marketplace, and in particular, that it is able to take advantage of the market opportunities which flow from accelerating technological change.
"Technological convergence is not only bringing together functions that have traditionally been separated, but it is also creating an enormous variety of new products and markets. It is inevitably difficult to predict the exact nature and pace of this change. But, as different media sectors converge, media ownership regulation needs to look at the media market as a whole if its core objectives are to be delivered.
"The importance of developing a new approach will be reinforced by the introduction of digital broadcasting over the next few years. This will lead to more channels, more choice for viewers and listeners, and more opportunities for media companies. The Government will be following up my announcement today by publishing their proposals for digital broadcasting later in the summer.
"Against the background of these changes, I am putting forward for consultation a long-term proposal for the future regulation of media ownership which has three main features. First, the media market would be treated as a whole. Secondly, market share thresholds would be established below which media ownership would be regulated only by normal competition law. Thirdly, a regulator would be established who would be empowered to restrict concentration above the thresholds where he or she deemed such concentration to be contrary to the public interest.
"For the purposes of consultation, I propose total media market share thresholds at 10 per cent. of the national media market; 20 per cent. of a regional market; and 20 per cent. of the individual press, radio or television sectors.
"Such a model would provide a flexible and durable framework which would better accommodate the dynamics of the media industry, while continuing to safeguard the public interest in diversity and plurality. I also believe, however, that the substitution of the existing structure by an entirely new framework of rules must be based on full consultation and widespread acceptance that the new structure is fair. I shall therefore welcome views from all interested parties on this proposal.
"In the meantime, action is required now. The Government therefore propose to introduce a package of immediate measures to remove unnecessary restrictions on the growth of media businesses. This will contain two elements.
"First, I am today introducing a package of proposals for change through secondary legislation. I am laying before the House an amendment to the Broadcasting (Restrictions on the Holding of Licences) Order 1991, which, subject to the
932
overarching 15 per cent. threshold set by the points system set out in part IV of that order, will raise the number of local radio licences that may be held by a single person from 20 to 35, and relax the subsidiary limits on the holdings of radio licences in urban areas with a population between 1 million and 4.5 million.
"I am also consulting the ITC and BBC with a view to amending the Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991. I propose to raise the equity ceiling between independent producers and broadcasters from 15 per cent. to 25 per cent.; and to amend the definition of an independent producer so that the ownership of any broadcasting interests outside the European Union do not disqualify an EU company from independent status within the United Kingdom.
"In addition, my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has agreed to amend the newspaper merger provisions of the Fair Trading Act by doubling the threshold for automatic reference to the MMC from a circulation of 25,000 to a circulation of 50,000.
"These changes will allow greater consolidation within the radio industry; encourage greater investment and stability within the independent production sector; and reduce the costs of small mergers within the newspaper industry.
"The remaining short-term changes I am proposing today will require primary legislation, which will be brought forward at the earliest available opportunity.
"Subject to two important safeguards, the Government propose that newspaper companies with under 20 per cent. of national newspaper circulation will be able to control up to 15 per cent. of the television market, including up to two regional ITV licences, or one regional ITV licence and the Channel 5 licence. Newspaper companies with more than 20 per cent. of circulation share will be free to expand in satellite and cable up to 15 per cent. of the total television market, but regulation will continue to prevent them from owning more than 20 per cent. of any terrestrial ITV or Channel 5 licence.
"The new rules will also apply reciprocally, allowing television companies to acquire interests in newspapers on the same basis.
"Proposals for cross-control between television and newspaper companies will be subject to two safeguards. First, any such investment will require the consent of the Independent Television Commission, which will have power to restrict transactions which they deem to be contrary to the public interest. Secondly, no cross-control will be allowed between newspaper and television companies where the newspaper company's regional titles account for more than 30 per cent. of regional newspaper circulation in the relevant ITV region.
"The Government also propose that these arrangements to liberalise cross-investment between newspaper and television companies should be replicated for cross-investment in the radio sector. In addition, the Government will take the opportunity to remove the numerical limits on the holding of local

933
radio licences, but retain the overall 15 per cent. limit on the number of points in the radio ownership system.
"The Government will also abolish the rules which limit ownership between terrestrial television, satellite and cable. Terrestrial broadcasters will therefore be allowed to have controlling interests in satellite and cable companies, provided their total interests do not exceed 15 per cent. of the total television market. Satellite and cable companies will also be able to have outright ownership of ITV or Channel 5 licences, subject to the 15 per cent. market limit and the two licence limit.
"These principles will apply subject to one condition. The current rules for ownership of non-domestic satellite broadcasters and cable operators have already allowed for a much higher level of investment by newspapers in those sectors than in terrestrial television. The Government therefore propose that those satellite and cable companies which are more than 20 per cent. owned by a newspaper group with a national circulation share of more than 20 per cent. should continue to be restricted to a 20 per cent. holding in one ITV or Channel 5 licence, and 5 per cent. in any further ITV or Channel 5 licence.
"Finally, as part of the review, the Government have looked again at the ownership arrangements for ITN. We have decided that the principles underpinning the Broadcasting Act remain sound and that the 20 per cent. limit on individual stakes in ITN should remain. However, in order to give more ITV companies the opportunity to invest in ITN, we shall remove the 50 per cent. limit on total ITV holdings.
"Madam Speaker, our media industry is on the threshold of a new era. We cannot pretend that the changes in technology, and their impact upon the marketplace, are not taking place. We have an obligation to create the legislative framework which allows the industry to respond to these changes. At the same time, we must protect the diversity of our media, which is an essential element of our democracy.
"The approach which I have outlined today does two things. First, it suggests a fundamental long-term reform of media ownership in Britain, and allows time for the implications of this proposal to be properly considered. Secondly, it proposes some more immediate changes which balance more liberal ownership regulation with the introduction of a new provision for public interest scrutiny of the growth of media businesses. I commend it to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the production of this White Paper after long and almost elephantine gestation, and especially for the earlier than usual chance to read it. That was a great courtesy and very welcome. We as an opposition cautiously welcome it—which I believe in political code means that we think it rather good. We like the long-term approach; we
934
approve of the broad points system of treating the media market as a whole while retaining separate assessments for each market sector; and we congratulate the Minister on the suggestion of a maximum 10 per cent. ceiling share for the whole media market. The Secretary of State clearly defeated those free market jungle predators who wanted to allow a free rein for the media mogul monopolists. We congratulate the Minister on that.
In general, we welcome the retention of a system of modest regulation. The reality and the irony to economists is that an unregulated market in the media would actually promote monopoly, or certainly dominance. Regulation is therefore not state censorship, but is a means of ensuring pluralism, diversity and choice in the media market. The Government always have a duty to promote plurality of ownership in order to protect plurality of sources of information and comment, and a duty to prevent the emergence and dominance by over-mighty companies who could exercise excessive and unaccountable influence on the political process.
I must state categorically that to me the media is not just another market: it is crucial to the workings of democracy, and its power has significantly increased in recent years. It is perhaps now the First rather than the Fourth Estate. So ownership of the media operates centrally in both a political and also in a cultural context and is quite different from any other industry.
Of course, we accept the need for change, which is well set out in this paper. Technological change makes regulatory change inevitable. The advent of cable and satellite TV, the development of digital technology, meaning no longer a spectrum scarcity, and the convergence of the various media sectors, means that we have a multi-channel environment without the traditional sector boundaries. That means that we must revise how and what we regulate. But full technological revolution will not happen overnight, so it is correct that this regulatory adjustment should be gradual. The technological convergence which is taking place means a potential convergence of control of the common carriers of information and comment. So the questions of media dominance and media access—and indeed of individual privacy—become more and not less important.
Looking at the suggested points system, we must assess whether it does deal with that critical issue of monopoly or market dominance. What is suggested is sophisticated and complex, but it has the advantages of flexibility and future modification. I do not wish today to get involved in a discussion of the micro-mechanics of the points system although we are sympathetic to the broad approach. We particularly welcome the 20 per cent. newspaper circulation ceiling on TV ownership, which appears to prevent the existing giants from expanding further into television. We are also pleased that the proposals seem—I should like the Minister's help on this—to be based on an audience percentage, since if it were based on the share of the advertising market we would have to question that, since that is not in any way central to the burgeoning satellite broadcasting where subscription and not advertising provides up to 80 per cent. of revenue.

935
The central point in these new proposals is the suggestion of a regulator with powers to govern media ownership. That is a very interesting and critical suggestion. The White Paper appears open-minded on whether that person is a new creation or whether, say, the existing Director-General of Fair Trading is used. We shall look at that. But we must avoid the danger of using a normal industry regulator who might view the media as a normal industry, which it is certainly not. The definition of public interest criteria will also be very important and not easy. The regulator will have great power. We shall need to know who appoints him; from where; and to whom he or she is accountable. We must make sure that such a regulator understands the special characteristics of this industry. He must be full time and of great authority.
As regards the relationship between newspapers and television, I ask the Minister to confirm whether any national newspaper, except the top two groups, can buy any two regional TV stations—not London stations. Our worry is that that might erode the regional character so valuable in the smaller ITV franchises. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that. Perhaps he will also say something about foreign ownership. I did not spot that. Of course, at present Disney owns 25 per cent. of GM-TV, and predatory Europeans could own 100 per cent; but no British company is allowed to do so. Does the Minister have any comment on foreign ownership?
On the important question of the satellite encryption decoding system, the Minister will know that our concerns are that at present the encryption decoding system, which is the gateway to satellite distribution on Astra, is controlled by a body which is also the major programme supplier to that satellite television. It can therefore price the entry—and indeed presumably refuse the entry—to competitors offering competing programme channels. Has the Minister any proposals to ensure the freedom of entry there? I was not sure what the White Paper was saying. Do the Government incline towards a statutory code guaranteeing equal access?
As regards ITN, we accept that the combined ITV holdings can go above 50 per cent. and we welcome the re-statement of the 20 per cent. limit on individual stakes in ITN. We welcome the suggestion in relation to independent producers. We have been very concerned to maintain a British TV programme production industry. We do not wish to see it abandoned like the film industry. So the proposal for greater investment in individual producers seems to us immediately a sensible one. Has the Minister any more assurances on protection for British TV production? Has he any comment on the European proposals, quotas or guaranteed minimum UK content?
On this side of the House we approach this very important media ownership issue with certain basic principles, objectives and priorities in mind. We firmly believe in the desirability of plurality of ownership, and we oppose the concentration of ownership which threatens to produce dominance in any media. We believe in the need to protect and promote diversity in the sources of programming and writing. We believe in the prime importance of quality and also in the importance of regional strength.
936
This White Paper addresses those issues. It is interesting and challenging. Our final and measured response will depend on how far we ultimately believe that it satisfies those criteria and priorities. My first instinctive response is that it is encouraging.
4 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, in thanking the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement made in another place and particularly for the courtesy of giving us an advance copy of the paper which he has produced. That was immensely helpful.
The Department of National Heritage has been knocked a little over recent months as being the "Department of Nothing Happening". I am bound to say that it has lived down that reputation with this White Paper with its complex proposals for dealing with media monopoly.
The Statement is rightly based on the premise that the landscape of the media has changed out of all recognition over recent years. Within the nation state of the United Kingdom the old traditional frontiers between the print media and the broadcast media have been fast disappearing, as have the international boundaries. We are in a global marketplace. The Statement and the document that lies behind it are complex and will require more detailed study before we can come to a considered conclusion. Basically, however, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said.
The Government have been grappling in a serious and constructive way with some difficult problems. I should like to address one or two aspects of those problems and seek some response from the noble Viscount. I turn first to the question of regional monopoly, particularly in the areas of television and commercial radio. The regional aspect is of critical importance. As I understand the document, it suggests that if a regional newspaper owner has 30 per cent. of the newspaper circulation in his area, he would be entitled to move on to 100 per cent. ownership of a regional television station in the same area and to 100 per cent. ownership of local radio stations. The question of regional monopoly needs the most rigorous consideration. I know from my own experience how damaging regional monopoly could be to the interests of the viewers, listeners and readers. It could also damage the interests of the advertising industry in that area.
That point underlines the great importance of the arrangements with regard to regulation. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, about the importance of the regulator who will emerge from the second stage of the Government's proposals. However, I am not at all clear about who the current regulator is. I was happy to note that the Independent Television Commission will have a regulatory role in determining whether cross-ownership between television and the press is in the public interest, but I should be grateful for further amplification on that point.
I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, that what lies at the heart of this is the fact that the media industry is a very special industry. It has tremendous economic importance and is now of some

937
international importance to us as an export industry. However, it is much more than that. The raw materials of the media industry are not only physical, but encompass the culture and climate of opinion in our society. Therefore, its regulation requires particularly careful handling.
I should like to mention two other matters in passing. I very much welcome the proposals about Independent Television News. We fought a long and hard battle in this House—I believe that the same thing happened in another place—to persuade the Government of the wisdom of allowing the ITV companies to have a majority shareholding. There was the most stubborn resistance to that, so I warmly welcome the Government's repentance on the matter.
The problem of encryption of satellite and subscription broadcasting is also important. However, I do not see any mention of it in the papers that I have had the opportunity to read. Did the Minister notice that the chief executive of the Independent Television Commission, Mr. David Glencross, said the other day that the situation was now so serious that the voluntary arrangements were patently failing? He called explicitly for some statutory provision to ensure that the gatekeepers of the new subscription services should not at the same time be the programme providers and therefore in a dominating position where they could interfere with the reasonable prospects of new entrants to the industry.
I should also like to know about the arrangements in your Lordships' House for dealing with these matters. Many of the immediate proposals are to be the subject of secondary legislation. Can the Minister say something about the form of that? Will such legislation take the form of an order that requires affirmative resolution? Will we have an opportunity to scrutinise some of those arrangements? Is there the possibility of a general debate on these very important proposals?
Finally, I should like to say a word about the legislation which the Minister has promised for the autumn, I presume. Perhaps I may reiterate an earlier plea. Not only is the new charter for the BBC on the stocks, but we now have major new proposals for cross-media ownership. I think that that presents the opportunity for a really comprehensive piece of legislation which can deal with some of the major flaws in the present Broadcasting Act at the same time.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome that has been given to the White Paper by the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Thomson of Monifieth. In welcoming it, the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, said that it was rather good. I am grateful for that. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, said that the department is known as the "Department of Nothing Happening". The noble Lord now knows what we have been up to for the past few months.
Both noble Lords asked a number of questions with which I shall try to deal. I turn first to the importance of the regulator. Obviously, that is an extremely important point. In the short term, the regulators will remain the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority. However, the document makes clear that we
938
shall consider whether we need an ITC or something more similar to the regulator for the competition authorities. We shall look at that point in the future, but in the short term that role will be fulfilled by the two regulatory authorities that exist at the moment.
Both noble Lords asked about regional policy. Again, that is an extremely important issue. We must not forget the advertisers out there and that they must have a choice. Our proposals are that no newspaper owner whose regional titles account for more than 30 per cent. of any regional market would be allowed to buy or control the Channel 3 licence for that region. However, it is important to remember that the ITC's programming requirements for those ITV licences ensures that there is regional programming. It will be up to the ITC to ensure that regional programming still exists.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked about foreign ownership. There is no change to the position on foreign ownership that is set out in the Broadcasting Act 1990. The existing rules will stay. They prohibit non-EU ownership of terrestrial licences whether by an individual or a corporate body. That remains the position.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, asked about encryption. That is an important area. We believe that competition law is the first line of defence and that this is a matter which the competition authorities will consider if they wish to do so. It is extremely important that the markets are operated properly.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, also asked about ITN. We have had some debates on ITN in your Lordships' House and I am glad to say that the Government listened carefully to all the views that were expressed by noble Lords on all sides of the House, including those on my own Benches. We took those views seriously and have brought forward proposals which I trust that your Lordships will find acceptable.
The noble Lord also asked about the legislation that we are bringing forward. It will be by affirmative resolution and will therefore be brought before your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, asked about the quotas for independent production. We want to increase investment in independent production and hope that our proposals will achieve that. With regard to EC quotas, obviously that is not part of this review and our work on that is being taken forward separately. I remind your Lordships that we have said in the Statement that this summer we shall be issuing a further document on digital broadcasting.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend say a bit more about the position of the regulator? First, is there to be one regulator covering the whole area or, as he seemed at one stage to be suggesting, different regulatory authorities? Secondly, when is it proposed to appoint the regulator or regulators? Have the Government in mind the desirability of getting, first, the right man for this immensely difficult job; and, secondly, getting him into authority early so that he has time to look at the situation before the whole impact of

939
the matter falls upon him? In other words, will my noble friend expand a good deal on what he said about the position of the regulator or regulators?
I did not follow my noble friend's reference to foreign ownership. The noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, seemed to think that foreign owners would have certain advantages in certain areas. Is that so? If it is so, what are those advantages? I rather hoped from what he was saying that he was disputing what the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue, had said. Perhaps he will make it clear whether foreign owners are in the same position as British owners. Finally, will he say when your Lordships will have an opportunity to debate this matter?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about the regulator in reply to the questions asked by my noble friend. We have two regulatory bodies at the moment—the ITC and the Radio Authority. We intend to use those two bodies.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, both?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, both those bodies. We do not necessarily intend to create a new long-term regulator in the future. We suggest that the existing competition authorities might be given media-specific guidelines from which they can act. That would leave the ITC and the Radio Authority free to concentrate upon broadcasting issues, but that is very much for consultation and we shall be listening carefully to the views of your Lordships, the industry and the two existing regulators.
With regard to foreign ownership, we do not propose any change to the current rules. Under the Broadcasting Act 1990, an individual or a body corporate which is not resident in the EEC cannot be a Channel 3 licence holder. As I am sure my noble friend will know, there have never been ownership restrictions on newspapers in this country, and we have no intention of changing that. We must emphasise that we share the majority view that because of the media's ability to influence opinion and engender political debate, the industry cannot be treated as just any other industry; for example, manufacturing industry. For the foreseeable future, special rules are required to ensure diversity of opinion and plurality of ownership.
My noble friend asked me when we would be able to debate these changes. That is a matter for my noble friend the Chief Whip. When we debate the instruments will depend on how quickly they come from another place.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, will the Minister help the House about timing? He said that for the purpose of consultation the Government were proposing a 10 per cent. threshold. Does he think that that 10 per cent. will be in force by the time the licence for Channel 5 is granted? If it is not, will they delay the granting of the Channel 5 licence?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Channel 5 licence is being granted according to the existing rules and regulations under the Broadcasting Act 1990. The Channel 5 licence will be granted upon the basis of those rules. That must be the case. We have proposals
940
for the future, but those proposals will not come into force until a Bill goes through both Houses of Parliament and becomes an Act.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, it is a little difficult to absorb everything straightaway, but does this affect the BBC in any way? Will it be limited in joining forces with private enterprise companies—something upon which it has already started? Does this proposal control the BBC? Perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend on saying that flexibility is of considerable importance. The one thing we can be certain about is that ways around the regulations, whatever they are, will be found. It will be difficult, and so we must be flexible and stop some of the rat holes, which will clearly appear, before they damage the whole structure and we find ourselves with a monopoly. Flexibility and some time to think this out are needed. I hope that we shall have a considerable debate in the House because a great deal depends on how we structure all the competition which will exist with the new technologies.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. This is an extremely complicated area. The document we published is long and difficult to take in at first glance. My noble friend asked about the BBC. Of course the BBC is not the subject, as such, of the paper because this is a cross-media ownership paper, and of course ownership of the BBC does not come in to the matter. The ownership of the BBC is based upon its Royal Charter. No one owns it. My noble friend made the important point that where the BBC goes into business or partnership in some form of joint venture with a private or public corporation in the media world, that joint venture would of course be subject to regulations under our cross-media proposals.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I hope the House will forgive me for expressing some anxiety over the Statement. I tend always to be a little anxious when there is complete cross-party agreement on such matters because I have had experience in a different context, upon which I do not propose to enlarge this afternoon, of what at the moment I conceive to be the disastrous results of unanimity in that field.
My difficulty is that the degree of unanimity in your Lordships' House today to some extent corresponds with wide areas of agreement in the political and economic field about which one reads now from day to day between the leaders of my own party and the leaders of other parties. That may be symptomatic of an altogether different relationship between the parties than that to which we in this House have become accustomed over the centuries. We are all agreed on one thing: that the media are very, very powerful indeed, taken as a collective. Therefore, one has to ensure that the arrangements that are apparently in train now will cover eventualities in which the inherent antagonisms within society can be expressed in a less passive form than they are today.
What I am a little troubled about is the existence of a large underclass in our country; the large social differences that exist within our society; and the potential for conflict if the existence of the underclass goes on for a long time or is accentuated in the future.

941
Within the comparatively placid political atmosphere of the times, in which there is such a large measure of agreement, how can we be sure that that will be sufficient to carry us into the future? I have the greatest doubts about that. We should not allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, is the occasional dissenting voice not on subjects such as this but on the EU. However, he raised an important point, which is: what do we want the media industry to be? How large do we want it to be? How large should it be? We have looked long and hard at the matter and have put forward the 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. proposals.
If we are to have a strong, independent media—whether broadcasting, newspapers, satellite, radio or cable—it is important that it is a viable industry. It must be able to invest, expand and compete on a European basis and in world markets If we have a viable industry the section about which the noble Lord was concerned will find its voice. It will not find its voice if we have a weak industry that cannot make its voice heard.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that most people will wish to know what effect the proposals will have on the independence of broadcasting producers, news editors, programme directors and so forth? Will he assure the House that the independence of such people will be maintained and will not be influenced by those who are investing in the various independent television companies.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. Of course, newspapers and television companies have different policies: historically newspapers have a view and a strong editorial policy but broadcasters do not. According to the regulation of their licence, broadcasters are required not to present the views which newspapers present; they are required to have independence and balance. That is extremely important and it is important that we maintain the position. That is the role of the ITC, and I am sure that it will continue as such.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the exchanges and I do not refer to my noble friend Lord Renton, who has just intervened. However, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I remind them of page 81 of the Companion to the Standing Orders which states:
"Ministerial statements are made for the information of the House, and although brief comments and questions for clarification from all quarters of the House are allowed, such statements should not be made the occasion for an immediate debate".
As always, I am in your Lordships' hands, but I hope that the House will remind itself of the wisdom of what is contained in our red book.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, for several years I worked in the European Parliament on the EU Commission paper dealing with this subject. Luckily, it was not accepted. Therefore, I congratulate the Government on producing these long-awaited and important proposals on such a complex subject. They were so right to have taken their time and not to have
942
rushed into making the proposals. They are so important because today the media have such enormous power and influence in the world.
Here is a fine example of a government legislating for the future—and an exciting future. Will the Minister urge the Secretary of State at the next EU council meeting to make certain that this fine example will be followed and will not be tampered with in any way?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as my noble friend knows, the EU is at a relatively early stage of its consultations and might not put forward its firm proposals for some time. We believe that it is important for our industry and for British consumers to act now, and that can lead to a wider debate within Europe. We hope that our proposals will be looked at very carefully by the EU and other countries in Europe which have different rules. Some EU countries have a media controlled by significantly large groups. Indeed, those groups are significantly larger than any of the groups which exist or trade in this country.
We believe that the EU proposals are some way off. We wish to be at the forefront of the discussions in order to ensure that the single market operates in the best interests of the commercial and consumer interests of Europe and this country.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, are the Government considering monopoly practices such as using other money or commercial strength to damage the circulation of an opponent's newspaper, as we have seen in the present price war? Is there a clanger of that happening in the other forms of media; and are the Government concerned about that practice?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, it is for those in the newspaper industry to decide what price to put on their newspapers. If in any instance there are complaints about unfair practices it would be for the competition authority to decide the matter and not the Department of National Heritage.
We must remember that broadcasters are in a slightly different position; television broadcasters are regulated by the ITC and radio broadcasters are regulated by the Radio Authority. Therefore, there is not the similar read-across as is the case with newspapers.
It is extremely important that nationally and regionally concentrations of regional ownership, whether in Scotland or wherever else, do not exist. The consumers will then have the widest choice and the advertisers, who pay the bills and allow commercial radio and television to survive, will have freedom of choice and the ability to advertise their products in a proper and competitive way.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the start of regulatory convergence. Will the Government remember that "multi-media" is considerably wider than just those two regulators and that there are many more to come? Some of us have been looking at those who can affect various parts of the media in the UK and we have counted up to 20. Four are in Brussels and the rest are in the UK. I hope that this is a first stage and the wider aspects of multi-media will engage the Government's attention significantly.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, one of the reasons for the proposal is the wider aspects of the media and the fact that there is a convergence of different media. It is difficult to see where the overlap begins and ends. That is why, for example, we have abolished the restrictions in ownership between terrestrial, satellite and cable broadcasters. All will be subject to the same ownership regulations. There are numerous delivery systems and therefore one cannot have a regulatory system which regulates one system in a different way from another. What matters to the consumer and to the public interest is what comes out and what is available to the public. That is what we should be looking at and that is how we wish to regulate the system in the future. Whatever the new delivery system, it will always fall under our cross-media proposals.

Jobseekers Bill
4.28 p.m.
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 3 [The income-based conditions]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, leave out lines 10 to 14 and insert:
("(ii) who has reached the age of 16, but not the age of 18, and is registered for training but is not being provided with any training.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 2 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, and 27, which are consequential. Amendment No. 2 is modest to the point of bashfulness. It does not conflict with any of the major items of government policy; with the requirement of compulsory registration for training; or with the requirement that there shall be no benefit for those who do not register for training. In fact it covers only two groups. One of them concerns those who are registered for youth training and are waiting for their first place, who of course have done everything that is required of them by law and still need to eat in the meantime before their place is provided. In 1991, according to Mrs. Shepherd, the average waiting time for a first place was eight weeks. I understand that subsequently the waiting time has considerably improved, in part thanks to Mrs. Shepherd's own efforts, which are appreciated. But it will not necessarily stay that short forever. It is a problem which may recur.
The second group, and I think the rather larger group, to which it applies are people who have registered for a youth training course, have completed it as required and have maybe gained a qualification but have not reached their 18th birthday and therefore are not eligible for JSA.
According to the MORI report commissioned by the Department of Social Security itself, 58 per cent. of youth training courses last three months or less. The likelihood therefore is that in a period of two years somebody will complete a course of youth training before the two-year period is up and before the JSA eligibility comes in; in fact the number might be very considerable indeed. It is in that situation that it often takes longest to find people a new training place, and it is while the Government and the TECs are trying to find
944
such people a new training place that eligibility for JSA, because they have met the condition of registration and no training has as yet been provided, would, I think, be most relevant.
The amendment supersedes the existing severe hardship payments which were a well-intentioned attempt to do what was needed by an extremely cumbrous, ineffective and administratively burdensome route. It supersedes also the "dog licence" of the 1990s, the bridging allowance which, like the dog licence, has been left un-uprated for so long that it has become positively nugatory. The bridging allowance which is supposed to be paid to people between YT placements for eight weeks is £15 a week. That will barely buy you a zone two travelcard in London. It will leave you £1.20 for all other expenses. If there are any people who can eat on £1.20 a week I have not yet met them. I should be interested to talk to them: I might learn something.
The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 27, which preserves the prerogative of mercy, as with the availability rules, of treating people as registered for training when they are not yet registered for training. That is purely a prerogative of mercy. It is strictly under the Secretary of State's control. It just deals with that part of the severe hardship need which is not actually covered by the registration for training. Take, for example, the following case, which comes to me from Barnardos. A young woman of 17 had been in receipt of severe hardship payments and was due to take up a place on a YT scheme; she was properly registered and looking for a place. The week before her training began she was indecently assaulted and, being severely traumatised, did not begin the course. A prerogative of mercy in a case like that is, I think, not unreasonable. That is the kind of situation that Amendment No. 27 is designed to meet.
The Government may say, since they are so certain that their guarantee is working, that this amendment does not apply to anybody at all. I would say that, if so, it is a cheap amendment and will cost the Government nothing. If they say that it is unnecessary, why do they not accept it so as to ensure that it remains unnecessary? It is after all in the nature of a guarantee that you get something back if a situation is not met. But in fact as at December 1994, the first group covered by this amendment included 15,849 people registered for youth training and waiting for a place. Its cost at the lower rate would be £443,000, or £573,000 at the higher living-at-home rate. Half a million pounds for saving 15,000 lives seems to me to be really quite a good buy. In fact I think that there are many more than that. The Nottingham Young People's Benefit Campaign has drawn my attention to the fact that there are large numbers of people in the last few months before their 18th birthday who do not get a training place because they do not have time to complete a course. They have someone at present who has been refused by three trainers and who is not 18 until July 1995. These people have done nothing wrong. They have done everything that is required of them; they have met all the conditions of eligibility. Why should not something be done for them?
The Minister may say that they should live at home. In the MORI report, 65 per cent. of those claiming severe hardship had been thrown out by their parents. In the Centre Point sample of December 1994, 86 per cent. had been thrown out by their parents. Being thrown out by your parents is bad enough but to be deprived of benefit on top of it is a form of double jeopardy. Ten per cent. of those claiming severe hardship were from care and had no homes to go to; 50 per cent. of them had no money at all; 25 per cent. of them admitted that they had begged, stolen or sold drugs to survive. Self-incrimination usually involves an under-statement of the evidence. That 25 per cent. figure, based on self-incrimination, is startlingly high and should give us all cause for concern. This amendment allows YT to continue on a much more stable basis. Indeed, I would be inclined to believe that without this amendment, YT cannot be on a stable basis at all. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for explaining these amendments. We have had a number of debates on the question of 16 and 17 year-olds, as the Bill has moved through its various stages. The noble Earl has returned to this general proposition on a number of occasions. I fear that we will probably not agree on this issue, but I should like to explain once again how we see the treatment of 16 and 17 year-olds.
My noble friend and I have explained before that we believe it is important that young people should get the best possible start on their career path as early as possible through education, training or employment. I do not believe there is much disagreement on that. To that end we guarantee every 16 and 17 year-old who wants one a suitable training place, a training wage or an allowance. In general this means that there is no need for 16 and 17 year-olds to be unemployed and claiming benefit. However, as we have explained on a number of occasions, we recognise that there are exceptions and we provide for them.
First, certain 16 and 17 year-olds, such as disabled young people and lone parents, are able to claim income support without having to be available for employment, actively seeking employment or registering for employment or training. This will continue after the introduction of JSA. Secondly, certain other 16 and 17 year-olds in prescribed groups such as those leaving local authority care and couples with children will be allowed to claim JSA in their own right by virtue of Clause 3, subsection (1) (f) (iii). Thirdly, other 16 and 17 year-olds will be able to claim JSA if they can show that they would otherwise suffer severe hardship.
The first amendment we are dealing with, Amendment No. 2, would restore entitlement to benefit to all 16 and 17 year-olds who were registered for but not receiving training. That would run counter to the policy that I have described. Not being provided with training covers an enormous range of circumstances. The young person might have walked out of a training course or might have refused training. I have repeatedly said that, only exceptionally, should young people be eligible for benefit. The amendment would seriously
946
undermine that and act to encourage benefit dependency at an early age. As I have said on a number of occasions, we do not believe that that would be right.
I have explained our general policy and should now like to say a few words on Amendment No. 3. The amendment would affect 16 and 17 year-olds in the prescribed groups who will be able to claim JSA without having to prove severe hardship—care leavers and lone parents, for example. It would remove the requirement for them to register for training and employment. I cannot see how that would help those young people. The purpose of registration is to ensure that they receive the best possible help and advice from the careers service, especially advice on training opportunities. Registration is not onerous or burdensome. It enables the young person to discuss his career aspirations with a trained counsellor and will help him to make a start on the career ladder. Surely the House will agree that that is preferable to becoming dependent on benefit at an early age.
Most of the young people in this group are entitled to receive JSA only for a relatively short period. By the end of that period, most will be in training or employment. That is the measure of the success of our policy. As I explained, the few young people who are not in a training place, education or employment at the end of that period will be able to claim JSA if they would otherwise be at risk of severe hardship. In order to do so they will have to be registered for employment and training. So it makes good sense that they should have been registered right from the start I hope that I have reassured the noble Earl that there is nothing sinister in the requirement to register for training and employment. It is not a burden; it is a means of helping young people get started in the world of work.
I turn now to Amendment No. 4. I must say that I was not entirely clear about its purpose. However, now that I have heard the noble Earl's explanation, perhaps I may explain our intentions in a little more detail. Our intention is that regulations will prescribe certain groups of 16 and 17 year-olds who will be able to claim JSA by virtue of Clause 3(1) (f) (iii) without having to show severe hardship. We intend that they will be the same groups as are now able to receive income support on similar conditions. They include couples with children, those who are forced to live away from home due to the threat of abuse, and young people leaving care or custody.
The regulations will also prescribe the period for which they are allowed to claim JSA. In most cases the young person will be eligible to claim during the child benefit extension period (CBEP). That is the period for which a parent could claim child benefit for a child who has left school but has not started training, employment or education. That depends on the time of year at which the child leaves school. The period starts on the Monday after the "terminal date", which is the official date for the end of school; for example, for summer school leavers, the date is the first Monday in September. It continues for about three or four months. For summer school leavers, it ends on the first Monday in January.

947
Other 16 and 17 year-olds, such as those who leave local authority care and are forced to live away from home, and discharged young offenders, will be able to claim for up to eight weeks. The purpose of subsection (3) is to make clear on the face of the Bill how the period may be defined. In most cases that will be in terms of the number of weeks, but in a few cases the length of the period will be fixed in some other way. For instance, the period could be from the time of registration until the young person reaches the age of 18. There is no hidden intention in the subsection. It is intended simply to clarify how the prescribed period may be defined. I do not believe that it would be helpful to remove that clarification from the face of the Bill.
I turn now to Amendment No. 27 which is the final amendment in the group. It seeks to divert government policy relating to young people from its current path. I recognise that there are differences between the noble Earl and ourselves on the question of universal access to benefit. But it must surely be right for the Government to help unemployed young people into training or employment rather than to create the conditions in which they can drift into benefit dependency. I must emphasise yet again that the Government guarantee every young person who wants one a suitable youth training place. That is our policy and that is why access to benefit for this group is on an exceptional basis.
We recognise, of course, that there must be exceptions; and we provide for them. I have explained that young people in certain specified groups will continue to have access to income support following the introduction of JSA, and that provision will be made in JSA for those who are currently required to be available for work in order to receive benefit.
The amendment seeks to allow young people access to hardship payments where they are not registered for training. That is not a proposition with which I can agree. JSA is not made available to 16 and 17 year-olds unconditionally. They must show that they are prepared to take steps to help themselves out of benefit and into suitable training or work opportunities. The amendment seeks to bring young people within the ambit of the mainstream JSA provisions, which apply to claimants aged 18 and over. We reject that approach which cuts across our policy that young people in risk of severe hardship obtain benefit on an exceptional basis following a discretionary decision by the Secretary of State.
The noble Earl asked about young persons who complete a training course before their 18th birthday. However, very few young people will actually do so. Most complete training courses that last two years. If someone does complete training before his 18th birthday and has not found work, he should re-register for training at the career service. That person will be covered by the Government's guarantee. He may claim JSA while he waits for training if he would otherwise suffer severe hardship.
The noble Earl mentioned the case of a young girl who was too traumatised to take a place on a training course. As I have said on a number of occasions, it is
948
always difficult to comment on individual cases where the full details are not available regarding the young person. However, we have said before—and I am happy to say again—that a young person in such circumstances would be able to put the "good cause" argument for refusing to take a training place under JSA. But that essentially has to be a matter for the judgment of the officer in the Employment Service looking at the case in front of him and taking into account any problems involved such as those faced by the young woman mentioned by the noble Earl.
I apologise if I have gone on a little regarding this group of amendments. I appreciate that some of your Lordships feel most strongly about the position of 16 and 17 year-olds. We have covered the ground on a number of occasions but I thought it only right on Third Reading to set out as clearly as I possibly can the arrangements that we believe are the right ones for 16 and 17 year-olds. I repeat what underlies our whole view on the issue. We believe that young people should not be given any encouragement to start off on a life of benefit dependency. The education is there—both at school and in the form of further education—training is there, and the possibility of employment is there. We believe that we should take all possible steps to make sure that people are encouraged in every way to take up those opportunities and not depend from the early age of 16 on the benefit system.
I appreciate that the noble Earl feels strongly on the matter. I hope that I have at least put one or two things on the record which will show him that we do take into account those young people who fall into vulnerable groups or those who are subject to severe hardship. Nevertheless, I realise that there is a gulf between us. If the noble Earl decides to press the matter to a vote, I hope that my noble friends will support me.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. He is, of course, right to say that there is a gulf between us. However, what he has not altogether taken on board is that that gulf does not relate only to our opinions; it is about facts more than it is about opinions. The noble Lord's response would have been very reassuring if only the central information in it had been true. In saying that, I do not for a moment impugn the Minister's integrity—of course I do not. I am impugning his department's methods of gathering records.
First, I want to take up the most surprising thing that the Minister said, which was that the average YT training course lasted two years. I have previously quoted the MORI figure. My noble kinsman Lord Henley said that he believed that figure to be wrong. I put down a Question for Written Answer asking him what was the mean length of a YT course. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that he did not know. I am extremely surprised to hear this information from the Minister today. I ask him when it became the case, because it argues a fundamental revolution in the way in which youth training is provided.
The Minister again invoked the guarantee. I asked the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, when he was at the Department of Employment, within what time a YT place was guaranteed. That is a vital question if you cannot eat until you get a place. The noble Viscount did

949
not know within what time a place was guaranteed. That is precisely the point of the amendment. While you wait for the place you must eat.
The figure that I gave of 15,849 waiting for a place comes from the careers service which, according to my noble kinsman Lord Henley, is the basic source of the Government's information. If it is the basic source of the Government's information how can they disbelieve it? Do they have any independent source showing that the careers service is misleading them? If the Minister can allege that I shall happily give way to him.
The Minister asked how it might help anyone to be exempted from the provision for compulsory training. I answer that it will help in exactly the same way as it helps some people in particular circumstances to be exempted from the rules relating to availability, as in the case of women in refuges. The Minister spoke very powerfully to that issue, and I accept his reassurances. His arguments belong equally here.
Perhaps I may give him one more example: the case of a 17 year-old who had recently suffered a miscarriage. She had been in care from 14 to 16 after being physically and sexually abused and had spent 10 months of her life in a children's psychiatric unit. She had missed a great deal of schooling. No pre-vocational skills programme was available, and she was without the skills to conduct a YT course without appropriate training. Her case represents one of the "two stools" cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, called our attention. However, she has to remain registered for YT, which she is not capable of undertaking, because otherwise she could not receive severe hardship benefit.
The Minister also suggested that the amendment would help people who refuse training. He may have been out of the Chamber during the consideration of the Bill when his noble friend Lord Inglewood introduced a welcome amendment, which deals with about 10 per cent. of the hardship cases I have here, which provides that you are not penalised if you leave training with good cause. With this amendment we would not help those who leave it without good cause. I believe that the amendment is within the lines of government policy. I believe that if the Government had accurate information they would accept it. In the meantime I ask the opinion of the House.
4.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 159.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Carter, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Chorley, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Avebury, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Birk, B.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Blackstone, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

David, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

950

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dubs, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Mayhew, L.

Falkland, V.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Meston, L.

Fitt, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gallacher, L.

Monkswell, L.

Geraint, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Nicol, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ogmore, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Palmer, L.

Peston, L.

Gregson, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Grey, E.

Rea, L.

Hamwee, B.

Richard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Haskel, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Rochester, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Hughes, L.

Seear, B.

Hylton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Serota, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Shannon, E.

Jay, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Simon, V.

Jeger, B.

Southwark, Bp.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Stallard, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Stedman, B.

Judd, L.

Strafford, E.

Kennet, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kintore, E.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Lawrence, L.

Varley, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Listowel, E.

Whaddon, L.

Lockwood, B.

Wharton, B.

Longford, E.

White, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wigoder, L.

McCarthy, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Carnock, L.

Addison, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Ailsa, M.

Cawley, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Chelmsford, V.

Arran, E.

Chesham, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Astor, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Clinton, L.

Balfour, E.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Coleridge, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Biddulph, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blatch, B.

Courtown, E.

Blyth, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Boardman, L.

Borthwick, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Davidson, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Derwent, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Digby, L.

Burnham, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Cadman, L.

Downshire, M.

Caithness, E.

Dundonald, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Elibank, L.

951

Ellenborough, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elles, B.

Milverton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Finsberg, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Flather, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Foley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Munster, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Nelson, E.

Gainford, L.

Newall, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Norrie, L.

Goschen, V.

Northesk, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Gridley, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Orkney, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Peel, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Pender, L.

Harrowby, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Henley, L.

Prior, L.

Hives, L.

Quinton, L.

Hogg, B.

Radnor, E.

Holderness, L.

Rawlings, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Renwick, L.

Hood, V.

Romney, E.

Howe, E.

Roxburghe, D.

St. Davids, V.

Inglewood, L.

Seccombe, B.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Selborne, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Killearn L.

Sharpies, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Kimball, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Knollys, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Knutsford, V.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Stevens of Ludgate, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Leigh, L.

Strange, B.

Lindsay, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Liverpool, E.

Sudeley, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Swinton, E.

Lucas, L.

Tebbit, L.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Trumpington, B.

Ullswater, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vinson, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Vivian, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Waterford, M.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Westbury, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wolfson, L.

Mersey, V.

Wynford, L.

Middleton, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.2 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Amount payable by way of a jobseeker's allowance]:
[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Serious underlying medical condition
.—(1) Regulations made under section 20(4) and under paragraphs 8 and 10 of Schedule 1 shall provide that a vulnerable person shall be entitled to income-based jobseeker's allowance from a prescribed date.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular provide for a person to be treated as vulnerable if they have a serious underlying medical condition.
(3) The following are examples of circumstances where regulations may prescribe that a person be treated as having a serious underlying medical condition—

(a) as a result of an existing physical or mental condition, the person's health is likely to deteriorate if benefit is not paid;

(b) the person's physical or mental health is such that the non-payment of benefit will put the person at risk of excessive physical or mental distress.

(4) Where a person is seeking to demonstrate a serious underlying medical condition, any costs incurred in obtaining medical evidence shall be borne by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to put on the face of the Bill a definition of "serious underlying medical condition" which would enable a hardship payment to be made immediately, and for any cost of verification of such condition to be met out of public funds.
The amendment will put into the Bill some examples of the meaning of "serious underlying medical condition" which builds on one of the categories of "vulnerability" for the purposes of making a hardship payment. Those payments can be made where a person has been unable to show that he satisfies the conditions for claiming jobseeker's allowance or where a doubt has arisen as to his entitlement.
The Government have already accepted the need to define the key conditions of "availability" and "actively seeking work". Yet there is no indication of the circumstances when hardship payments can be made. As someone is at risk of being without any form of benefit, it is crucial that claimants and staff know precisely what is intended.
At Report, the Minister stated:
"We wish to allow the adjudication officers discretion to consider individual circumstances and therefore we do not propose to set out a list of specific conditions which could exclude some claimants and not take account of the severity of the condition".—[Official Report, 16/5/95; col. 463.]
Given that many illnesses and disabilities are hidden, it is not always easy for staff to make quick but comprehensive assessments about a claimant's condition. How will they decide who is vulnerable when faced with the variety of chronic or fluctuating disabilities? Under the current discretionary system, fewer than half of those applying for hardship payments in 1993 received them. Discretion alone may not be enough to protect the most vulnerable, as is indicated by the department's own research reports (Nos. 8 and 9) into the operation of the discretionary social fund which offered little evidence that those given awards had greater needs than those refused.
Ensuring that sick and disabled people are covered in vulnerable groups is important because only vulnerable people will have access to hardship payments immediately, or once an adverse decision has been made. The Minister has indicated two categories of "vulnerable" which concern ill health and disability. The first is entitlement to a disability premium. However, that helps a minority of unemployed sick and disabled people, as the premium is payable only to those registered blind or receiving disability allowance—which itself covers only care and mobility needs. Other

953
needs such as heating, diet and communication are not met. Indeed, the Policy Studies Institute has estimated that fewer than half the people with health-related needs would have been eligible for the disability premium when it was introduced in 1988.
The second category is "serious underlying medical condition" which the Minister has indicated can include people with dietary needs. However, it is important that someone with a condition like diabetes is considered as having a serious condition for hardship purposes. I understand that one unemployed client of a citizens advice bureau with diabetes was unable to follow a fat and sugar free diet as advised by her doctor because of lack of money. That could have meant that her condition would have deteriorated.
With at least 150,000 sick and disabled people having their incapacity benefit withdrawn and having to sign on, there is concern that many of those people could find difficulty in fulfilling the conditions of the jobseeker's allowance and therefore could have the possibility of hardship payments as their only source of income. Many of those people could have conditions which might deteriorate rapidly if subsequently they were unable to receive hardship payments.
Factors such as possible deterioration in condition or risk of distress are obvious matters which should be taken into account when assessing whether a person falls into that category of "vulnerable". Such matters are already in regulations concerning good cause. Stress brought on by money worries can exacerbate conditions such as mental health, digestion or respiratory problems, and can in turn make it far more difficult for the person to cope with financial problems.
It is equally important that any medical or other evidence required in support of the claimant's contention is free of charge to the claimant. When a hardship payment is being considered, the claimant should not be placed in the position of having to borrow or go into debt—or indeed into greater debt—in order to obtain a letter from his doctor. The amendment ensures that any costs relating to the medical evidence arc not borne by the claimant.
During the Committee stage, the Minister stated that discussions between the Department of Health and the Department of Social Security were under way concerning the costs of medical evidence generally. When the Minister replies, will he state whether the discussions have been concluded, and, if so, what was the outcome.
Finally, the Minister has stated that there has to be a balance between claimants' obligations in return for benefit, and protection for the most vulnerable. As hardship payments are reduced by up to 40 per cent. of the basic rate, which currently amounts to only £27.90 for a single person, access to such payments is unlikely to be sufficiently attractive to undermine the conditions of the jobseeker's allowance. I believe the amendment ensures that the Government's own definition truly protects the most vulnerable. I beg to move.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to those on the amendment, and from these Benches we support it. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen,
954
explained its purpose extremely well, so I can be brief. It is to ensure that the term "serious underlying medical condition" is interpreted broadly in order to protect anyone whose state of health is such as would make them vulnerable, were their income to be removed. The amendment would ensure that claimants are not faced with additional financial burdens of paying for the medical evidence they require in support of their claim.
We can all foresee that there could be problems for the Benefits Agency in deciding whether someone is vulnerable because of sickness. Potentially large numbers of people will not be eligible for the disability premium, as the noble Lord said, but will nevertheless be in poor health and will seek to demonstrate a serious underlying medical condition.
The intention is to ensure that when considering whether a person suffers from such a condition the staff at the Benefits Agency take a broad approach. The amendment therefore provides that an indication be given on the face of the Bill as to the circumstances which should fall to be considered, as well as ensuring that claimants who have to provide medical evidence to confirm their health problems are not financially penalised.
It is clear that the provision of medical evidence to support an argument that someone is suffering from a serious underlying medical condition would be necessary. We presume that the Benefits Agency staff will require such evidence. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that when he replies. There could be problems for claimants in obtaining such evidence. There is increasing evidence that GPs are insisting on charging for medical reports which people need in connection with benefit claims. We feel that that adds yet a further problem to the situation in which such people find themselves.
The people in need of hardship payments on the grounds of vulnerability will need to have their claims dealt with by the Benefits Agency swiftly and thoroughly. It is therefore important not only that a claimant is able to provide proof of their circumstances but also that no delay is caused by arguments over the cost of medical evidence. The amendment therefore provides for any cost to be met automatically by the DSS in that situation. That could be easily implemented through the use of a single form for all claimants to fill in and forward to their GP.
It is an important amendment and we hope that the Government will see the strength of the argument. These people need help and we feel that the words should be on the face of the Bill so that this help can be provided swiftly and efficiently.
Earl Russell: My Lords, hardship payments under the Bill are rather like baths under the rule of St. Benedict. According to the rule of St. Benedict, the old may have baths, and the sick, but to the young and especially those in good health they shall be seldom permitted. That is precisely the situation with hardship payments. To the young and especially those in good health, they shall be seldom permitted.
To be eligible for hardship payments, you have to be established as being in a vulnerable group. That is the point of introducing the phrase "serious underlying

955
medical condition". I think I am right in saying that that was the Minister's own phrase, used in the first day of Committee. So he has to take some responsibility for it.
The kind of thing which, as I understand it, should be covered by the amendment is asthma—which is increasing so distressingly fast—hypertension or depression, which is a particularly common illness among those on benefit. All those make people vulnerable. They are all the kind of things which being totally without benefit might cause to worsen, possibly to the detriment of the person's employability for life. It seems sensible to include them.
The amendment also provides assistance with fees for medical certificates for those conditions. This appears, as a result of the market tendencies inside the health service, to be a rapidly growing problem. For example, there is the case reported by a CAB in Suffolk of a single parent whose son suffered from asthma thought to be caused by mites in house dust. She applied for a grant for a vacuum cleaner. The Benefits Agency, reasonably enough, asked for a doctor's confirmation of her son's asthma. The charge for the report from the doctor was £9.50. She could not afford the fee, so she did not get the vacuum cleaner, so the asthma continued. We do not think that that is in the public interest.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. The Government's current narrow definition will exclude many people in poor health, particularly those with chronic illness or in a state of poor health. Those are the very people who need our help and support.
I should like to give an example from a citizens advice bureau in the south west. It reported the case of a widower who was receiving medical treatment for depression. He was told by the jobcentre that unless he accepted the offer of a part-time job as a driver, paying £2.30 an hour, with no work during the school holidays, his income support would be stopped. Accepting the job led to a number of problems which worsened his state of mental health. He was earning too little to pay national insurance contributions—a situation which worried him greatly. When he visited the bureau, his housing benefit had been withdrawn—it was subsequently reinstated, due to his low income—and he feared that he would be made homeless as a result. He told the adviser that he was contemplating committing suicide by throwing himself into the river.
We should all think long and carefully before rejecting my noble friend's amendment because, if your Lordships reject it, a large number of people who are not severely disabled enough to qualify for incapacity benefit but who nevertheless are in poor health are in danger of failing to meet the jobseeker's test as a result of being deprived of even a minimum income.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, there is an additional point to be made here, following what my noble friend has just said, and it is perhaps a slightly more cynical one. If the amendment is not passed, cases will be brought up by the tabloids in a way that will be highly damaging to Her
956
Majesty's Government. Therefore, serious consideration ought to be given to the matter before the amendment is rejected.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the amendment deals with the definitions of the vulnerable groups which will have access to hardship payments following the imposition of a sanction under Clause 19, or failure to meet the availability or actively seeking work conditions for receipt of JSA, or who have not agreed a satisfactory jobseeker's agreement. I think it is helpful to be clear at the outset about something perhaps not made entirely clear during the course of the debate: that is, the groups we are dealing with and the fact that the claimants involved have either failed to meet the necessary conditions for benefit or have made themselves unemployed or failed to pursue an opportunity to take themselves out of unemployment.
I have made clear on many occasions that we accept that there is a need to provide in these circumstances for claimants whose circumstances mean that they, or others for whom they have responsibility, are particularly vulnerable to hardship. We have set out the basic groups who will have access to payments if they demonstrate they would otherwise suffer hardship. I have also said, and must say again, that we do not accept that claimants should automatically have access to benefit at all times irrespective of their actions and choices. In the case of single, healthy claimants, we believe they must meet the basic conditions of entitlement if they wish to receive JSA.
That is the Government's basic approach to these issues. We intend to set out in regulations the detailed definitions of the vulnerable groups, and the factors which an adjudication officer will have to take into account in reaching a decision on whether hardship will arise. These are sensitive matters which may need fine-tuning in the future. They are therefore best dealt with through secondary legislation.
Turning now to the amendment, I should like to deal first with the issue of vulnerability on medical grounds, which is the subject of Amendment No. 7 and which is also covered in Amendment No. 8. We have already made clear that claimants who have a serious underlying medical condition that means that the removal of benefit would make them particularly vulnerable to hardship will have access to payments.
We will wish to look carefully at how to define that condition in the regulations. Taking physical conditions first, we have made clear that we do not believe it right to list specific medical conditions in regulations. It is important that the adjudication officer should be able to use his discretion to consider the claimant's individual circumstances as a whole, and the severity and effects of the illness in his particular case. Claimants applying for a hardship payment will be asked to give details of any serous illness from which they or a family member suffer and to explain how this affects them. In particular, they would be expected to give details of any essential costs associated with the condition—for example the costs of treatment and dietary or other needs. The basic test will be whether the illness is such as to make the claimant vulnerable to hardship, and the adjudication officer will be free to take into account any factors which he feels are

957
relevant to this decision. We will be giving careful thought to how far we can or indeed should go in guiding adjudication officers to look at particular factors here, given the complex nature of the judgments involved. We believe that the number of cases will be extremely small, given that many serious conditions are controllable through medication, which is provided free of charge, and people on low incomes can receive free prescriptions which will ensure that they can maintain their normal level of treatment. We also believe it is right that any factors that we list should be circumstances which must be taken into account and not circumstances in which a claimant must be treated as in hardship in order to allow for the necessary flexibility to cope with each individual case. I should emphasise again that the presence of a medical condition will not of itself automatically provide access to benefit; the adjudication officer must decide that there is a clear risk of hardship arising.
We have also considered carefully whether the provisions should apply to mental disorders. I have to say that at this stage I am not convinced that they should. The new incapacity test should ensure that no one with a serious mental health problem has to claim JSA. Indeed, they will be exempt from the "all-work" test. Where a claimant's mental illness is mild or moderate the test will be applied but if it is clear from the questionnaire and medical evidence from the claimant's GP that he is not capable of work, then again he will not be required to attend a medical interview and incapacity benefit will be awarded. If the test is applied fully and the claimant does not reach the necessary points score, it is still open to the Benefits Agency medical officer to consider whether, despite the scores, the nature of the clamant's disorder is such that there would be a substantial risk to the physical or mental health of the person if he were found capable of work. Those arrangements—and in particular that final provision, which looks specifically at the risk to the health of the claimant whatever his score—represents a substantial safeguard to claimants with mental health disorders. Any claimant who scores on the mental health aspects but is still found capable of work has been judged capable of undertaking work in the normal labour market. I am not convinced that JSA will be dealing with claimants whose mental condition means that they are significantly more vulnerable to hardship than the average claimant, although I am happy to consider any arguments that have been made in that regard.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned in particular medical evidence. Amendment No. 7 deals with the provision of medical evidence required by the adjudication officer to support the application. In many of the cases concerned we do not believe that special medical evidence will be required. As I explained, the claimant will be asked to provide details of his condition and of how it affects him or, as the case may be, his partner. If the claimant has taken the incapacity benefit "all-work" test, evidence from that test will be available to the adjudication officer, as I mentioned before, provided the claimant has given his consent. In a small number of cases the adjudication officer may wish to seek additional factual medical evidence before reaching a view. We are still considering how that evidence might best be provided, but I can
958
provide an assurance that the claimant—if, for instance, factual evidence was requested from a GP—would not be required to meet the costs.
I listened to the examples quoted, and in fact read them myself this morning in the briefing. I should say that there is no compulsion on a doctor to make a charge for such letters. If the doctor wishes to give a letter to his patient free of charge, then he is free to do so.
I have spoken at some length on these issues, even though we addressed them on a number of occasions at previous stages of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will agree that their importance merits a detailed reply. Since two of my noble friends have entered the debate for the first time, I hope that they will accept that I have explained carefully and in detail how we intend to deal with the particular problems. I believe that they can be dealt with satisfactorily. Having given my assurances once again to my noble friend, I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment. However, if he does not see fit to withdraw it, I hope that my other noble friends will support me in the Lobby.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I am delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, that he does not think that any cost will be incurred in obtaining medical evidence. However, I have a feeling that occasionally that may be the case. It may not always be the intention, but I am sure that some doctors will charge. It may not be very many, but some will do so.
The noble Lord emphasised that under the Bill medical evidence would cover only those who failed to make a jobseeker's agreement or who made themselves unemployed. That may well have come about purely as a result of their disability; it may not have been intentional. He also said that the question of vulnerability would be covered by regulations. All that this amendment seeks to do is indicate the kind of regulations that should be made. The noble Lord also said that people with severe mental disability or mental health problems should not reach the jobseeker's agreement stage because they would be covered by incapacity benefit. However, there is always the possibility of a slip and of things not going as they should. My amendment would cover that position and act as a check.
It is worth emphasising that my amendment is very modest. It proposes hardship payments only for those whose existing medical condition is likely to deteriorate if benefit is not paid, and whose health is such that non-payment would put them at risk of excessive physical or mental distress. I do not believe that it would prove very costly. Despite what my noble friend said, I still consider the amendment to be important. I should like to seek the opinion of the House. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
5.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 152.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Kirkhill, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Listowel, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lockwood, B.

Avebury, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bancroft, L.

McCarthy, L.

Birk, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Blackstone, B.

McNair, L.

Brain, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carter, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chorley, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Monkswell, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Croham, L.

Moyne, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Nathan, L.

David, B.

Nelson, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Nicol, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Ogmore, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peston, L.

Donoughue, L.

Phillips of Ellesmere, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Rea, L.

Dubs, L.

Richard, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Falkland, V.

Rix, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Foot, L.

Rochester, L.

Gallacher, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Geraint, L.

Russell, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Bp.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Gregson, L.

Seear, B.

Grey, E.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Halsbury, E.

Serota, B.

Hamwee, B.

Shepherd, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Simon, V.

Harrowby, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Haskel, L.

Stedman, B.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Strafford, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Hughes, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hylton, L.

Tope, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Waverley, V.

Jay, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wharton, B.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Judd, L.

Wise, L.

Kennet, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Birdwood, L.

Aberdare, L.

Blaker, L.

Addison, V.

Blatch, B.

Ailsa, M.

Boardman, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Borthwick, L.

Astor, V.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Balfour, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Biddulph, L.

Burnham, L.

960

Cadman, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Caithness, E.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lucas, L.

Carnock, L.

Lyell, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Cawley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Chesham, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Marlesford, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Clinton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Mersey, V.

Colwyn, L.

Middleton, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Courtown, E.

Milverton, L.

Cox, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Munster, E.

Cumberlege, B.

Newall, L.

Davidson, V.

Northesk, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Derwent, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Digby, L.

Orkney, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Downshire, M.

Oxfuird, V.

Dundonald, E.

Peel, E.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pender, L.

Elibank, L.

Perth, E.

Elles, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Quinton, L.

Elton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Finsberg, L.

Reay, L.

Flather, B.

Renton, L.

Foley, L.

Renwick, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Saint Albans, D.

Gibson-Watt, L.

St. Davids, V.

Goschen, V.

St. John of Fawsley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gridley, L.

Selborne, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sharples, B.

Hanson, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Henley, L.

Strange, B.

Hesketh, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hives, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hogg, B.

Sudeley, L.

Holderness, L.

Swansea, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Swinton, E.

Hood, V.

Tebbit, L.

Hooper, B.

Teviot, L.

Howe, E.

Teynham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Torphichen, L.

Killearn, L.

Trumpington, B.

Kimball, L.

Ullswater, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Vinson, L.

Knutsford, V.

Vivian, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Waterford, M.

Leigh, L.

Wynford, L.

Lindsay, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
("Hardship
.—(1) Regulations made under section 20(4) and under paragraphs 8 and 10 of Schedule 1 shall provide that a person shall be entitled to an income-based jobseeker's allowance from a prescribed date if he can demonstrate that he is at risk of hardship if payment is not made.
(2) The following are examples of circumstances where regulations may prescribe that a person be treated as at risk of hardship—

(a) the person is at risk of being denied some or all of the essentials of life such as food, water, necessary clothing, heating and cooking facilities or shelter;

(b) the person is at risk of suffering a deterioration in their physical or mental health;

(c) the person is at risk of being unable to meet the essential cost of any disability or health problem;

(d) the person will be put into debt for essential services or their debts for such services are likely to increase;

(e) the person will be prevented through lack of resources from actively seeking work.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to put on the face of the Bill a definition of hardship to enable reduced-rate payments to be made when someone fails to meet the conditions for jobseeker's allowance.
Currently, the definition of hardship is left to the discretion of adjudication officers, with guidance referring to situations in which the claimant or family could be denied some or all of the essentials of life, such as food, clothing, heating or shelter. This amendment seeks to place on the face of the Bill a definition of hardship which builds on the current definition by including reference to a risk of deterioration or of falling into debt if benefit is removed. It also includes reference to people who may not be able to meet the costs of their disability.
My noble friend the Minister has given few clues as to what "hardship" will mean, apart from a reference to alternative access to funds and capital. During the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, stated that:
"We consider that it is right in JSA, which aims to set out a clearer sanctions regime, that criteria should be made more explicit in regulations".—[Official Report, 25/4/95; col. 877.]
If criteria are to be made more explicit, why are the relevant matters not on the face of the Bill? A list of examples would not preclude other circumstances being taken into account. Indeed, that is the approach taken by the Government in their own redrafting of clauses concerning availability for work and actively seeking work.
People on low incomes are particularly vulnerable to debt and deprivation, when families may be going without an essential item. Studies suggest that a third of households with incomes below £100 a week have debts and one in five parents have gone hungry because they did not have enough money to buy food. Researchers at Bradford University and the family service units found that over two-thirds of the families that were surveyed had health problems and that fluctuating health problems could be badly affected by a financial crisis—for example, bronchitis and asthma worsen under stress and cold temperatures.
Sick and disabled people are also particularly vulnerable to debt. The Disablement Income Group found that 20 per cent. of single, disabled adults
962
describe themselves as "permanently" in debt, with another 15 per cent. getting into difficulties and 40 per cent. currently behind with payments. Asked how they would spend an extra £10 per week, 27 per cent. replied "on food"; and 37 per cent. would spend a windfall of £200 on paying off debts. Recent research by Sheffield CAB and Debt Support Unit found that for disabled people with long-term low incomes, even a small change in income could trigger debt problems. "Hardship" therefore should include a full assessment of any risk of greater stress or indebtedness if no hardship payment is made.
People with ill-health or disability can often be faced with financial difficulties because of extra disability-related costs. The OPCS surveys found that over 50 per cent. of disabled people incurred additional heating costs as a result of their disability. People with poor circulation or limited mobility need constant warmth; others will need hot water for extra baths or laundry.
Disability costs do not only arise for people with the most severe disabilities. Both the Policy Studies Institute and the Disablement Income Group found that even in lower severity categories, sick and disabled people could incur costs of up to £22 a week. Such costs can include fuel and heating, transport, wear and tear on clothing, laundry and chemists' items.
Of particular concern is the position of the thousands of sick and disabled people who may have their incapacity benefit removed and therefore have to sign on. Such people may not be the most severely disabled but could nonetheless incur additional costs because of their disability. For instance, someone who loses control of his bladder once a month and loses control of his bowels only occasionally would score only 12 points, which is below the incapacity threshold of 15. Yet such a person could incur extra costs in laundry, hot water for bathing and incontinence aids. Such problems could possibly worsen under the stress of being without any form of income. Where someone would be at risk of being unable to meet disability costs, their health should be considered to be at risk and a hardship payment made.
Amendment No. 8 would also offer important recognition that jobseekers need some form of income in order to be able to seek work. Jobseekers with a health problem or disability may incur additional costs when looking for work, yet they may not be covered by the Employment Service. Some deaf people have found that interpreters have not been available even for interviews with disability employment advisers. It is important that those costs are recognised for hardship purposes and that the person is not prevented from looking for work through lack of financial support. The amendment would place a definition of "hardship" in the Bill which develops current rules and ensures that the Government's objective of protecting those in hardship is met. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have some difficulty with this amendment. First, as I understand it, subsection (1) is automatic in its operation. In other words, one is entitled to an allowance if one is at risk of hardship. Then, under subsection (2), types of

963
hardship are cited. The only one that seems to me to be relevant to a jobseeker's allowance is (e), being prevented from actively seeking work.
Then one comes to the question of paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). Surely other sources of benefit within the social benefits system will deal with those. Why therefore should they be saddled onto the jobseeker's entitlement? I do not understand that. Also, when one seeks to serialize and give examples, one tends to exclude. It may be all water under the bridge now, but an amendment was tabled in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, dealing with family consideration hardship. We would have moved that amendment had not a government amendment been put forward.
What happens about family consideration hardship? I have come to the conclusion that, like many of these matters, it merges in the "good cause" test and that the more one seeks to define, in a sense, the more one seeks to exclude. I am a bit foxed as to how the amendment will achieve a constructive purpose. I am not trying to knock the spirit of it. I do not in any sense question the sincerity that moves the amendment. But, with respect, I do not think it will work.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment so well moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. With the indulgence of the House, perhaps I may comment briefly on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. In a strict sense he is quite right to say that only paragraph (e) relates to a jobseeker's allowance. But that is because of the change in terminology introduced by the Government in which, if one is unemployed, one is no longer classed as "unemployed" but as a "jobseeker". If instead, throughout our debates, we talked about the "unemployed", then I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, would agree that not just paragraph (e) but also paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) would apply as hardship—that is, if one is unemployed and therefore has no other income coming from work.
The second point made by the noble Lord was that such people who may be in hardship would be eligible for other benefits and should not be carried by JSA. I wish the noble Lord was right. The amendments that many of us on these Benches—and indeed some on the Conservative Benches—have tabled are precisely to that effect. But JSA has integrated two benefits—the old unemployment benefit of which the noble Lord was, in a sense, speaking and also income support. Therefore most groups of people who, in the past, would qualify for income support are no longer eligible for it; it is JSA or nothing. It is the coming together of those two benefits.
The only other benefit available, except in special circumstances like being a lone parent, is incapacity benefit which replaces invalidity benefit. Therefore one receives incapacity benefit if one is so severely disabled or has such a severe medical condition that one is judged to be incapable of work. But, as we discussed in our
964
debates on previous amendments, one may be suffering from such severe depression that one prefers to be isolated; one may not understand a simple communication or message; one may need supervision or exhibit violent behaviour, yet one may not be eligible for incapacity benefit. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, rightly said, many people who in the past would have received invalidity benefit, will not now receive it even though their condition will deteriorate if they do not receive a hardship payment.
A second benefit available is income support. It is only available for a limited number of people such as lone parents. Everybody else within the employable age must turn to JSA. In other words, jobseeker's allowance is carrying a benefit delivery which in my view it should not do. It should be confined to those seeking work. It is being asked to carry payments to all those who are unable to work but nonetheless fail to qualify for incapacity benefit or income support. Our concern is that many people will not, for good cause, qualify for incapacity benefit or for income support; they may fail some of the JSA tests and also fail a test of hardship.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, tabled the amendment for three reasons. First, the Bill remains too much of a framework Bill—and many noble Lords have expressed that anxiety—which contains four pivotal sets of phrases: "available for work"; "actively seeking work"; "vulnerable" and "hardship". As a result of your Lordships' efforts, quite rightly, "available for work" and "actively seeking work"—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, played an important part in this— are now on the face of the Bill. But when there are doubts as to whether one is meeting the conditions so that "actively seeking work" applies, the two important and pivotal words of "vulnerable" and "hardship" are not so defined. Therefore, the amendment that has just been lost and this amendment seek to bring back into the framework of the Bill a pivotal concept on the basis of which people will or will not be entitled to benefit.
The second reason for wanting the definition on the face of the Bill is not just that otherwise it is still too much a framework Bill but that the Government are tightening up eligibility for benefit, they are tightening up the number of referrals that will be made and they are tightening up the making of hardship payments so that more and more will be left to the discretion not only of the Secretary of State but of the employment officer. Because so much will be left otherwise to discretion, we feel it is pivotal that the definition be on the face of the Bill.
The previous amendment was important. It would have safeguarded the position of people for the first fortnight of benefit. But with this amendment we are trying to safeguard the position of people for up to 26 weeks at a time. If in the judgment of an employment officer someone is not actively seeking work and he fails the hardship test—it may be that he has a mild mental health condition or a moderate learning disability or English may not be his first language: he is inadequate, he is incompetent, he is not significantly manipulative to get by in the system—that person will be without any income at all for 26 weeks—six months.

965
He will have no money whatever. What will he live on except, as we fear, scrounging, stealing, begging, thieving, shoplifting, and the like?
Clearly, those who do not seek work when they should and could, will come within the framework of sanction and penalty. We do not challenge that. But what we are seeking to do here is to ensure that the conditions described by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, are set out on the face of the Bill. I am referring to people who without JSA and hardship payment would go without food, clothing, heating, or a home; or, equally, people who without a hardship payment would see their physical or mental health deteriorate because they are not sick enough to qualify for a new, tough incapacity benefit; people who have a mild disability problem or a health problem which produces additional costs which they cannot meet so their condition will otherwise worsen; or people who are likely to go into debt and therefore suffer disconnection from water or fuel, or eviction; or people who, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, cannot even re-enter the search for a job because they have no money to pay for fares. We say that all such people surely should be recognised as being in hardship.
The Minister may tell us that this will be done by regulation. We had that argument and your Lordships gave a verdict on it when we discussed availability for work and actively seeking work. If your Lordships were minded to pass this amendment we would turn a framework Bill into less of a framework Bill and place more on the face of the Bill, so people would know where they stood. Secondly, we would be ensuring that people who are in hardship, as so defined, would have some income and would not therefore have a right to break windows and a right to steal. Thirdly, we would be producing some measure of protection for some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I support what the noble Baroness has just said. I shall not go into any more detail about the amendment except to make two points. When the noble Baroness said that certain people could be left for 26 weeks without any money, the Minister shook his head. Can the noble Lord make it absolutely clear when he comes to reply that it is not possible for anyone to be left for 26 weeks without any means of feeding himself? My second reason for supporting the amendment very strongly is the fact that this is a framework Bill and we are deeply opposed to the extent to which so many things of importance are being left to regulation. We have fought that all the way through and we shall continue to fight it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps I may ask her what I would have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, if she had not already sat down. I should have liked to thank her for her presentation and to have congratulated her on her art of presentation. I should have liked to ask her, before she sat down, how she proposes that the adjudication under paragraphs (a) to (d) in practice would be made, first, by the employment officer, and, then, by the adjudication officer. How in practice does she envisage that that would happen?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I assume that my noble friend will not receive an answer to his question. I support every word that he said in his first speech but I should like to add perhaps an elaboration on my noble friend's second point. Paragraphs (a) to (d) are all totally subjective. I do not think it is good to pass legislation of a subjective character. Where there are examples of things actually happening, my noble friend will, I hope, be able to explain how they are being dealt with. I hope that in terms of medical equipment it will be on the health budget and not on the social security budget.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I accept, as I am sure all your Lordships do, that the amendment is very well intentioned. But I fear that though the intentions may be admirable the effect, if we include it in the Bill, will be unfortunate. As your Lordships may know, I have some experience of social security legislation. This is a difficult and complex subject. It will be made much more difficult if one puts into the Bill, as subsection (2) of the amendment seeks to do:
"The following are examples of circumstances where regulations may prescribe that a person be treated as at risk of hardship".
I say that for two reasons. First, to say in legislation that one is giving examples will open up every kind of confusion and every kind of argument as to whether something is consistent with the example or different from it. Secondly, one is putting into the law simply a discretion for the Minister:
"The following are examples of circumstances where regulations may prescribe".
If the Minister does not prescribe, the whole thing flops.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I shall give way to the noble Lord if he asks in a moment. But I am not going to be shouted down by him. I am saying that the amendment—perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to listen—states that the regulations may prescribe. As far as I know there is nothing to compel the Minister to make the regulations. I shall now give way to the noble Lord.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Lord, but I can assure him that I was not shouting at him. I never said a word. I wanted to draw his attention, since he does not like the idea of the examples in paragraphs (a) to (d), to the fact that the wording was taken from Clause 6(3) of the Government's own Bill:
"The following are examples of restrictions for which provision may be made by the regulations".
The subsection then goes on to set out (a), (b), (c) and (d). Surely what is good enough for the Government is good enough for us.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that the noble Lord has such admiration for the Government's drafting that he finds it necessary to quote it in favour of the amendment. It is very gratifying, but perhaps there is a touch of simplicity about it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has made an interesting point. I do not know whether he was in the House on Report when we debated Amendment No. 26A, which was moved by the

967
noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The noble Lord may remember that both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to both of whom I listen very carefully indeed on drafting matters, argued for the proposition, to which the Renton Report gave support, of the use of examples as a way of giving greater precision to a general clause. It is one way of getting at the intention of the legislator, which is of course what the courts must do.
If one accepts the suggestion which the noble and learned Lord then made of construing this by the rule ejusdem generis—I hope that he will correct me if my pronunciation of Latin is not sufficiently legal—we are approaching clarity. So there is a contrary view to that which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has expressed which deserves a hearing.
6 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, this debate has been very interesting and the arguments have been persuasively put on both sides. One has received material about this matter and read it. With some of my noble friends on this side of the House there are doubts. Where are we going to end in defining hardship? If one is to continue defining the word, one is not going to help those who are in hardship. Surely we must place trust and reliance in those who are administering the provisions. I shall not vote against the Government. The only thing I do at any time is abstain.
I do not believe that my noble friend Lord Swinfen, and even the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who speaks so well and so persuasively, have convinced me by their arguments. I am sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will convince me that I am right. From what I have understood of the Bill and what has been said about it in all its stages in this House, I believe that reasonable and proper measures have been taken. For the life of me I cannot believe that this country would allow to happen some of the things which have been suggested. I cannot believe it. There must be trust and reliance shown. I would not vote against the Government. Others would have to put an even stronger case for me to abstain from voting.
I feel sure that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to show me that what I feel is right. That does not mean that I have no feeling for people suffering hardship. As a minister one sees hardship in a way which perhaps otherwise one would not. It is not that I am hard or unfeeling, because I know what it can be like. Even some clergy families know what it is like to face hardship. So it is not as though the clergy were unaware and not in the real world. Most clergy have their feet in the world and know what is happening.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, this debate overlaps the debate which we had on the last amendment. I do not wish to go over that ground again unless I am severely tempted to do so. As it was such a short time ago, I presume that most noble Lords will not wish me to go over the ground again. We have also had coming into the edges of this debate the other debates we had on incapacity benefit. I have listened to this
968
issue coming into the debates on a number of occasions. One could be left with the view, if one had not been present at the debates on incapacity benefit, that the benefit introduced in April would virtually exclude every possible person from the new benefit. That is simply not true.
About 1.5 million people will still be entitled to incapacity benefit. That figure has doubled over the past 10 years and expenditure has gone up even more. As I have said on a number of occasions when discussing this matter, I find it quite hard to square that with the fact that our population is becoming healthier. The Government took the view that we had to take steps to deal with the explosion in incapacity benefit payments and make sure that the people getting it were entitled to it and required it and that everyone who failed the tests would come within the ambit of the jobseeker's allowance next year.
I turn now to the amendment. It proposes a number of additional circumstances in which a claimant should be treated as being in hardship. Subsection (2) (a) sets out a number of general factors based on the premise that the claimant will be in hardship if he is at risk of being denied some or all of the essentials of life. I have made clear in earlier debates that we shall be listing in regulations factors which the adjudication officer should take into account in deciding whether there is a risk of hardship. Setting aside the exact wording of the amendment, I am happy to say that in principle we intend to include factors of the type set out in subsection (2) (a). However, I say again that the regulations will be drafted in a way which will allow the adjudication officer discretion. A person outside the vulnerable groups will not be eligible for hardship payments if he is not available for or actively seeking work, nor during the first two weeks of the sanction.
I shall consider carefully the remaining points in the amendment, but the issue of borrowing and debt is currently left to the adjudication officer's discretion, and it makes sense for that to continue. I do not accept that it would be right in every case for the benefit system to step in when it is open to the claimant to re-arrange his commitments and re-schedule his payments if he can avoid hardship by doing that.
I am also not convinced of the need to include provisions on the lines of subsection (2) (e) of the amendment. The actively seeking work test requires claimants only to take those steps which are appropriate and reasonable in their own circumstances. That is a subject which we have discussed at some length.
Single, healthy claimants currently have all benefit withdrawn if they are not actively seeking work, so there is nothing new here. It is open to anyone who wishes to start seeking work to take the very basic steps; for example, by applying for jobs which are displayed in the jobcentre which are necessary to satisfy this test. Indeed, there was some confusion in the latter part of the debate between the issues we have discussed. We debated whether someone was actually entitled to the benefit where they were actively seeking work and available for it and where the entitlement was established, but a sanction is being applied because they

969
have taken steps to leave the previous job, and so on. I shall come to that situation in a moment when I reach the question of sanctions.
People who do not seek work lose benefit at once. However, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that they can return to benefit after two weeks by simply starting to look for work and obeying the principal test of the jobseeker's allowance. Nobody is actually left without benefit for 26 weeks if they are undergoing a sanction and would suffer hardship. All claimants, including childless healthy claimants, will have access to payments after the 2 weeks are over. The point about the sanctions, as I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution on the last amendment, is that they run from one to 26 weeks, as determined by the adjudication officer. The suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that every sanction is 26 weeks is quite wrong. That is not the case at all. The great majority of the sanctions are for a great deal less than 26 weeks. The sanctions are for between one and 26 weeks. They are for people who left their employment voluntarily without just cause, who lost their employment through misconduct, who have refused employment without good cause or who have refused to carry out the jobseeker's direction.
As I said at the beginning of my contribution on the previous amendment of my noble friends, we do not accept that claimants should automatically have access to benefit at all times, irrespective of their actions and choices.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the average period of disallowance is 20 weeks, which must mean that quite a lot of people suffer the sanction for 26 weeks?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my recollection—I accept that it is only a recollection—is that the average disallowance is fewer than 20 weeks. I do not have the figures to hand, but my recollection is that the period is more like 13 weeks. As I am not entirely sure that I am right, I shall check because I do not like to be wrong. I believe, however, that the noble Lord vastly overestimates the situation when he refers to 20 weeks. I think that my recollection of 13 weeks is nearer the case.
My point remains that, as I have clearly said, many of the points that my noble friend raises will be placed in regulations. However, I believe that claimants who have either failed to meet the necessary conditions for benefit, who have made themselves unemployed or who have failed to pursue an opportunity to take themselves off benefit should not automatically have access to benefit. People who are able to show that they would suffer hardship will be eligible for the hardship payments. I have made that position clear on a number of occasions and I do so again.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway did not like the drafting of the amendment. I assure him that all parts are relevant to seeking work. The point is that the more restricted incapacity benefit makes less severely disabled people, people in poor health, need even more protection.
970
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, did not like to see "examples" in amendments. I suggest that he looks particularly at Clause 6(3) which begins:
"The following are examples of restrictions".
Therefore, I am only following the Government's lead. I am sure that my noble friend would always expect me to follow the Government's lead although there are times when I try to improve the direction in which they are going.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I am naturally very impressed by the noble Lord's loyalty to the Government and his indication that if the Government have provided something, it must be right. Personally, I do not accept that.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend. I was only saying that in this amendment I was following the Government's lead. Perhaps they have taken me down a dead end.
I am tempted to seek to divide the House on this amendment, particularly given the fact that if these provisions are not included in the Bill, the only chance now of the Bill being improved or amended would be in the other place. However, bearing in mind what happened on my last amendment, I think that it would be kinder to the House if I was to seek leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 6 [Availability for employment]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 43, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations shall provide that entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance is not lost without the claimant being given reasonable notice in writing of the grounds for such loss and a reasonable opportunity to comment on or challenge those grounds.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the issue of the warning notice and to the point at which the employment officer suspects—he or she does not know, but merely suspects—that the applicant may not be actively seeking work. Warning notices used to be issued. There is some argument that warning notices may still be out there somewhere. Indeed, we were told during previous debates that there might be two notices or at least two letters, but that sometimes there would be no letters at all. This is an attempt to clarify the situation and to provide that there should be a warning notice.
The amendment states:
"Regulations shall provide that entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance is not lost without the claimant being given reasonable notice in writing of the grounds for such loss and a reasonable opportunity to comment on or challenge those grounds".
It is not exactly the same as the amendment that was moved in Committee on 25th April because the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, did not like the last part of that amendment which referred to "an opportunity to establish". The noble Lord felt that that would give too much strength to the applicant, so we are merely suggesting that there should be
"a reasonable opportunity to comment on or challenge".

971
Therefore, this is a somewhat weaker amendment, the object being to try to take the Government with us.
In that debate, I and other noble Lords both on this side of the House and the other tried to make four points. The first was that, as we understand it, before 1992 it was normal for employment officers to send warning letters to unemployed persons who they had reason to believe, or thought or suspected, were no longer sufficiently available for and seeking work. That used to happen before any reference to the adjudication officer. The first point, therefore, is that that was the tradition.
Our second point is that that appeared to us to be a very successful practice. It was an effective way of checking up on the situation. In 1989–90 28,910 warning letters were sent out. That point was made in the debate and was not contradicted by the Minister. As a result of the sending of those letters, there were 23,000 satisfactory replies—in other words, 23,000 of those who were written to were able to establish that they were actively seeking work. As a result, there were only 6,000 references to adjudication and only 2,000 disallowances. In other words, the success rate was something like 93 per cent.—at least, it was a "success rate" if you are concerned with natural justice and if you believe that an applicant who is suspected of not actively seeking work ought to have an opportunity to justify himself. Claimants were able to do that in 93 per cent. of all cases.
Our third point was that for inexplicable reasons—perhaps I should say for reasons about which the Government had not been sufficiently frank—as far as we can see the number of warning letters began to decline after 1989. There is some debate about the figure to which they declined and to whom those letters were sent. Our figures for 1991–92, which were not denied by the Minister, show that they had declined to 25,000 and that they declined further to 9,000 in 1993–94. Meanwhile, disqualifications rose. According to some figures, they rose from 2,000 to 113,000—an increase of some 5,000 per cent. I do not know whether those figures are accepted by the Government, but what is certain is that the number of disqualifications rose.
Therefore, we thought that there was a case in natural justice for the restoration of the warning letters. Clearly, they are of use and are a way of discovering whether or not the suspicions of the employment officer are justified. I should have thought that issuing such letters was only reasonable and fair on the ground of natural justice. Unfortunately, the Government's answers on that point were inexplicable. Four different grounds were given. I am merely trying to ask the Government which one they want tonight.
In the first place, the Minister went back on an understanding or statement which we thought had been made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. In a debate in this House initiated by the noble Countess, Lady Mar, the Government appeared to us to be saying that, yes, they had abandoned the letter, but that that had not had any disadvantageous consequences in terms of disallowances or disqualifications. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, said:
972
"if there were further evidence that these regulations are catching those whom it is not intended to catch and are not dealing with those who consciously and deliberately fail actively to seek work, obviously we would then reconsider".—[Official Report, 1/12192; col. 1332.]
That is why we thought that the Government might say that they were going to reconsider the position, as had been promised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The first problem was that they did not. They seemed to be saying that the letter had been abandoned but that that was not a bad thing.
Secondly, at col. 848 on 25th April, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, seemed to be saying that the letter was still being sent. He said:
"Let me assure the Committee that under the JSA the jobseeker will receive full information about his or her position. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. Under current practice when a doubt is identified on a claim for unemployment benefit the claimant is notified in writing"—
so it is still there—
"that the claim is being referred to an adjudication officer for a decision. The form explains the adjudication process in general terms. A further leaflet is available containing more details of each of the benefit rules. The claimant is invited to ask at the ES office for help with points not covered in either leaflet. We shall be following similar practices in JSA".
The trouble is that subsequently the noble Lord seemed to take a third position. He then seemed to suggest, to us at least, that they had stopped the letters and that they were justified in stopping the letters, and the stopping of the letters and the effect of our amendment in restoring the letters was a reason for not accepting the amendment. It was not now that it was unnecessary; it was that it was unacceptable. The noble Lord said again:
"We must be careful about the perverse effects of the second part of the amendment. If it is intended to enable a jobseeker to be given a second chance"—
which of course it is—
"to be available or to seek work actively in a given period, that would significantly weaken the incentive effect of the available and actively seeking work condition".
The Minister continued:
"If a jobseeker does not take the necessary steps or has not been available for employment in any week, the employment officer must be able to refer the question on the facts of the case. He should not be hindered by considerations of what the jobseeker might do in the future, before the adjudication decision".
He seems to be saying that the Government believe that people who received the letter suddenly went out and started work—actively seeking, actively looking—and somehow the employment officer and the adjudication officer could not take into account what such people had done in the past. They had to take into account what they were then doing and because of that they were able to obtain their allowance in circumstances in which they were not entitled to it. That is why the Government do not send the letters.
I believe that that is all the following passage can mean, because the Minister seemed then to think that he had not referred to any letter at all. He said halfway through the debate:
"I should have referred to the letter at the outset of my remarks. The letter merely enabled the claimant not actively to seek work until he was warned to do so. Active seeking is a clear condition of

973
benefit. The required steps are made clear to the individual at the start of his claim. Such a written warning in that regard should therefore be unnecessary".
We were—we are still—confused at that point. That was not helped when the noble Lord said:
"There are two separate letters here. We do not send a warning letter to people telling them to start active seeking, but we send a letter to the claimant advising him that the matter is being sent to the adjudication officer".
The result of all that was that the debate in Committee began to be affected by arguments not merely about the letters—whether there was one or two letters—but whether during the period of one or two letters the individual claimant was still receiving his allowance. That is another matter which I should like the Government to clear up, because the Minister seemed to say (col. 850) that during the period of suspension the applicant was still receiving the allowance, whereas he seemed to be saying later that he was not. He said:
"I am afraid that I honestly do not know. Perhaps I may deal with a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, about people who might have difficulty in speaking English".
To try to bring the (debate to a close we asked the Minister a number of questions. We have had no answers to any of those questions. So I put them at this late stage on Third Reading: are the letters still being sent? Are there 9,000 or 28,000 of them? Are there some letters or no letters? Are there two letters? If they are not sent to all applicants, on what basis are they sent? Whenever they are sent—if some are sent—when does the benefit stop? What do the Government think they are doing? When all this was put to the Minister he said he did not know the answer to all the questions, but he stated:
"Needless to say, I shall write to the noble Lord having made sure that I am right in my description".—[Official Report, 25/4/95; cols. 848–853.]
I have to say that so far as I know I have received no correspondence from the noble Lord about any of those questions. The questions remain to be answered. There still seems to us to be an overwhelming argument for restoring the warning letter in the way that it operated before the Government cut it down. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have given notice that I intend so to do. The crux of the matter is: is the allowance paid during suspension? If it is, much of the steam goes out of the kettle. If it is not, natural justice demands that the claimant is given notice of grounds for removal of his entitlement under Clause 1 and that he should have a reasonable opportunity to deal with the situation.
I put aside past practice. I am not concerned with these letters; whether they were sent; whether they were not sent; whether they exist; or whatever happened to them. I regard all that as; totally immaterial. I look at the matter as I think any ordinary lawyer would look at it. If one removes an entitlement—there is an entitlement under Clause 1—one has to say why in writing quite simply and give the person adversely affected a chance to make representations. I cannot see that there is anything adverse to the Government in the spirit of that proposal, and I so informed the Government Chief Whip and my noble friend the Minister.
974
Indeed, the proposal would assist the Government, because if he is aggrieved the applicant can seek judicial review. He can say, "They have taken away my entitlement. I want a judicial review of this". If there are no reasons, and one reaches the Divisional Court, the Divisional Court will say, "Well, if there are no reasons given, we are entitled to draw certain inferences". Those inferences will not be drawn against the. claimant. They will be against the Government, if anything.
I do not know enough about this subject without some assistance from my noble friend the Minister and perhaps other noble Lords. In principle, if that allowance is suspended, I cannot see why the Government should not accept the substance of the amendment. The provision does not necessarily have to be on the face of the Bill. It could be set out in regulations against an assurance reported in Hansard that regulations would be introduced. I believe that the provisions are at Clause 9(6) to (9). It would fit in there well. If my noble friend were able to give the assurance that they would bring in the regulations to accord with natural justice, I should be satisfied.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, has put his finger on the very heart of the issue. I shall listen, as he will, to the reply that the Minister gives him. I shall not presume to speculate on how the reply on 25th April of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, came into existence. The noble Lord may be interested in some remarks made by one of my former colleagues at Yale. It was at the time when undergraduates were just beginning to use word processors. He remarked that because it was possible to insert a new paragraph into an old text without having to change the old text to fit in with the new paragraph, it became remarkably easy to produce inconsistent documents. I shall not presume to speculate on the relevance of that story; but the noble Lord may be interested in it.
However, I believe that we should clear up the confusion about the letter to which we are referring. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred to a letter which informs the claimant that he is being referred to adjudication. I understand that that process continues and that one cannot have adjudication without it. However, the amendment refers to a different letter which is more like the traditional police caution. It is a warning to the claimant that his conduct has given rise to suspicion, which on some occasions is dispelled.
I have two examples of the kind of people who would have benefited from the passing of the amendment. The first was a man who normally looked for work extensively, but in addition to having a heart condition, he happened to be moving house. During the week of the move he did not look for work with his customary zeal. He supposed that that would be understood and acceptable. It turned out that that was not the case and his benefit was suspended. If—and I use the word "if— it is the law that a claimant moving house must look for work as extensively in the week of the move as in every other week, it seems fair to notify him and let him act accordingly, which that person would have done.

975
The second case was reported by a CAB in Cheshire. It involved a woman who wanted to work for about 30 hours a week and who described that as "part-time" work. In ordinary speech one can understand that distinction perfectly well but as a term of art within the Employment Service 30 hours a week is not part-time work. The Employment Service thought that she was prepared to work only 16 hours a week and that she was putting unreasonable restrictions on her availability. Her benefit was stopped. That was a simple, plain misunderstanding. The issuing of a warning letter would have given ample opportunity to clear it up and would have avoided unnecessary hardship.
It illustrates that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was wrong to say at the notorious col. 848:
"The letter merely enabled the claimant not actively to seek work until he was warned to do so".—[Official Report, 25/4/95; col. 848.]
That does not apply to the two cases which I have quoted, nor does it apply to many others.
The noble Lord was also mistaken to insist that the person was not meeting the conditions from the moment any doubt arose about his availability. The noble Lord said:
"the benefit is payable so long as the criteria are satisfied; in other words, so long as the person concerned is in fact actively seeking work. Therefore, that is a matter of fact and not of opinion so far as concerns the point in time".—[Official Report, 25/4/95; col. 850.]
In relation to the cases that I have quoted, that judgment was mistaken.
The point of the warning letter is that it enables us to put the situation right, to clear up the misunderstanding, to ensure compliance with conditions where there is any doubt, to explain the meaning of the conditions and to put things back on an even keel. Surely it is much better to put things right than to go around penalising people because you cannot be bothered to explain the position to them. This is a good amendment and I hope that the Minister will accept it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, twice mentioned the principle of natural justice, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It is generally accepted that it is a principle of natural justice that anyone adversely affected by a decision should be given the reason for it.
The principle which lies behind that appears clearly in the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, explained the matter. The principle of natural justice is similar to the principle that an adjudicator may not be biased and that reasons should be given for an adverse decision. Perhaps I may mention a third principle; that the other side should be heard. That too is relevant to the amendment.
It may be that the matter is to be dealt with by regulation, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It may be that it is dealt with by practice, as suggested by a quotation given by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I hope that the Minister will assure the House that anyone adversely affected will be apprised of the reason. I hope that unless he can give that assurance he will accept the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I agree with the amendment but I do not believe that the notice required will need to be served often. Under the terms of the jobseeker's agreement, the jobseeker must meet and discuss with the Employment Service officer at regular intervals in order to tell him about the steps that he has taken to obtain employment. Any difficulties should be able to be sorted out verbally at those meetings.
However, there will be occasions when due to language difficulties—that is, translation from one language to another or a genuine misunderstanding because someone is not well educated—the jobseeker does not understand what is required. If the jobseeker has a speech difficulty, the employment officer may not understand what he is proposing to do or the steps that he proposes to take. Furthermore, there may be hearing difficulties.
People may fail to turn up for the meetings as a result of illness and they may have no one who is prepared to, or can, inform the Employment Service. For the most part, there will be little cost to the Government in handing out such letters because it can be done face to face without the cost of postage. Therefore, if cost is a factor, it should not be considered.
It is important that any proposal to remove the allowance should be given in writing so that the person who is to lose the allowance can at least seek advice and make certain that he understands the reasons. If the claimant is willing to do so, he can then take steps to ensure that it is not withdrawn and can continue seeking work in a manner that the employment officer thinks fit.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we have debated the subject of suspension and loss of benefit on a number of occasions throughout the passage of the Bill. It has been clear that on a number of occasions we have been at cross-purposes. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred to muddle and letters. I wish to say merely that we have discussed the matter and that it was put extremely clearly by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Rather than muddle the issue further still, I endorse his description of the position. However, there is one point that is most important—
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, so far as I understand it, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that there were two letters and that the second letter was the critical one because it did not just inform them but gave them a chance to reply. What the noble Lord has not said is whether there still are two letters.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it may be a disappointment, but I have hardly started what I am going to say. We have talked about letters, disentitlement and benefits. The point I should like to emphasise at the outset is that we are talking about a new system that is going to replace the existing one. The particular examples that have been drawn from the working of the existing system of unemployment benefit and income support are taken from an entirely different context to that which will be the case when this Bill becomes law.
It has been implied by a number of speakers, not only this afternoon but on previous occasions, that the provisions of the Bill are primarily intended to catch

977
jobseekers out and trick them out of their benefits. I should like to say right at the outset that that is not the case. One of the prime objectives of the new system of JSA is to ensure that all jobseekers understand fully that they have duties and obligations in the receipt of benefits and that they know exactly where they stand. The help of employment officers and the pivotal role of the jobseeker's agreement should ensure that jobseekers take the right steps to get back to work.
At the start of a claim for JSA, the jobseeker will complete the initial claim form and will receive a pack of information setting out details of the conditions for benefit and the rights of jobseekers. Right from the first time when the jobseeker comes into the jobcentre the emphasis will be on informing the individual of what is expected of him and what he can expect from the Employment Service. The jobseeker will book an interview with a skilled employment adviser. At that interview the jobseeker and the employment adviser will discuss the jobseeker's work experience and qualifications, the sort of work he is looking for, his availability, his plans for getting back to work and a range of other issues. Together they will seek to draw up a jobseeker's agreement.
The agreement is therefore crucial in ensuring that jobseekers understand right from the outset the conditions of receiving JSA and how their benefit may be affected if they do not satisfy those conditions. It will contain a statement that the jobseeker understands that he must continue to be available for employment and actively seek it; that he may be asked to give evidence of what he has done and has been advised to keep a record; and that if he does not do enough to meet these conditions, his allowance may be affected and his case will be referred to the adjudication officer, in which case he will be informed. I emphasise that the employment officer must impartially assess the position, and it is only when he believes that there may have been a breach that the matter is referred to the adjudication officer. Perhaps I might echo a comment made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen: there is dialogue between the parties.
The jobseeker will also be told about his right of appeal. No one need be uncertain or ill-informed about what is required. Each fortnight the jobseeker will return to the jobcentre to sign on. If he finds that he is uncertain about whether he should continue to take the steps he agreed in his agreement or if he feels that he wishes to vary his agreement, he has every opportunity to discuss those concerns and to have his agreement altered. Again, this is an example of the ongoing opportunities of the employment officer and the jobseeker to ask questions of each other and to explain where each stands.
I have set this out at length because I wanted to make clear that there is no question of a jobseeker being caught out, of being wrongfooted. In an earlier debate, noble Lords opposite called for a return of the "warning letter". We have already talked about that this afternoon. That letter is the one to which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, referred and which in the early years of the actively seeking employment test used to be sent by employment officers to people whom it was felt were
978
not meeting the actively seeking employment condition. This, of course, was under a different system from the one we are debating this afternoon. The value of such a letter was that it informed claimants of their obligations under the then new condition.
The introduction of the jobseeker's agreement and wide experience of the actively seeking employment condition entirely alter the context. It means that there is now no excuse for any claimants not understanding their responsibilities to seek work actively. And we do not want to see repeated the practice of claimants who regarded the warning letter as some kind of final red telephone bill—the moment when at last they had to start meeting the condition. Jobseekers should be seeking work actively from the start of their claim for JSA and should continue to take steps every week. Otherwise, they should forfeit their right to receive JSA.
The crucial question is whether each week a jobseeker has shown that he has met the condition for benefit which justifies the payment of benefit. Entitlement involves continuing to satisfy the essential criteria, and when, for example, the actively seeking work or the availability tests are no longer satisfied, the entitlement stops. There is also no question of a decision being taken without the claimant being given the opportunity to put his case. Referrals to adjudication officers will generally follow an interview with the jobseeker, when he will have had the opportunity to discuss the steps he was taking to look for work and to comment on any other evidence—for example, from employers—which might be used by the employment officer in making the referral. All claimants then receive a letter if their case is referred to an adjudication officer which makes clear that their award of benefits is under consideration. The letter makes clear that they can at any time write to the adjudication officer with more information or evidence. The claimant has every opportunity to comment on doubts raised about his availability or his job search. I can confirm that we shall be continuing these arrangements.
I should now like to turn to the actual terms of the amendment, which refers to the specific question of—
6.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? Could he deal, please, with the question as to whether the payment is suspended after the employment officer has made a decision? Then could he deal with the problem of Clause 9(6) to which I referred, where it refers to the decision of the adjudication officer? That is the problem I am really concerned with, and not the employment officer. The employment officer would merely give notice and then the matter would go to the adjudication officer. All it says is that the determination of the adjudication officer shall be binding. We want it to be in writing. Would my noble friend comment on this please?
Lord Ingle wood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I am now coming on to the point that he has quite properly raised, which is of crucial importance. So far as his first point is concerned, where the employment officer considers there has been a breach of entitlement

979
and the matter is referred to the adjudication officer, benefit is suspended until the question of entitlement is established by the adjudication officer. If the adjudication officer determines that entitlement still exists, the benefit is paid. However, if entitlement is found not to exist, then benefit is not paid. As a rider, it is important to appreciate that the hardship provisions back this up and apply in appropriate circumstances.
I should now like, if I may, to turn to the point raised by my noble friend, which is another aspect of the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale: decisions about entitlement. I think there is common ground between us that it is very important that claimants should be given full information about any decision which has been taken regarding their entitlement to benefit and their right to appeal against any decision. Under current regulations, all decisions by the adjudication officer on entitlement to unemployment benefit or income support must be notified to the claimant in writing, giving reasons for the decision.
This decision letter explains the effect that the decision will have on their award of benefit and on their national insurance contribution credits and the course of action open to them if they are dissatisfied with the decision and wish to appeal. Once more, I can confirm that this obligation to inform the claimant in writing will continue under JSA.
However, I fear that the effect of the amendment may go further. It may be intended to introduce a period of notice between the notification of the decision and the termination of entitlement during which the claimant could challenge the decision. That would introduce unnecessary and unwelcome delays into the system. We must bear in mind that adjudication officers made well over 1.3 million adverse decisions in unemployment benefit in 1993–4 and that less than 1 per cent. of decisions are appealed against. Of course if on appeal, or on review by an AO on the receipt of new information relevant to the decision, there is a decision in the claimant's favour, benefit will be back dated and paid in full.
To introduce a delay before action was taken on the adjudication officer's decision would, we believe, be very costly, involving needless overpayments of benefit to which claimants were not entitled. That would not be an appropriate use of taxpayers' money. We must ensure that claimants receive full information about decisions affecting their entitlement. We must also act responsibly as the guardians of the taxpayer. We believe that the amendment fails the second test.
The key point about the amendment is that we are in fact talking about cases where someone who is entitled to jobseeker's allowance ceases, by reason of his actions, to be so entitled. For all practical purposes, we are talking about—
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister just said that we are dealing with a case where entitlement ceases. That is not our understanding; we are dealing with a case where entitlement is called into question. The cases are different.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the amendment refers to a "loss" of entitlement. For there to be a loss of entitlement, there must have been an original entitlement.
I return to the point that I was about to make. So far as concerns loss of entitlement, there must be satisfaction of the relevant criteria which includes the existence of a jobseeker's agreement which has been entered into by the person in question. The crucial point about that jobseeker's agreement—
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but I have checked the text of the amendment and I do not read it as saying what the Minister mentioned. Indeed, it does not refer to a loss of entitlement. It provides that,
"entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance is not lost",
while there is doubt. There is a crucial difference.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I hear what the noble Earl says. However, that is not my understanding of the way that the amendment has been drafted.
I wish to conclude by stressing that, in order to have a jobseeker's allowance, one must have met the entitlement conditions and have entered into a jobseeker's agreement. It is specified in Clause 9(5) of the Bill that the,
"employment officer shall not enter into a jobseeker's agreement with a claimant unless, in the officer's opinion, the conditions mentioned in section 1(2) (a) and (c)"—
which relate to entitlement and actively seeking work—
"would be satisfied with respect to the claimant if he were to comply with, or be treated as complying with, the proposed agreement".
All that a jobseeker need do to be sure that he is meeting the two criteria is to follow what has been set down in his jobseeker's agreement to which he has put his name. There are other ways of meeting such criteria. It is possible that the jobseeker would prefer to meet those criteria in other ways. The right thing for him to do in those circumstances is not to walk away from it; the right thing to do is to try to negotiate a variation in the jobseeker's agreement or to appeal against it. It seems to us that that is the responsible way for a person to deal with the predicament where he wishes to change his course of action. The mechanics of the system enable him to do so in a manner which would enable him to keep his allowance.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, with respect, and before my noble friend the Minister sits down, I must point out that that is not quite the issue that is troubling me. I agree with everything that my noble friend said, but the issue is not quite as he put it. The issue is: on what grounds is the entitlement to be removed? It is not a question of walking away from the situation or of knowing what is in the agreement. The question is: what is the person doing that is contrary to the agreement which constitutes the grounds upon which the entitlement is being removed? I have put it very badly, but that is the issue.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, where there is an agreement, all that a jobseeker need do to ensure that he is meeting the available for work and actively seeking work test is to meet the steps that have been set out in

981
the agreement. There are a myriad of other ways of meeting the test. If a jobseeker wishes to do it in a different manner, it should be a matter of negotiation. In other words, the best way to approach it is by way of negotiation with the employment officer. In the event of the matter being referred to an adjudication officer when such a person does not take the sensible course of action, he is in a position to make inquiries and make representations to the adjudication officer as I described.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I have to tell the noble Lord that he has not clarified the position. We are more confused than we ever were before. No doubt we shall read what the noble Lord said in Hansard with great care. Perhaps, as the noble Lord said, we shall find that it is something to do with a computer. I do not know. However, it is certainly no clearer than it was before.
It seems to me that everyone who has spoken in the debate, except the Minister, has been absolutely clear. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said—and he is absolutely right—that it is a matter of natural justice. It is a matter of whether or not there are reasonable grounds; it is a matter of doubt. It is a matter of what happens under the principles of natural justice if, as it were, a charge, an allegation or a suggestion is made or, indeed, a suspicion advanced. Is the God-forsaken individual to be told what it is and given the opportunity to answer and say, "I don't think that I have broken the agreement"? Is he to be able to do so in some kind of quasi-judicial way?
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that that should be the case. I agree with him. However, I am not convinced that it is still the case. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that it is all about the second letter. I was glad to hear that. I have one piece of clarity: I now know that there are two letters. The first one does not matter, while the second letter does; but I doubt that it exists. I do not believe that the noble Lord understands what that second letter is supposed to do. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, also agreed. He said that we might not often need such a letter. However, the noble Lord went on to say—and I agree with him—that it is as well to put something in writing because otherwise those God-forsaken people will not be quite certain as to the nature of the charges that they have to answer. They must be given some idea.
During his reply, the Minister talked all the time about a new system which is entirely different. I would not like to believe that; indeed, I would not like to believe that helping jobseekers, or unemployed people as they used to be called, is something totally new to the Employment Service and that those concerned have never given jobseekers any information, never told them what is expected of them and never told them what they needed to do to get jobs. I do not believe that. From the inception of the Employment Service, I am sure that that was its objective. It is not anything new, except in the sense that it seems to want to get those people off benefit. That is what is new. That is the basic difference.
I do not believe the statements that the poor job applicant will be informed of his responsibility. All the language that the noble Lord used was about informing the jobseeker of what he or she had to do, not whether he or she had gone beyond what was said to be
982
necessary for actively seeking work or whether that could be evaluated by some quasi-judicial process. Therefore, we assume that the letter does not exist. We believe that it should exist. I intend to divide the House on the issue.
6.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 115.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kennet, L.

Birk, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Longford, E.

Chorley, L.

McCarthy, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Craigavon, V.

McNair, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Mayhew, L.

Donoughue, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B. Foot, L.

Nicol, B.

Foot, L.

Ogmore, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

Grey, E.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Bp.

Hamwee, B.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Serota, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hylton, L.

Tonypandy,V

Hylton-Foster, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

White, B.

Jeger, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Carnock, L.

Addison, V.

Chesham, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Clanwilliam, E.

Astor, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Balfour, E.

Coleridge, L.

Bethell, L.

Colwyn, L.

Biddulph, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Blaker, L.

Courtown, E.

Blatch, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Blyth, L.

Borthwick, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Digby, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Downshire, M.

Brookeborough, V.

Dundonald, E.

Burnham, L.

Elibank, L.

Butterfield, L.

Elles, B.

Cadman, L.

Elton, L.

Caithness, E.

Foley, L.

983

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Melville, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mersey, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Goschen, V.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Munster, E.

Hanson, L.

Northesk, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Orkney, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Henley, L.

Pender, L.

Hesketh, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hives, L.

Plumb, L.

Holderness, L.

Rawlings, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Reay, L.

Hothfield, L.

Romney, E.

Howe, E.

Seccombe, B.

Inglewood, L.

Sharples, B.

Jeffreys, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Kingsland, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Knutsford, V.

Stockton, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Lindsay, E.

Strange, B.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Sudeley, L.

Lucas, L.

Swinton, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tebbit, L.

Lyell. L.

Teviot, L.

McConnell, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Torphichen, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Torrington, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Trumpington, B. [Teller]

Marlesford, L.

Wynford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.7 p.m.
Clause 7 [Actively seeking employment]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord Wise Lord Wise moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 26, at end insert:
("( ) The following are examples of reasonable steps for which provision may be made under subsection (2)—

(a) voluntary work which enables the claimant to improve his prospects of gaining employment;

(b) part time study which enables the claimant to improve his prospects of gaining employment.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the main purpose of the amendment is to encourage Employment Service staff to recognise the benefits of voluntary work and part-time study as a means of obtaining a return to work. Many already do, but the amendment will ensure that a consistent approach is adopted in all parts of the country.
It has already been amply demonstrated in previous debates that what unemployed people want more than anything is a paid job. They do not see volunteering or part-time study as a substitute for paid employment. Many see both as a step towards a paid post. Others see volunteering as a constructive way of filling the time not taken up with job seeking and, happily, it often leads to employment. As has been shown in previous debates, often official training schemes and voluntary work
984
enable almost equal percentages of people to return to work. I am sure that the same will be shown to be the case with part-time study.
While voluntary work carried out by unemployed people involves no extra cost to the state, it can be of enormous benefit to the community and lead to jobs in fields not previously considered by the jobless. For example, Shipley Volunteer Bureau recruits more than 50 per cent. of its volunteers from the unemployed with the co-operation of the local employment office. More than 50 per cent. of those have gone on to paid employment, many of them to posts within the field of care in the community. This has been due to the experience they have obtained while working with voluntary schemes.
Another example which the National Association of Volunteer Bureaux gave me—I make no apology for relating such instances—involved a hairdresser in the Spalding area who went to her local volunteer bureau after being unemployed for 18 months. She was at a very low ebb. She helped out in a charity shop and at a day care centre for the elderly, both of which she enjoyed. However, after helping at a local training agency for the disabled for two weeks she had a paid job within days caring for patients with mental health problems. She undertakes this difficult work with energy and enthusiasm and still finds time for occasional voluntary fund-raising as a thank-you to those who helped her when she needed it.
One final example comes from someone in Gwent who was compelled to give up work for four years to care for her mother suffering from Alzheimer's disease. After her mother's death she found it difficult to get back to the work ethos. However, she was encouraged to become a hospital volunteer. When the volunteering co-ordinator gave up her post, this lady obtained it. Understanding the difficulties of the unemployed, she has aimed to encourage her volunteers to take advantage of training courses to increase experience. Among her successes are one who has become an auxiliary nurse and another who has obtained a clerical post. Another volunteer is seeking to obtain the qualifications and experience to become a medical social worker.
It is because of success stories such as these that I hope the amendment will be accepted. Some of the examples I have given come from relatively small organisations. Other noble Lords may give examples of larger organisations offering more structured training. However, both types of organisation offer valid paths back to employment, which I hope that the Minister will appreciate. I must again emphasise that in the examples I have given none of the volunteers saw their voluntary work as a substitute for paid employment and continued their job search while volunteering.
I thank the Minister for his letter, which I received this afternoon, in which he reiterated the Government's recognition of the value of voluntary work and that they would reflect further on this issue. At Committee stage my noble friend stated that he recognised the value and importance of volunteering in the community. There can be no doubt that voluntary work can both help unemployed people to stay in touch with the labour market and provide an opportunity for them to maintain

985
and develop their skills while looking for work. Having heard what he said, I was then at a loss to understand why he could not accept the amendment that voluntary work should count as a positive outcome from a Restart interview. I can only think that it may have been because the claimant remains unemployed and my noble friend feared that it diluted the focus in JSA of helping people back to work as quickly as possible.
The amendment takes account of that objection by suggesting a more constructive way of recognising the legitimacy of voluntary work as a step towards actively seeking work. It is a modest measure which focuses on encouraging unemployed people to take up voluntary work and part-time study, thereby greatly improving their prospects of finding employment. In so doing in no way does it detract from the main purpose in JSA of helping people back to work as speedily as possible. In fact it aids that purpose and, as I said, ensures that a consistent approach is taken in all parts of the country. My examples show what can be achieved with the co-operation of the local employment office.
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which I strongly support. As chairman of the National Trust, I must immediately declare an interest.
At the re-committed Committee stage, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was good enough to quote a small example of the use the trust makes of volunteers in its conservation work in the Lake District and our ability to pass our young volunteers on into full-time jobs through our work programmes. I thank her for mentioning it. I have many other equally successful examples—dozens—but, with an eye on the clock, I shall write to the Minister with those details.
The trust now has 30,000 people a year regularly giving a significant amount of their time to our work. In terms of work done, it is worth over £6 million a year to us. The volunteers are of all ages and skills. The long-term volunteers—the people about whom we speak today—often work for three to four days a week for periods of three months or more. Every year there are hundreds of those young people going through our work programmes. That, I submit, is not negligible. They receive training and a curriculum vitae of real work experience. It is real work and it ends in real jobs—two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, during the Committee stage. The great majority of them—some 80 per cent.—end up with a positive outcome. That is our experience: that 80 per cent. obtain a job. I submit that that is not negligible.
I should like briefly to mention the European Social Fund, which has been an important factor in progressing National Trust projects with long-term volunteers. In 1994, ESF funding enabled us at no direct additional cost to the trust or the Government to involve 117 long-term volunteers in structured work experience and training placements which in many cases led to national vocational qualifications and other accreditation. I urge
986
the Government to consider measuring both ESF schemes and volunteering against a set of measured criteria in much the same way as they already do for their own training schemes.
The point has been made to me over and again that those young volunteers are well qualified from school or university but that they have this difficult first step: to get real work experience and practical skills on to their CVs. It is difficult for those of us like myself who entered the job market 40 years ago, when one could walk into almost any job one wanted, to appreciate the difficulty of that first step.
But why put the issue at risk? The noble Lord, Lord Wise, explained some of the problems and why the amendment is necessary. Indeed, it is with some reluctance that I intervene at all. My natural habitat, if I may put it that way, is with heritage and environmental issues. But I felt that I had to respond to the plea of our hard-pressed staff. It is a madness to put this doubly useful activity at risk. I have to say, and I do so with reluctance, that we already find that we are being tripped up by officialdom and red tape. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, put the matter rather more politely. What the Government say may be absolutely fine in theory, but it is what occurs at ground level that matters. We need the amendment to combat red tape.
I read with interest the interchange between the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, at the re-committed Committee stage. The noble Lord stated that the only difference between them was one of emphasis. That to me meant that he rather agreed with our argument. I hope therefore that the new wording of the amendment means that we can secure agreement—if he will forgive the phrase, that we can agree a "positive outcome". It would be a great help.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I support the amendment and Amendment No. 21 which is grouped with it.
One of the most useful things that voluntary work can do for an unemployed person is to keep him in the habit of taking part regularly in some form of useful activity and in the disciplines of that activity. When one is unemployed, particularly for a long time, it is very easy to slip out of the self-discipline of getting up in the morning, travelling to one's place of employment and then getting on with the job conscientiously all day.
I work for a voluntary organisation, a charity. It is no use charities or voluntary organisations having volunteers who sit around chatting, drinking cups of tea and doing nothing all day. The type of people they want are those who are prepared to roll up their sleeves, get on with the job and work conscientiously all day. That is also the kind of person an employer wants. If someone can leave a charity with a good report, he or she is far more likely to get a job and stop drawing the jobseeker's allowance.
The second part of the amendment concerns unemployed people or jobseekers who are undertaking part-time study. It is also extremely important that they should be allowed to continue their part-time study course, complete it and obtain qualifications.
Amendment No. 21 deals with those who are undertaking a course of study that is relevant to the prospects of obtaining employment where the claimant

987
has completed at least half and is within six weeks of completing his course. Again, that is extremely important. For a long time the Government and other people have been saying that what the country needs above all else is a trained and skilled workforce. The amendment helps to produce that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I too am happy to support this extremely important amendment. It recognises that the jobseeker's agreement is meant to be an individually tailored programme which not only encourages a claimant to apply for suitable vacancies, but will equip him to become suitable for an even greater range of vacancies.
We all know that perhaps the most eligible people in the labour market at the moment are younger women. One of the reasons why they, compared with other groups in our society, find it easier to get work is that they are flexible. From their background they are able to turn their hands to retailing, hotel work, caring work, shop assistants' work, office work and the like. The reason for that is that they will have learnt typing at school, looked after young children, cared for an elderly grandparent, babysat or done a Saturday job in a shop. They have experience, they are flexible and they are not afraid of change.
However, what about the group that finds it hardest to re-enter the world of work? I am talking of the middle-aged, the man in his 30s, 40s or 50s who comes from a working class background, who has relatively few skills and who has become unemployed. That middle-aged or older man finds it hard to regain work. He may have come off invalidity benefit and therefore be reputed to have a poor health record or he may well have been in one type of job for a long time—perhaps in the building industry. That work is becoming scarce and the man may be unsuitable for it. He does not believe that he can do anything else. Yet either the jobs he would wish to do are those for which he is now physically unsuited because of the invalidity benefit or the jobs do not exist.
We know from many such examples in our private lives that the man is apprehensive, deeply worried that he may never work again, insecure and uncertain. He is both intimidated by the benefits system and at the same time resentful of it. He lacks skills, flexibility, self confidence; he lacks the ability to take the initiative; he lacks the energy to get started and he is often deeply depressed.
What advice would each of us give to such men and sometimes women, as we do in our private lives? The advice that most of us would give is: "You need to become more flexible and regain your confidence. The best way is to broaden your horizons, get out and meet people, build up a portfolio of skills". Those are the skills which the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, spoke about. We would say: "Extend your network, take additional training, do part-time study. Above all, do voluntary work". We would tell that person to take every opportunity to widen his or her experience, gain new skills, make new contacts, build up confidence. We would tell them: "Don't be lethargic, don't be depressed".
988
The most suitable way of doing that is to re-enter the world of work, but the world of unwaged work, by doing voluntary work or undertaking the relevant part-time study. We know from our own experience that that is the best way for many people to do what we all want—to have the opportunity to regain waged work.
We could add to the arguments ad infinitum: they have been well expressed at various earlier stages of the Bill. I urge the Minister to support the amendment, even at this late stage of proceedings on Third Reading, and to give his blessing to this amendment which is for many people the most practical and useful way for them to re-network themselves back into society.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from these Benches we too support this important and sensible amendment. A voluntary organisation with which I am connected at the moment employs half a dozen volunteers. They happen to be members of the ethnic minorities, they are extremely valuable to us and we should, I think, be able to give all of them good references to add to their CVs. That can only be helpful in getting people who would otherwise find it difficult to obtain employment back into the labour market. That is what we and the Government want and it is a simple proposal for the Government to accept.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene. I have not yet said one word on the Bill but I know that the Government run a scheme called "Opportunities for Volunteering". Organisations like the National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends or the Carers National Association can apply for grants. The criterion for obtaining grants is that the organisations should use unemployed people. Having been chairman of the National Association of Leagues of Hospital Friends for over 10 years, I can assure the Minister that it is one of the most successful schemes for getting people back to working in hospitals in various grades.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde: My Lords, I too support Amendment No. 11 and I wish to speak to Amendment No. 21, which is grouped with it. At Report stage, a similar amendment was on the Marshalled List and the Minister confirmed that there was no difference between us in your Lordships' House on the amendment's intentions. They were that someone who had taken the opportunity to join a course of study would not be penalised if that course would enhance their prospects of employment.
Unfortunately, the Minister went on to say that, while accepting the intentions of the amendment, he was going to reject it. He said that, after the Bill had been enacted, the Government could, under Clause 28, introduce pilot schemes and conduct research. However, those pilot schemes would not come about until a year or so after the Act had been working. From where I stand, that looked like extreme confidence on the part of the Government and little help to the people who are on courses. I believe that it is highly doubtful that the Government would be in a position to help anyone two years from now, the

989
time we are talking about. It is highly unlikely that they will be in office to carry out the undertaking they gave us at Report stage.
That being said, the Government's attitude will not help for example, the man in Devon. With assistance from his family, he borrowed £250 and went on a course that would assist his prospects for employment. His benefit was stopped, even though he went on that course with the full knowledge of the employment officer. It will not help the man in Hampshire who was unemployed for four months. He was very worried that there were no job opportunities, he discussed it again with his employment officer. It was agreed that he should try to take up part-time training, up to 21 hours a week. He did so, but he also paid £20 towards the course. The course cost £190 but, understandably, the college required people to pay something towards the cost, to try to stop people dropping out. He paid his £20, the employment officer knew that he was going on the course, but he lost his benefit. That cannot be right in anyone's book. I cannot believe that that was ever the intention of this Bill. I accept that the Bill does not introduce that principle; it is in existence now. But the Bill could be used to amend that error, to ensure the policy espoused by the Government from time to time that self-help brings self-improvement and would therefore bring the increased chance of job opportunity.
This clause is not there to enable people to receive benefits by not being available for work but by simply going on a course. If we read the amendment, we see that it provides that the only good cause will be that the claimant's course is halfway through, or that there is only six weeks left to run, and if the course itself will ensure that a claimant's prospects of employment will be enhanced.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I too support Amendments Nos. 11 and 21.I do so because of the importance of recognising that voices from different parts of this House have contributed on the basis of their own experience of the issues that are the subject of this amendment.
The unemployed are not a single group of identical people facing the same circumstances in every part of the country. They are not the same age, or the same sex; they do not face the same difficulties in terms of their personal experience. But there is one common feature in unemployment; namely, a lowering of morale and self-confidence in the individual concerned.
With regard to courses, the whole aim of the Government's policy as they have explained it is to encourage people to upgrade their qualifications, training skills and experience in order to make them more able to get work. We do not ask somebody who is taking a degree course at university to be available for work over three-quarters of the way through the course and to forgo their grant and the qualification that was the aim of their going on the course. Is it fair or reasonable; does it build the self-esteem of somebody who has been unemployed to say to them that we value the training course that they are doing and the education that they are undertaking so little? Is it reasonable to say, within six weeks of the end,
990
over halfway through, that the course does not matter at all, and that they should drop it and leave immediately? The message being given to individuals is that all they are doing is filling their time rather than being of any value.
Secondly—I shall not go over all the arguments—we have to understand that there are many people who need to return to the labour market after periods of time caring, often for elderly relatives who have since died, and who feel not clinically depressed but low. They lack confidence, perhaps having spent many years, for example, caring for someone with Alzheimer's disease. They are now free to return to the labour market but they lack the confidence to do so. All this is important in terms of the way that people present themselves.
I ask noble Lords to consider the term "available for work". Part of being available for work is being able to present yourself to a prospective employer as having the social skills, the self-confidence and the competence to take on the job, do it and complete it. Let us consider the employer faced with a choice between someone who has not had a break in their employment and someone who has. The employer needs someone who will complete what they take on. He needs somebody who will give a reference on the basis of the most recent activity. Voluntary work can provide that reference. That is much more important for somebody aged 45 or 50 than going back to somebody who knew them when they were at school or when they last worked, perhaps five or 10 years ago.
There is also the importance of recognising that many people are deeply ashamed of being unemployed. They ought not to be, but there is a tendency in the media to stereotype. There are many people—I have met some of them in my time as a councillor—who are embarrassed about admitting that they are unemployed and who feel inside that they have failed. That failure is a self-perpetuating cycle. Therefore I ask the Government, at this late stage, to listen to the different experiences and to take into account the different backgrounds from which people have come. Please will they consider at this stage accepting these amendments?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have had yet another full debate on this subject. We have debated it on a number of occasions with regard both to voluntary work and part-time study and the links with what I have to keep repeating is the primary condition for jobseekers; namely, to be actively seeking employment and being available for work.
I do not think there is an argument about the simple fact that voluntary work and part-time study can help unemployed people keep in touch with the labour market. It can develop new skills, and it can maintain existing skills, while at the same time—certainly in the case of voluntary work—helping the community. The question is: should those kinds of steps be listed as steps that meet the "actively seeking employment" condition?
I want to emphasise again that actively seeking employment is a basic labour market condition of JSA. The underlying principle of the condition is that the jobseeker should take steps which give him his best prospects of securing employment. That is the litmus test that we must apply when we are considering any changes to the actively seeking rules.

991
The current regulations include a non-existive list—I apologise, a non-exhaustive list of activities which count as steps—
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I had thought that by this time we should be in the dinner interval. Obviously, my little programme has put me slightly out of time. I do not intend to eat my words. I intend to do slightly better than that, although my words are of course excellent food.
At present these are all steps that are closely linked to actual jobsearch, such as job applications and registering with employment agencies. But in the JSA regulations, we propose to expand the list to include steps that may help to improve a jobseeker's employability. We are doing this because we recognise that activities that do not relate directly to jobsearch may, nevertheless, improve a jobseeker's chance of getting back to work.
I should now like to explain the special arrangements that we propose to make in JSA for people undertaking voluntary work and part-time study. First, people claiming JSA will be able to undertake full-time voluntary work provided that they remain available for and actively seeking employment. That is a significant recognition of the important role that voluntary work can play in helping them find paid employment.
Secondly, the availability rule will be relaxed for people who undertake voluntary work. Jobseekers in general, as we have seen, will have to be available for work immediately. People undertaking voluntary work will be allowed 48 hours' notice before having to take up an offer of work or before attending an interview for a job.
Thirdly, the current regulations specifically state that any time during which the jobseeker was doing voluntary work is a circumstance to be taken into account when considering whether he has met the actively seeking employment condition. We have given an undertaking that this will be carried forward into the JSA regulations.
Fourthly, the voluntary sector plays an important role in delivering the Government's programmes for unemployed people, such as Training for Work, Youth Training and Community Action.
Finally, in recognition of the arguments which noble Lords have put forward in the course of our debates, we have agreed to consult the voluntary sector. We will be writing to representatives before the Summer Recess to seek their views. We shall consider the responses carefully before the regulations are drafted.
Turning to part-time study, people will be allowed to study part-time while claiming JSA, so long as they remain available for and actively seeking employment. Indeed, we have announced that we are updating the rules to remove the problems that some people have experienced with the current rules, so that people are clear about what study they can undertake while claiming JSA. In particular, we have addressed the problem caused by further education courses no longer being classified as full or part-time, which has caused uncertainty for jobseekers, colleges and those administering benefits. Also, we have said that after three months of unemployment, the course
992
will not of itself be a reason for finding that someone is unavailable for work, provided he is prepared to take a job.
Secondly, I mentioned a few moments ago that the list of active seeking steps will be extended to include actions which improve employability. For the first time, one of the steps will be attending a full-time job-related course of up to two weeks in a year.
Thirdly, again just as with voluntary work, the current regulations specifically state that vocational study or training is to be taken into account when considering whether a jobseeker has met the actively seeking employment condition. This, too, will be carried forward into the JSA regulations.
Finally, in response to arguments from noble Lords last week, I undertook to reflect on the matter further and to collect new and better information on part-time study arrangements, and perhaps pilot new approaches. This would be intended to provide secure evidence on what kind of arrangements will best enhance jobseekers' prospects of obtaining work.
I believe these special arrangements are extensive and generous. They are a clear indication that we recognise the potential value of undertaking voluntary work and part-time study while claiming JSA. But, as I have said, the specific issue before us is whether to accept an amendment which would put a statement on the face of the Bill that voluntary work and part-time study may count as active seeking steps.
While we all agree that voluntary work and part-time study can in many cases help improve a jobseeker's chances of finding paid employment, there can equally be cases where we must question whether a person's other activities may be acting against their chances of finding employment. We have to strike the right balance in favour of both the jobseeker and the taxpayer.
I believe that we have to weigh up very carefully the questions in Amendment No. 11. In the case of voluntary work we have given a commitment to reflect and consult. In the case of part-time study, we have said that we recognise that it is important to get the balance right; that is why we shall collect new and better information on part-time study arrangements. I am afraid that I cannot go further at this stage. In particular, I cannot agree that it would be appropriate to deal with these matters in primary legislation.
I am sure that the public at least and certainly, I suspect, many of your Lordships would find it most odd if the Jobseekers Bill listed voluntary work and part-time study as examples of steps for which provisions may be made in regulations but not applying for jobs.
Let me turn to Amendment No. 21, which is very similar to an amendment that we addressed at Report stage. Its purpose is to provide that if a jobseeker has completed at least half of a course of study which is relevant to his prospects of obtaining employment and is within six weeks of completing it, that will be good cause for failing to apply for or refusing or neglecting to avail himself of a reasonable opportunity of employment.
I explained last week, when replying to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, that although I could not accept her amendment, I understood the principles behind it. I

993
undertook to reflect further on the matter. As I said earlier, we intend to collect some new and, it is to be hoped, better information on part-time study arrangements and perhaps pilot new approaches using the powers in Clause 29 of the Bill. I should like to consider whether an approach based on the noble Baroness's proposals might be tested alongside other ideas.
I feel that it is worth saying that if somebody is studying part-time and takes a job, he will have every opportunity to adapt the way in which he studies in order to study and carry on with the job. Many people undertake further study while they are working. I see no reason to believe that people in the situation portrayed by the Benches opposite will not be able to make the same kind of accommodations as people in work and studying, perhaps to improve their situation, are already doing.
Let me make one other point to the noble Baroness, Lady Dean. She mentioned the kind of rule-of-thumb system that the Employment Service operates; namely, that if a person has invested more than £100 in fees for a course, that matter should be referred to the independent adjudication officer. I should like to make clear, as there appears to be some confusion in this matter, that it is a rule of thumb for there to be referral to the adjudication officer; the decision always rests with that officer, who will make his decision according to the usual rules of availability.
I understand that £100 may seem an arbitrary figure. But there must be some point at which one can question whether a person who has made a substantial investment in a course of study is in fact no longer available for work. We have made it clear—I have done so again today—that unemployment benefit is not for people whose first priority is to study. Those people should look elsewhere for financial support.
7.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He mentioned the sum of £100. Is he prepared to index-link it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If, my Lords, the noble Earl will contain his patience for a moment, I shall come to the point that I want to make about the matter. There has to be some distinction made. I reflected on the points made on this issue after Report stage. I feel that there has to be some kind of level. I am prepared—I hope that it will be considered helpful, although I accept that it will not be considered nearly so helpful as accepting the amendment—to write to the chief executive of the Employment Service and suggest that he might review the level at which the employment officer will consider referring to an adjudication officer the question of whether a claimant is available for work. I hope that that will go some way toward reassuring the noble Earl and indeed the noble Baroness.
I am sorry that I have gone on a little, but I wanted to emphasise the point that both part-time study and volunteering are allowed for currently and will be allowed for in the jobseeker's agreement. I am not prepared to go so far as to say that somehow we should set aside the fundamental conditions of availability for work and actively seeking work, which are at the heart of JSA, just
994
because someone is volunteering or doing part-time study. The two can go together. I hope that I have explained how we believe that they will be able to go together to the satisfaction, I hope, of the many organisations which use volunteers, to the satisfaction of the jobseeker himself and to the satisfaction of the taxpayer, whose interests ultimately have to be protected when it comes to spending public money.
Lord Wise: My Lords, I thank all those who have supported the amendment. From the support from all round the Chamber, it is very evident that it has been very worthwhile. Indeed, in many ways I am heartened by my noble friend's remarks. The points that he made on voluntary work are indeed most welcome. I certainly welcome his assurance that the Government will consult with the main representatives of the voluntary sector before the drafting of the JSA regulations. That is indeed a very good thing.
With regard to part-time study, that would be only one way in which a claimant could seek work. Indeed, a claimant would have to show other evidence that he was actively seeking work. So this a modest amendment, primarily designed to promote a positive attitude by employment officers.
Having said that, there is no point in putting this amendment to a Division at this late hour. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I should like to make a short business statement. It has been agreed through the usual channels that we should now adjourn proceedings on the Jobseekers Bill until 8.35 p.m. It has also been agreed by all those who have put down their names to speak on the Land Registers (Scotland) Bill, that the Second Reading should be taken during that dinner break. If no noble Lord objects to this proposal, I hope that we can proceed as I have proposed. I beg to move that proceedings after Third Reading of the Jobseekers Bill be now adjourned to 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Support Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Land Registers (Scotland) Bill
7.50 p.m.
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Perhaps I may say, first, how delighted I am to be speaking to this Bill as I recently joined the Advisory Council to the Scottish Records Office, whose task it is to make representations or submit proposals to the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Lord President of the Court of Session on questions relating to the public records of Scotland and, in particular, to the custody, preservation and cataloguing of

995
those records and to questions of access. Therefore, although not directly related, it is fair to say that I have some small experience with records in Scotland.
The Land Registers (Scotland) Bill has a single purpose; that is, to make prepayment of the appropriate statutory fees a condition of acceptance of writs for recording in the Register of Sasines and of applications for registration in the Land Register of Scotland. The Bill enjoys all-party support in Scotland. It is also supported by the Law Society of Scotland.
The Keeper of the Registers of Scotland is keen to move from post-payment to prepayment of fees for a number of reasons. First, the current system of invoicing customers, who are mainly solicitors, after the work on registration or recording has been completed, is both time-consuming and expensive in pursuing outstanding fees. In recent years the level of outstanding fees has risen significantly. By early 1994 the level of outstanding fees over 30 days old had risen to the equivalent of some 15 per cent. of the annual income of the agency. A determined drive by the agency, supported by the Law Society of Scotland, managed to reduce that figure to about 8.5 per cent. Nevertheless, at the end of April 1995, over £2.8 million of fee income was outstanding for 30 days or more. A move to prepayment of fees is seen as the only long-term solution to this problem.
Secondly, a move to prepayment would bring the agency into line with the position in England and Wales. Finally, it will assist the agency in putting its finances on a firmer footing, something which will become increasingly important for the agency as it moves to trading fund status from April 1996.
A move to prepayment is not possible without existing legislation being amended. Section 6 of the Land Registers (Scotland) Act 1868 provides inter alio that payment of fees for recording writs in the Register of Sasines should take place after recording. There is no similar restriction in the Land Registration (Scotland) Act 1979, which provides for the successor land registration system in Scotland, but the Keeper would not have the power to reject an application for registration on the Land Register without an amendment to Section 4 of that Act. The Bill therefore provides for the necessary amendments to be made to those two Acts.
The proposed change is not in any way controversial. There are no adverse cost implications for solicitors or purchasers of property, including house-buyers. I therefore hope that your Lordships will support this Bill and I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Earl of Dundonald.)
7.55 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the House should be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, for introducing this Bill, accepting the fact—I am not sure that he will—that land law in Scotland is archaic and a great deal of fundamental work has to be done on it at some time.
996
As it stands, I am informed by all the people I consulted that this is a helpful piece of legislation and that, as the noble Earl mentioned, the conveyancing committee of the Law Society of Scotland believes that the Bill will represent an improvement on present procedures. Until an opportunity is given to produce a major Bill on Scottish land law, it would be wrong of me to do other than appreciate, accept and welcome the modification of the amendment suggested by the noble Earl. I hope therefore that the Bill is given a Second Reading without any dissent.
7.56 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Dundonald, on his introduction of the Bill. I welcome the Bill as I believe that it will put the financing of the Records Office on a better footing and, in so doing, do away with the substantial backlog of late payments which has built up.
At a general rate of £11 per £5,000 of property, the prepayment will not pose undue problems in most transactions of a domestic nature. It is likely that solicitors will have to pay in advance of the actual transfer of funds, but I am sure that a way round that will be found. That aspect will be more serious when considering large, multi-million pound transfers.
I foresee a possible problem being caused by the legislation in the rare circumstance that a purchaser agrees a sale and then dies. As the land sale registration would have been prepaid, it would not be cancelled, with the result that the deceased's executors would have to pay again for the re-registration of the non-sale back to the vendor's possession. Finally, as I welcome the Bill, I hope also that noble Lords opposite will consider bringing forward legislation to establish a comprehensive register of land ownership in Scotland which can be easily accessed by everybody and which will be widely welcomed by the Scottish people.
7.58 p.m.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend on the able and lucid way in which he presented the Bill. It is a very narrowly focused Bill; however, it is important in ensuring that the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland can undertake his statutory duties in a cost-effective and efficient manner.
There are no additional costs involved for customers of the agency, but it will enable the agency to make savings of around £500,000 per annum on the collection of fees. Those savings will assist the agency in carrying forward the extension of the land registration system to cover the whole of Scotland by no later than the year 2003.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked what would happen in the rare circumstance that he described; that is, a purchaser agreeing a sale and then dying. If an application to register a title on the Land Register or record a deed on the Sasine Register is withdrawn, the Registers of Scotland Fee Order 1991 provides for a fee to be charged to reflect work undertaken on the application. That fee would be subtracted from the fee submitted under prepayment and the balance returned to

997
the applicant. However, the Keeper of the Registers has a discretion to waive fees under certain circumstances, such as the death of the applicant. A full refund of the prepaid fee would therefore be made in such cases. I hope that that explanation reassures the noble Earl.
As my noble friend has shown, this is an uncontroversial Bill. It has all-party support and is also supported by the Law Society of Scotland. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
8 p.m.
The Earl of Dundonald: My Lords, I thank all concerned for participating in this debate, whom I can name directly as there are only four of us—the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and my noble friend Lord Lindsay. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
The Earl of Lindsay: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8 to 8.35 p.m.]

Jobseekers Bill
Proceedings after Third Reading resumed.
Clause 9 [The jobseeker's agreement]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 7, line 37, leave out from ("officer") to second ("is") in line 38.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising to move Amendment No. 12, I should like, with the leave of the House and with the agreement of the Minister, to speak to two groups together since the issues are pretty well identical. Therefore, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 17.
These amendments all arise from an attempt to tidy up after the very big and particularly valuable series of concessions offered on the drafting of Clauses 9 and 10 on the second day of Report, the series I have come to think of as "Inglewood's easement". I said when those concessions were offered that I would need to read what was said and that indeed I thought I would need to read it several times. I have done so and I may say that it improves with reading. It is one of the most valuable series of concessions that we have had during the Bill and it is not in any ungracious spirit that I should like to try to add a little tidying up just to make it certain.
What concerned us about the drafting of the clauses, especially Clause 9, was the possibility that the wording of the jobseeker's agreement could come to provide a series of additional conditions for benefit beyond the conditions in Clause 1(2) (a) and (2) (c). The general purpose of the string of amendments is to restrict the eligibility criteria to Clause 1(2) (a) and 2(c)—to be "available for employment" and "actively seeking employment".
The words which particularly concerned us were the ones which Amendment No. 12 seeks to delete. An agreement,
998
"which complies with the prescribed requirements in force at the time when the agreement is made",
is described as a jobseeker's agreement. Those words gave a suggestion of an introduction of additional conditions. I am entirely convinced now that that was not the Minister's intention, nor anything like the Minister's intention. What I am concerned with now is tidying up to make sure that it shall remain that way in the future.
Amendment No. 13 inserts the words,
"in the prescribed format".
That is meant to give effect to the words of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, on the second day of the Report stage. He said:
"The intention is to include things such as the jobseeker's name, his availability, the sort of work he is looking for, any period that is agreed in which he can restrict his availability and jobsearch … and rate of pay and a dated signature of both the jobseeker and the employment officer".—[Official Report, 16/5/95; col. 480]
We are not arguing with what the noble Lord said. Our concern is to make sure that no one adds anything else thereafter.
The remaining amendments in the group are all concerned to restrict the conditions of eligibility to the ones set out in Clause 1(2). It binds the adjudication officer to judge by those criteria and no others. I hope that the amendments are helpful. They are intended to be and they are certainly not intended in any critical spirit. I beg to move.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Earl for his kind comments at the outset of his remarks and acknowledging that we receive them in the spirit in which they were given. We have debated these issues over a number of days. As the noble Earl said, I endeavoured to give a full explanation of our intentions at Report stage, and I do not propose to repeat all that today. Nonetheless, it may be helpful if I clarify some of the points. I sense that the noble Earl is seeking reassurance on a number of issues. If I can reassure him, I shall be satisfied and he may then feel able to withdraw his amendment.
As I have made clear in every debate during the passage of the Bill, the agreement is a supportive measure which will help jobseekers get back to work. It will not—I repeat not—allow the employment officer or the independent adjudication officer to impose individual conditions of benefit. I have given the House repeated reassurances to this effect. I am happy to do the same again now.
I have already reassured the noble Earl that the power in subsection (1) is benign. Perhaps it would help him and the House if I explain once again that the regulations made under it will be used to set out what will be needed to constitute an agreement—broadly speaking, the headings that it must contain. The intention is to include such things as the jobseeker's name, his availability, the sort of work he is looking for, any period that is agreed in which he can restrict his availability and jobsearch to his normal occupation and rate of pay and a dated signature of both the jobseeker and the employment officer. We have made all this clear. I can confirm that the word "requirements" relates to the specification of what must be in the document

999
and not to actions which the jobseeker will take, as described in the agreement. I hope that that meets the point that the noble Earl is anxious about.
Having dealt initially with Amendments Nos. 12 and 13, I move on to the further Amendments, Nos. 14, 15 and 17. As regards Amendment No. 14, once the jobseeker has an agreement in force the key to his continued receipt of jobseeker's allowance will, however, be the actual steps that he takes to find work and his actual availability for employment. The agreement will be used as a basis for establishing what the jobseeker has agreed to do to meet the conditions of availability and active seeking, but whether the jobseeker has abided by the precise letter of what is in his agreement will not be the test of whether someone continues to meet the conditions.
For example, if a jobseeker has said in his agreement that he will apply for jobs in a factory but he then applies for a job in a supermarket in addition to or instead of a factory, that jobseeker will not be penalised provided he was still actively seeking employment. No one could possibly want that to be the case. This is an important point, and it is right that your Lordships should have focused on it now and previously. I want it to be absolutely clear that there is no question of the agreement setting different standards of availability and active seeking than are applied by the basic conditions.
I now move on to Amendments Nos. 15 and 17. As has been explained repeatedly in this House and in the other place, the Bill provides an extensive procedure for independent adjudication and appeal of jobseeker's agreements and variations. Both the jobseeker and the employment adviser will be able to have a proposed agreement or variation referred to an adjudication officer.
The adjudication officer will carry out his functions independently of government under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and receive guidance on carrying out their adjudication duties from the chief adjudication officer, not the Secretary of State. If the jobseeker or the employment adviser is dissatisfied with the adjudication officer's determination, either may seek to have it reviewed by a different adjudication officer. If the jobseeker is still dissatisfied he, but not the employment adviser, will have the right of appeal to the Social Security Appeal Tribunal; and thence to the commissioner on a point of law.
Now let us turn to the matters which the adjudication officer will consider in making his determination. Again, I believe that the noble Earl is seeking, in particular, to ensure that the adjudication officer will not be able to say that it is reasonable to expect the jobseeker to have to comply with other conditions over and above the availability for employment and actively seeking employment conditions. That goes to the very heart of Clause 9(6) and Clause 10(5). They offer explicit protection to the jobseeker. They provide for the adjudication officer to consider two matters. First, would the jobseeker, if he complied with the proposed agreement (or variation) satisfy the availability and actively seeking employment conditions of JSA? And, secondly, is it reasonable to expect the jobseeker to have
1000
to comply with the proposed agreement? Let me make it clear: the adjudication officer will not—indeed, cannot—consider other matters.
I gave examples of this at Report and I am happy to give them again today. Take, for example, a proposed agreement which stated that the jobseeker would apply for 90 jobs a week. Applying for 90 jobs a week would clearly enable him to meet the actively seeking employment condition but it would be unreasonable to expect him to have to do so. The adjudication officer would make a determination to that effect, and the jobseeker would not have to look for 90 jobs a week. Or a proposed agreement which stated that a declared anti-vivisectionist would be available for jobs as an assistant in a laboratory that uses animals for its testing would again be unreasonable because there are many other types of job which the jobseeker could be available for in order to meet the availability condition. Again the adjudication officer could make a determination to that effect and the jobseeker would not have to be available for work to which he was conscientiously opposed.
As I said at Report, the entitlement conditions apply to different individuals according to their particular circumstances. There is no absolute stipulated number of jobs that people in general should apply for in each week. But if the noble Earl's question is can an adjudication officer set a higher level for an individual in an agreement than would be sufficient for that individual to meet the conditions in Clauses 1(2) (a) and 1(2) (c), the answer is simple and straightforward: it is, no.
I believe the Bill is quite clear, but the noble Earl has suggested a drafting change to make it yet clearer. I have to say that I find that his amendment would make the Bill less clear. It speaks of reasonable steps for meeting the availability and actively seeking employment conditions, but there are no steps involved in being available. Steps are a matter of active seeking.
I believe that I can see the point the noble Earl is making. We could spend a long time debating fine drafting points. But I have given an explanation of what this part of the Bill means, and I believe that there must come a time in our deliberations when we leave the drafting to the draftsman. I very much hope, as I have gone through these various points and given reassurance to the noble Earl, that he can withdraw his amendment.
8.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister not only for the trouble he has taken about this matter, which is considerable, but also for the clarity with which he has understood exactly what our concerns are. It has made business a great deal easier to conduct. I am also grateful to him for four very specific reassurances he has just given.
First, and most crucial, is the exposition of the meaning of the word "requirements". That alone goes a very long way to reassure me on the points that we are concerned with. The second reassurance which he repeated was that the jobseeker cannot be held to the precise letter of the agreement. That provides a very valuable opportunity to react to circumstances as they

1001
turn up. The third reassurance is that it does not make it possible to bring in any different standards of availability and of seeking. That is an unambiguous reassurance and an extremely welcome one. In the fourth example of reassurance the Minister was only spelling out again what he said before, but with even greater clarity. That is the point that people cannot be compelled to take work to which they are conscientiously opposed. That is a valuable safeguard and a part of human dignity. I am extremely glad to hear it said so clearly. I thank the Minister warmly and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 8, line 16, leave out third ("of") and insert ("from").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 18 and 29. In the Report stage on 16th May, I spoke to a series of amendments to the clauses dealing with the jobseeker's agreement, which your Lordships were pleased to approve. I mentioned then that we proposed to make a small drafting improvement to the amended Clause 9(7) (a) and Clause 10(6) (a), which deal with the time-limit in which the adjudication officer makes his determination on an agreement.
Amendments Nos. 16 and 18 are purely technical, drafting amendments. I hope that your Lordships will welcome them. Amendment No. 29 is a small consequential amendment. Paragraph 42(3) of Schedule 2 amends Section 20 of the Social Security Administration Act so that the adjudication of a jobseeker's agreement will take place under the procedure set out in Clauses 9 and 10 of the Jobseekers Bill, rather than the Social Security Administration Act. The amendments to Clauses 9 and 10 which your Lordships approved at Report stage put the adjudication procedure on the face of the Bill. The reference to regulations in paragraph 42(3) must, therefore, be removed. This is a consequential amendment and I hope that your Lordships will welcome it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Variation of jobseeker's agreement]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 9, line 23, leave out third ("of") and insert ("from").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Severe hardship]:
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 13, line 19, at end insert:
("( ) This section shall apply to any person aged 16 to 18 who has applied to join the armed forces but cannot join until the next enlistment date.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it would be redundant to explain this amendment to the House at this time of night. I think that we all know what it is about. It relates to 16 and 17 year-olds applying to join the Armed Forces. I tabled this amendment in order to find out
1002
whether the Minister is able to be a little more forthcoming than he was in his mildly and intermittently encouraging answer on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as the noble Earl rightly pointed out, we have discussed this issue previously. On those previous occasions, I recognised that there was an issue that we should look into. I promised to consult the Ministry of Defence and to write to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with our proposals.
The noble Earl appeared to suggest at Report that the decision ought to be straightforward. But I regret to inform him that it is not that simple. As I have explained, there can be wide variations in the length of time between being offered employment with the forces and the actual enlistment date. There is little we can do to influence that. We have been informed by the Ministry of Defence that the waiting period can be as long as six months. I am sure that we would all agree that in those cases young people should not be encouraged to sit waiting for that enlistment date to arrive. It is reasonable to expect all young people to look for work and training during that time.
As the noble Earl knows, I do not normally consider amendments from a textual point of view, but the amendment as drafted states,
"applied to join the armed forces".
I thought that we had agreed that we were talking about somebody who had been accepted by the Armed Forces and was awaiting an entry date. Therefore, we have a problem. I have already indicated that we shall have to consider whether all young people in that situation should be able to claim JSA or only those at risk of severe hardship. We are still discussing the matter with the Ministry of Defence, and, as I have promised, when we have concluded our discussions, I shall write to the noble Earl. However, even when we reach that conclusion, I do not think that this should be a matter for primary legislation. It is something about which we need to consult and I believe that we can then deal with it in regulations in due course. As I have promised, I shall write to the noble Earl when we have reached a conclusion on the matter. I hope that he will accept those assurances.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply and for the trouble that he has already taken over this matter. I take his point about six months. I had not realised that the waiting period could be as long as that and I agree that it makes a difference.
I am also interested to hear that the provisions can be changed without primary legislation. That makes it easier to leave this matter beyond the completion of the Bill. If I had known that last Thursday, I would not have tabled this amendment. Having discovered that and having thanked the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Circumstances in which a jobseeker's allowance is not payable]:
Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 15, line 40, leave out from second ("be") to end of line 42 and insert ("no more than two weeks in the first instance and a subsequent maximum of four weeks if the claimant persists in his refusal or failure to comply").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment relates to Clause 19 and the circumstances in which a jobseeker's allowance is not payable. Two subsections spell out the circumstances in which that allowance is not payable. Subsection (5) refers to where a jobseeker has failed to observe a jobseeker's direction, has neglected or refused a place on a training scheme, or has been dismissed from such a scheme on grounds of misconduct. Subsection (6) states that the jobseeker's allowance will not be paid where the jobseeker refuses an employment opportunity, loses a job through misconduct or leaves without just cause. Those two subsections specify the circumstances in which the jobseeker's allowance shall not be payable.
The amendment deals with the fact that on the face of the Bill both of those circumstances—neglecting to go on a training scheme or being dismissed from a training scheme and what one would have thought the apparently more severe behaviour of refusing an employment opportunity, losing a job due to misconduct or leaving without just cause—carry the same statutory penalties.
Subsection (2) deals with the statutory penalties affecting subsection (5) and states:
"If the circumstances are any of those mentioned in subsection (5), the period for which the allowance is not to be payable shall be such period (of at least one week but not more than 26 weeks) as may be prescribed".
Subsection (3) uses almost precisely the same words but with reference to subsection (6), stating:
"If the circumstances are any of those mentioned in subsection (6), the period for which the allowance is not to be payable shall be such period (of at least one week but not more than 26 weeks) as may be determined by the adjudication officer".
Therefore, two different types of misconduct or behaviour which would disqualify one from receipt of the jobseeker's allowance are spelled out in subsections (5) and (6), with two almost identical subsections—subsections (2) and (3)—stating that the maximum penalty is 26 weeks in both cases. Anybody looking at the face of the Bill might think that the Government regard both types of behaviour as equally appalling, dreadful and awful and as equally justifying a 26-week refusal of benefit.
However, page 28 of the Notes on Clauses states as regards subsection (2)—that is, that which covers subsection (5):
"The intention is that the period of sanction should be for two weeks, rising to four weeks, if the sanction is imposed on a subsequent occasion".
So, a mild sanction is intended for those offences committed under subsection (5)—two weeks in the first instance, but four weeks if you go on doing it.
Page 26 of the White Paper says much the same thing:
"People who refuse to attend or complete mandatory courses, or fail to act on a jobseeker's direction will be disqualified from benefit for a fixed period of two weeks, rising to four if repeated".
Finally, on Report, when turning down the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, which would have limited suspension to six weeks after repeated offences, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said:
"Amendment No. 77 removes the stipulation that the minimum period of sanction that can be prescribed under Clause 18(2) is one week, and the maximum period that can be prescribed is 26 weeks. As your Lordships will be aware, these sanctions relate to the circumstances set out in Clause 18(5); that is, refusal or failure to carry out a jobseeker's direction or to attend a training scheme or employment programme".
Then he goes on as a reason for refusing the amendment:
"But let me assure your Lordships that the Government's intention, clearly set out in the White Paper"—
which I have quoted—
"is that the regulations will establish a two-week sanction for these circumstances, rising to four weeks if the claimant persists in his refusal or failure. We believe it is right to set a clear penalty"—
I should not have thought it was very clear, as it is totally different from what is on the face of the Bill:
"so that unemployed people will be under no doubt"—
because presumably they will know the regulations that we do not yet have rather than the face of the Bill, which we do not intend to follow—
"of the consequences if they reject our help and assistance without good cause".—[Official Report, 15/5/95; col. 371]
The Government will not accept an amendment to reduce the period to six weeks, and yet they say in Notes on Clauses, in the White Paper, and on the Floor of the House that they will, at some time in the future, prescribe something far less drastic than that. The purpose of the amendment is simple. Why cannot that be on the face of the Bill? I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this is an important amendment. I support it warmly and with enthusiasm. In other circumstances I might have said so at some length, but as it is I think the Minister could write my speech to the amendment in his sleep, so I will not make him listen to it again.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, this is assuredly an important amendment. The object is, in a sense, to rectify an apparent disparity as to sanctions. That alters the whole balance of part of the structure of the Bill. On Third Reading, in a thin House, it is hardly appropriate that we should entertain such a proposition.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, we have been round this track a number of times. As I have said before, the overwhelming majority of people who become unemployed make every effort to find work at the earliest possible opportunity and are prepared to be available for as many jobs as possible. They need no further incentive from the benefit rules. However for those who are less firm in their intentions and who do not have the same resolve to get back to work, sanctions can play a very important role in influencing the behaviour of people who are claiming benefit and reinforcing incentives for them to take the right steps to improve their prospects of finding a job.

1005
To make sanctions more effective we have sought to simplify and clarify them so that claimants will know exactly where they stand and what will be the consequences of failing, or refusing, to act on directions or failing to take advantage of government provision. It is reasonable to make things as clear in regulations as they are on the face of the Bill. It is all part of the law of the land.
We have made it clear in the JSA White Paper, and I have repeated that commitment many times in this House, that for all the circumstances set out in subsection (5) the sanction to be imposed will be a fixed two weeks, rising to four if the claimant persists in his refusal or failure to act. We have no plans for any change to those periods. We want it to be clear to claimants that that will be the period of sanction.
But I cannot accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord. The setting of fixed periods is a new approach to sanctions. At present it is possible to impose a sanction of up to 26 weeks for failure to act on an official recommendation or refusal to accept a place on an approved training scheme, so fixed periods of two and four weeks represent substantial changes to that provision. Sanctions must serve to provide disincentives to claimants against filing to take the right steps to get back to work. We made changes to the maximum periods of sanction in the 1980s precisely because we found that the provisions were proving unsuccessful in discouraging people from leaving employment. Should we discover in the future that the periods of two and four weeks are not proving adequate as disincentives, it would be reasonable for us to return to the issue of different periods.
As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said, it is a fundamental change which is proposed at this stage of the Bill. It is important to retain the right degree of flexibility on these matters, which is why we propose to provide for the period in regulations in the manner I have described to your Lordships. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, if I understand what the noble Lord is saying, he is saying, "Don't believe what I say". He is saying, "It's in the White Paper. I have told you about it. It is on record that that is what we mean—two weeks and four weeks—and we don't mean it. Because we might at some further moment in the future want to be really nasty and make it 26, we are going to shove it in the Bill". That is not an argument. That is ridiculous. In view of the time of night, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Pilot schemes]:
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Parliamentary control]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 31, line 34, leave out second ("or").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 23 to 26 have the effect of ensuring that any regulation made under paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 will be subject to the
1006
affirmative procedure at all times. Similar provisions at Section 28(3) of the Benefits Act are affirmative. Your Lordships will remember that when we discussed this I explained in response to an amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that the two groups we had in mind in this clause were share fishermen, who need to be dealt with specially—I do not want to repeat what I said about them, but I am sure that all noble Lords agree with me on that—and those workers who are on short time or who are temporarily stopped.
Having reflected upon our discussion, I decided that it was appropriate in the case of regulations which may require certain groups to satisfy additional conditions to receive a jobseeker's allowance, that we should make that change. The amendments add regulations made under paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 to the list of those in Clause 37(1) (c) which are subject to the affirmative procedure at all times.
Consequent upon that, these regulations are also added to the list in Clause 37(1) (a). This sets out the regulations which are subject to the affirmative procedure only if made before the date JSA becomes payable. It is necessary to exempt paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 from that list because the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure at all times.
I know that the noble Earl has tabled art amendment. Perhaps I may leave the matter with my remarks about what we propose to do in that regard and then with the leave of the House perhaps I may return after the noble Earl has spoken. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's agreement as regards the affirmative procedure. It is extremely helpful. I rise to speak to Amendment No. 28, which is in this group. It relates to the same line of questioning as arose in the issues that I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in relation to Clause 9. The words in the Bill that concern us are at paragraph 17 of Schedule 1. It reads:
"Regulations may require additional conditions to be satisfied with respect to the payment of a jobseeker's allowance".
That was the point about the Bill that caused Members on these Benches the most anxiety. We listened carefully to what the Minister said, and has repeated now, about the purpose for which the power is intended; that is, share fishermen and temporarily-stopped workers. We have no objection to the Government's stated intention. However, the vires in the paragraph go a good deal wider than the Government's stated intention. Your Lordships know that I am anxious about leaving unexploded vires lying about. If your Lordships read this morning's Independent about the clearing of mines in northern France they will appreciate my concern.
I appreciate that the Government's intention is benign. However, the wording of paragraph 17 contains no specification that it must be benign. I can see nothing in the wording of the paragraph—if there were anything I should be glad to hear about it—which makes it legally necessary that its use should be benign.
If the Minister suggests that either in this House or at a stage which will inevitably follow in another place the Government will include words to that effect I shall not

1007
feel inclined to insist on the words of my amendment. They were designed to incorporate what the Minister said were the purposes of the paragraph; that is:
"Regulations … may … require additional conditions to be satisfied by … share fishermen … short-time or temporarily stopped workers. For the avoidance of doubt, it is declared that the ejusdem generis rule applies".
I hope that I have it right.
I am aware that the amendment does not specifically define the genus. With more time we might have done better. The genus I have in mind is contained in the words of the Minister.
"It is clear that we are not dealing here with the normal case of unemployment. Many of these claimants will have continuing contracts of employment".—[Official Report, 16/5/95; col. 534.]
That is the genus that I had in mind. If we can find a way to tie the vires to the intention for which they are being taken, the gap between us will be closed and an anxiety will be removed. I look forward to the Minister's reply.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall respond to the points made by the noble Earl in speaking to Amendment No. 28. He has, as frequently in this House, expressed concern about the potential wider uses of this power by a perhaps less benign future government than this Government.
Clause 1 sets out the basic conditions for entitlement to a jobseeker's allowance. The Bill is clear and we have stated that for the average JSA claimant those are the conditions that will apply. However, we must recognise that there are cases where small groups have access to JSA on a basis different from other claimants. As I explained on Report, the two uses of the power so far identified are for groups which have particular circumstances of employment and where the normal availability rules would be inappropriate. The wording of the power makes clear that it cannot be used for the generality of claimants and that any regulations made under it must apply only to specific groups which are identified with respect to their form of occupation. Any future uses would also have to be in respect of particular groups where the normal conditions need to be slightly adapted to special circumstances. I hope that having that explanation on the record will provide some reassurance to the noble Earl as regards the basic scope of the provision.
I understand his desire further to clarify the limits of the provision on the face of the Bill. The main aim of the amendment is to use share fishermen or short-time or temporarily-stopped workers as a benchmark against which other potential uses of the power can be measured. I do not believe that any such comparisons will be possible or desirable. New paragraph 18 would restrict any future uses of the power to groups who are similar in nature to share fishermen or short-time or temporarily-stopped workers.
The amendment suggests that that would avoid any doubt but I am not sure that it is likely to be the case. The two benchmark groups listed are very different in nature. Their employment status, the type of work that they undertake, the length of claim, the frequency of claim and other factors vary considerably. There is a
1008
great deal of difference between a self-employed fisherman based in Grimsby who cannot work for a week because of storms in the North Sea and an unemployed carpet maker in Axminster who has not been able to work for two months because his employer has no work for him.
They differ not only from the usual unemployed JSA claimant, but also from each other. The two examples illustrate very well the difficulties we face in setting down a general rule even by way of illustrative example, to govern the use of a power which by its very nature is intended to cater for exceptional circumstances. If we try to do this we risk limiting our ability to deal with other groups in future which might not exactly fit the mould of the normal unemployed claimant, who could legitimately look for help from JSA, provided slightly adapted conditions were met.
As I mentioned when I moved my own amendment, although I cannot accept this one, I understand the concerns raised by the noble Earl earlier and again today over what he perhaps sees as the potential wide-ranging use of this power. I brought forward the amendment to make it clear that the affirmative procedure will be used, and that of course ought to ensure greater parliamentary scrutiny of these measures. I accept that perhaps it does not go quite as far as the noble Earl would like, but I hope that it provides some reassurance, in addition to my words, on our view of this clause and the potential use of these provisions. In view of that, I hope the noble Earl will accept these assurances and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps with the leave of the House I might respond very briefly to the Minister. He has given me a good deal of reassurance, which I welcome. He has also fastened unerringly on the weaknesses in the drafting of my own amendment which might have made me slightly chary of pressing it had it come up at a different time. What he has not quite reassured me on—and I should be very grateful if he could go a little further on this—is the restriction of paragraph 17 to being benign. I can see that it is restricted to categories of employment which are of a prescribed description. However, I do not see in the words "prescribed description" anything which is necessarily benign.
The Minister talks about groups. He occasionally expresses surprise about my suspicion of the use of regulation-making powers; but it was precisely this sort of power to make special regulations for a group which was used by the Government to disentitle students. That was the beginning of my serious concern with regulations. Nothing which the Government could ever do with regulations could possibly cause more surprise to me than that. Therefore, if we can tighten these words "prescribed description" and make it clear that they are benign, I think that would help very considerably.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I could respond to the noble Earl. I do not think I can really go any further than I have gone. I repeat that any future use would have to be

1009
in respect of particular groups where the normal conditions need to be slightly adapted to the special circumstances because, as with the two cases we are dealing with, they are small groups which have access to JSA on a different basis from other claimants. I do not think that I can go quite as far as to promise him that the result would always be benign, and perhaps by using that word I was making a debating point at the beginning which I should not have put into the noble Earl's mind. However, perhaps I can look further at this and give him the assurance that I will study what he has said and perhaps write to him. I realise it is late in the passage of this Bill, but I hope he will accept that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 31, line 36, at end insert ("or
(iii) paragraph 17 of Schedule 1,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26:
Page 31, line 40, leave out ("or").
Page 31, line 41, after ("35(1)") insert ("or paragraph 17 of Schedule 1").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Supplementary Provisions]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 46, line 31, leave out ("regulations made under").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
I am not sure whether it was fate dealing me an unkind blow, but just as I am about to do this particular deed on this Bill, the First Reading of another Bill in which I am involved comes to your Lordships' House, just to remind me of work that is to come. We examined the Bill in considerable detail in Committee, during re-committal of Clause 6, last week on Report and again today on Third Reading. Our deliberations have been thorough and, in the main, very constructive.
Many of your Lordships have contributed to the debate but perhaps I can extend thanks to noble Lords on the Benches opposite, particularly the noble Baronesses Lady Hollis, Lady Turner of Camden, Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde and Lady Williams of Crosby, the noble Lords, Lord McCarthy, Lord Carter, Lord Richard and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, who have all contributed to debates so eloquently. I should also like to pay tribute to the voluntary organisations which have contributed their knowledge and experience to the debate both directly and indirectly, and whose suggested amendments put down on the Marshalled List by your Lordships have formed the agenda of so much of our discussion. I am at a loss to know how we would go about our business if outside organisations—be they pressure groups, as largely on this Bill—or professional, commercial and
1010
business interests were unable to have their concerns raised and their amendments addressed in either this or the other place.
On this side of the House, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who moved many of the amendments standing in my name and who helped me to provide answers to many of the testing questions put by your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Swinfen, as ever, spoke persuasively for the cause of disabled people as did the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on the Cross-Benches.
The Government set three clear aims for the jobseeker's allowance: to improve the operation of the labour market; to get better value for money for the taxpayer; and to improve the service to unemployed people themselves. I am sure that your Lordships would endorse those aims. During the passage of the Bill, we have not always been able to agree, but I hope that we were able to go some way to address the concerns expressed in debate.
I pay particular tribute to the work of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. I reminded your Lordships on an earlier occasion that I was a founder member of the committee, which perhaps gave me added insight into the force of the arguments which were so carefully and thoughtfully set out in the report. The House was invited to consider,
"whether the Bill should be amended so as to provide more detailed framework within which Ministers may exercise the powers to be delegated to them under Clause 6"—
as it was then.
We took that recommendation, and the other findings, very seriously indeed and also listened carefully to the arguments advanced by several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Campbell of Alloway, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Renton, and noble Lords opposite. In response, we introduced extensive amendments at recommitment defining the conditions of availability and actively seeking work on the face of the Bill, and ensuring that the regulations made under Clauses 6 and 7 should be subject to the affirmative procedure whenever they are made. We also made changes to Clauses 9, 10 and 11 which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, kindly attributed to my noble friend Lord Inglewood earlier, to make clearer our intention on the face of the Bill and dispense with some regulation making powers.
We have made a considerable effort to explain our intentions as fully as we can and to place them on the record wherever possible. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, pressed us hard by regaling us with his five questions. I hope that the explanations of our intentions with regard to the powers in the Bill have gone some way to assuage his fears of some future—and as I described them earlier—less benign government than the present one.
I hope that I was able to reassure the House that we entirely accept that jobseekers with disabilities need special consideration. We have drawn up the labour market rules with them in mind. They will be able to place restrictions on their availability for employment which are reasonable in view of their condition and with no requirement that such restrictions should be inhibited by any questions of their prospects of securing

1011
employment. Their condition will also specifically be taken into account when the steps that they have taken actively to seek work are considered.
Importantly, in JSA—for the first time—we have included explicit provision for people with caring responsibilities to restrict their availability. They will be able to restrict the hours in which they are available for work below 40 hours. We also recognise that it would be unreasonable to expect people with caring responsibilities to be available to take up work immediately. That is why, following the persuasive arguments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and of my noble friend Lord Swinfen, we agreed that carers will be entitled to 48 hours' notice of any job or job interview. That will allow them time to make any arrangements necessary.
We also propose to introduce a special linking rule for the purposes of the back-to-work bonus for people who take short spells out of the labour market because they are sick. The rule will affect those people who have accrued a bonus and then fall sick and have to claim incapacity benefit or need to care for another person and claim invalid care allowance. During debate on the Bill in another place, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Employment said that she would consider the linking rules for people in those situations. I am pleased to announce now that people in that position will have their bonus protected for up to two years.
We have never been in any doubt about the magnitude and complexity of introducing JSA smoothly and successfully throughout the network of 1,200 jobcentres. This undertaking entails the development of two substantial computer systems, extensive organisational change and very large-scale training programmes. I have made clear on more than one occasion that the Government will take no risks to jeopardise the smooth introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. That is why I announced to your Lordships last week that the Government had decided that the jobseeker's allowance should be introduced in October 1996. We made that decision because we do not want to put at risk the improved service which we will be offering to jobseekers under the new arrangements.
I am glad to have been able to respond positively to at least some of the amendments from noble Lords on the Benches opposite. We have amended the Bill to protect from sanction a person refusing to accept an offer of employment arising from a trade dispute. We have replaced the power to make regulations for trial periods with a duty and reduced the qualifying period of unemployment whereby a person can qualify under the employment on trial rules from six months to three months.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was responsible for an amendment, which we accepted, that regulations provide that any variation in the terms or conditions of a jobseeker's agreement be referred forthwith to an adjudication officer. However, we have had considerable disagreement on the adequacy of benefit levels, the length of time over which they should be paid and a number of other issues. We heard on a number of occasions from the Benches opposite that they regard
1012
benefit levels as mean, inadequate, at poverty levels and other such words. Based on the superlative nature of these words I have deduced that the Benches opposite might reasonably be expected to want to increase benefit by, say, £10 a week. A £10 increase in the adult personal allowance in contributory based and income related JSA would cost more than £1 billion at 1994–95 prices and benefit levels.
I also had to resist amendments which would either have reduced the savings which the new system will bring or increased expenditure. In the day following the interesting Mais lecture by the Leader of the Opposition in another place in which he appeared to join us in determination to control public spending, it is interesting to note that the message has not yet spread to the Benches opposite in your Lordships' House. A quick glance at the amendments placed by the Benches opposite on the Marshalled List over the consideration of the Bill shows a reduction in revenue of £150 million, a reduction in the savings of £50 million and expenditure of around £200 million. Perhaps before we consider our next Bill noble Lords opposite should read, mark and inwardly digest the new financial prudence advocated in this week's Mais lecture.
We have also had disagreements over the quid pro quo issue of benefits in exchange for certain conditions like availability and actively seeking and, in addition, over jobseeker's directions and whether a claimant should always have the right to pick and choose his jobsearch and ultimately his job.
Sir William Beveridge himself recognised those difficult issues half a century ago when he argued that:
"The danger of providing benefits which are both adequate in amount and indefinite in duration is that men as creatures who adapt themselves to circumstances may settle down to them";
and:
"Men and women in receipt of unemployment benefit cannot be allowed to hold out indefinitely for work of the type to which they are used. Men and women who have been unemployed for a certain period should be required as a condition of continued benefit to attend a work or training course".
We are attending to those important aspects of our social security and unemployment system in this Jobseekers Bill. I believe that it will mark a major improvement in the way that benefit is delivered to the unemployed person, the jobseeker. It will also act as a sensible safeguard for taxpayers' money.
I conclude by once again thanking all Members of your Lordships' House who have taken part in the eight or nine days of our deliberations on this important Bill. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Question that the Bill do now pass is usually an occasion for some pleasant camaraderie in which we tell each other, and even mean it, that the Bill is a much better Bill than when it entered the House. We said that about the Pensions Bill; I believe that we may have been correct. We look forward to the Disability Discrimination Bill and the Child Support Bill—I

1013
believe with the same teams—and we hope that that statement may be correct. However, such a statement is not true about this Bill. The Bill remains as malign and thoroughly nasty as when it came to us on 3rd April.
We have certainly learnt more about it. The more we learn about it, the more vicious it seems. But improve it, modify it, amend it or ameliorate it, my Lords?—no, that we have not done. And why? The Bill cuts contributory benefit to the unemployed, even though they have paid for it through national insurance as part of their social contract, from 12 months to six months and to nothing if a spouse is claimed for. The Bill attaches to even these grudging benefits harsher tests for availability and actively seeking work, built around a new jobseeker's allowance, which can then require a person to take a job which pays less than income support. If there is any doubt about whether someone unemployed receiving jobseeker's allowance is actively seeking work, the benefit will be stopped while that doubt is investigated, so that a person is punished in advance of being found guilty.
The Bill is authoritarian in the worst sense, allowing the employment office staff to impose their prejudices on unemployed men and women. It increases the poverty of the unemployed. Ninety thousand people will lose their benefit; 150,000 people will have cuts in their benefit; and many for the first time ever will have no benefit, no income, on which to live. Disabled people coming off incapacity benefit remain vulnerable. In other words, the Bill will finger the unemployed for their unemployment and will bully them into unlimited availability for unending jobsearch for non-existent jobs in an overstocked labour market. It is a demeaning, demoralising and contemptible Bill.
I believe that only two amendments from the House have been accepted by the Government. The first will allow youngsters with good cause to leave a bad training scheme without penalties. Surprise, surprise, my Lords. The second will allow carers and parents of young children 48 hours rather than 24 hours for availability for work.
The significant change to the Bill in the old Clause 6 came about not because the House was concerned with the lot of the unemployed but because it was rightly concerned at the overweaning powers that the Executive is taking to itself. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, on an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Richard, forced the Government to define "available for" and "actively seeking" work on the face of the Bill and to ensure that all the regulations associated with the provision came with affirmative resolution. That was, I think, salutary; but all too seldom, thwarting a Government whom I believe—and I think the public believe—have been in power so long that they have come to consider that public office is to some degree a piece of private property for which they are not fully and democratically accountable. I am glad that on this occasion at least the House of Lords managed to check the Executive. We hope that those changes will at least have given leverage to the other place to reopen some of the more significant debates.
1014
The second significant change, based on a discussion earlier today, involves a delay in introducing the jobseeker's allowance to October 1996. However, by cutting unemployment benefit from 12 months to six months we see a failure of the system again. We welcome the delay because it means that the benefits to the under-25s and the cuts to dependent spouses will be deferred for some six months. Otherwise, the delay stands as a condemnation of the Government's haste to cut benefits in advance of their administrative system being in place.
This is an occasion for "thank-yous". First, perhaps the one point of agreement that we have with the Minister today is that our thanks go to the voluntary organisations, the disability organisations and citizens' advice bureaux, who supplied us with many formidable briefs. Secondly, our thanks go to the members of a team which has always been both a social security and an employment team on the Labour Benches. That is my noble friend Lady Turner who led for us on Second Reading but retired from the proceedings on the Bill on her bereavement. She then gallantly returned to the fray. Our thanks go to my noble friend Lord McCarthy, whose unrivalled knowledge of the employment field and unlimited good humour did much to cheer us up, while simultaneously wrong-footing the Government. Both were equally welcome.
Our thanks go to my noble friend Lord Carter, who argued the case for disabled people with conviction, and to my noble friend Lady Dean, who spoke with such compassion for young people at risk. We also thank those noble Lords all round the House, on the Government Benches, the Lib-Dem Benches and the Cross-Benches who contributed to our debates.
The Ministers were always courteous, sometimes informative, usually cheerful, seldom cross and almost never helpful. Even as his speech on Bill do now pass expired, the Minister sought to tally the costs of the putative promises that we would have made if only we could. That came from a Government who managed, in one administration going from the rates to the poll tax to the council tax, to spend £3 billion. It is a bit rich to lecture—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: More than that!
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It was £3 billion. That is what it cost this Government, not the local authorities but central government. In the lifetime of one government they changed their mind twice on the system of local government finance. We take no lectures on the custodianship of taxpayers' money from the Benches opposite when, to meet the prejudice and pride of senior Ministers, the Government throw taxpayers' money at legislation which they themselves have to reverse twice.
The Ministers were always courteous, never helpful! No doubt their briefs said, "Resist", and they resisted well. Pity about the unemployed. We are glad to be rid of the Bill. I only wish with all my heart that we could have abated it even a little, for the sake of those who will suffer by it. Our one pleasure is that despite our

1015
pressure to remove regulation from the face of the Bill, there is at least scope for a change of government to do something in the future.
9.37 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, my former supervisor, Mr. J.W. Gough, once remarked in an edition of the works of John Locke that perhaps it is only when it is possible to treat politics as a game and not as a war that democratic government is possible. I keep changing my mind about whether that is an optimistic or a pessimistic remark. However, one way or the other, I am certain that it is true.
In so far as it is possible to treat the Bill as a game, the two Ministers responsible—the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—deserve our warmest thanks. Those of us who have never spoken from the Government Dispatch Box—and that means everyone who has led on both Front Benches on this side of the House, save only my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby—find it hard to imagine quite how difficult it must be to take all the flak that comes across that Government Dispatch Box: all the anger, all the persistence, all the speed, one thing after another. It must be rather like facing the West Indian fast bowlers. When I watched the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, at the Dispatch Box, I was reminded of watching John Edrich playing his first test at Lords, on the day when Wesley Hall came within a yard of bowling a six in byes. He showed an iron determination to play down the line at whatever risk to himself. The next time I watched him batting, he scored a century against Australia.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has the straightest of bats. But every now and then he displays a mischievous sense of humour that reminds me of the late cut that Denis Compton used to play when he had run too far down the pitch and the ball did not pitch where he expected. That sense of humour has been one of the great joys of this Bill, and I thank the Minister for it.
During the Bill's passage I have been reminded of the man who visited a south Indian village and went to look at the shrines. He saw the shrine of Brahma, that of Shiva and that of Vishnu. Away in the corner was a fourth shrine. He went to look at it and saw that it was to the judicial committee of the privy council. I should like to think that somewhere a Hindu jobseeker who will benefit by the changes in this Bill may erect a shrine to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The committee has earned it.
The report was late, for reasons that were not the committee's fault, but it was very, very useful. I shall not make a meal of its being late. One such accident might happen to anyone. I shall say only that I hope, when we come to the Child Support Bill, to which we gave a First Reading tonight, that the memorandum will reach the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee in reasonably good time because there are many delegated powers issues in that Bill.
1016
I give warmest thanks to Anton Obholzer in our Whips' Office. He is one of the architects, after the Minister of course, of the amendments that I classified collectively as "Inglewood's easement" and for which we are extremely grateful. He is responsible for much of the thinking that identified the questions to which the Minister responded.
I should like to thank those in the Box who have helped us. It was a very great comfort during the passage of the Bill to have a Box on this side of the House as well as one on that side. The Bill has been improved. The drafting of Clause 6 is improved. I offer particular thanks to Conservative Back-Benchers and Cross-Benchers, whose help with Clause 6 was conspicuously honourable and constructive. The remarks of noble Lords, Lord Renton, Lord Campbell of Alloway and Lord Henderson of Brompton—and two crucial interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—have been of great help.
However, it is not too easy to treat the Bill itself as a game. People will die because of this Bill—not in any conspicuous way but among the anonymous statistics of deaths on the streets among the London homeless. I shall not dwell on the point. But it does not make it easy to treat the Bill as a game.
At Second Reading I under-stated my case when I said that this was one of the two or three worst Bills with which I had been involved. I think it is in fact the worst. Some Bills, such as that on the poll tax, were as bad for substance. Some, such as the Education (Student Loans) Bill, or the 1993 Education Act, before we got at it, were as bad for form. But I cannot think of another Bill that has been quite so bad for form and substance. Grateful though we are for the changes that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has achieved, I do not regard this for the future as an acceptable form of legislation.
As we have gone through the Bill, I have perhaps been most struck by the changes in the concept of entitlement. I shall not run through any of the detail, but I think I have understood a little further what is going on. I believe that the Government are relying on the notion of reciprocity, which I believe is accepted on both sides of the House. It flows from the stress on this benefit being conditional. But when one party to a reciprocal obligation appears to default on its conditions, it does not destroy the reciprocity; it does not destroy the obligation; and it does not end the relationship. I believe that Ministers agree with us quite strongly that if we fail to pay anything to those who deserve payment legally or morally, that does not entitle those people to commit crime.
But, equally, if they do not seek work in precisely the way in which we think that they should, that does not entitle us to say that they have nothing to do with us and we have no responsibility for them. I believe that the Bill is diminishing the sense that there is such a thing as society, and I regret it.
I shall not dwell at any further length on the regulation-making powers. But I believe that this Bill will be seen—perhaps even more than any of the things that are going on down at the other end of the Palace—as part of the decline of Parliament in the

1017
late 20th century. I know that the other place has faults but I love it and I am very sorry indeed to see its decline.
We have had defence after defence of disentitlement. I feel that we need to know the costs of that before we go any further. I intended to give the Minister notice of a string of questions to which I would like answers over the next year but, since the time advances, I shall perhaps give him those questions in writing.
We have a bad Bill. It is not quite so bad as it would have been otherwise. It is attempting a principle which the Social Security Advisory Committee warned the Government in 1992 was impossible. It commented:
"We understand that it is not possible to draw up regulations in such a way as to identify precisely those people who clearly have no intention of actively seeking work and who seek to maintain an alternative lifestyle supported by state benefits".—[Official Report, 20/4/95; col. 599.]
The Government are still trying to make that distinction. They have not made it, because it cannot be done. If we have the opportunity, we shall repeal the Bill, lock, stock and barrel. I was very sorry not to hear that commitment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. We hope that we can persuade her and her party to it over time. It is something that we very much hope is possible, because this legislation will have to go.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, from these Back Benches perhaps your Lordships will allow a word or two to mark the manner in which your Lordships' House has discharged its revisory role as regards Clauses 6 to 8 of the Bill, irrespective of the merits of the Bill and on a plane which transcends political allegiance.
As guardians of the unwritten constitution, your Lordships' House can take full credit for having introduced this requisite constitutional safeguard against potential ministerial misuse of delegated legislation. Your Lordships will remember how, on 25th April, the old Clause 6 came under very heavy crossfire, and how immediately my noble friend Lord Inglewood agreed to take it back.
Noble Lords know full well—two of them in particular: the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell—what efforts were taken on a non-party basis by the usual channels, the Leader of the House, the government Chief Whip and many noble Lords from different parties to improve and bring this matter into a proper state of affairs. That eventually has been done. Its importance is that, although on secondary legislation we may not amend, we have the power to reject, yet that power is never exercised. That power has not been exercised since the Rhodesian order, which was revoked within two days without a vote. It is a matter of political will, parliamentary prudence and, in the context of an affair such as this, it would never be exercised unless there was serious and manifest abuse. That is why the only safeguard is to bring these matters by definition on to the face of the Bill and to define the scope of the
1018
implementing regulations. Your Lordships have achieved that and it is to the eternal credit of your Lordships' House.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish for persuading the usual channels that while dealing with this Bill we should not also deal with the Disability Discrimination Bill. All of those who took part in the debates on this Bill will probably be taking part in the debates on that Bill and would have had an exhausting time, so it was a great relief.
I echo what was said by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in regard to regulations and delegated powers. We see more and more delegated powers in Bills that pass through this House. As he said, and as the House knows, this Chamber cannot alter regulations. I feel that somehow we must provide a method whereby regulations can be properly examined and altered before they are completely accepted. Some method of agreement must be reached between this House and another place. The amount of secondary legislation being introduced is far too great.
As the House will also be aware, I have, as I normally do, striven to improve the lot of disabled people in this Bill. I do not feel that I have done a particularly good job because I have not been all that successful. One small success, in company with other Members of the House, was in procuring for carers of people with disabilities at least 48 hours warning of having to take up employment. In my view that still gives them precious little time to arrange care for those they love and for whom they are responsible.
I take this opportunity also to thank the voluntary organisations which have been advising me on the Bill. Without their help I can do very little. They know to whom I am referring and I do not feel that it is proper to mention names. I am extremely grateful to them. I hope that in the near future my noble friend will bring forward another Bill on jobseekers considerably to improve the poor position in which this Bill will leave them.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, perhaps I may respond briefly. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, intrigues me with the comparisons he makes and the quotations he dredges up from either the books he has read or the people he has met. I wish that I had a memory like that for all the wise or clever things people have said in my presence. I was particularly struck by the noble Earl's comment about whether this was a game or a war. In fact it is too serious to be either. If it was a game we would demean democracy and if it was a war we would be destroying democracy. Therefore it must be something in between.
I do not want to make too many political points in response to what has been said. But perhaps I may reiterate that I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, will take the opportunity of the Recess to read her right honourable friend's Mais lecture. I was intrigued, as was my noble friend Lord Inglewood, when the noble Earl, Lord Russell—for the second time in my recollection—indicated that the Liberal Democrats would repeal the Bill, and he invited the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, to

1019
indicate that the Labour Party would make a similar commitment. Like him, I have not noticed that commitment.
On a lighter note, my noble friend Lord Inglewood and I were pleased at being described as batsmen facing the West Indies fast bowlers. Dare I say as a mere Scotsman that we seem to have managed to carry our bat for a bit longer than the average English batsman in recent years.
I thank noble Lords for their kind remarks. I appreciate that they in no way negate their objections to the Bill. But it is right and proper—and I hope that we would all do it—that we approach the issues which arise in a Bill such as this, and every other Bill, seriously and attempt to address them. While I do not expect noble Lords always to agree with the answers, I like to think, as does my noble friend, that I attempt to answer the questions that have been put to me.
With our thanks to all the officials who have helped us and, as I think noble Lords opposite mentioned, to the people who have been in the Box on their side to help them, I ask the House to pass the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Prison (Amendment) Rules 1995
9.55 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Prison (Amendment) Rules 1995 [SI 983] be annulled.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is something of a peculiarity that I should be doing this because, although this Prayer is in time—in other words, it is within 40 sitting days of the date when it was laid before Parliament—I see from the front page of the rules that they came into force on 25th April. My first question to the Minister is: how can it be that rules under the negative procedure which take 40 days to achieve immunity from parliamentary action can be brought into force within 21 calendar days of the date of their being laid before Parliament? But the issue is far more serious than one of procedure.
The Home Secretary, in a speech on 18th November followed by a Home Office press release, responded in his inimitable way to a lot of press pressure about a very small number of offences committed by prisoners on home leave. His response was not a rational one—just to point out that only in at most 1 per cent. of the cases have prisoners on home leave committed further offences of whatever kind, whether or not related to the offence for which they were originally put in prison. Oh no, he did not respond rationally by giving the figures. He simply announced that he would change the rules so that there would be a 40 per cent. reduction in home leave.
The history of home leave, which is a provision of Rule 6 of the Prison Rules, is not such a short history and not such a dishonourable history that it can be properly subverted or indeed reversed by this knee-jerk
1020
reaction—there must be a better phrase than that but that is really what it was—of a Home Secretary who is more interested in the approval of the Conservative Party Conference than he is in the criminal justice or prison system. The Prison Rules have provided for many years that there should be home leave and other types of temporary release from prison: on compassionate grounds; on grounds that they are necessary for work or for education; that they permit family visits outside a prison; that they permit overnight stays with families.
It has always been the case that home leave has been a privilege and not a right. It has always been within the discretion of the governor of the prison rather than laid out in great detail. But innumerable Prison Service circular instructions over the years have set out the advantages to the Prison Service, to the prisoners and to society of an effective system of home leave. As recently as 1992, Prison Service circular instruction 43/92 set out the advantages of home leave in terms of increased self-confidence among prisoners and the ability for prisoners to readjust to society.
It is not as if these Prison Service circulars have ignored the issue of public safety. Circular 11 of 1993—only two years ago—said:
"It will be right to refuse any application where there is any doubt about a prisoner's behaviour whilst at liberty".
So there is no question whatever but that the existing rules provide for protection and that it is the responsibility of prison governors to ensure that society at large is not damaged by those who are let out from prison on home leave. So it is not as though the existing rules were inadequate to meet the dangers to which the Home Secretary professes he is responding.
It is much worse than that. The Woolf-Tumim report of 1991 on prison disturbances actually argued strongly for an extension of home leave. They pointed out that our provisions for home leave are markedly more cautious than in the rest of Europe. They quoted a Council of Europe report on that subject from 1992. They argued that there should be,
"substantial increases in the number of home leaves granted"
and that that should be done by extending the eligibility for home leave to other kinds of prisoners and to those at different stages of their prison sentence.
That report was accepted and welcomed by the then Home Secretary, Mr. Kenneth Baker. He doubled the provision of home leave in open prisons. The 1991 paper Custody, Care and Justice, was the basis on which the Prison Service said that it would be considering further extension of home leave arrangements.
So what has changed other than sheer panic in the face of Conservative activists? What has changed is that the Government have turned 180 degrees. They are now proposing that there should be a 40 per cent. reduction. By the way, one cannot get any of this information from the statutory instrument itself; it has to be deduced from the orders that were issued to prison governors between November 1994 and the present date.
There will now be three kinds of home leave or what is now called "licence". As before, there will be a compassionate licence for urgent personal family and other crises. There will be a resettlement licence which

1021
will not now be available at all to those serving sentences of 12 months or less. It is available only one-third of the way through the sentence for those serving one to four years, and it will be available only half-way through the sentence for those serving four years or more—in other words, the time of the first parole application. There will be a facility licence which is not available in the first 25 per cent. of the sentence and not available to category A or B prisoners.
Any suggestion that these provisions are either to protect the public or to improve the morale and effectiveness of the Prison Service is thrown away by the admission by the Prison Service working group which considered these matters. It referred to the period before people are eligible for these licences as the "punitive period". This is a punitive order and nothing else. Any pretence that it is there to protect the public is a sham.
It is punitive not only to prisoners, but to families and to the children of families. If one delays the eligibility of prisoners for home leave to later in their prison sentence, one may still be allowing them to re-establish family links which are so important when they come out at the end of the sentence, but one is stopping the possibility of maintaining family links and relationships from an early stage of the sentence. All the evidence from research in the United States and in other places, makes it clear that the lack of family support increases recidivism—in other words, it increases the likelihood that prisoners will re-offend when they come out of prison. Cutting back on the eligibility for home leave increases the probability that those who come out of prison will re-offend. Despite the directions given to it by the Home Secretary, there are plenty of examples in the Prison Service of that actually working. Since February 1994, one open prison has had a "compact" which provides a trade-off between home visits and visits in the prison itself. The effect has been significantly to reduce reoffending at the end of a prison sentence.
No, this is not a rational or humane response to even the very small number of cases of reoffending which have been identified. It is a punitive measure. It does not deserve the confidence of Parliament and I believe that we are right to ask Her Majesty that this measure be annulled.
Moved, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Prison (Amendment) Rules 1995 [SI 983] be annulled.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
10.5 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, it seems wrong at 10 o'clock at night and in only an hour to be considering the limited entitlement to temporary freedom of the men and women we choose to lock up in our prisons for what we judge to be good and sufficient reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, this is a serious matter and I am sorry that we are not debating it in more suitable circumstances.
1022
I support all that the noble Lord said about the shortcomings of the statutory instrument. I regret it and think that it is a retrograde step in penal matters. Most importantly—this should be of greater concern to the Minister—I believe that no good will come of it.
I think that it is right to say that the aim of home leave is not to make life softer for those in prison or in any way to temper the harshness of their imprisonment. It is not an unsolicited act of generosity. The reason for home leave has been clearly stated by the noble Lord, and was set out most plainly of all in that paragraph of the Woolf Report which quoted Prison Service Circular Instruction 9/1988, which states:

"(a) To help restore self confidence by placing trust in a prisoner under conditions of complete freedom; and

(b) To help the prisoner to readjust to life outside prison by giving the opportunity to maintain links with family and friends and in the case of long home leave, to contact prospective employers and make firm plans for release".

Home leave is not in the self-interest of the prisoner—although he may like and enjoy it. It is in the self-interest of the community as a whole. It helps in the resettlement of a prisoner. It is good for his family. In addition, it makes the management of prisons that much easier by helping to reduce some of the tensions that might otherwise exist.
As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, some of us were led to believe that the arguments in favour of prison leave and of extended prison leave had been accepted in the White Paper of four years ago, which was entitled Custody, Care and Justice. That White Paper set out the case plainly, endorsing what Woolf had said. The introduction stated:
"This White Paper charts a course for the Prison Service in England and Wales for the rest of this century and beyond".
That was the view of Kenneth Baker as Home Secretary, and was endorsed by the Cabinet, of which the present Home Secretary, Michael Howard, was a member, yet within three years of that statement of policy it is being abandoned and we have not been given an adequate reason why.
In his speech in the debate on the Address on 18th November, the Home Secretary said:
"In too many cases, the system has been abused".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/11/94; col. 244.]
He explained that he would be conducting a review. He called it a "thorough review". If that review has been published in its entirety, I have missed it. I should be interested to know what figures were available to the Home Secretary in the course of that review which were not available to the then Home Secretary three years ago. What change was there in that period? It would be helpful if the Minister could explain that to us.
In his speech, the Home Secretary said that the safety of the public must be paramount. We cannot dispute that, except to say that there is bound to be an element of risk not only in releasing a prisoner for a period of home leave, but in releasing a prisoner altogether at the end of his sentence. Of course we must accept an element of risk unless we are to incarcerate prisoners for ever, and not even the present Home Secretary is recommending that.

1023
It may well be that, although preventing prisoners from having the home leave to which they might previously have felt themselves to be entitled may reduce some short-term risk, home leave makes it much less difficult to rehabilitate prisoners afterwards. If they do not settle back into their families, the risk to the community is very much greater than if they have had the opportunity to become accustomed to the life they will lead after their release.
A balance must be struck. Those of us who do not have the obligations and duties of the Home Secretary must be aware of that, but the balance will not be struck in the right place if the order is proceeded with. We have had no adequate explanation of why the Home Secretary made the decision, based on the purposes of home leave and the merits of the case. I wait with great interest to hear whether the Minister will be able to fill that gap tonight.
10.11 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the arguments against this nefarious order have been expressed so adequately and knowledgeably by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and by the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, that I shall not detain the House for more than a few minutes. My noble friend Lord McIntosh made all the main points that I would have liked to have made, and he made them more effectively. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, added a few points of his own, including the important reflection that if we are to avoid all risks in relation to the release of prisoners we would keep all prisoners in prison for ever. That was worth saying. I only hope that the lead given from these Benches by my noble friend Lord McIntosh will be taken up just as strongly elsewhere. I look forward with hope to that happening.
Over 60 years ago, I had a great friend called Esmond Warner, the son of Sir Pelham Warner, after whom the Warner Stand at Lord's was named. I am picking up the cricketing metaphors used earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Sir Pelham Warner was manager of the MCC team in Australia at the time when Mr. Jardine adopted the policy of bodyline bowling, which nearly broke up the Commonwealth, as your Lordships may remember.
Sir Pelham Warner wrote back to his son, who showed me the letter, and asked, "Is Douglas mad?", referring to Douglas Jardine, the captain. The implication was that he probably was. With Mr Michael Howard, one is left to ask, "Is he mad?" As was explained in the previous two speeches, he has reversed the policies followed by his predecessors without giving any reason except—I shall not call it panic—an attempt at calculation. The only person who I think would agree with him is someone called Judge Argyle, who writes in the Sunday Express and who has said on occasion that we have been governed recently by a pro-crook lobby. That is no doubt the way that Mr. Howard sees things.
I find it difficult to understand how a man whom we know to be a successful barrister and good family man, and, so far as I know, a man of impeccable private life,
1024
can embark upon these sadistic policies. It is peculiar. No one holds the Minister responsible. I regard her as the victim of circumstances. She has to get up and defend this sort of nonsense time after time. We do not think any the worse of her. We just feel very, very sorry for her.
The arguments have been put forward very well and I shall not repeat them. Perhaps I may give an example of the stopping of family leave. It did not occur as a result of Mr. Howard's policies; it occurred independently of them. The case came to me through the federation of the organisations which support prisoners' families. I do not know whether Mr. Howard is allowed to read debates such as this or whether they are kept from him in order to avoid causing him a trauma. If he is allowed to read them he might like to bear this in mind as a example of what happens when family leave is denied.
A lady whose son was involved came to see me today. She had tea with me in the House and therefore I have heard about the case almost at first hand. The lady's husband was sent to a prison where he was no longer allowed home leave. The son was so horrified by the fact that he could not see his father without going to the prison that he had a breakdown. Eventually after leaving school he had to have psychiatric treatment. That is an example of what happens when home leave is denied. With 40 per cent. of home leave being stopped, there is no doubt that we shall have a great deal of psychological and moral collapse.
The speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, and my noble friend Lord McIntosh, brought out the fact that the issue relates not only to providing a more agreeable time for prisoners. I believe that prisoners should be given a more agreeable time. Indeed, I think most prison officers believe that in the end if we are to try to educate prisoners, we should treat them better and not worse, which is the Howard philosophy. The issue relates also to family life and to the interest of the whole community. I strongly support what was said by my noble acting Leader, Lord McIntosh.
10.16 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I agree most strongly with and support all the previous speakers. This is an all-party issue. I regret that there is no Back-Bencher on the Government side to join in the debate.
I strongly object to the mixing of remand and sentenced prisoners, which is provided for in the order, bearing in mind that many remand prisoners are proved to be innocent. The only possible justification for such a course would be with the prisoners' consent and for the prevention of gross overcrowding within a prison or the prolonged use of police cells—and it is common knowledge that your Lordships object most strongly to that.
I urge Her Majesty's Government, and the Home Secretary in particular, to reflect on the experience of the Northern Ireland prison service. Generous home leave for long-term prisoners has been an outstanding success there. Christmas and summer leaves have helped family relationships and the return rate of

1025
prisoners to prison has been virtually 100 per cent. Working-out and work experience schemes have been equally successful. Of course, Northern Ireland is not directly comparable with England and Wales but at least it gives food for thought as regards incentives for good behaviour and a positive approach to resettlement.
I greatly regret that Her Majesty's Government are rejecting all the available advice, including the 1991 Woolf Report, the White Paper which followed that, the prison service circular No. 43 of 1992, and the advice of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe dating back to 1982. As if that were not enough, there is also the advice of the Control Review Committee, which I understand to be a governmental body.
By rejecting that wealth of advice the Government are likely to increase the punishment of prisoners' families. They certainly increase the risk of family breakdown and they are likely to damage the successful "Compact System" which is now in operation. They make it harder for offenders to obtain their own accommodation and new employment on release. They therefore, through this combination of circumstances, very much increase the risk of re-offending. I should just like to ask: from where did the Home Secretary get his arbitrary figure of 40 per cent. less home leave and temporary release? Why does he want to concentrate the remaining amount on longer sentences and late in the total sentence? I beg Her Majesty's Government to have second thoughts on this matter.
10.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, began by asking about the regulations and why they came into force only 21 days after being laid. I have to say that the 21-day rule is a rule of practice required by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It does not of course affect the 40-day time limit for the introduction of a negative resolution seeking to annul a statutory instrument. My understanding is that it is common for such instruments to come into force before the 40 days have expired.
The noble Lords, Lord McIntosh of Haringey and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, were concerned about this being a punitive Bill and about the tightening up of release rules for prisoners. First, the new rules are directed not only to the need to ensure that prisoners are not released if they present a risk to public safety, but they are also intended to protect the public's confidence in the administration of justice. It really does have to be said that the public have a right not to see criminals who have been sentenced to imprisonment walking freely up and down their streets in their towns and villages too early in their sentences.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked whether the new scheme would make it harder for prisoners to maintain contact with their families, especially at the start of their sentence. Again, eligible prisoners may be released towards the end of their sentence in order to maintain family ties. However, it has to be said that the Prison Service is committed to enabling prisoners to maintain close links with the family. In recent years
1026
various initiatives, including the installation of card phones and the provision of more visits, have meant that prisoners are able to see and talk to their families a great deal more often than has been the case in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked whether the working group's report would be available publicly. I can say that a copy of the full report and a summary of the working group's study of the operation of temporary release and home leave schemes were placed in the House Library by the Home Secretary in November of last year. The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, also asked about the figures which were available to the working group. A number of statistical exercises were undertaken in support of the working group review in 1993. One of the results of the review was the establishment of a new system to monitor the operation of the new scheme. These figures will feed into the review of the new scheme which will be carried out later this year.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, gave us an interesting anecdote, but could I say to him in response to the point he was making that of course there are now no prisons where temporary release is completely unavailable.
The amendments to the prison rules achieve three purposes. They will introduce a new and more focused scheme for the temporary release of prisoners; they will permit the greater involvement of unconvicted prisoners in positive regime activities while in prison; and they will increase the powers of governors to maintain a disciplined environment inside our prisons.
The amendments were debated in another place on 17th May. In that debate the Opposition indicated that they broadly supported the provisions in these amendments, which were in line with their response to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's announcement in another place on 18th November for changes to the arrangements for temporary release, which the amendments to Rule 6 underpin. On that occasion, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the honourable Member for Blackburn, said that he was, and I quote—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Order, order. My Lords, I did not think it was in order for Members in another place to be quoted from Hansard except in the case of government Ministers.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if that is the case, then I unreservedly apologise to the House for making that comment. However, I will make a general comment and say that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, are out of keeping with many of his Front Bench colleagues in another place. These amendments meet the concerns both of Members of another place and of the Government in this area.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, has, however, expressed his fear that the new arrangements for temporary release will prevent the effective use of temporary release. He made reference during the Second Reading debate of the Bill of my noble friend Lord Lauderdale to the recommendations of Lord Justice Woolf in his report on the 1990 prison disturbances. The changes to Prison Rule 6 on temporary release arise from a review carried out by the Prison Service in

1027
accordance with the commitment in the White Paper Custody, Care and Justice issued in response to the report of Lord Justice Woolf.
A working group was established in June 1993 to review the operation of the home leave and temporary release schemes. It included representatives from the police and probation services, as well as from a broad range of penal affairs groups. Those groups included Victim Support, the Prison Reform Trust and the Federation of Prisoner Family Support Groups.
The working group recognised that, since the report of Lord Justice Woolf some two years earlier, the profile of home leave and temporary release had changed significantly. There had been public concern about the operation of both schemes following a number of serious failures where prisoners had committed serious and violent offences, including murder and armed robbery, while released temporarily. In addition, the working group recognised the concerns of victims that prisoners were being granted temporary release only a short time after being sentenced.
The noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, asked whether the Government had abandoned the principles of the Woolf Report. Again, I say to the noble Lord that the Government recognise—as, indeed, did Lord Justice Woolf in his report—the benefits that the temporary release of prisoners can provide. However, it is important that it should be within a clear framework, with the necessary safeguards in place to ensure public safety. The working group established in response to the Woolf Report recommended just such a scheme, which we have now implemented.
The report of the working group was presented to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in October last year. The report included 47 recommendations. They took full account of the needs of both the public and prisoners and their families, the need to maintain good order and security in prisons and, most importantly, public safety. It was in the light of that report that my right honourable friend made his announcement last November about the new system of release on temporary licence. That came into effect on 25th April.
The Government believe that there are important benefits to be gained in releasing suitable prisoners for short periods as part of the process of preparing for their eventual return to the community. Evidence shows that prisoners who have a job to go to, a secure family environment and skills developed by training or education are less likely to re-offend than those released "cold" into the community. Testing prisoners in controlled and monitored circumstances therefore contributes to public safety.
The benefits of releasing prisoners for short periods in that way must, however, be weighed against any potential threat that prisoners who have been temporarily released may pose to the public and against the need to preserve public confidence that prisoners who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment will not be released back on to the streets shortly after they have been sentenced.
1028
The new scheme of release on temporary licence is more sharply focused than its predecessors. Prisoners will in future be released only for precisely defined and specific purposes. Prisoners will continue to be eligible to be temporarily released for justifiable purposes such as education and training leading to a recognised qualification where that cannot be provided in prison. Any such release would be allowed only where programmed into a prisoner's sentence plan and specifically designed to help the prisoner to lead a law-abiding and useful life upon release. It is unacceptable, however, for prisoners to be released for purposes which are purely social or recreational. That will no longer be allowed.
The new system will also continue to allow prisoners to be considered for temporary release in urgent and compelling compassionate circumstances or towards the end of their time in custody to maintain their family ties or re-establish links with the community in preparation for their return to the community.
One of the primary purposes of the new scheme must be to ensure that the public are not placed at any risk by the unacceptable release of prisoners who pose a threat to public safety. The new scheme includes a mandatory and stringent risk assessment carried out in collaboration with the Police and Probation Services.
Prison governors have a duty, in considering any release, not only to ensure the safety of the public but also to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. Prisoners should not be released too early after sentencing, nor too frequently. To do so would undermine the purpose of imprisonment. Under the new scheme, therefore, prisoners will have to serve longer in prison before applications for release on licence will be considered.
The second change we have made through the amendment rules is an increase in governor's disciplinary powers. Maintaining good order and discipline will always be a priority for the Prison Service. Prison officers and governors have a difficult task. They face a prison population which is increasing and which shows higher levels of violence and indiscipline than used to be the case.
Prison staff achieve good order in prisons in many ways—through the right relations with prisoners, through incentives for good behaviour, through the right regimes and through the right security. But all of these need underpinning by proper disciplinary procedures. I am sure that there can be no disagreement over the need for governors to have sufficient powers to maintain authority in their prisons. They need powers that will properly mark the seriousness of the offences they are dealing with, and they need punishments which prisoners will recognise as real deterrents.
From the views that have been expressed by governors, by prison officers, by members of prison boards of visitors and by the public, it is clear that many people have been concerned that punishment powers are no longer adequate and no longer command the necessary full confidence of those who need to use them. Boards of visitors voted at their last annual conference for an increase in governors' powers.

1029
The amendment rules have increased the level of governors' punishment powers by 50 per cent. The only exception is the punishment of cellular confinement, which we increased last year and which we have not changed again.
These increases should give prison staff substantial help in the difficult task they face. At the same time, the punishment powers are at a level where they can be exercised properly by governors. They can be used safely as part of procedures that need to work quickly and relatively simply. They will be operating alongside extra safeguards which have recently been introduced: the Prisons Ombudsman, who has been considering prisoners' complaints since last autumn; the Prison Service's new discipline manual issued at the start of this year; and improved training for adjudicating governors, which started six months ago. For serious criminal offences by prisoners, the governors will continue to look to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and the courts.
I hope that I do not need to explain the changes in governors' powers any further. The last full review of prison discipline was nearly five years ago. Since then, offending in prisons has increased by over 23 per cent. There are now nearly 110,000 recorded offences a year for a prison population of 50,000. That level of offending has been held for last year, and the Prison Service has succeeded in reducing levels of escapes and assaults. However, there can be no room for complacency. The amendment rules should give governors the powers they need to help them run well-ordered prisons. They should also give prison officers, and the public, greater confidence that there is adequate authority to back the work that needs to be done.
We have also revised Prison Rule 3(2). We have done so with two aims: to remove unnecessary obstacles to unconvicted prisoners' access to available regime activities and facilities; and to enable governors to make more efficient use of available accommodation. The old rule restricted the possibilities for unconvicted prisoners to take part fully in constractive and purposeful activity while in prison because it required close supervision of any activity which involved contact between convicted and unconvicted prisoners. It also limited the governor's ability to make maximum use of cell space at times of population pressure.
There is sound justification for changing that rule. Imposing restrictions on mixing, in either activities or living accommodation, is clearly unnecessary where unconvicted prisoners are content to mix. In practice, unconvicted prisoners very rarely have any objection to mixing with convicted prisoners for activities or in living areas.
This measure will also reduce the need to hold prisoners in police cells, which is both costly and unsatisfactory in terms of the Prison Service's duty to hold prisoners in decent but austere conditions and to provide positive regime activities.
We are very conscious of the need to acknowledge the special legal status of unconvicted prisoners, which arises from the presumption of their innocence. The amended rule accordingly preserves the principle of
1030
separation while giving more weight to the wishes of unconvicted prisoners in line with the more relaxed approach to mixing now reflected in the European prison rules.
Where the unconvicted are content to mix with convicted prisoners, there will be no obstacle to their doing so. An unconvicted prisoner, however, who chooses not to take part in an activity with convicted prisoners will be given separate access to the activity, if possible, or, failing that, will be allowed to spend the allotted time in another activity approved by the governor. A situation may arise where the governor considers it unreasonable to maintain separation in the residential area, although the unconvicted prisoner may prefer it. In such circumstances unconvicted and convicted prisoners may need to be accommodated on the same landing, but no unconvicted prisoner will be required unwillingly to share a cell with a convicted prisoner.
The change to Prison Rule 3 is accordingly being made in the best interests of both unconvicted prisoners and efficient prison administration. We believe that these rule changes are necessary. They are necessary because they allow a more focused scheme for temporary release, a more positive regime for unconvicted prisoners and maintain a disciplined environment in the prisons themselves.
10.37 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, let me first deal briefly with the small procedural point which I was obliged to raise. I was not, of course, seeking to censor the Minister's speech. However, I believe that the point is acknowledged. I note with pleasure, and put on the record, that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has communicated to the officials in the box that it is not within our rules of debate for there to be any quotations from speeches of Members of Parliament in another place other than the Minister speaking on government policy. It is worth while having that on the record for any future speeches.
The Minister has chosen—we are grateful to her, in a way—to address the entire order rather than simply rule 2 of the schedule, which was all that I addressed. It is legitimate for her to do so, partly because the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the question raised in paragraph 1 about remand prisoners and convicted prisoners. I was satisfied by what the Minister said: that the new paragraph 2 in rule 3 provides that the consent of remand prisoners has to be obtained if they are to share residential accommodation or participate in any activity with convicted prisoners, and under no circumstances shall be required to share a cell with a convicted prisoner.
I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his remarks on the other matter. I hope that he will feel satisfied that these are not dangerous changes to the rules.
The Minister also referred to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the schedule which refer to increased powers of punishment by governors for offences for failure to confirm withhold and leave requirements. She well

1031
knows from what I said at Second Reading of the Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, that I thoroughly approve of paragraphs 3 and 4. I approve of the increased powers which are given to the governors for the forfeiture of privileges and the stoppage of, or deduction from, earnings for offences of that kind. Therefore there is nothing between us on that.
However, the issues raised by paragraph 2 in the schedule—they were all that I addressed in my speech—are still too serious to be allowed to pass without further comment. The Minister has made no attempt to justify or explain the change in government policy from the opinions expressed by Mr Kenneth Baker earlier. She certainly made no attempt to deal with the pleas of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and Judge Tumim for an increase rather than a decrease in home leave. She has not dealt with the point I made and the quotation I gave from Instruction 11 of 1993. It says specifically that there should be no releases where there is "any doubt"—I emphasise the phrase—about the potential behaviour of the prisoner while at liberty. The power to protect the public is not only implicit in the existing rules before those changes were made; it is explicit. There is no justification whatever for such a change of rules.
The Minister relies on that classic phrase "public confidence". She said a number of times that there has to be public confidence about release too early in a sentence. When Jack Straw was responding to the Statement, he was responding not to this order but to a ministerial Statement. It was not clear from that Statement that the way in which the 40 per cent. reduction in home leave was to be achieved was by cutting out early use of home leave. It is still not clear
1032
from the order. It is clear only from subsequent instructions to governors in November and December of last year and January of this year.
To that extent, I do not accept that there is any significant difference between Jack Straw and myself about the matter. What I am saying is that when we see the rules and changes in them and the instructions which have been given by the Home Office to prison governors, that is the stage at which it becomes apparent that there is a blind determination to reduce home leave by 40 per cent. The figure was plucked out of the air so far as we can see. It is to be achieved by the most damaging of all possible restrictions on home leave—restrictions at an early stage. I do not accept that public confidence is eroded by early use of home leave, subject to the discretion of governors and to the overriding requirement that prisoners should not be released on home leave when there is any risk of them offending while they are at liberty.
I am not satisfied by the answers given by the Minister. I am grateful to her for the detailed explanation of some of the other parts of the order. But it is only my determination to adhere to the rule that we do not vote against statutory instruments that leads me to beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Birmingham Assay Office Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.

Malvern Hills Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the amendments considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  Parliament Acts: Scope
  Parliament Acts: Scope
  Cyprus: Turkish Declaration
  Cyprus: Turkish Declaration
  Strategic Airlift and EFLA
  Strategic Airlift and EFLA
  Royal Air Force Regiment Costs
  Royal Air Force Regiment Costs
  EU: Anti-Fraud Measures
  EU: Anti-Fraud Measures
  "Statement on the Community Budget": Format
  "Statement on the Community Budget": Format
  Alzheimer's Disease
  Alzheimer's Disease
  Medical Undergraduate Education
  Medical Undergraduate Education
  Technology Foresight and Forward Look Reports
  Technology Foresight and Forward Look Reports
  MAFF Regional Service: Customer Satisfaction
  MAFF Regional Service: Customer Satisfaction
  Identity Cards: Green Paper
  Identity Cards: Green Paper
  Transport Research Laboratory
  Transport Research Laboratory