Sitting of 6 November 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Incentives to Work
    Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what incentives to work will be included in his reforms of unemployment benefits. [39682]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): A key theme of my reforms has been helping people to move back into work. I recently introduced an extra £10 per week in family credit for those working 30 hours or more and I have announced the jobseeker's allowance, the back-to-work bonus and the pilot earnings top-up scheme to make work more worth while for unemployed people without dependent children and with limited earning power. The eight areas in which we plan the pilot are published today and the draft rules of the scheme have been placed in the Vote Office.
    Dr. Spink: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement of the areas in which he intends to pilot the earnings top-up scheme. Will he use pilot schemes whenever possible, as they represent an excellent way to introduce new schemes? Will he contrast the Government's excellent and very measured reforms in social security with those of Labour and with Labour's announcement this week that it will consider reforms at any cost? Will he reflect on what that cost might be?
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome for the earnings top-up pilot and for the principle of piloting. He is right to say that we have been reforming the welfare state systematically, spelling out our principles and our policies, testing them in practice and inviting public debate. That is in clear contrast with the Labour party, which if today's news reports are to be believed—we await confirmation from the Opposition Front Bench—has torn up its entire stance on social security for the third time—a triple U-turn on the part of the Leader of the Labour party.
    Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that he is now the main recruiting sergeant to the dependency culture against which the Government so often rail? Does he appreciate that, by limiting the jobseeker's allowance to six months, he is providing an incentive for the wives of the unemployed to join the dole queue as well? And does he agree that the most important way of helping people back into work and ensuring a more equal household income level in Britain would be
    580
    to reverse that reform which so penalises working wives that they find it profitable to give up work and join their husbands on the dole?
    Mr. Lilley: No, I do not accept the hon. Member's point, if only because we are extending from 16 to 24 the hours that partners of unemployed people can work so as to give them added incentive to stay in work. Family credit often acts as a bridge when one partner is out of work. All the studies show that many people leave family credit because they are unable to stay in work during that period. The spouse then returns to work, so both partners are working.
    Mr. Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of incentives to help people off benefit is among the most important tasks of his Department? Will he also reflect on the fact that, unless those reforms reduce the overall cost of social security, we shall still be moving in the wrong direction, and that the Labour party's determination to tear up the report of the Commission on Social Justice and go further can mean only that Labour is determined to spend more money than ever?
    Mr. Lilley: We are awaiting clarification from the Labour party. The Commission on Social Justice proposed £7 billion additional spending financed by an equivalent amount of extra income tax raised through the abolition of allowances. We are now told that that was not radical enough, but we are not sure in what direction. My hon. Friend is right to say that helping people back to work is a key part of what we are doing and one of the Government's great success stories.

    Widow's Payment
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in what circumstances the widow's payment will be uprated. [39685]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continues to keep the level of the widow's payment under review.
    Mr. Flynn: Why is the widow's payment, which replaced a payment that was uprated annually, still stuck at £1,000, when, if it had been increased in line with earnings, it would now be £1,881? Why is the maternity payment still £100, when it should be £141? Meanest of all, the additional payment to pensioners over the age of 80 should by now be £3.55, but it is still a miserable 25p. Will the Minister make it clear that any handouts to the super-rich in the Budget will be paid for by continuing to cheat the poor, the elderly, the sick and widows?
    Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I do not entirely accept his figures. The widow's payment is a tax-free lump sum, paid to help widows to adjust to new circumstances and, importantly, it is payable immediately. It complements the widow's pension and widowed mother's allowance, which have been uprated annually.
    The Labour party seems to be having another look at welfare and social security issues. The hon. Gentleman, who is a senior Back Bencher, once said that, when he became Prime Minister, things would change in a very different way. Perhaps he would like to give his advice to Labour Front Benchers. As it would cost £1.7 billion to implement the upratings that he wants—equivalent to a

    581
    penny on income tax—perhaps Labour Front Benchers will tell us whether this is the latest move in the Labour party's abandonment of sensible economic policy.

    Charitable Donations
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will review his policy in respect of the withdrawal of benefits from people in receipt of charitable donations. [39686]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): As with all policy, the treatment of charitable donations when calculating entitlement to an income-related benefit is kept under continual review.
    Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will be aware that my question is prompted by an earlier written question to him, transferred to the Benefits Agency, concerning an adjudication made in respect of a local charity, the Chelsey Austin appeal fund. That has now been satisfactorily resolved, and I pay tribute to the local newspaper, The Press and Journal, for the important role that it played in drawing attention to the unfairness involved. As there are implications for Scottish trust law and for the calculation of capital for charities of this kind, will the Minister confirm that such information will be made widely available throughout Scotland, so that such an error does not recur?
    Mr. Evans: The simple answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. Unfortunately, in the case that he raised there was a technical defect: the adjudicating officer had not noticed that Parliament has passed an Act this Session altering the requirements for a Scottish trust to be in writing. We value the special provisions relating to charitable arrangements when calculating entitlement to income-related benefits. The trust to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a classic example of special arrangements, made locally, to provide medical and other special equipment.

    Benefit Take-up
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what efforts he is making to encourage the take-up of benefits. [39687]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): The Department is involved in a wide range of national and local initiatives to ensure that accurate and accessible information is available. These are often undertaken in conjunction with local interest and advice groups, including in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
    Mr. Banks: I am obliged to the Minister. I am as opposed to social security fiddling as anyone in this House, but I am equally opposed to income tax fiddling—some of which takes place not a million miles from this House. Will the Minister explain why, according to the Department, a total of £2.73 billion-worth of benefits went unclaimed in 1992, including £12 million-worth in my borough alone? What is the Minister doing to ensure a proper take-up of social security benefits by those
    582
    entitled to them? And why do we have figures only for 1992? How much was unclaimed in 1994, and what is the Minister doing about it?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind the scale of the figures: £9 out of every $10 is claimed. It is the Government's job to provide benefits and to provide information about them. That is done in a variety of ways—including, as I said, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, where a video has been made to encourage benefit take-up. It was launched in July and I had the opportunity to watch it last weekend. It is helpful and is being requested by benefit offices all over the country. We put information about benefits across in a wide variety of ways and spend about £26 million per year advertising them.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about social security payments to asylum seekers. [39688]
    Mr. Lilley: I have put forward proposals on social security payments to asylum seekers and to other persons from abroad. The proposals are intended to reduce the number of unfounded asylum applications made in the United Kingdom, and to ensure that those entering this country on the understanding that they will not be a burden on the taxpayer cannot gain access to the benefit system just by submitting an asylum claim. Those proposals are with the Social Security Advisory Committee which, following public consultation, will report with recommendations in December.
    Mr. Marshall: While everyone in this country welcomes the assistance given to genuine asylum seekers, many people are appalled at the way in which this country has become the soft touch in Europe. Does my right hon. Friend accept that at least £300 million of taxpayers' money goes to asylum seekers—such as Mr. Abdelkader Benouif, who is helping the police with their inquiries into a mass bombing campaign in Paris? Should not such individuals be sent packing from this country instead of being subsidised by the taxpayer?
    Mr. Lilley: I confirm my hon. Friend's point about the scale of expenditure on would-be asylum seekers. I cannot comment on individual cases, but under the changes that I propose it would no longer be possible to extend one's stay in this country almost indefinitely by making appeals against refusal to grant asylum. After a rejection, any further appeal would have to be made without resort to benefits—in the same way as a British citizen who is refused income support does not continue to receive that benefit pending the appeal.
    Mr. Gerrard: As the law gives a right of appeal, is it sensible to put people on to the street? Appeals can take a year or 18 months to be heard. What are people supposed to live on during that time? If an appeal is successful—and people do win appeals—will the benefit be backdated to the point at which it was withdrawn?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been listening. In respect of appeals, we are putting asylum seekers in the same position as British citizens who are refused benefit—who do not continue to receive benefits while appealing against refusal. It would be odd to

    583
    continue the present situation indefinitely. I look forward to hearing whether the Labour party intends to oppose our changes. So far, Labour has refused to reply to my letter asking for its position on that issue.

    Benefit Fraud
    Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what initiatives have been taken to target those who fraudulently claim benefit. [39689]
    Mr. Lilley: I announced in July my new strategy to move from detection to prevention and deterrence of fraud and abuse. The plan includes extra checks on benefit claims, matching of information on the Department's computers and the introduction of benefit payment cards in place of order books and giro cheques, starting next year. Over a five-year period, those activities will shift the focus of anti-fraud effort from detection and investigation to prevention and deterrence.
    Mr. Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that stealing and fiddling benefits are appalling acts which cost the country hundreds of millions of pounds? The country will welcome my right hon. Friend's initiatives—particularly those which use new technology, the benefit payment card and the fraud hotline. When I visited the social security office in Preston a few months ago, I met someone who was working hard to crack down on fraud in my constituency. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to pay tribute to all staff throughout the country who are dedicated to cracking down on benefit fraud, sometimes at personal danger to themselves?
    Mr. Lilley: I certainly pay tribute to the work successfully carried out—particularly by officials in my Department—to detect and prevent fraud. Last year, the amount of fraud prevented by the Benefits Agency as a result was a record of more than £700 million. Obviously we want to move to prevention and deterrence in the future, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.
    Ms Lynne: Although I welcome any clamp-down on benefit fraud, may I ask the Secretary of State to tell the House why the Conservative Government stopped home visits in the 1980s? Can he further tell the House what he will do to make the Benefits Agency more efficient? Is he aware that £540 million was lost last year in over-payments of income support, the majority of which were due to official error?
    Mr. Lilley: I seem to recall that the change in policy occurred during the Lib-Lab Government, at the behest of the International Monetary Fund, which demanded the immediate removal of a large number of bureaucrats. However, we are looking forward, not backward, and we are introducing these changes to improve the position and to clamp down on fraud. I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), who has criticised his own party for going slow on the effort against fraud and said that the Labour party has been linked to freeloaders for too long. I am glad that at long last the Labour party is beginning to support us in the changes that we are making.
    Mr. Ashby: I am grateful that my right hon. Friend has now realised that benefit fraud is far more widespread and far greater than his Department had hitherto realised, but will he get the fraud officers in his Department to realise
    584
    that it is a serious crime and that they should concentrate more on prosecuting and convicting offenders than on recovering the money? Can we see the police more involved in benefit fraud inquiries as well?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are successful in securing a conviction when we take a case to the courts—some 95 per cent. of cases result in conviction. It is important that people should realise that they run the risk of conviction, but it is also important to get the money back from those who have wrongfully taken it. Those people may continue to have a lower level of entitlement to benefit, from which deductions can be—and are—made, and we get substantial sums back as a result.
    Mr. Wicks: Does the Secretary of State accept that, after 16 long years of talking tough but acting soft, we would welcome a tough clampdown on social security fraud? Does he accept that one of the major reasons for fraud is the failure of social security recipients to declare earnings? Does he agree that we need moral leadership here today and that we have a golden opportunity to implement the Nolan report in full, including the declaration of earnings, so that, when it comes to the poorest—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The question is totally outside the question on the Order Paper. We are talking about social security fraud.
    Mr. Wicks: If honesty is good enough for the poor, is it not good enough for the House of Commons?
    Mr. Lilley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his role on the Opposition Front Bench and I have listened with considerable interest to the valuable contributions that he has often made on our topics in the past. I am sure that he will enrich the contributions and that in future they will be in order, but the point that he is making is rather trivial: people should obey the law and the rules—we are in all favour of that.

    Social Security Reforms
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the long-term effect on public spending of the social security reforms that he has announced so far. [39690]
    Mr. Lilley: The major reforms that I have announced in the past two years are expected to reduce public spending by £4 billion per year within the next Parliament and £14 billion per year in the longer term.
    Mr. Amess: Has my right hon. Friend received any support from any other political party for his important reforms to save money from the social security budget? Can he tell the House how the Labour party will be able to spend an extra £4 billion on social security other than by raising taxes?
    Mr. Lilley: I am afraid that I cannot tell my hon. Friend that I have received much support from the Labour party in the process of reforming social security policy. Indeed, it has opposed almost every change that we have introduced. As a result, should there ever—heaven forbid—be a Labour Government, they would start off with a need to find an extra £4 billion per year in the next Parliament, and three times that much in the next century.

    585
    We still await some response from the new Opposition spokesman on social security, whose presence—though not, so far, his contribution—I greatly welcome today. I hope that he will tell us whether the inspired stories appearing in almost identical words in all today's newspapers are true—that the Labour leader has effectively torn up the results of the Commission on Social Justice established by his predecessor and has told his new shadow spokesman to start again from scratch—and why he has rejected a report that his own leader said was the most outstanding report since Beveridge.
    Mr. Miller: One of the reforms announced by the Secretary of State which he claims will have an impact on public spending is the use of computers—for instance, the link between computers in the Department and those in income tax offices. Does he agree that a precursor to any such reform must be radical extensions of the powers of the Data Protection Registrar?
    Mr. Lilley: The elements that we are currently introducing in our computer systems rely on the matching of data already held in the social security system. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, it may be sensible to go further once those systems are in place, but that would have to be squared with the privacy and data protection rules first.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in planning public expenditure, his Department should try to concentrate help on those who need it most? Does he believe that that is the policy that he is pursuing?
    Mr. Lilley: That is at the heart of what we are doing. We spend a huge sum on social security—£15 per working person every working day—and we must ensure that that huge sum goes where it is most needed. At the same time, we must enable people to make provision for themselves, and we must increase the vitality of the economy so that more and more people secure jobs and are not in need in the first place. We are doing that more successfully than almost any other country on the continent.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Is not the real cause of the ballooning social security budget the Government's own economic failure? Is it not true that, despite all the cuts, benefit expenditure has risen by £30 billion since 1979 and the number of people dependent on benefits has doubled during that period? Instead of seeking more and more victims for further cuts—from war pensioners to mortgage payers to single parents—should not the Government bend all their efforts towards creating a thriving, investment-rich economy that will lift people off benefits altogether, and into work?
    Mr. Lilley: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post as social security spokesman. He has a hard act to follow—that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), for whose ability and integrity I never hid my admiration. I am confident that the hon. Gentleman will rise to the same heights and earn my equal respect. I am doubly confident as I am a constituent of his during the week and he will be eager to earn my vote.
    The hon. Gentleman will, however, have to do rather better than today's question in future. He will have to emulate his predecessor and do his homework. He will then discover that we are being more successful than any other country in reducing unemployment. We have more people in work than any other major country in Europe. The countries that are suffering most from high and rising
    586
    unemployment are those which are pursuing the very policies that Opposition Front Benchers are dedicated to imposing on this country: a national minimum wage, and the social chapter of the Maastricht treaty—unless they tore that up before lunchtime as well.

    State Pension Age
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the cost of reducing the age of basic state pension to 60 years. [39691]
    Mr. Heald: The annual cost in today's money of reducing state pension age to 60 would be £13.4 billion in 2030.
    Mr. Jessel: As £13.4 billion would be equal to nearly 10p in the pound in income tax, would not Labour's proposals amount to an enormous burden on future generations? Why will Labour not come clean about that?
    Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Commission on Social Justice suggested equalising the state pension age at 65; the Opposition Front Bench then suggested 63; the Labour party conference then suggested 60, at a cost of £13.4 billion. Now that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has been given a blank cheque to go out and change all the Opposition's policies, perhaps a state pension age of 56 will be suggested next.
    Mr. MacShane: Does the Minister agree with his colleague the Minister of State at the Ministry of Defence, who believes that Members of Parliament should retire at 60, and would he care to name those Ministers who would leave the Government this afternoon?
    Mr. Heald: As a young Minister I certainly have no intention of retiring. I think that the hon. Gentleman was pushing his luck.

    Poverty
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are now living below the official poverty line; and what was the figure in 1979. [39692]
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): No Government of any political persuasion have ever set an official poverty line. Since 1979, average incomes have risen by more than a third after allowing for inflation. The average incomes of all family types have risen and pensioners' average incomes have increased by some 50 per cent.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is it not the case that, under the Tory Government, the poor get poorer while the rich get richer, particularly Tory Ministers and Tory Members? Why is it that the poorest 10 per cent. of society have seen their real incomes drop by 17 per cent. while the top 10 per cent. in society have seen their incomes rise by 62 per cent.? Does the Minister think that that is fair?
    Mr. Burt: There is no doubt that there has been a great disparity in incomes in recent years. One reason is the number of couples in families who are both working; the

    587
    other is that there has been wider dispersal of incomes and differentials. As the hon. Gentleman is sponsored by a print union, he will know all about increasing differentials.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole concept of a poverty level is a total misnomer, particularly when Opposition Members use it as a moving target and especially when the living standards of all groups have improved significantly over the past 16 years? That is evident from the massive increase in consumer durables among all income groups, including the bottom 10 per cent. Does that not show that the concept of a poverty line is nonsense?
    Mr. Burt: The idea that poverty can be defined accurately and translated into benefit levels and minimum wage rates is a political El Dorado. Those are not my words, but those of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), and they substantiate my hon. Friend's point. It is exceptionally difficult to set such rates. However, studies show that the bottom 10 per cent. by income in the United Kingdom is not a fixed group but moves in terms of expenditure and opportunities. The best thing that can be done is to increase incentives for work and improve job opportunities—and no Government could have done more than we have to do exactly that.
    Mr. Denham: Will the Minister confirm that among the poorest people in Britain are the perhaps 600,000 pensioners who live on less than income support rates? Will he also confirm that, in preparing his Department's contribution to pre-election tax bribes, he is banking on those pensioners not claiming the support to which they are entitled? Is Britain now really a country in which pensioner poverty has to pay for the Prime Minister's aim of tax cuts for the wealthy?
    Mr. Burt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman and congratulate him on his rise to the Front Bench. He will be aware that, since 1988, reforms to the social security structure have directed £1 billion towards the neediest pensioners—the people about whom he is most concerned. In general, the situation of pensioners is far better than it was in Labour's last years of power. There are far fewer pensioners than ever before in the bottom decile of incomes because of the improvements that have been made to pensions, the additions, and so on. As always, however, the position of the poorest pensioners will remain a matter for concern and care by the Government. We shall have an economy designed to support them rather than one which will fall to ruins, as would be the case if the Opposition followed the plans that they have announced.

    Social Fund
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest assessment in percentage terms of the cost of administration of the social fund. [39693]
    Mr. Roger Evans: The cost of operating the social fund in 1993–94 was 41 per cent. of the amount of money paid out and recovered. Since the start of the scheme we have paid loans to the value of £1.5 billion for an outlay of just over one fifth of that amount—£329 million.
    Mr. Pike: Would it not be common sense to reduce administration costs from that appalling level of 41 per
    588
    cent. and give grants to the people most in need, as those on income support who qualify for assistance from the social fund are the most desperately poor people in this country?
    Mr. Evans: On a number of occasions, the hon. Gentleman has raised the argument—I understand why he does so—for a system of grants more similar to the old system that the social fund replaced. The difficulty with the old system was that the cost doubled every two years between 1980 and 1986 and that it proved to be inequitable, as 80 per cent. of expenditure was going to 17 per cent. of eligible claimants. The social fund is a real improvement in terms of giving more help by way of loans to more people. The multiplier effect, if I may describe it as such, is about fivefold. It does not follow that the administration costs of a grant scheme, if it is to be administered firmly, need be any less.
    Mr. Bradley: Does the Minister not realise that, with half the costs of the social fund being swallowed up in administration, it is the poorest who are not receiving any help at all? Did he read the Family Welfare Association report, which was reported in The Guardian last week and which said that 116,000 items of urgent need were turned down last year because people were unable to repay as their benefits were low? Many more people did not even bother to claim because they knew that they could not afford to repay as their benefits were low. Will he urgently review that position to ensure that the poorest in our society are not further punished because of the social fund's administration costs?
    Mr. Evans: The figure of half which the hon. Gentleman put to me is wrong; I have given the correct figure. Yes, of course we read and studied the report to which he alluded, but he gave a misleading impression. Only a small proportion of applicants are refused social fund loans on the ground of inability to pay. About half a per cent. of loan decisions were refusals on that ground—that is fewer people. Most of those who were refused on such a ground were already paying back one or more loans from the fund. There must be a reasonable limit to the amount advanced.

    Independent Living Fund
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to make changes to the independent living fund; and if he will make a statement. [39695]
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: We have no plans at present to change the successful arrangements under which the independent living fund enables 16,000 severely disabled people to live in the community at a total annual cost of around £100 million.
    Mr. Brown: I am glad to learn that my hon. Friend has no plans to make any changes. Will he take it from me that the independent living fund is a way of giving independence—very much true independence—to disabled people? It has been one of the most successful methods of financing disabled people to go about their own lives. Will he undertake to continue to regard the fund as one of the most prestigious methods of financing true independence among disabled people?
    Mr. Mitchell: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to the interest that he has taken in

    589
    the funds on behalf of his constituents. During the recess, I visited the funds that are headquartered in Nottingham and attended a meeting of the board of trustees. I pay tribute to its work. It keeps in regular touch with its clients and its administration budget is extremely low, at around 1 per cent.

    Disabled People
    Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action the Government are taking to tackle discrimination against disabled people. [39696]
    Mr. Burt: The enactment of the Disability Discrimination Bill will mean that, for the first time, it will be unlawful to discriminate against disabled people in employment, access to goods, services and premises. There will also be a power to set minimum standards of accessibility for public transport vehicles. A national disability council will be created to advise the Government on the elimination of discrimination. The Bill will represent a huge advance for disabled people.
    Mr. Banks: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the Government on the Disability Discrimination Bill, which I hope will complete its passage later this week. Does my hon. Friend agree that, now that the parliamentary debate is over, it is time for all of us who represent disabled people and for disabled people themselves to join him in getting on with the Bill's provisions, for the greater good of those who will benefit the most?
    Mr. Burt: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting matters in such a way. That is absolutely right. There has been dispute, both inside and outside Parliament, about whether the Bill is the right way forward, but now that we have argued and proved our case, we believe that the Bill represents a substantial advance for disabled people. The efforts of all who really care for that should now be put into ensuring that the Bill's implementation goes smoothly and that the provisions that we have introduced, which create substantial new rights for disabled people, work. I will consult extensively on the basis of the new regulations that will make the Bill work to do exactly that.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister rethink his original answer, when he claimed that the Bill would outlaw discrimination in employment against people with disabilities? Are not 96 out of every 100 firms employing 20 or fewer staff free to continue discriminating? How can that be progress, when the fastest growth in jobs is among small firms?
    Mr. Burt: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman realises, the point is that 80 per cent. of all employees are covered by the Bill. I do not think that any firm, small or otherwise, that discriminates against disabled people is getting a good deal. Disabled workers have an excellent record of both achievement and attendance at work. The new opportunities in employment being opened up to disabled people will make their continued employment even more secure.
    There should be no discrimination. The Bill will help to change attitudes, but what it crucially does that other legislation does not do is to recognise the needs of those who will be supplying employment services to disabled people and create a balance between the needs
    590
    of those firms and the rightful aspirations and expectations of disabled people. I repeat that 80 per cent. of all employees will be covered by the Bill, which represents the significant advance of which I spoke earlier.

  DUCHY OF LANCASTER

    Deregulation
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what progress he has to report on his deregulation initiative. [39712]
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): We are using the powers of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, which was passed just over a year ago, to repeal unnecessary United Kingdom primary legislation. I am also visiting the Governments of our European Union partners to build a consensus agreement that we should have fewer but better European regulations.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's deregulation measures, pioneered by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, have been a great success? However, is it not true that the desire to regulate still lies deep in the socialist soul and that business men, let alone people going about their daily lives, ignore that fact at their peril?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and very much agree with him. Nothing is closer to the desire of all true socialists than the early introduction of the social chapter—which I understand is likely to cost, if fully implemented, about £10 billion a year, in addition to the already sizeable social security budget.
    Mr. Skinner: Has not the right hon. Gentleman got a cheek talking about deregulation when sitting next to him is the Deputy Prime Minister, who only a few months ago persuaded the Prime Minister to set up another Government unit with civil servants, with a desk diary of £150,000, with two jobs—Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State—and with a personal hairdresser thrown in? If we are to talk about deregulation, let us start with the Treasury Bench—and the sooner, the better.
    Mr. Freeman: My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and First Secretary of State is doing an excellent job and will continue to do that job for a long time yet.
    Mrs. Lait: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the lottery has had an adverse effect on the betting and gaming industries, especially in tourist towns such as Hastings? What initiatives does he plan to take to level the playing field and deregulate those industries in a responsible manner?
    Mr. Freeman: We have already taken a number of steps, principal among which is the order that has been laid before Parliament on the deregulation of off-track greyhound betting. I see that my parliamentary private secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), is in his place. I do not know whether the House is aware—I was not until earlier today—that he not only owns two greyhounds but has just won the greyhound derby.

    Policy Presentation
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve the presentation of Government policies. [39713]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): All Ministers must take responsibility for presentation of their Departments' policies. The relevant Cabinet Committee, which I chair, provides a collective forum to discuss presentation.
    Mr. Banks: May I say what an excellent job the Deputy Prime Minister is doing in standing in for the Prime Minister? To be fair, it is perhaps not the most intellectually challenging task that he has had to face. I thank him for his great courtesy when he came over to Newham in his capacity as one of the millennium commissioners. I know that he is considering my borough as a site for the millennium exhibition. I am sure that he will use the judgment of Solomon in coming to the right conclusion and ensuring that Newham is chosen. I am not one of those whingers who complains about the squillions that it has cost to set up his Department. I am sure that the taxpayer gets great value for money, and I wish the right hon. Gentleman a very nice day.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The House will recognise new Labour in a new form. If I may so, it is a great improvement on the old version.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only is presentation of policy important, but it is important to have the policies there in the first place? To act as a Government involves more than glitzy public relations, red roses and new suits. We need policies that are in the best interests of the British people, not the glitzy PR exercise that we get from the Labour party.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fascinating thing about what is happening throughout the world today is that the entire intellectual debate about how to pursue policies for the next century is conducted from the right of politics.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: If the electorate are confused about the Government's attitude on whether the House should be entirely independent, is that the fault of Government policy—which does not say that it is clear, following Nolan, that this place should not be bought—or is it a fault of the presentation of Government policy? Does he agree with his junior Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that, for the past 150 years, the Government have worked on the assumption that Members of Parliament work part time?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: During the whole of the past 150 years, it has depended entirely on whether Members of Parliament were employed as Ministers or as Back Benchers. The fact is that they are two quite different jobs. The House itself is sovereign in these matters, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

    Competitiveness White Paper
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what responses the Government have received to their second White Paper on competitiveness. [39714]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The White Paper "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead" has been widely
    592
    welcomed by industry. Major representative bodies such as the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation and the Chemical Industries Association, as well as many major companies, have all expressed their support.
    Mr. Merchant: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that an essential condition of enhancing competitiveness is greater investment? What are he and the Government doing to encourage that greater investment, especially in the vital manufacturing industry sector?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to reassure him that the Government support very much the point that he has made and are extremely pleased to see that investment intentions in manufacturing for the year ahead are extremely strong. This is in no small measure. due to the fact that we have one of the most exciting economic prospects that I can remember and that the economy is growing faster than most other European economies.
    Mr. Prescott: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that five of the six countries that have leapfrogged Britain in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development world prosperity and competitiveness league since 1979 observe a minimum wage, and that two of them have signed the social chapter? Is this yet another example of Government propaganda being out of line with the facts?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: No, the House will recognise that one of the most attractive features of the present economic circumstance is the flow of inward investment coming into this country, not just from Asia or north America but from Europe. One of the reasons it is coming is that the Government are committed to not accepting the increased costs of the social chapter. The House will recognise that the Labour party, if it were ever to become a Government, would immediately undermine Britain's extremely attractive competitive position.

    Priorities
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his priorities. [39716]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: To promote the competitiveness agenda, the deregulation initiative and the effective administration of the services for which my Department is responsible.
    Mr. Arnold: My right hon. Friend will know of the considerable irritation shown by businesses and people about the regulations that pour out in respect of food hygiene and safety. Although the general public support them in principle, the examples in practice cause considerable disquiet. What are the Government doing about it?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will know that all those regulations are the subject of review, and many have now been announced as repealed or fit for repeal. More than 530 of the recommendations made by Lord Sainsbury's task force have now been accepted. The House will be fully aware of the work that Frances Maude is now doing. He is in charge of the present task force that advises the Government on further progress.
    Mr. Derek Foster: Now that senior Tories admit that the Government have been hijacked by the right, is it not

    593
    clear that, just as many Tory Back Benchers will vote tonight to safeguard their financial interests rather than the interests of Parliament, so the Government have abandoned a national interest to govern in the interests of the Conservative party? Have not the Government only one priority: their survival from day to day?
    The Deputy. Prime Minister: Those of us who will support what the right hon. Gentleman refers to as the "Government line" will do so because we believe that it is in the best interests of Parliament that the proposals that we put forward should be accepted. We think that the changes in which some Opposition Members believe might result in long-term, permanent damage to the institution of Parliament.

    Deregulation
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many section 1 orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 have been laid, and how many are expected to be laid in the next Session of Parliament. [39717]
    Mr. Freeman: The Government have laid 13 orders to date, including, for example, measures to assist building societies. Subject to the need not to overload Committees, the Government intend to lay one new order each week while Parliament is sitting and bring measures that help the competitiveness of the United Kingdom economy, especially for smaller enterprises.
    Mr. Coombs: May I express some surprise at the novel idea that Committees should not be overloaded? It is a new one on me. Can we not find a way to speed up the rate at which orders are introduced, because they are in the best interests not only of the Government but of people and industry as a whole? What specific orders does my hon. Friend hope to introduce in the next few months?
    Mr. Freeman: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field), who chairs the House of Commons Deregulation Committee, which has begun on an excellent footing. I also pay tribute to the Deregulated Powers Scrutiny Committee in the other place, which partly looks after the deregulation orders that we lay. I would encourage trade associations and individual companies, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, to come forward rapidly so that we can consider proposals by them, which might frame orders that we can lay before Parliament to help employment, help lift red tape and bureaucracy from the shoulders of business and industry and therefore increase the competitiveness of the UK economy.
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take to improve consultation in connection with deregulation proposals. [39718]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. John Horam): Consultation takes place on all proposals for deregulation orders. We pay very careful attention to the comments of the Deregulation Committee and the House of Lords Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee as regards the adequacy of consultation in particular cases.
    Mr. Pikes: The Parliamentary Secretary will recognise that, certainly in one case, there has been a lack of consultation in terms of both time and the range of people consulted. Will he ensure that, in future, so that the Deregulation Committee does not waste time and those matters can be dealt with properly, every Department carries out adequate consultation in respect of both time and the range of those consulted?
    Mr. Horam: I think that the hon. Gentleman refers to the Deregulation (Sunday Dancing) Order, on which his Committee pronounced today. I believe that the report came out today. We pay great attention to what the Committee and the House of Lords Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee say. The Deregulation (Sunday Dancing) Order is a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary,. but I take the point that all Cabinet Ministers and others who present regulation orders should take account of the length of consultation, and I shall ensure that that is done.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what initiatives he has to formulate further deregulation. [39719]
    Mr. Freeman: With the help of the deregulation task force, we continue to identify changes to existing rules and regulations to reduce the burdens that they impose, without removing necessary protections. We want business and industry to identify regulations which they believe need to be simplified or repealed.
    Mr. Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, when the rest of the industry competes with the national lottery, it is handicapped by over-regulation? May we have an assurance that it will be allowed to compete on equal terms?
    Mr. Freeman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to the lottery, which has been an enormous success, and raised well over £1 billion for good causes. As for betting regulations, in April 1995, we relaxed the restrictions on facilities in betting shops. We are now planning to bring forward a deregulation order to allow amusement with prizes machines in betting shops. I hope that that will be welcomed by the industry.
    Mr. Flynn: In considering further deregulation, has the Minister read the report of the Transport Select Committee on what have become known as roll-on, roll-over ferries? Is he not concerned at the unanimous view of the Committee that that form of public transport is the only one that does not fail safe, but fails dangerously and lethally? Is it not the case that those ferries do not require to be subject to deregulation but need new regulation to ensure public safety?
    Mr. Freeman: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment specifically on ferries, but I agree with him that there are many cases where we need better regulation for the protection of the consumer, the passenger or whoever. I am addressing regulation that is unnecessary, and perhaps outmoded. By lifting that burden from business and industry, we can increase competitiveness.
    I will certainly draw the question of the hon. Gentleman to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

    Cabinet Office Staff
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what is the current staffing level of the Cabinet Office; and if he will make a statement. [39720]
    Mr. Horam: By convention, the Office of Public Service, the Cabinet Office and CCTA, the Government Centre for Information Systems, are treated as one group, and staff currently number 1,298. That includes a large number of functions such as support for the Government Whips Office and the Opposition Whips Office.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept that the country is deeply impressed by the work of the Cabinet Office, save, in some respects, perhaps for the Opposition Whips Office? There is no doubt, however, that the money spent in the Cabinet Office is well spent, and the country is rightly grateful.
    Mr. Horam: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is good to hear those comments. It is also good to notice that the number of staff at the Department has declined since the reshuffle. We are definitely getting value for money.
    Mr. MacShane: Has the Parliamentary Secretary read the excellent article by Sarah Hogg in the excellent new magazine "Prospect", in which she reveals that five Cabinet Ministers have no departmental duties, and do not have a job, except to poke their noses into the work of other hard-working Ministers? Would a sensibly run company allow a quarter of its executive board to have no real job but just to mess up other people's jobs? Should not the hon. Gentleman put the aging lion, his boss, out to grass as soon as possible?
    Mr. Horam: The lack of departmental responsibilities does not, of course, apply to the Deputy Prime Minister, whose departmental responsibilities we have discussed today. I cannot comment otherwise on Sarah Hogg's article.

    Executive Agencies
    Mr. Jessel: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what evidence he has of improved efficiency in agencies established under the next steps programme. [39722]
    Mr. Horam: The best evidence of agency performance is in their individual annual reports. Overall, agencies achieved 80 per cent. of their targets in 1993–94, and we are working on the 1995 next steps review, which will for the first time show trend data on agencies' performance and the savings from their competing for quality
    596
    programmes. Agencies are making a significant contribution to the £544 million savings identified through the Government's competing for quality programme.
    Mr. Jessel: As Historic Royal Palaces is an agency in the programme, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming last week's decision by Hampton Court palace to stop charging the £1.70 entrance fee to the newly restored privy gardens to local residents from Twickenham, Teddington, the Hamptons, Richmond, Kingston and Elmbridge? That decision is the result of three meetings that I was able to convene.
    Mr. Horam: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that a sensible compromise was reached in that particular case, which was not least due to his magnificent efforts over many months. Given my hon. Friend's interest in musical instruments, he will also have noticed that Hampton Court was used as the backdrop for the Purcell opera that was broadcast on BBC television on Saturday night.
    Mr. Connarty: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary cannot be happy with the performance of one agency, the Child Support Agency. The latest report on it shows that in 25 per cent. of cases it failed to get things right, and everyone knows that in 100 per cent. of cases it causes massive distress.
    Mr. Horam: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not get in on Social Security questions, which just preceded these. That would have been an appropriate question to ask then.

    Visit to Basildon
    Mr. Amess: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his visit to Basildon on 3 November. [39724]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As always when I visit Essex, I had a most enjoyable and stimulating visit.
    Mr. Amess: Following my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister's highly successful visit to my constituency on Friday, will he join me in congratulating the people from a huge number of businesses who turned up to listen to his speech? Will he congratulate those people on their success in selling their goods and services, throughout not only the United Kingdom but Europe?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I very much support the spirit of what my hon. Friend said. I found in Basildon last Friday a typical example of a very large number of extremely successful companies taking advantage of the economic recovery.

Yitzhak Rabin (Tribute)
3.30 pm
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I am sure that all Members of the House will join me in expressing deep sorrow at the tragic death of Yitzhak Rabin.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, no one has done more for peace in the middle east. Under Rabin's leadership, Israel took the historic decision to pursue land-for-peace and to cease her rule over the Palestinian people. That was a difficult decision, but a right and a brave one. The success of the peace process so far with the Palestinians, and with Israel's neighbours, is very much his achievement and his memorial.
Rabin was a hero for Israel in war and in peace. We join the people of Israel, and Jewish people everywhere, in mourning that great loss.
Britain has every confidence that the peace process will continue under the leadership of Shimon Peres. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is touring the middle east this week, to reaffirm our support for the peace process and to encourage the countries that he visits to do the same.
Mr. John Prescott: On behalf of the Opposition, I echo the Deputy Prime Minister's words in paying tribute to Yitzhak Rabin.
Yitzhak Rabin was a brave soldier, an outstanding leader and a great statesman. The House extends its condolences to his wife Leah and their family at this time of personal grief, and to the whole Jewish community. We share in the universal shock and disbelief that a man so committed to the cause of peace could be taken from us in such a terrible and violent manner.
Yitzhak Rabin took huge personal and political risks in leading Israel down the path to peace, and he paid the ultimate price; without Yitzhak Rabin, the peace process would not have happened. He was a national hero—trusted, respected and admired. Only Rabin, as a military man, could exchange the battlefield for the conference table. He put away his gun and shook hands with his enemy.
Yitzhak Rabin has laid the foundations for a lasting peace between Israel and her neighbours. There is surely no greater testament to the determination of the peoples of that troubled region to live together than the fact that so many Arab dignitaries were among the world leaders attending his funeral today.
The opportunity for peace in the middle east must not, and will not, be lost because of an assassin's bullet. The world will remember Yitzhak Rabin's last words, at Saturday's rally for peace in Tel Aviv:
"I was a military man for 27 years. I waged war as long as there was no chance for peace. I believe there is now a chance for peace, a great chance, and we must take advantage of it".
Israel has lost a distinguished Prime Minister and the world has lost a great worker for peace. May his last words guide those he has left behind and strengthen the peace that he gave his life for.
Sir Edward Heath: I join my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and the
598
deputy Leader of the Opposition in paying tribute to the late Prime Minister of Israel. I got to know him at the time of the six-day war as a soldier and then during his first period as Prime Minister. He always commanded the utmost respect. One admired his integrity and his straightforwardness and one always knew that one could trust him in what he said. It is a great blow to Israel.
It was Yitzhak Rabin's brilliant service as a soldier that later led him into politics and his experience in war led him to work in such a determined way for peace. There is much to be learned from that: those who have prominent positions in war are not, afterwards, those who want still more war. They are the people who want peace.
Mr. Alex Carlile: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I should like to add our expression of sorrow and grief at the death of Yitzhak Rabin. He was a man in whom there was the rare union of physical heroism, moral courage and excellent intellectual judgment—a combination rarely found anywhere, let alone in politicians, soldiers and diplomats. Although he was an elderly man when he died, he nevertheless managed to inspire a young generation of Jews, particularly Jews living in Israel. He will be sorely missed on the world and domestic stage.
Mr. Douglas Hurd: Perhaps I may add a word to what has already been, worthily, said. A man of war became a man of peace, not because he lost courage, but because he built a new courage on what he had already achieved. In Israel and in London, I watched Yitzhak Rabin build that new dimension to his life. He kept the directness, the frankness, the self-discipline of a military man, but used those talents for success in peace rather than war. His concern was for Israel's safety, not his own safety.
Although it is nothing to do with me, I hope that there will not be too much investigation into the arrangements for Yitzhak Rabin's personal security. For a democratic politician in such a position, the risks are great. He deliberately and rightly ran those risks—for such men, there is no such thing as total security.
Wars nowadays tend to be quick in their results; they are achieved in days or even hours. Peacemaking is long, slow and tortuous; the peacemakers are open to doubts, criticism and assaults of all kinds, as Yitzhak Rabin found. Those who inherit his task will inherit those risks; they have to carry on where he left off. What has been achieved must not be allowed to unravel. I do not think that there is any single task that is more important in the world today.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I knew Yitzhak Rabin for nearly 30 years and I came to admire and respect his integrity and, at the same time, his flexibility. When, at the beginning of the Palestinian intifada, I suggested to him that the time should come for the Israeli Government to have discussions with the Palestine Liberation Organisation, he at first said that that was not possible. He eventually came to agree that it must be done because, as he said to me when I put the question to him, not only had he never expected the west bank territories that he had conquered as Chief of Staff in 1967 to be retained for a generation by the Israelis, but he did not want those territories to be retained and he did not want his young men in the army to risk their lives to retain them.

599
Yitzhak Rabin would want two things in particular to be placed on record. First, he was a committed socialist who came up in politics through a left-wing affiliate of the Israeli Labour movement, the Achdut Ha'avoda. He was not a chance soldier who happened into politics; he was a complete politician throughout. Secondly, as he put it to me on a number of occasions, he loathed fundamentalist fanaticism. In the past two days, we have seen that Jewish fundamentalist fanaticism can be as evil as Muslim fundamentalist fanaticism. As a Jew, Rabin always knew and acknowledged that fact.
Those of us who love the state of Israel—and I am one who does—must regard it as our duty to work with the majority of good, decent people in Israel in order to extirpate that fanaticism from their country and restore it to total democracy. I think that Rabin would want that, just as I know that he would want the peace process to be brought to a conclusion.
Mr. Winston Churchill: As one who first met Yitzhak Rabin during the six-day war and later during the Yom Kippur war, I join in the tributes that have been paid to a great Israeli patriot, a distinguished soldier and a great statesman. Valiant in war, he was courageous in peace and, for that, he paid with his life.
Through you, Madam Speaker, we convey to our fellow democracy, the state of Israel, the deep feelings of the entire Parliament and of the nation at what has befallen Israel. As a true democrat, Yitzhak Rabin shunned the added security that is all too often interposed between leaders and the electors and he paid for that risk-taking with his life. The greatest memorial that could be erected to him is the continuation of the peace process, and we wish Shimon Peres, the people of Israel and the people of the middle east well in their endeavour.
Mr. Greville Janner: To us all, Yitzhak Rabin epitomised a great statesman, leader, soldier and champion of peace. But he was much more than that. He fought for a Jewish state before there was one; he was one of the creators of Israel. He led the in-gathering of the exiles, bringing people—the survivors of the Holocaust—into Palestine and then Israel. Some of us remember how lonely the world was for Jewish people when there was no Jewish state. When that state was established, Yitzhak Rabin led its defence again and again.
Yitzhak Rabin's people trusted him, but his vision was not of war but of peace. Those who knew him know that his vision grew with his stature and with time. He believed in peace for the people of Israel within a peaceful middle east and a peaceful world. The people trusted him on the battlefield, and most of them trusted him on the democratic path to peace. They trusted him with their security and that of their families, especially their children. That trust enabled Yitzhak Rabin to bring his nation along the road to peace.
For those of us who knew Yitzhak Rabin, he was a genial companion. To me, he was a model and a hero: a man who symbolised service to his nation, whatever the risk to himself. It is almost exactly a year since I joined him in Oslo, where he received the Nobel peace prize. In a tranquil half hour, he unwound with a series of cigarettes, saying how weary and how tough the trail to peace was, but how he was determined never to leave it.
I know that all hon. Members join me in sending a message of profound sympathy to Leah Rabin and to her family. To our colleagues in the Knesset—because Israel
600
is one of the rare democracies in that part of the world—to acting Prime Minister Shimon Peres, who now must bear a double burden, and to his wife, Sonia, who knows that the assassin would not have stopped at Rabin if he had had the chance, we say, in the biblical language of Israel, "Anachnu itchem betsara hameshutaf'—we are with you in a sorrow that we all share.
Mr. John Marshall: As chairman of the British-Israel parliamentary group, I should like on behalf of all its members to be associated with the tributes paid to Mr. Rabin.
Since Saturday, the world has been overcome by shock and sadness at the loss of a statesman and a sense of irony that one who sought peace should have been gunned down so brutally.
Yitzhak Rabin's entire life was devoted to the state of Israel. As a young man, he was a member of the Haganah and fought in the war of independence. Subsequently, he was Chief of Staff in 1967. Like Moshe Dayan, the old soldier decided to become a man of peace. He recognised that the only long-term security for Israel lay in the eradication of old bitterness and hatred in the middle east.
The assassination of President Sadat did not derail the peace process between Egypt and Israel. Let us hope that the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin does not derail the peace process in the middle east. The best legacy that he can give the world is the continuation of the peace process.
The world has lost a statesman, Israel has lost a great leader and his family has lost a great man. Our hearts, minds and thoughts are with his family and his people. May God be with them today.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: In joining the tributes to Yitzhak Rabin, I send condolences from the parliamentary Labour party to his widow and family and to all the people of Israel. When I heard the news on Saturday, I was stunned and shocked, as were many people in Britain and throughout the world, that a man who believed in peace as much as Yitzhak did has been taken from us.
As has been said, Yitzhak Rabin was a politician first and a military leader second, but as a great military leader in the eyes of the people of Israel, he led them along the path to peace in a way that no one else could have done. It was not the easiest way to take. As a former soldier, he could no longer foresee that Israel would benefit from continued outbreaks of wars or ever have secure frontiers, so he began to work for peace. Some of what has happened cannot be reversed, but there is still a long way to go.
I hope that, in sending this message to the people of Israel, we inspire all those there who followed the lead of Prime Minister Rabin to redouble their efforts to achieve a peace that will bring security not only to the people of Israel, but to all the Arab states that surround it.
Mr. John Butterfill: Almost all nations have at some time a statesman who can come to their aid in their hour of need, but it is rare for a nation to have someone who did so twice—first as a brilliant soldier defending Israel in the six-day war, and subsequently as a statesman who was able to further the peace process as only he could do. Only he could give his people the reassurance that he knew and understood their defence needs, while recognising—as everybody who has visited Israel recognises—that ultimately Israel can be defended only by reaching peace with its neighbours.

601
It is a tremendous loss not just for Israel, but for the entire world. I hope that hon. Members will be aware that there is a book of remembrance at the Israeli embassy.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The sense of desolation and horror that was felt on Saturday night by many of us is difficult to convey. Yitzhak Rabin was a man whom I have known for a long time and, although we speak of statesmen, I think of him as a warm, witty and clever man with a strong sense of commitment. He was a man who understood the needs of Israel at every stage of its development; who fought for it when it was necessary to fight; who was a politician when it was necessary to lead; and who, throughout his career, put Israel first.
I send to my colleagues in the Israeli Labour party and the Knesset my deep condolences and my feeling of utter waste. I strongly believe that the values that Yitzhak Rabin fought for and knew to be paramount will not be allowed to be forgotten; and that, in his name, the future will be a peaceful one for Israel. The people, although they know that they have had reason to fear, were well served by a man of imagination and genius, who will be as sadly missed by his family as by his friends.
Mr. Hartley Booth: Many of us have constituents who are now grieving. It is right that we should stand for them and express their grief. Yitzhak Rabin exemplified courage and it is right to praise that. His courage was that of a man who dealt not just with ordinary matters of peace and war, but with deeply entrenched positions that went back centuries. For a man to face those entrenched positions and risk his own life was the epitome of real courage. We praise that in the House today.
When we go back to our constituencies and meet with grief, we should also praise and support the man who will take over from Mr. Rabin, his successor Mr. Peres.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: Yitzhak Rabin was a remarkable man who sought peace and inspired everyone. On behalf of the Scottish National party, I offer our condolences to the people of Israel and the Jewish community throughout the world. Israel's loss is shared by all humanity.
Mr. David Sumberg: On behalf of my constituents of all religious backgrounds and the members of the Manchester Jewish community, I thank my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and all right hon. and hon. Members for their generous tributes to Yitzhak Rabin. He fought for his country's freedom and died for his country's peace.
Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Government and people of Israel the fact that the people whom I have mentioned and, I hope, all Members of the House, stand with them at this tragic time? The country will come through this hour and, as we remember this weekend those who gave their lives for our freedom and our peace, we will remember Yitzhak Rabin, who did the same for the people and the nation of Israel.
Mrs. Barbara Roche: In 1967, I had started my secondary schooling at the Jewish
602
Free school in Camden Town. I remember the six-day war as a tense period for all of us in the Jewish community, a community of which I am extremely proud to be a part. In our school, there were many children of officials at the embassy of Israel. Many of the older pupils volunteered to fight with the Israeli defence forces, and during those few days we believed that the very existence of Israel was at stake.
I remember what a hero Yitzhak Rabin was to us and to the whole community. At the beginning of the peace process, when we saw the part that he and the Israeli Labour party played in it, my heart and the hearts of many people in the community were full of pride that such events could take place in our lifetime.
My sympathy and the sympathy of many people in my constituency go to Yitzhak Rabin's widow and family. Also, we extend to the Government of Israel our best wishes for the peace process, in the hope that it will continue and succeed. That would be the surest tribute to the memory of a very, very brave man.
Sir Timothy Sainsbury: My many right hon. and hon. Friends who are, like me, members of the Conservative Friends of Israel, would like to be associated with the many eloquent tributes paid by both sides of the House to a most remarkable and brave soldier and statesman. Those of us who had the privilege of meeting, talking with and hearing Yitzhak Rabin were as convinced as I am that, when he committed himself to the peace process, he was seeking—as he did with dedication throughout his life—the security of the state of Israel. The achievement of that security through the peace process must be Yitzhak Rabin's best and most lasting memorial.
Mr. Mike Gapes: Reference has already been made to the many right hon. and hon. Members whose constituents will be grieving at this time. Millions of people all over the world will be extremely sad at the events of the weekend.
I met Mr. Rabin in 1991, when the Labour party in Israel was in opposition. I was struck by his total honesty and resilience. The best testimony, and our best hope for the future, is to redouble our efforts in supporting internationally Mr. Rabin's successor and fellow Nobel peace prize winner, Shimon Peres, the people of Israel and the Palestinians in continuing the process of negotiation, dialogue and, we hope, achieving a lasting peace.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) referred to Yitzhak Rabin's earlier premiership. My recollection of him goes back to that time, and to his resignation in 1977 over a non-event. Yitzhak Rabin might have retired from politics at that time. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said, Mr. Rabin had a strong political will, founded on his socialist faith. He also had a strong belief in his country. He made the long trek through the political wilderness until he reached the premiership again, in 1992.
The right hon. Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) mentioned the impression that Mr. Rabin made on those who met him. I remember a conversation that I had with Yitzhak Rabin in 1991, when Scud missiles were falling on Tel Aviv. Mr. Rabin told me of a visit that he had made to Denmark and to the castle of Elsinore—made famous by Shakespeare's "Hamlet" and built to withstand

603
invasions from Sweden, just across the water. Yitzhak Rabin asked his Danish friends, "How long were you at war with Sweden?" They answered, "One hundred years." Yitzhak Rabin knew that it would be a long haul to peace in the middle east, but he knew also that if a journey begins with a single step, the journey to peace had to begin with a single stride.
The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) mentioned that Israel is a democracy. From this democracy and the mother of Parliaments should go the message to Israel that we support her peace process, democracy and people.

Standards in Public Life
3.58 pm
Madam Speaker: We now come to motion Nos. 1 to 4 on the Order Paper which, for the convenience of the House, will be debated together with the amendments that have been selected.
As a number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak, I shall have to limit the speeches of Back Benchers to 10 minutes.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Motion No. 1, on the conduct of right hon. and hon. Members, is basically non-controversial, but there is a possible ambiguity in its wording. I have offered a manuscript amendment, but that is not the best way of dealing with the matter. If there is any doubt about the wording of motion No. 1, perhaps sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) might come after the words "House shall". That would clear away any possible ambiguity.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman wrote to me earlier and I have responded to do him, but, of course, he can refer to that matter in the debate—I believe that he wants to be called in the debate. He can make suggestions to me if he wishes, but he knows that I have not selected his manuscript amendment.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether I can raise another matter, because the Deputy Prime Minister is here today. It is a matter that I have raised on the Floor with you on a previous occasion, and I believe that it is important for the House of Commons.
You will recall that, on 24 October, I raised with you a question about the difficulties that are being experienced by hon. Members when tabling questions to the Deputy Prime Minister. I wonder whether you have had time during the recent week and a half to consider Hansard of 16 October, when the Deputy Prime Minister answered questions from hon. Members. You will notice from the questions that were tabled and the answers that were given, and recognising the responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister, that he has responsibility for deregulation, the civil service and market testing. Yet he was answering questions on the EEC budget; he was asked a question about social democracy; he answered questions on the obligations of various European states under European treaties; he also answered a question—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have the gist of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It is not a question, but it is a point of order. I also recall inviting him to write to me about that matter. To the best of my knowledge, and I think that I am correct, I have not yet had a letter from him. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, because of the limited time that we have in the debate, will be good enough to come to his point of order, so that I might be helpful.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I would like you, Madam Speaker, to compare those and other answers that were given by the Deputy Prime Minister with the answers given by his ministerial colleagues, which are specific to questions that are raised by Members of the House of Commons. What I am asking is whether you, in a ruling, will be able to consider the whole matter of what

605
questions are accepted by the Table Office, while recognising that departmental officials can block those questions after they have been tabled by Members.
If a Minister of the Crown is answering more widely than the questions that have been asked and, indeed, is prepared to accept supplementaries that bear very little relationship to the questions that have been tabled, surely we as Members should have the right to table wider questions, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman insists on calling himself the Deputy Prime Minister of this country.
Madam Speaker: I believe that there is some concern about that matter.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: A lot of concern.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman says, a lot of concern. If that is the case, it is obviously a matter for the Procedure Committee. The hon. Gentleman did not write to me, as I invited him to do some time ago. He might set out the matter to the Procedure Committee so that it might look at it if he is not satisfied.
Sir Teddy Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. To assist me and possibly others in determining how to vote, could you say whether, in the event of the official Opposition amendment calling for early disclosure being defeated, you would give consideration to a vote on one of two amendments, one of which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), which would call for disclosure after the next election? It would be very helpful to know whether it would be your intention to consider this—
Madam Speaker: What is the amendment number?
Sir Teddy Taylor: Amendment (c), Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman cannot mean amendment (c).
Let me put this to the House. There are too many possible permutations for me to say at this stage which amendments will be called for Division purposes—particularly when hon. Members do not give me the number of the amendment. If some amendments are successful, others, logically, will fall, and similarly if some amendments are unsuccessful, other amendments will be called for Division. I cannot at this stage, without even being given the number of the amendment, say whether or not it will be called.
Sir Teddy Taylor: It is amendment (c) to motion No. 3, Madam Speaker. I am so sorry. It seems to me that there is a choice—
Madam Speaker: What is the amendment number?
Sir Teddy Taylor: Amendment (c) to motion No. 3, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East.
Madam Speaker: It is not selected.
Sir Teddy Taylor: So it will not be voted on—
Madam Speaker: The list of amendments is in both Lobbies. I suggest that hon. Members go and look at the list.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. According to column 522 of Hansard, on Friday
606
the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) mentioned my constituency without giving me notice. A notice about the issue was put on the Notice Board today, rather than on Friday. The hon. Member for Barking has a reputation for aiding and abetting child abuse; will you, Madam Speaker, stop her from abusing Members of Parliament? [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I shall ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the remark that he has just made; otherwise I shall use the Standing Order that is available to me.
Mr. Shaw: I was referring, Madam Speaker, to the hon. Lady's reputation outside the House of Commons—
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Shaw rose—
Madam Speaker: Sit down. I shall give the hon. Gentleman one more opportunity: he will withdraw the charge that he has just made in relation to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms Hodge), or I shall use the Standing Order.
Mr. Shaw: I made no charge, but I shall, if necessary, withdraw—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I am seeking an immediate withdrawal.
Mr. Shaw: I must withdraw, then, what I said earlier about the fact that the hon. Lady has a reputation outside the Chamber—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will apologise properly. I have given him three chances. He must stand up and apologise to me, and to the House.
Mr. Shaw: I have withdrawn the comments that I made earlier, Madam Speaker, which were repeated outside the Chamber.
Madam Speaker: I shall not accept the point of order originally raised by the hon. Gentleman until I see the letter that he committed himself to writing to me some days ago. I believe that it was handed to my secretary at 3.40 pm today, and I have not yet had an opportunity to see it.
Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on an entirely different matter.
The House has just paid tribute to Yitzhak Rabin, very movingly, and has spoken for the whole nation. Three hours ago, hon. Members on both sides of the House attended the funeral at Westminster cathedral of Derek Enright, the Member of Parliament for Hemsworth. Your Deputy paid a warm and wonderful tribute to him during the ceremony.
As a relatively new Member, Madam Speaker, may I ask whether you can—either on your own authority or in conjunction with the usual channels—find a mechanism to allow the House, without entering into a lengthy debate, to pay tribute to one of its Members who dies? The tribute would then appear in Hansard and would enter into the records of the House; it could be read by the Member's family, friends and colleagues.
I was slightly dismayed last week by the fairly curt announcement that was made—although that was not your fault, Madam Speaker—and by the fact that hon.

607
Members could not pay tribute to one of their number who had passed on. I wonder whether, under the appropriate procedures—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have got the point. I am enormously sympathetic, but the matter was considered quite recently, and I determined that we should continue with the type of tribute that we have. It is quite important for us to have the tribute that is paid by the Chair when the death of a Member takes place.
Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I return to the subject of this afternoon's debate? I entirely understand your point about not being able to give guidance at this stage, but, as you know, we are to have a free vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It will be for me; I cannot speak for anyone else.
Normally, Back Benchers such as me leave the sorting out of procedure to the great and the good, but in the event of a free vote those opportunities are not available to us. Before we vote, Madam Speaker, will you be able to explain to people such as me exactly what we are supposed to be doing?
Madam Speaker: Absolutely. When the time comes and the Divisions take place, I shall call out the numbers of the amendments so that every hon. Member knows precisely what Question is being put.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Perhaps I may refer to what happened a few moments ago. Once again the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) has accused a Member of the House of a criminal offence—
Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that matter.
Mr. Bermingham: There has been no apology.
Madam Speaker: Order. There was an apology. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Order. I have accepted the withdrawal by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). I shall deal with other matters in relation to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I see his letter.
Mr. Peter Thurnham: Further to the points of order by my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), Madam Speaker. Although the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) will not be called, if the vote for immediate disclosure is not successful, will there be an opportunity to vote on amendment (j) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne, which calls for disclosure in the next Parliament?
Madam Speaker: Is that amendment (j) to motion No. 2?
Mr. Thurnham: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: If amendments (b) and (g) are agreed to, (j) will fall. If amendment (b) is not agreed to, amendment (j) will be put. I cannot now go through the entire list. Other hon. Members have accepted that I will take them through and give them guidance before they vote.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is this a satisfactory way to decide who in some instances shall be a Member
608
of the House? Is not the matter of wider interest to the country as a whole, and ought it not to be dealt with by legislation analogous to the Representation of the People Act 1991?
Madam Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for me: it is a matter for the Government. I think that the House now wishes to proceed to this important debate.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has any Minister sought to make a statement this afternoon or at any time today about the extraordinary events that came to light over the weekend concerning the general practitioners' contract and its impact in Presteigne? Those events concern the removal for the first time in British history of patients from a GP's list for financial reasons. The doctor has been honest enough to say that he has removed a family, Mr. and Mrs. Venables and their children, from the GP's list of his practice for purely financial reasons.
Madam Speaker: The answer is no. If there were to be a statement, we would all know about it because it would be on the annunciator.
Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If on motion No. 2, amendment (b), which is to do with proposed agreements, is passed and amendment (g) fails, will it be possible to call amendment (j)? What is the time limit for the debate?
Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier, when I said that there were far too many possible permutations for me to say at this stage which amendments would be called for Division. Of course, I shall carefully lead the House through the amendments before each Division.
Ms Harriet Harman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Health made a request to make a statement about the GP in Bracknell who has written to women patients saying that they need screening for cervical cancer once every three years? They can get it on the NHS only once every five years and he is recommending that they go private—
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me make it quite clear that no Minister has said to me that he is anxious to make a statement today on any subject. I am anxious to proceed to this important debate.
4.13 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That the Resolution of the House of 15th July 1947 relating to Privileges shall be amended by adding at the end the words—
`and that in particular no Member of the House shall, in consideration of any remuneration, fee, payment, reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect, which the Member or any member of his or her family has received is receiving or expects to receive—

(i) advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body or individual, or

(ii) urge any other Member of either House of Parliament, including Ministers, to do so,
by means of any speech, Question, Motion, introduction of a Bill or amendment to a Motion or Bill'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS
That—
(1) with effect from Wednesday 15th November 1995, any Member proposing to enter into an agreement which involves the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament shall conclude such an agreement only if it conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members; and that a copy of any such agreement, excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at the same time as it is registered in the Register of Members' Interests;
(2) any Member who has an existing agreement involving the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament which conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members, but which is not in written form, shall take steps to put the agreement into written form; and that no later than 31st March 1996 a copy of any such agreement, excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests; and
(3) any Member who has an existing agreement which does not conform to the Resolution of the House on 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members shall, by 31st March 1996, either redraw the agreement so that it conforms to the said Resolution or withdraw from the agreement; and that a copy of any such redrawn agreement, excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests by that date.
And the following amendments thereto: (b), in line 6, leave out from `a' to `shall' in line 7 and insert
`full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000'.
(c), in line 7, leave out
`excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable'.
(d), in line 7, leave out 'excluding' and insert 'including'.
(e), in line 8, after `Standards', insert
`and made available to the public'.
(f), in line 9, at end insert
`and made available for inspection by the public'.
(g), in line 14, leave out from `a' to `shall' in line 16 and insert
`full copy of any such agreement including the fees for or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000.'.
(h), in line 15, leave out
'excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable'.
(i), in line 17, after Interests', insert
'and made available for inspection by the public'.
(k), in line 22, leave out from `a' to `shall' in line 23 and insert
'full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000.'.
(l), in line 22, leave out
excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable'.
(m), in line 24, at end add
and made available for inspection by the public'.
610
(j), in line 17, after 'and', insert
`provided that from the start of the next Parliament the amount of any such fee or benefit payable shall be disclosed to the Commissioner and made available to the public; and'.
(o), in line 24, at end add
`provided that from the start of the next Parliament the amount of any such fee or benefit payable shall be disclosed to the Commissioner and made available to the public'.
(n), in line 24, at end add
`(4) any Member who enters into employment agreements of whatever kind, whether relating to the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament or otherwise, shall be required to disclose in the Register of Members' Interests—
1. The total fees or benefits from such agreements in bands of up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000 and thereafter in bands of £5,000.
2. The total amount of time, in days or parts thereof, devoted to the fulfilment of such agreements.'.
(p), in line 24, at end add
`(4) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1–3 of this Resolution with effect from Wednesday 15th November 1995, no Member shall enter into an agreement for the provision of services in his/her capacity as a Member of Parliament with any individual or organisation engaged in lobbying or public relations on behalf of more than one client.'.

STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE (GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS)
That this House agrees with the recommendations in the Second Report from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life (House of Commons Paper No. 816) relating to—

(1) the recording of deputations in the Register of Members' Interests (paragraph 31); and

(2) the cessation of paid advocacy (paragraph 54).

And the following amendments thereto:

(a), in line 4, leave out paragraph (1).

(b), in line 6, at end add

'and further that a Member with a paid interest should not initiate or participate in, including attendance, a delegation where the problem affects only the body from which he has a paid interest.'.
(d), in line 6, at end add
`and further that a Member with a paid interest should not engage in correspondence about a subject which affects only the body from which he has a paid interest.'.

STANDARDS AND PRIVILEGES
That—

(1) Standing Order No. 128 (Select Committee on Members' Interests) be repealed;

(2) Standing Order No. 121 (Committee of Privileges) be repealed when the Committee of Privileges shall have reported to the House in respect of the matters of the complaints referred to it; and

(3) Standing Orders (Committee on Standards and Privileges) and (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) below be made.

Standing Order (Committee on Standards and Privileges)

(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Committee on Standards and Privileges—

(a) to consider specific matters relating to privileges referred to it by the House;

(b) to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members' Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers;

611
and to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; and

(c) to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in any code of conduct to which the House has agreed and which have been drawn to the committee's attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to such code of conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary.

(2) The committee shall consist of eleven Members, of whom five shall be a quorum.

(3) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

(4) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of no more than seven Members, of whom three shall be a quorum, and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee; and shall appoint one such sub-committee to receive reports from the Commissioner relating to investigations into specific complaints.

(5) The committee and any sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.

(6) The committee shall have power to order the attendance of any Member before the committee or any sub-committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of a sub-committee or of the Commissioner, be laid before the committee or any sub-committee.

(7) The committee shall have power to refuse to allow proceedings to which strangers are admitted to be broadcast.

(8) Mr. Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, being Members of the House, may attend the committee or any sub-committee, may take part in deliberations, may receive committee or sub-committee papers and may give such other assistance to the committee or sub-committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment.

Standing Order (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards)

(1) There shall be an officer of this House, called the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who shall be appointed by the House.

(2) The principal duties of the Commissioner shall be—

(a) to maintain the Register of Members' Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House, and to make such arrangements for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of those registers as are approved by the Committee on Standards and Privileges or an appropriate sub-committee thereof;

(b) to provide advice confidentially to Members and other persons or bodies subject to registration on matters relating to the registration of individual interests;

(c) to advise the Committee on Standards and Privileges, its sub-committees and individual Members on the interpretation of any code of conduct to which the House has agreed and on questions of propriety;

(d) to monitor the operation of such code and registers, and to make recommendations thereon to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or an appropriate sub-committee thereof; and

(e) to receive and, if he thinks fit, investigate specific complaints from Members and from members of the public in respect of—

(i) the registration or declaration of interests, or

(ii) other aspects of the propriety of a Member's conduct,
612
and to report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or to an appropriate sub-committee thereof.

(3) The Commissioner may be dismissed by resolution of the House.

And the following amendment thereto:

(a), in line 49, leave out paragraph (7).

Mr. Newton: As you have said, Madam Speaker, a number of other motions and an almost infinite number of amendments may be discussed with motion No. 1.
The report that the House is considering completes the work of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, which I chaired. Our remit was
"to consider the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in so far as it relates to the rules and procedures of the House; to advise on how the recommendations relating thereto might be clarified and implemented; and to recommend specific resolutions for decision by the House."
Although the focus in recent weeks has understandably been on the issues contained in our second report, I should briefly remind the House and people outside of the important progress that has already been made. The House has already agreed to create a new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards working within a new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. It has further strengthened the declaration rules by requiring that relevant interests should be indicated on the Order Paper in relation to questions, amendments and early-day motions, and it has endorsed the proposal that a new code of conduct should be drawn up by the new Committee and put before the House.
Further steps in the implementation of those measures will, of course, be taken today, if the House agrees the order of reference for the new Select Committee contained in motion 4, to which I shall return, and a separate motion that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will move later on behalf of the House of Commons Commission concerning the appointment of a new commissioner.
Those are all important steps that have already carried the House a long way forward in responding to Nolan. In July, however, the House also accepted the Select Committee's view that more work was required before the House could take decisions in the matter of what should and should not be allowed, and the extent to which what is allowed should be disclosed. It gave the Committee a further remit, now discharged in our second report, to bring forward proposals by the end of the present Session.
In seeking to meet that tight deadline, the Select Committee has met 25 times since 19 July and a total of 39 times since it was formally established on 13 June. I am told and can well believe, as I dare say can the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), that no Select Committee has met as frequently and I pay tribute, briefly and wholeheartedly, to its members, of whom I see two close in front of me, for the time and commitment that they have given to producing both reports.
Especially in view of the fact that we have some disagreements, I want to express my appreciation for the way in which the Select Committee has worked—I am grateful to see the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) nodding. Even in the relatively few areas where there were disagreements—clearly we shall come to them and some are reflected in the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for

613
Dewsbury—the Committee always addressed its task in a positive and constructive manner, which made my job as chairman infinitely easier.
Mr. Max Madden: In all those Select Committee deliberations, did it deal with a problem that it has faced ever since resolutions were introduced in the House on these matters: the refusal of admittedly a tiny minority to comply with any of the resolutions? What effective sanctions will be put in place for those hon. Members who raise two fingers to these Standing Orders?
Mr. Newton: It would be right to say that the Select Committee had quite enough to think about without devoting a great deal of time to that matter, but I think that the position is familiar to the House from episodes in the past and even from hypothetical episodes, as it were. Manifestly, it would be a matter for the House. Under the new structure, one would imagine that there would be a complaint to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, which would examine it, as the Privileges Committee examined the complaint concerning so-called "cash for questions", and make a recommendation for the House, and that it would be up to the House to decide what, if anything, to do.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House give way?
Mr. Newton: I will do so, but it is important that I should leave plenty of time for other hon. Members to speak in the debate and put my points in a connected way.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Leader of the House believe that Members of Parliament should have the right to arrange meetings with Ministers and perhaps attend those meetings in return for a fee or reward?
Mr. Newton: In a way, the hon. Gentleman underlines my point in my initial response to him, as I shall come to that matter later in my speech. It is covered by one of the motions and by one of the hon. Member for Dewsbury's amendments. Perhaps, therefore, I might turn to the motions on the Order Paper.
The first motion is perhaps the most significant—in my view, it is very significant. In our first report, we set out some of the problems inherent in seeking, as Nolan had recommended, to distinguish one type of paid outside interest from another. We pointed especially to the definitional problems associated with the concept of multi-client organisations and with terms such as "lobbying firms" and "parliamentary services". The debate on 19 July and our further deliberations have served only to reinforce those concerns. In the end, it was the Select Committee's unanimous view that those definitional problems were critical and that the difficulties in overcoming them were simply too great.
Instead—and again I emphasise that it is a unanimous recommendation—we have adopted an alternative approach which goes significantly further than that proposed by Nolan in dealing with those actions by hon. Members which, in the Committee's view, should not be permitted, irrespective of the person or organisation from which an hon. Member is receiving money. At the simplest level, that means whether it is a multi-client organisation, a single-client organisation or a single client.
614
In effect, we brought forward the work originally identified for the new Select Committee in the next Session and reviewed the current 1947 resolution—of which I suspect many hon. Members were unaware before Nolan reminded us of it, and which, as Nolan said, has given rise to confusion when read alongside other resolutions that the House has passed.
Mr. Marlow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Newton: I will, but I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind what I said earlier.
Mr. Marlow: I do not want to be controversial, but because of the way that the first resolution is written it appears that, for example, a farmer who is in receipt of money from Brussels through the common agricultural policy would not be able to discuss agricultural policy with the National Farmers Union and then engage in debate in this House. That is one example, but many others flow from the resolution. I believe that it is far more far-reaching than my right hon. Friend thinks. Will he consider that matter very deeply before he replies to the debate?
Mr. Newton: Of course I will consider that matter and others. However, I must make the point—and I believe that I carry the hon. Member for Dewsbury with me—that while the report repeatedly says that we have not been able to deal with every conceivable question and issue that might arise—and there may well be a need for further guidance from the new Select Committee—I think—
Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Newton: May I at least first complete my answer to the last intervention?
I believe that I can say reasonably authoritatively that what the Committee was concerned with, and what it believed the proposed resolution to be directed at, is the question of payment by someone in respect of an interest, not in respect of an interest that someone has through his own employment or occupation. None of us would envisage that, for example, a farmer would be prohibited from saying anything on agricultural policy—although, having declared the interest, he may wish to choose his words carefully, as I am sure hon. Members do at present.
Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his answer clearly shows that making very important decisions by way of motion is unsatisfactory? It leaves the various guidelines extremely uncertain with, perhaps, matters then being decided on a more or less political basis by a Committee of this House. It is an unsatisfactory way to deal with something that should be dealt with by legislation.
Mr. Newton: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I have to tell him straightforwardly that I do not agree with him. At some stage, we may need to consider whether some sort of legislation is required, but quite frankly an attempt to deal with all the problems that Nolan wrestled with, that the Committee has wrestled with and that the new Select Committee will find itself wrestling with from time to time by defining and tying up everything in an Act of Parliament or a set of regulations would be a prescription for disaster. What we have proposed will enable the House to operate with a degree of flexibility in certain circumstances, not all of which can be foreseen.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Newton: If I continue to give way, there will be hardly any time for others to speak. Hon. Members are aware that usually I am very generous at giving way. However, on this occasion I beg them to recognise that we have three hours for a very important debate. It is important that a connected case should be made and hon. Members then have an opportunity to make their points.
Mr. Banks: I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I need to ask him a question.
Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My right hon. Friend said that he is constrained because we have only three hours for debate. If the mood of the House is that the debate should be longer, what can the House do about it? It is not enough time.
Madam Speaker: The motion was placed on the Order Paper on Friday. The hon. Gentleman and others should have been in the House on Friday to object to it if they wanted more time today.
Mr. Banks: Will the Leader of the House explain what my situation would be? I receive support from the International Fund for Animal Welfare, in respect of which I employ an additional member of staff. If I continue to do so, would I be prevented by the amendment to the 1947 resolution from initiating debates, asking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Conservative Members should shut up a minute and let me hear it from the Leader of the House. Would I be prevented from asking questions and introducing Bills or early-day motions? It is crucial to me to know the answer to that question.
Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman were receiving payment, or a benefit in kind such as the provision of payment for a research assistant, the answer to his question would be yes.
Mr. Alex Salmond rose—
Mr. Newton: This must be the last intervention.
Mr. Salmond: Before the Leader of the House moves from that point, could he explain further to the House why he and the Select Committee found it impossible to define and act upon one of the strongest Nolan recommendations, that against multi-client organisations, when the Committee decided to pursue the distinction between advocacy and advice, which seems to everybody to be fraught with great difficulties of definition?
Mr. Newton: I shall make two brief points. First, as we said in our first report, in paragraphs that are reproduced in the second report, the concept of multi-client lobbying organisations is riddled with difficulties of definition. What is lobbying? That is not as easy as it seems, because lobbying, in a sense, is a basic part of all democratic politics.
Secondly, the Nolan report acknowledged that the matter raised questions about almost every large firm—public relations firms, law firms, accountancy firms and management consultants—and suggested some possible Chinese walls to be erected within firms which did not seem to us to be practicable. That is the main point that I would make. If I may generalise from that point, while, of course, there are definitional problems with what we have proposed—as there would be with any solution—
616
there are, in my judgment, significantly fewer definitional problems with what we have proposed than there would have been with the endless series of distinctions entailed by the Nolan recommendations.
Mr. Roger Sims rose—
Mr. Newton: I have already said that I have given way for the last time. This really will have to be the last time.
Mr. Sims: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He will know that I raised a point on Thursday which he said that he would clarify today. He has not allayed my concerns. In its report, the Select Committee states:
"We are not … seeking to deprive the House of well-informed contributions from Members with experience or knowledge of direct value to the subject being debated."
Is it not clear from what my right hon. Friend has just said that any Members with specialist knowledge cannot make such contributions if they are in receipt of any payment, be it from a trade association, a trade union, or, indeed, a campaigning organisation? That would restrict the ability of Members of Parliament to speak.
Mr. Newton: I have the very greatest respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), as he well knows from our contacts on a variety of matters. He reinforces the point that I made about interventions. I would have come to his point if I had not been diverted by so many interventions. I make no great complaint about that; then again, perhaps I do.
Our proposal is that the 1947 resolution should be extended to indicate specific kinds of parliamentary action which ought not to be undertaken for payment on behalf of outside bodies. These are advocacy by way of speech, question, motion, introduction of Bill or amendments to a motion or Bill. Nor should it be acceptable for one Member to encourage another to take those actions on his or her behalf—in other words, indirect advocacy in relation to payment. Benefit in kind is to be treated in the same way as cash. That covers the case of the research assistant of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). Payments to a Member's family are to be treated in the same way as those to a Member.
This is a major extension of our rules. I do not disguise that. Everyone is aware of it—increasingly so, I think. The House will expect me to say a little more about what the Committee sees as the practical implications.
The key to our approach is that Members should not be paid to initiate parliamentary proceedings or initiate them on behalf of clients to whom they are paid advisers. In other words, they should not advocate in Parliament the cause of outside interests from which they receive remuneration.
I now come to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst. This may reassure the hon. Member for Newham, North-West as well. As Lord Nolan's report said, there will be a natural tendency for hon. Members to advise outside bodies whose views, to a large extent, they share. For that reason, the prohibition on questions, motions and Bills applies only
"if they relate specifically and directly to the affairs and interests of that body."
However, we were concerned that such a prohibition should not prevent contributions from being made to debate by hon. Members bringing the knowledge and experience gained by legitimate work as paid advisers, or in any other way.

617
For that reason, in relation to speeches, we have advised that it should remain entirely acceptable for hon. Members to speak during debates on a matter that affects the interests of an outside body with which they have a paid connection so long as they do not initiate such a debate and, as now, fully declare their interest when they speak. The report also says that, in such circumstances, the hon. Member will need to take care that his or her speech does not
"bring particular benefit to the organisation or individual from which the Member received payment."
I hope that that explanation is at least some help to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst.
As our report acknowledges, this is clearly not a matter in which it is possible to lay down detailed prescriptive rules for every circumstance. We have provided a framework within which a body of experience and practice can be built up. If the House agrees to our recommendations on the broad way forward, the interpretation of the new rules in particular circumstances would inevitably be a matter for the new Select Committee, with the advice of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It will no doubt issue further guidance if it sees the need.
For the moment, I shall pass by motion No. 2, which is the most controversial, and deal with motion No. 3 on delegations arranged by hon. Members with Ministers, and the timing of the ban on advocacy to which I have just referred.
Mr. Sims: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his explanation. Although I understand the argument that hon. Members should not initiate proceedings, surely the word "advocate" means to speak in support of. To include the words "advocate" and "speech " in the resolution makes it appear to anyone reading it that an hon. Member may not speak in support of a cause for which he or she is being paid.
Mr. Newton: I assure my hon. Friend that that was not what the committee wished; nor is it what the committee regards the proposed resolution as meaning.
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If someone passes a motion in the House, what holds: the wording in the motion; or the intended meaning of the motion, as explained during the debate while that motion is taking place?
Madam Speaker: All hon. Members of common sense will read carefully what the Leader of the House is saying as well as take into account the motion on the Order Paper. Ultimately, many of the resolutions, motions and amendments passed today may have to go to the special Select Committee for implementation.
Mr. Newton: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for that explanation. That is, indeed, the position.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the motion that he puts to the House today reiterates the existing 1947 resolution, which of itself bans paid advocacy—speaking for money—and that our extension of that resolution seeks to be more specific and illustrate the circumstances in which such a ban might operate?
Mr. Newton: That is absolutely right, and I am grateful to the hon. Lady.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst will acknowledge that I am explaining, as faithfully as I can, what was in the Committee's mind. I am sure that the indications that we have given will be taken into account by the new Select Committee in its interpretation. After all, it will be a body of Members of this House who will have listened to the debate and read our report. I give him the clear assurance that our proposals are not intended to prevent Members from speaking in a proper and balanced way, as I have outlined.
As for motion No. 3, the Select Committee recommended that where a Member leads a deputation to a Minister or official on behalf of a paid outside interest, that visit should be registered in the Register of Members' Interests to ensure maximum transparency. A minority on the Committee wished to ban Members from leading delegations, or arranging them where there was a paid outside interest.
That view will no doubt be reflected by the hon. Member for Dewsbury in one of the amendments that she has tabled. I can only say that it seemed to the majority of the Committee that the key safeguard was transparency, and that there would be no real gain—and possibly some loss to the taking of well-informed decisions—if Members who are paid advisers could not even seek to arrange a meeting, openly declared, in which points of concern could be put to Ministers.
The second element of the motion relates to the timing of the cessation of the paid advocacy. If I may, it seems sensible to return to that when I come to discuss the more controversial motion No. 2.
Before that, however, I should refer to motion No. 4, which, as I said earlier, proposes an order of reference for the new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, and provides for the winding up of the Select Committees on Members' Interests and Privileges. If I say relatively little about that, it is simply because the matter was extensively covered in our July debate. The motion is closely based on the recommendations of our first report.
There is one significant point that I should make about the two existing Select Committees which the new Committee is intended to replace—I say it particularly with an eye on members of the Committee on Privileges. Given that the Privileges Committee is in mid-inquiry, the motion envisages that it should continue alongside the new Committee until that inquiry has been completed. I know that members of the Privileges Committee attach importance to that undertaking, so I should like to emphasise it.
The demise of the Select Committee on Members' Interests would be immediate—I am not sure how much regretted its passing will be by its members—and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and his Committee for the work that they have done for us over the years.
I return to motion No. 2 on the Order Paper. I address first the issues on which the Select Committee was unanimous. The Committee was unanimous that, as Nolan had recommended, all agreements relating to parliamentary activities should be put in writing and deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards so that he could ensure that they were wholly within the new rules banning paid advocacy.

619
We accepted the Nolan recommendation that there was no need for disclosure of employment agreements unrelated to a Member's role in Parliament. We did feel, however, that the requirement should include frequent or regular commitments, as opposed to merely occasional commitments outside Parliament, which seem clearly to arise directly from membership of the House: for example, an agreement for money to write a regular newspaper column or to compere a television programme. That is much more comparable with an outside job than irregular, infrequent interviews on particular issues.
The second element on which the Committee was virtually unanimous, although there was one dissenting voice, concerned the timing of the introduction of the new arrangements for depositing employment agreements. The large majority felt that any new agreements between Members and outside bodies should conform to the rules with effect from the beginning of the new Session—later this month. Members with existing agreements that conform to the new rules should put them in writing, if they have not already done so, and deposit them with the commissioner by 31 March next year. Members with existing agreements that fall foul of the ban on paid advocacy in Parliament will have until 31 March either to bring the agreement within the rules and deposit it with the commissioner, or to withdraw from it.
Whatever arrangements might apply to any individual Member, the great majority of the Committee believed that the new resolution banning paid advocacy should be in force for all Members from the start of the new Session. The great majority of the Committee felt strongly that we could not endorse a position in which there would be one group of Members who could advocate a cause for payment and another which could not.
Where
the Committee divided—to my great regret it divided, as everyone knows, on party lines—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Tory party as well.
Mr. Newton: I regard that division as a matter of regret; I am not attacking anyone. It divided on the question whether contracts deposited with the commissioner should be open to public inspection, and should include details of the remuneration received.
Mr. Bill Michie: Will the Leader of the House give way?
Mr. Newton: May I please continue my argument in a connected way?
The opinion of the majority was in effect that the crucial issue was the need for the Commissioner for Parliamentary Standards, in fulfilling his duties, to know what an agreement committed a Member to do. It felt that the basic purpose was therefore achieved by the deposit of such agreements, but without the remuneration.
The reasons for that are set out in paragraphs 43 to 49 of the report, which I am sure that the House will have studied with care. However, I emphasise what I believe the majority of the Committee would regard as the two main points.
First, we felt that it was right to consider the issues of restriction of activity, so to speak, and disclosure together—as, indeed, Nolan had done—in the light of the fact that the whole Committee had agreed on an overall approach radically different from that recommended by
620
Nolan. Nolan had concluded against the distinction between advocacy and advice on which our Select Committee has agreed, and proposed only a limited ban on agreements with multi-client lobbying organisations. It took the view that more information about existing agreements, and more examination of the implications, was needed before a decision on a wider ban could be taken. It said that it was "in this context" that the recommendations on disclosure of agreements and remuneration was crucial.
Against that background of an overall approach very different from Nolan—and going very much further than Nolan—the majority believed it also necessary to consider the way in which the associated Nolan recommendations on disclosure should be looked at in that new and very different context.
Obviously, no question of disclosure could arise in relation to activity that was no longer allowed. Therefore, to the extent that disclosure of remuneration had been regarded as an answer to the perceived problem, the case on those grounds fell away if the activity itself were not to be allowed.
Secondly, therefore, in that new context, the majority felt it right to give greater weight to the difficulty of drawing a fair and sustainable line between activity for which remuneration would have to be disclosed and activity for which it would not. The point is perhaps most clearly illustrated by the Nolan report's reference to financial benefits that Members
"receive as a consequence of being elected".
That would manifestly go much wider than the type of agreements that we have been considering and would, for example, obviously embrace the great majority of payments made to Members for newspaper articles, broadcasting and lecturing. The vast majority of those arise from being a Member of Parliament.
Nor is it hard to think of other issues on which argument would increasingly arise. I simply quote the Committee's conclusion.
Mr. Bill Michie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Newton: I will give way to enable me to find the Committee's conclusion.
Mr. Michie: I am grateful to the Leader of the House. In the course of many years, this place has passed legislation that has forced local government to be open, honest and above board. Not so long ago, the Government took away the right to silence of suspects, on the grounds that they had nothing to hide. At the Tory party conference, the party discussed the business of introducing identity cards to recipients of benefit because, if one has nothing to hide, one has nothing to fear. What do we have to fear by ending the right to silence in the House?
Mr. Newton: To judge from some of the posters that I have seen on television, the hon. Member for Dewsbury may make a similar argument. I believe that it would be right for me to leave the hon. Gentleman to make his own speech, if he wishes, rather than to discuss that now.
Dr. John Reid rose—
Mr. Newton: No; I will not give way any more. I said that I wanted only to quote the Committee's conclusion. I quote paragraph 49, which I believe is the only part of our report that I shall read out again:

621
"In reality we judge that the real choice is between the view that compulsory disclosure of remuneration for legitimate activity is an unjustified intrusion, and the view that full disclosure of all income—in effect, the publication of the tax return—should be required. Nolan concluded that 'no-one has put a convincing case' for full disclosure."
The majority of the Committee agree with that.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: On that subject, which is especially important, I have heard Conservative Members suggest that our amendment would require the publication of tax returns. Will the Leader of the House confirm that no member of the Select Committee advocated that course of action, and that the amendments that we are debating tonight do not say that we should go down that path?
Mr. Newton: I have no desire to mislead anyone. It is certainly the case that no proposition of that type was put to the Committee or argued in the Committee, and I understand that the hon. Lady's amendments, which I believe would give rise to the growing distinctional problems that I have mentioned, would certainly not take us in one leap to full disclosure of tax returns.
I conclude by saying that on that, as in every other matter before the House in the debate, it is for the judgment of Members to decide. However, what I claim for the Select Committee is that, taken together, our two reports constitute the most significant strengthening of our rules for decades—certainly since the register was introduced in 1974, and in my opinion for much longer than that.
Our proposals are designed to balance the overriding duty of Members to serve their constituents without undue hindrance, with the necessary safeguards that our freedoms in the House should not be abused. I believe that our proposals stand together as a carefully thought out and comprehensive package, and I invite the House to endorse it by voting for all the resolutions in my name.
4.45 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I start by declaring, as always, the interests that I have that appear on page 129 of the Register of Members' Interests—my sponsorship by the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, the fact that I am an adviser to the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the fact that Unison has in the past helped with my office costs. Not included in the register, because it was a late addition, was the gift of football tickets to my family earlier this year.
I mentioned the interests that I have, not only because it is right that any Member speaking in the debate should do so but because it is obvious from the interests I have that I am affected by the amendment on disclosure that stands in my name and that of Members from other parties in the House. I shall speak specifically to that amendment in a few moments, but I want to make it clear that I am affected by that, as are hon. Members who I believe will join me in the Lobby tonight.
I do not want to go over the whole history of how we come to be debating the subject today. We are short of time and I believe that the whole House is aware that it is an important issue, in terms of the confidence that people can have in Parliament and of the matters that arose from the "sleaze factor", as it was sometimes called.
I simply recall the very end of our most recent debate on that issue in the House, when some Members, such as the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) and for
622
Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), said that they agreed with the principle of disclosure but wanted more work on the detail of the way in which that would operate to be carried out by the Select Committee.
It is interesting to note, and we should remember, that paragraph 69 of the Nolan committee report says that, of those Members of whom Lord Nolan asked the question, "Do you mind if there is disclosure of the income that you receive for parliamentary activities?" none said that he objected to that limited disclosure about which Lord Nolan was talking.
Mr. Terry Dicks: Is the hon. Lady aware that, even if someone wanted voluntarily to record the amount of money that he receives from a consultancy, the House laws prevent that from being recorded in the Register of Members' Interests?
Mrs. Taylor: There is no provision in the existing register for such disclosures to be made in general terms, although many people who have sponsorship use the fact that they are covered by the Hastings agreement as a shorthand way of doing exactly that.
It is important that the House, when debating that issue today, remembers that many hon. Members on both sides of the House said that they supported disclosure of the amounts in that limited area relating to parliamentary activities if definitions could be found. The Select Committee resumed its work on that basis.
Mr. Tim Devlin: The Labour party in my constituency is putting out a statement that the hon. Lady is bringing forward a proposal today that
"all payments to MPs be made public in a register of members interests".
Is that the position or not?
Mrs. Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has read my amendments carefully. The amendments, which are tabled in my name and those of other members of the Committee, do not call for any more than Lord Nolan's committee called for: the declaration should include amounts paid to us as a result of interests which we have and which are related to our parliamentary activities. I am happy to make that clear, and shall talk about it in greater detail shortly.
Mr. Marlow: I wish to clarify one issue so that we are aware of the rounded story. Is it true that, under the first motion, if any of the hon. Lady's hon. Friends were provided with office facilities in their constituencies by trade unions, they would not, in the House, be able to advocate the trade unions' position?
Mrs. Taylor: The issue of sponsorship—the interests and advantage of and help from sponsorship—is covered not by the first motion but by the second. The subject of sponsorship was dealt with specifically by the Select Committee, which made no changes to the existing provisions in relation to sponsorship, not least because most of us know that the 1947 resolution already exists.
Dr. Keith Hampson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Taylor: I cannot give way—I have already done so. We are short of time and need to make progress.

623
I want to endorse much of what the Leader of the House said about the way in which the Committee operated. For the most part, we had constructive discussions and had to agree to differ on, I think, two or three points. Unfortunately, those points were critical, at least to my mind, which is why I have tabled the amendments.
I shall start with the 1947 resolution and return to the evidence that I gave to the Nolan committee some time ago. I said then:
"the ground rules that some Members—indeed, I believe the majority of Members—believe existed have certainly not been followed by some Members in individual cases."
But, I continued:
"It is clear, and "Erskine May" has made this clear over the years, that certain actions are just not acceptable, such as Members of Parliament accepting payment or inducements for any kind of Parliamentary activity."
That is how people interpreted the status quo, and it is an important starting point. The Nolan report makes it clear that that has been the case for many years—not just since 1947 but since the middle of the last century and, indeed, since 1695.
Dr. Hampson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Taylor: No, I cannot give way. I must make progress.
The ideas behind the 1947 resolution are not new. I would therefore argue that the ideas behind the first motion which the Leader of the House moved today are not new. As he said, they had the unanimous support of all members of the Select Committee. The motion acknowledges the sound basis of the 1947 resolution and the fact that it dealt with the issue in principle, but it adds more detail, is more specific and gives examples of what cannot be considered as legitimate activity if a Member of Parliament is undertaking that activity for money.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Taylor: No; I am sorry, but I cannot give way as I want to deal with this point.
It is important for everyone in the House to realise that the Select Committee report stated that the list which is featured as an addition to the 1947 resolution is illustrative and is not supposed to be exhaustive. Those who want statutory provisions must bear in mind that it will be difficult to cite every example of what hon. Members cannot do. If we were to adopt that approach, we might create even more loopholes.
Dr. Hampson rose—
Sir Terence Higgins rose—
Mrs. Taylor: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Worthing, who is a member of the Committee.
Sir Terence Higgins: The hon. Lady will be aware that the Committee spent an immense amount of time on many issues, particularly the subject of speaking in the House. The Leader of the House was right in saying that we were unanimously agreed on what we considered to be the right approach to that issue. But does the hon. Lady think that the motion as now drafted implements the Committee's intention, specifically with regard to paragraphs 21 to 26?
624
I should have thought that there was a catch-all motion, in addition to the specific initial motion, that could state that the thrust of the Committee's report was also accepted by the House. If so, this particular problem would be solved.
Mrs. Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman, who served on the Committee—I think that he attended every sitting—knows how we wrestled with the problems. He also knows that we did not say that our report was the last word on the issues and that the new Select Committee and the code of conduct—particularly the code of conduct—would have to tackle some of the problems.
Mr. Nigel Evans rose—
Mr. Budgen rose—
Mrs. Taylor: I must make progress. I should have thought that the 1947 resolution—and its extension—was the least controversial part of what we are discussing.
Dr. Hampson rose—
Mr. Evans rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Do I understand that the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) is not prepared to give way at the moment?
Mrs. Taylor indicated assent.
Madam Speaker: In that case, the hon. Gentlemen must not persist, but must resume their seats.
Mrs. Taylor: The Nolan committee stated that the 1947 resolution formed the basis of the list of allowable activities. It also referred to a problem that has exercised your mind on occasions, Madam Speaker, and the minds of others in the House: the feeling that, since the introduction of the Register of Members' Interests, there has been a tendency to create the false impression that any interest is acceptable once it is registered. That is why we need to go further today and be more specific about what is considered acceptable.
I want to examine the question whether the total ban on advocacy, for single as well as multi-client companies—to which the Leader of the House referred and which is covered by our Select Committee report—takes the issue much further than the Nolan report, as some people have claimed. The question is whether that is a step of such fundamental importance that it negates the need to implement the other key Nolan recommendation: disclosure of paid advisory work.
I wish to explain to the House why we supported including single clients in the ban for two reasons. The first is the obvious one that many of us thought that single clients should be and were covered anyway under the 1947 resolution. There was also a practical reason: it is clear from the Select Committee's report that it would have been nonsense to ban advocacy by those acting for multi-client companies but allow it for those acting for single-client companies.
Paragraph 9 of the Select Committee report states:
"it would not be difficult to devise a system whereby a multi-client organisation could operate through a series of single-client subsidiaries, thereby circumventing"
the rules.
Mr. Nigel Evans: Some 167 Opposition Members are sponsored by single-interest groups such as trade unions. Earlier this year, I participated in a debate on the railways. Only five Opposition Members were present, all of whom were sponsored by railway trade unions. Does the hon. Lady think that that was right? Does she not think that those Members should be prevented from taking part in such debates in future?
Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that I do not need to tell the hon. Gentleman that none of those individuals would receive money directly for himself from those organisations. Nor should I need to advise the hon. Gentleman of his rights, whereby, if he thinks that any hon. Member, from either side of the House, is in breach of current provisions, he should report it in the appropriate way.
I say to the hon. Gentleman and to Conservative Members that the ban on advocacy was extended to single clients as well as multi-clients, to close a very obvious loophole. Hon. Members who rely on the argument that the Select Committee goes further than Nolan as justification for non-disclosure of money from Parliament-related work should be aware that that argument does not hold up.
There are potentially three types of paid employment that the Select Committee believes could involve Members of Parliament: paid advocacy, paid advisory work and work independent of the House. We have already dealt with paid advocacy, which was banned by the 1947 resolution. Therefore, the House proposes no change to paid advocacy in principle. It is important to state—I know that it will interest some Conservative Members—that there is no change to the work performed by a Member of Parliament that is completely independent of his or her parliamentary duties. Some hon. Members believe that such interests should not exist. So far as today's debate and the Nolan report are concerned—
Dr. Hampson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: It sounds to me as though it will be a point of frustration because the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) was unable to intervene on the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor).
Dr. Hampson: I apologise, Madam Speaker, as I have seldom done this to the Chair, but the hon. Lady is slightly misleading the House.
Madam Speaker: Order. First, I know full well that the hon. Gentleman is not raising a point of order with me: he is frustrated because the hon. Member for Dewsbury will not allow him to intervene. Secondly, the hon. Lady is not misleading the House even slightly, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will rephrase what he has to say.
Dr. Hampson: Paragraph 30 of the Nolan report says that the 1947 resolution—
Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order to me? It must be to do with the Standing Orders or the procedures of the House. The hon. Gentleman is showing his great frustration at not being able to put his question to the hon. Lady. He must contain himself.
Mrs. Taylor: The report of the Select Committee and the amendments that we have tabled will make no difference to
626
hon. Members' paid advocacy work—which is banned—and no difference to that work performed by a Member of Parliament completely independent of his or her parliamentary role. Paragraph 70 of the Nolan report says:
"We are aware that in a number of other countries the practice is to require full disclosure of assets and income. But it is by no means clear that full disclosure of financial matters unrelated to Parliamentary business is relevant to the public interest. No-one has put a convincing case to us as to why that might be necessary".
That applies to the Select Committee report and to the amendments that I have tabled; it is misleading for anyone to suggest otherwise. We agree with the Prime Minister, who said last week that hon. Members are entitled to the same tax privacy as other people. However, that point is irrelevant to the debate this evening; no one is suggesting otherwise.
Sir Edward Heath: Will the hon. Lady help me on that point, to which reference is made in paragraph 38 of the Select Committee's report? The hon. Lady emphasised that, if hon. Members' work is not connected with Parliament, that is the end of the matter. Paragraph 39 goes on to state:
"The present rule is that all remunerated outside employment must be included in the Register".
Why must such work be included in the Register of Members' Interests, if, as the hon. Lady says, it has no connection with Parliament?
Mrs. Taylor: It must be listed in the register under the current rules, which have applied for some time. There is no change to that category either as a result of the Select Committee's recommendations or as a result of my amendments.
Mr. Jim Lester: If hon. Members declare income from advisory or consultancy roles, people will falsely relate the time that Members of Parliament spend in those roles with the time that they spend on constituency work. Hon. Members who are part-time farmers, journalists or banisters may devote a great deal of time to those tasks outside the House, but they do not have to declare their cash receipts.
Mrs. Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will re-read the relevant sections of the report which relate specifically to parliamentary activities. The report also deals with protection in relation to constituency activities. No confusion need arise in that area. However, if there is any doubt in hon. Members' minds, the Select Committee is drawing up a code of conduct and, from 15 November, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will be able to provide advice on the matter.
I turn now to what I thought was the most controversial issue—it is certainly the issue that divided the Select Committee. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) referred to the issue of "parliamentary advice"—that is the shorthand term. The category embraces all the work that an hon. Member has only because he or she is an elected Member of Parliament. It is extremely important to remember that that category of work exists only because hon. Members are elected to this place. The Nolan report states:
"Full declaration is especially important in respect of paid activities relating to Parliament".
The Select Committee recognised that the activities in that category are separate from independent earnings of Members of Parliament. In his motion, the Leader of the

627
House recommended that all agreements that hon. Members have relating to parliamentary activities should be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; in other words, the agreements are relevant because they relate to parliamentary activities. I support that view: I think that those interests should be registered. However, I think that we should go further and ensure that they are subject to full disclosure.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Taylor: No, I must make some progress.
The Select Committee points out that Members of Parliament receive such payments only by virtue of their positions in this place: they would not receive them if they were not Members of Parliament. Therefore, our constituents have a right to know about the payments and they should be made public. If there is a distinction to be made, it is the one that has been drawn already—and that the Leader of the House commended to the House—between those agreements that relate to parliamentary activity and the independent work that some hon. Members perform. No further distinction needs to be made in order to implement the amendments that stand in my name.
The Nolan committee recommendations state that the amount of money that Members of Parliament receive is relevant because whether an hon. Member receives £1,000 or £20,000 from an organisation may influence that hon. Member when it comes to disagreeing with that organisation. That point is fundamental to our argument and to our amendments.
Some Conservative Members are concerned about the long-term consequences of going down the disclosure path. There have been many scares about tax returns and I hope that the Leader of the House has calmed some of the hysteria with his answer to my intervention. The scares about hon. Members' income tax returns being made public are no more than smokescreens and diversions from the central issue. I would go further and say that there is far more chance of seeing a real campaign to make hon. Members' tax returns public if my amendments are defeated this evening than if they are carried.
This is an important issue for everyone in the House. Hon. Members on both sides of the House resent the fact that all Members of Parliament are getting a bad name because of the activities of a few. The best way to protect the good name of Parliament and to rebuild public confidence in Parliament is to vote for my amendments this evening.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I remind Members that speeches are now limited to 10 minutes.
5.9 pm
Mr. Tom King: I am sure that I am not the only hon. Member who regrets that we are debating this matter. There is no question but that the honour and integrity of the House is the responsibility of every individual Member. No matter how many rules are written, there will be attempts to evade them, and the integrity of the House is the most important issue.
628
The Nolan committee made some unanimous recommendations without dividing on party lines and I very much regret that the Select Committee was unable to do the same. If I hold one Member of Parliament most responsible for that, it is the Leader of the Opposition. I am sorry that he is not here today, although of course I understand why.
I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman holding forth about the need to uphold the integrity of the House and standing up for the moral position of Parliament. I have also read about the deal between trade union leaders and members of the Labour party, in which he made it clear that Labour had to be seen as squeaky clean and that any apparent financial link between unions and Members of Parliament had to end as soon as possible.
The key criterion of the new compromise deal that was put together by a working party of trade unionists and Members of Parliament over several months, during which many unions, including the Transport and General Workers Union, which sponsors the Leader of the Opposition, balked at the idea of losing total control over how their money was spent, was that, under the new system, the money paid to constituencies would not have to be registered. That is clear proof that, whatever rules we make, attempts will be made to avoid transparency.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. King: No. [Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. King.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. King: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, but she must be brief, as I have only 10 minutes.
Mrs. Taylor: I shall be very brief. As a member of the Nolan committee, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Labour party has been pressing for an urgent inquiry into party political funding?
Mr. King: As the hon. Lady will know, the Nolan committee referred to that issue. It referred specifically to the declaration of interests and recommended that we should examine not only political funding, but the financial issues involved. Many hon. Members missed the direct reference by the Nolan committee to the pay of hon. Members and the need to examine that issue.
The party political campaign that has been waged has distracted the attention of the media and that of many hon. Members from many of the most significant elements of the Nolan report. I pay tribute first to the Government's response to the recommendations that were directed towards them. In a singularly ill-attended debate on Thursday night, we dealt with the issues regarding retiring Ministers now being required to go to the Carlisle committee, the introduction of "Conduct and Procedure for Ministers" and the introduction of the code for the civil service—all important new developments.
The other success of the Nolan committee has been to address not just Members, but a wider public outside, including many organisations that deal with Parliament, on the importance of maintaining high standards. One does not have to be Secretary of State for Defence for very long to know about the intense lobbying by forces

629
outside Parliament. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are involved with outside organisations that lobby extremely hard. There has been the growth of a rather casual approach in some quarters. I welcome the fact that the very existence of the Nolan committee has led to the recognition of the importance of maintaining high standards. I can already see signs of their wider recognition.
I dare suggest to the House that the most significant issues are not those that are currently most divisive and the subject of the greatest argument. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will make a major and valuable contribution. I hope that hon. Members have had a chance to read his job description and to consider the role that he can play, together with the new Committee on Standards and Privileges and the code of conduct.
He will be helpful in the guidance and advice that he will provide, the maintenance of the register and his ability independently to investigate complaints. I trust that no hon. Member wants any genuine misdemeanour not to be properly investigated. The commissioner will also give proper protection to the innocent, who can be too easily maligned and smeared in the press without adequate recourse. In that respect, the ability to make an independent investigation is valuable.
Some of my hon. Friends are worried that we might have set up somebody who is unaccountable to the House. I said in a previous debate that the commissioner would be selected and appointed by the House, answerable to a Select Committee and able to make his own investigations, but would report the findings of those investigations only to a Committee of the House.
My only query—and I know the difficulties that the Commission faced—concerns the salary chosen for the gentleman in question and the days that it is thought necessary for him to do his work. I have the greatest respect for Sir Gordon Downey, but no Comptroller and Auditor General ever received such a total remuneration as he will now receive, of salary and pension.
I say to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that I hope that the code of conduct will proceed with the greatest possible haste.
I come now to the alternative approaches that are at the heart of the debate. In Nolan, we suggested that, with the exception of the multi-client agencies and consultancies, the best approach was to permit activities existing at present but to go for full transparency and disclosure. The Select Committee has decided unanimously that it can improve on that and recommends a total ban. I note from some interventions that not all Members are absolutely sure that the Select Committee has got it completely right.
We encountered real difficulties in drawing a distinction between advice and advocacy. We were concerned as to whether it might unreasonably restrict the perfectly legitimate expression of views on behalf of constituents or perfectly reputable outside bodies. We also doubted whether it could be acceptable to the House. If the unanimous view of 15 senior and experienced Members of Parliament is that it can be done, I am prepared to support it, but I worry about the responses by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) to the intervention about the motions—that a great deal can be
630
done by a subsequent Select Committee, which appears to be able to amend the motions or give different guidance from what may be in the motions at the moment. If my right hon. Friend puts the motions to the House tonight, I shall support them, as they clearly go further than the Nolan committee.
I do worry about the speed with which this whole exercise has been conducted. I know that the Select Committee met quite a number of times, but at the same time I wonder whether what the hon. Member for Dewsbury has described as fundamental changes have been completely thought through. The proposed ban is certainly a major step.
As for disclosure, Nolan of course recommended full transparency in respect of contracts for work related to Parliament, and I believe that that was right, but with the new proposal—
Madam Speaker: Order. Time is up.
5.20 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: I was surprised that the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) saw fit to question the speed at which the Committee operated, since it was his committee which recommended that the changes should be in effect at the beginning of the forthcoming Session. That is why we met with such frequency and diligence during the summer recess. I also regret the somewhat partisan note that he injected. Efforts certainly were made to come to a unanimous view. My view, when the committee produced its first report in July, was that it was worth deliberating during the summer recess, despite the inconvenience, to see whether it was possible to reach agreement. That did not prove possible, and I regret that too.
I particularly regret the fact that the Leader of the House did not feel able in the event to support Nolan's core recommendation that there be full disclosure of Members' outside interests—including the explicit recommendation that they should declare in the register their annual remuneration in respect of services provided in their capacity as Members of Parliament. I do not propose this evening to go beyond dealing with the issue on which the Select Committee was unable to reach a conclusion unanimously, as, between them, the Leader of the House and his shadow have already deployed the arguments that the Committee put forcefully.
The issue that divided us was extremely important. The argument that proposing a ban on paid advocacy by Members dispenses with the need for disclosure of payments for parliamentary services is specious and unconvincing. Nolan did not tie its recommendation of disclosure to Members serving outside interests only as advocates. Nolan specifically rejected the argument that "actual remuneration is irrelevant". Indeed, the Committee described it as not at all convincing.
Nolan went on to say:
"A member who gets £1,000 a year as a Parliamentary adviser is less likely to be influenced by the prospect of losing that money than one who receives £20,000 a year. The scale of remuneration is in practice relevant to a full understanding of the nature of the service expected."
We must dispense with the impression that some have tried to give: that moving towards a full ban on advocacy, or attempting to redefine the terms of the 1947 resolution,

631
has in some way made it possible or acceptable not to reveal the money given to Members of Parliament in return for their advice.
Mr. Jenkin rose—
Mr. Maclennan: I know that the House wants to hear as many speeches as possible, so I must curb my desire to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I am not alone in entertaining some doubts. The right hon. Member for Bridgwater worried about the practicality of distinguishing between advocacy and advice; and perhaps more importantly, about policing the distinction between them. When I gave evidence to the Nolan committee, I drew attention to some of the difficulties. Someone giving advice about how to obtain an opinion from the House of Commons or from a Minister is coming pretty close to being an advocate.
These moves will not necessarily prove to be the final word on the matter, but it is still worth making explicit the prohibitions set out in the principal resolution before the House today, which describes the activities considered to involve advocacy. This, however, cannot be the end of the matter. The prohibitions do not discharge hon. Members from the explicit duty proposed by Nolan to publish the income that they receive for offering advice to clients as Members of Parliament.
More generally, this debate has to some extent unfortunately been cast in the mould of a discussion about standards in public life. The revelations of the past three years have made that inescapable, but this is not entirely a debate about political morality. It is also—and should be—a debate about the effectiveness of this House. It is not just the venal behaviour of—I believe—not very many Members of Parliament that should be under the spotlight. It is also the inadequacy of Parliament to discharge the functions required of it that has fostered the growth of lobbying, which in turn has led to the problems that we face today.
The huge increase in the volume of legislation, the inadequately prepared and often too partisan nature of that legislation, the inadequacy of the consultation on that legislation, and the speed with which it has been enacted and—frequently—repealed have all contributed to the growth of an army of consultants outside Parliament, whose business it is to get a fair hearing for the important interests of those affected by proposed Government legislation.
This is the problem that underlies the difficulties that we have faced. There has been a vast increase in the amount and speed of the business conducted here. The real problem is that the voices of those affected by what we do have not been heard; consequently there has been a demand for consultants and public relations people, who expend time and effort ensuring that those voices are heard. Conditions today are very different from when the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was first elected. The volume of legislation has doubled; vast amounts of subordinate legislation are not adequately scrutinised. Parliament must take that in hand, or the process of overload will lead to Parliament breaking under the strain and Members falling foul of outside pressures.
I believe that the Nolan committee has offered us some medicine that we have no choice but to swallow, quickly, but there has been a systemic failure in this House and
632
this Parliament that requires much more radical reform. We need a Great Reform Act to unpack our much vaunted Westminster model of government. That wider reform of the constitution is now necessary. The evidence that it is needed emerged, even before Nolan, in the strains and stresses of a system that is breaking.
5.28 pm
Mr. John Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) described a sense of unease—almost distaste—about the nature of this debate. Obviously no one enjoys talking about his emoluments. But there is also a sense of frustration, in that, ideally, we should like to discuss the whole question of registration and financial disclosure and its regulation and enforcement. The context that that would give our discussions would greatly enhance them, but clearly that cannot be done.
I do not object to the way in which the debate has proceeded in recent months. The House will learn to treasure the stand taken by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) in promoting the desirability of a legal framework within which such measures could be resolved—a point picked out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen). With a partnership like that, who knows how it can be countered?
The essential questions are the financial circumstances of Members of Parliament—particularly the undesirability of paid advocacy, and the alternatives that might be sought. In the 1960s and 1970s, I sat on the Government Back Benches and was fascinated by the exposition of James Callaghan in respect of the police and of Brian Walden in respect of turf accountants. It was a sort of dignity and impudence, and it was immensely impressive. No one thought that those Members of Parliament had demeaned themselves by that particular enterprise. No one thought that the House was being treated disparagingly.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is correct when he says that the mood of the public has moved on. What was accepted by the House in the 1960s and 1970s as being natural and beyond question would be of great concern today. If it is the mood of the public that is driving this debate—and I believe that it is—it is not just a matter of the club secretary looking in the suggestions box to see whether things could be done rather better. There is outside the House a powerful mood of anxiety about how Members of Parliament perform. The institution cannot be kept separate from its membership. We are right to react with caution and anxiety, and right to examine what reforms may be made.
Another aspect of the mood of openness is the way in which society outside Parliament is looking at its institutions, which interacts at one point with this debate. Under the Cadbury rules, public limited companies must enumerate directors' fees in their accounts. For individuals for whom such information is an area of fascination, payments made to Members of Parliament are already revealed in corporate accounts. That has nothing to do with the heroic standards of the House but with outside interests. Do not suppose that that can happen without a consequence for the House, the register and the whole issue of hon. Members' interests.

633
The money that a Member of Parliament receives as a director will be public knowledge but that which he receives as a consultant will remain veiled in mystery. That situation cannot be sustained. It has nothing to do with the decision that we are taking this afternoon but with other forces at work outside the Chamber, which require a different approach to disclosure.
Anyone who felt anxious about the fragility of today's decisions will have them reinforced by the debate. I do not make this point to my right hon. Friend in an aggressive or hostile way, but the moment we try to distinguish between advice and advocacy, we face difficulties. Time and time again, hon. Members have said how difficult will be the question of definition. My right hon. Friend used a delightful phrase—I believe that it was "definitionally critical", which was a Shakespearean touch. All distinctions will become untenable and will make this afternoon's proposals unsustainable. There will inevitably be pressure to produce more rational and extensive disclosure.
When I first entered the House, there was no Register of Members' interests. The House was as candid, open and honourable then as it is now—although I cannot say that this development is particularly encouraging. I cannot see the House turning away from the requirement for financial disclosure. If that is to come via Cadbury in the corporate sector, that itself will be the engine of change that will run through our procedures. Eventually it will extend to non-parliamentary interests. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said, that throws up the whole question of what information should be entered in the register if it is not a declarable interest in respect of financial disclosure. Those are the problems over the brow of the hill, and they cannot be avoided.
The Prime Minister said that it was greatly his hope that the matter could be resolved in the sense of long-term implications. Of course he is right. Of course the House must resolve the matter, but it must do so more logically and clearly, and—I regret to say—on the far side of the general election, for the general election and partisan politics cast a blight across proper and sustained consideration. Tonight, we will do my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House a favour if we ask him to take away these proposals.
5.36 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) who has, as is so often the cases, something fresh to say about a subject that is already beginning to look a little worn. I particularly welcome the right hon. Gentleman's common-sense observation that right hon. and hon. Members disclose their earnings as directors but apparently do not divulge their income as consultants. That anomaly is becoming increasingly absurd.
I welcome also the right hon. Gentleman's reminder of the 1960s and of the relative rarity of consultancy arrangements in those days. That triggered in my mind an important reform recommended by the Strauss committee in 1969. If its major recommendation had been adopted,
634
it would have avoided much that has followed. Strauss recommended a ban on the advocacy that is now part of the Select Committee's report.
I have watched from outside the activities of the Select Committee, and it would be churlish not to recognise the enormous amount of work that it has done in a short period. Despite the real controversy that still exists between different parts of the House, it is truly remarkable—particularly for anyone who attended the first debate on 18 May—that the members of the Committee unanimously registered agreement across a vast area in their first and second report.
I particularly welcome the proposed ban on paid advocacy in the form that the Select Committee described. I am pleased that the House will ban outright practices such as cash for questions, cash for amendments, cash for early-day motions, cash for' private Members' Bills and cash for speeches in the House. I am glad that those visible and objectionable forms of advocacy will be banned.
Let us be realistic—other forms of advocacy will continue. The most important of them is the access that Members of Parliament have to Ministers and civil servants through deputations, letters and private approaches. An alleged example of that form of paid advocacy was widely publicised in the weekend newspapers.
The main issue today is whether the extended ban on advocacy, which the Select Committee has put forward, destroys the case for declaration of amounts paid to Members of Parliament through the enjoyment of other advisory consultancies. The majority of the Select Committee believe that the case for that degree of disclosure no longer exists. A minority strongly disagrees.
The arguments have already been rehearsed—rather well, I think—from both sides of the House, but at this stage it is worth reminding ourselves of precisely what Nolan had to say on that matter. I know that it has been quoted before, but I shall say it again. At paragraph 69, he said:
"we believe that the public and in particular members' constituents have a right to know what financial benefit its members receive as a consequence of being elected … We consider it right therefore that remuneration should be disclosed in these cases "
The report dealt directly with the question: does the amount matter? It has already been quoted, but I shall re-quote it. It said:
"A member who gets £1,000 per year as a Parliamentary Adviser is less likely to be influenced by the prospect of losing that money than one who receives £20.000 a year. The scale of remuneration is in practice relevant to a full understanding of the nature of the service expected."
By recommending that amounts should not be declared, the majority on the Select Committee has clearly retreated a considerable distance from the Nolan recommendations. A number of points need to be stressed. May I first remind the House that the Nolan committee was unanimous in its report and recommendations, and that among the 10 members of the Committee, there were, apart from a former Clerk of the House, three members with considerable parliamentary experience, representing the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democratic parties? Apart from myself, it included Lord Thomson of Monifieth, who served in this House as George Thomson MP, and the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who is in his place today.

635
We all supported the proposal that there should be declared in writing not only the content of consultancy agreements but the amounts actually received, in bands of income. The issue was also raised specifically during the oral hearings of the Nolan committee, and its report noted:
"several MPs with whom we have raised this issue did not object to disclosure of remuneration so long as this related strictly to parliamentary services."
The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), whom I see on the Conservative Back Benches and who played an active part in the work of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, was asked by a Nolan committee member whether his advocacy of greater transparency
"should be accompanied by the amount of Income that is attributed to that outside interest".
The hon. Gentleman replied:
"I would have no objection to that."
When pressed about the reaction of Members of Parliament in general, he said:
"I find it difficult to comment on that because I have not talked to the great majority of MPs about it. I simply give my opinion that most MPs would be happy for openness".
The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), Chairman of the Select Committee on Members' Interests, when asked the same question, replied, not committedly but quite fairly:
"I think there are arguments on both sides of this question".
It is therefore quite wrong to allege that the proposal for the disclosure of amounts received is simply the work of partisan and ill-disposed Labour Members of Parliament. That is quite false; it is the considered judgment of the Nolan committee and of many people who gave evidence to it.
Mr. King: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shore: I am sorry, but there is a 10-minute rule.
Of course I understand why there are strong objections to the proposals. According to the present and limited register, 168 Members of Parliament with 356 consultancies have paid agreements with outside bodies. The ban on advocacy will almost certainly lead to the termination of a number of those consultancies, and to a resulting loss of income to their recipients.
As for the rest, the great bulk of consultancies, there is inevitable disquiet, because publication will almost certainly lead to demands that Members of Parliament justify their consultancy earnings. If their constituents are satisfied that these activities promote the public interest and that the Members involved are able to combine those outside paid activities satisfactorily with their primary duty to represent their constituencies and to participate in national affairs, they will have little to fear, but those who cannot so satisfy their constituents will obviously be under pressure to bring the arrangements to an end.
These anxieties, while wholly understandable, do not outweigh the basic need to restore in the public at large confidence in their elected representatives in the House of Commons. The country has a gut feeling that Members of Parliament are here above all to serve them and the nation, and that anything that interferes with that must be justified rather than taken for granted.
The House will recall that the Nolan committee was set up in October last year
636
"to examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities".
No one should minimise the extent of current concerns about the standards of conduct.
Failure to disclose amounts earned from all Parliament-related consultancy agreements will inevitably lead people to conclude that Members of Parliament have something to hide and cannot justify their consultancy arrangements. Nolan was set up to restore public confidence in elected Members. It will not succeed in that task if the House rejects its major recommendation: to disclose earnings.
5.46 pm
Sir Terence Higgins: I declare the various interests that I have recorded in the register.
Ultimately, standards in public life will depend on the talent, ability, skill and integrity of those who are elected to the House. Nolan himself recognised that the issues that he was considering could not be divorced from the issue of Members' pay. I argued at column 1193 on 26 October 1995 that we are in a serious recruitment crisis in the House, not in the sense that there would be too few candidates to fill the seats but that the number of people suitably qualified to come to the House, and more particularly to be drawn from the House to become Ministers, is likely to be adversely affected if we continue the present position with regard to Members' pay.
The situation is such—I analysed it in some depth in my earlier speech—that, if we were to get Members back to the same relative position in relation to the rest of the country, in real terms, Members' pay would have to be doubled and Ministers' pay trebled. I believe firmly that we must also consider that issue in looking at and putting into context today's debate.
I suggested, since Nolan clearly has managed to establish a remarkable degree of independence, that the matter should be referred to him. He pointed out that it was outside his present terms of reference. I believe that those terms need to be changed, and we need a series of all-party discussions so that we can tackle that problem. The matter is urgent, because, if it is going to be done, it has to be done towards the end of this Parliament for implementation in the next. Given the interest in the debate today and the general atmosphere at the present time this may well be our last chance to get the matter sorted out. If we go on the same way in the next 10 years as we have in the past 30, I fear that in 10 years' time a large number of Members in the House will either be placemen or paranoiacs—[Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter. I believe that it is a very serious matter indeed.
It is generally agreed, certainly between hon. Members on the Front Benches and all the members of the Select Committee, that the Select Committee worked in an extraordinarily efficient way. We were frequently reported in the press to be deadlocked, but we spent very little time on the matter on which we were deadlocked because it was apparent that we were deadlocked and that the matter would have to be resolved on the Floor of the House.
We spent 25 sittings on this report, and 39 in total, trying to clarify the overall report of the Nolan committee. With the greatest respect to the right hon. Member for

637
Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), I must say that we had a great deal of clarification to do. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, we had to examine the whole issue. He dodged the issue of consultancies; he referred it to us, and we had to come up with what I believe to be a much more sensible solution in relation to banning advocacy. We have defined it pretty precisely—and to the extent that we have not, the new Commissioner for Standards and the new Select Committee will be able to smooth the rough edges.
I must express concern to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in regard to a rather complicated point that arose in interventions on his opening speech. We spent many hours discussing how we were to deal with the problem of speaking if advocacy was banned; the results of our deliberations are recorded in paragraphs 21 to 26. I had assumed that there would be a catch-all motion saying that we approved the general tone of the report, or the general references in it, but that has not appeared.
There is a motion stating that the drafting will be difficult, and that there will have to be a code of conduct; but, if we pass the motion as it is currently drafted, we shall end up with an interregnum in which speaking in the circumstances in which we envisage it to be permitted will be prohibited until the code has been established by the new Committee. We are constrained by time, as we have been throughout our proceedings on this matter and as the Nolan committee was; but perhaps we can try to resolve that problem this evening.
We have little time for debate. I am sorry that we cannot have a series of separate debates on the various issues—the question of deputations, for instance. Let me conclude by picking up the points made by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. The fact is that Nolan viewed the question of disclosing amounts in relation to the confused scenario that he envisaged. He did not envisage, as we do, the total banning of advocacy. Clearly, in that context the question of disclosure simply does not arise any more. One of the main evils—perhaps the main evil—with which Nolan sought to deal was the idea that people exert influence on this place from outside by paying money to hon. Members. We have now ruled that out, so in that context it does not arise.
As for the provision of advice, as the report points out, the amount paid is likely to reflect either the resources of the recipient of the advice or the quality of that advice; but it will not affect the performance of hon. Members in the House. If it does, it will be caught by the rules and suitable sanctions will be applied. Another point made by the right hon. Gentleman needs to be dealt with, however. He said that we should reveal the amounts that are paid to hon. Members as a result of their election to the House. The implication is that hon. Members are spending considerable time outside, dealing with consultancies and so forth, rather than being in the House.
We all know perfectly well what the position really is. Many hon. Members with large outside interests are among the most enthusiastic and hard-working parliamentarians; probably no hon. Member works less than would be regarded outside as a normal working week. On the other hand, there are hon. Members—including some of those who are keenest to suggest that Members of Parliament should be full time—who do not,
638
perhaps, serve as much as they might on Standing or Select Committees. The amount that is paid is no indication of the amount of time that Members spend in the House. I believe that we are all full-time Members, regardless of whether we have other occupations outside.
Let me return to the main issue. I do not believe that disclosure is necessary. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen); I take his point about public limited compansies—no doubt his and my remuneration as directors are recorded in the annual reports—but I do not think that that justifies the extension advocated by Opposition Members. I hold that view not least because it is difficult to define whether a particular interest arises from membership of the House. Many hon. Members are now doing, on a much smaller scale, what they did before—probably in return for a much smaller income than they received then. Any statement of what they are receiving as a result of membership of the House should perhaps also take into account how much they were receiving before, and the amount by which their income has dropped as a result of that membership.
For all those reasons, I do not think that we should go along with the idea of disclosure of amounts. It has been overtaken by developments advocated by the Select Committee, which I consider a substantial improvement. Because disclosure has been the sole issue on which the press and, to a large degree, the Opposition have concentrated, we are overlooking the great extent to which we are tightening the rules with regard to the Commissioner, the new Committee and the banning of many practices which I—along, I believe, with many others—regard as completely wrong.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North said, the atmosphere has changed; but I believe that we should be able to support the changes that we are now proposing in front of our constituents. I hope that the House will not accept the Opposition amendment.
5.55 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris: Inexplicably, the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) excluded the possibility that Members of Parliament can be both placemen and paranoiacs. I think the House might have spared him a minute or so more to explain why.
I have long had the honour of being sponsored by the Co-operative movement, which does not make secret donations in any form—directly or indirectly—to any Member of the House. My interest is one that I declare with pride. There is nothing hole-in-corner about Co-operative sponsorship. No payment is made to the Member of Parliament and the contribution made to her or his allowable election costs is there for all to see. It is out in the open, fully disclosed and fully accounted for: a model of open dealing and political cleanliness.
Along with the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), I am also joint parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion, which is a wholly honorary role, both in my case and in his.
Full disclosure of what is spent by private interests to influence decisions of the House—in particular, what is paid to individual Members—is now essential to the health of our democracy. If the mandatory declaration of

639
Members' earnings for work done in a parliamentary capacity for outside interests is not secured today, the battle for transparency must go on—and go on it will until no organ of opinion has cause to write, as one not unfriendly to the Government now does:
"Do Tory MPs realise how grubby they make themselves look? By fighting tooth and nail to keep secret how much they earn on the side, they give the impression they have something to hide. They should stop acting like Arthur Daleys and realise that the public has the right to know what extras they are raking in."
That is not from The Guardian, New Statesman and Society or The Observer; it is from a leader in The Sun and, as every test of opinion shows, it reflects the view of the vast majority of the British people. They now no longer request, but insist, that backstairs payments for political favours must cease.
Mr. Rupert Allason: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Morris: I have a time limit.
Mr. Allason: I shall be very brief. Those of us who advocate complete transparency accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but does he agree that it would be a good idea to extend that transparency to payments to constituencies by trade unions'?
Hon. Members: It is already happening.
Mr. Morris: As has been explained to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), what he seeks is happening now. I am saying that backstairs payments for political favours must cease.
The response of some hon. Members will be to say that what they decide to keep secret about their outside earnings for parliamentary work is their business, and their business alone: that it has nothing to do with The Sun, with hon. Members who take a different view or with anyone else. I implore them to think again before we vote tonight. In particular, I ask them to stop being so self-indulgent, to the detriment not only of parliamentary colleagues but of the institution of Parliament itself. Taking and concealing money for parliamentary favours is demeaning to us all and puts an undoubted stain on the reputation of this House. That is why what they do in the matter that we are debating today is our business too.
The vast majority of the electorate also insist that everything that we say and do here must now be said and done in the open. As the House knows, I serve on the Privileges Committee. I made plain, from the moment the Committee was reconstituted in July 1994, my view that it should never meet again in secret except where, for some compelling reason, more especially one involving any possible breach of natural justice, it unavoidably had to do so. Yet we still meet wholly in secret even when there is no conceivable legal or other reason for so doing and even if a witness specifically requests to be heard in public, as Peter Preston did in the case of his appearance before the Privileges Committee earlier this year.
The Prime Minister has told me that his support for secret meetings of the Committee is based on respect for precedents. "That's how it has always been" is his justification. But in the light of the seven principles of acceptable conduct in public life that were enunciated by Lord Nolan—selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership—the Prime Minister's stance is no longer tenable. The Nolan
640
committee puts precept into practice and I hope that its example will very soon bring the proceedings of the Privileges Committee out of the shadows and into the 20th century while there are still a few years of it left. That would help to cleanse the reputation of the House and, at the same time, improve the quality of justice that is dispensed by its most powerful Committee.
The public now want not only to hear talk about principles but to see them rigorously applied. They are entitled to see beyond the doors of the Committee Rooms of the House, to know what is happening as it happens, and to expect the Nolan committee to hark ever more loudly for the highest achievable standards in public life. I find it a matter for deep regret that the decision by the Special Select Committee on full disclosure of earnings that arises from membership of the House was taken by a casting vote, and that members of the Committee divided wholly on the basis of party allegiance.
I hope that, after this debate, the divide on full disclosure will no longer be one between right and left but will be seen in all parts of the House as one between right and wrong. It is not too late now for us to unite in the cause of open dealing and restoring the reputation of this honourable House.
6.2 pm
Sir Edward Heath: I declare all my interests as entered in the Register of Members' Interests. None of them has any connection with parliamentary affairs.
Madam Speaker was kind enough to call me in our earlier debate on these issues, and I was hesitant about taking part today. However, there are one or two matters that I should like to mention. First, with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the whole of this affair has been appallingly handled and today has been an excellent example of that. We are squashed into a three-hour debate on an important, controversial and complicated subject. There has been little discussion of the other major issues in my right hon. Friend's speech and in his report simply because there is not enough time.
It has not been possible to interrupt some hon. Members because they can immediately say, quite rightly, "I have only 10 minutes." This is no way to conduct the business of the House of Commons. I do not blame the Leader of the House, because he is under tremendous pressure, above all from Opposition Front Benchers who have been screaming the whole time for rapid decisions because they want a decision on the revelation of Members' incomes.
I adhere to all the points that I made in my earlier speech and, in particular, to what I said about the appointment of a commissioner. I do not think that the House altogether recognises the problems that will face him. Any political agitator in the country will be able to write to him making allegations about Members' conduct in the economic sphere, and the commissioner will be bound to investigate them. In the course of that, all the allegations will become public.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: No.
Sir Edward Heath: Of course they can become public. The hon. Lady cannot simply think that, when the

641
commissioner starts investigating, the chap who put the allegations will not give them to the press. It will all come out and be published. If the allegations are irresponsible, there is no reason why they should be thrown to the public, and that is the problem that the commissioner will face. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman likes to indulge in unjustifiable allegations. We have had infinite examples of that, but perhaps he will desist for a moment.
I say to the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), that the proposed bands if incomes are reviewed are absolute nonsense. What justification could there be for that? Are we to say that, if an hon. Member is only mildly dishonest, we should do so and so, but that, if he is tremendously dishonourable, we should take certain other actions?
The hon. Gentleman is also wrong to say that, if an hon. Member had only his parliamentary income to live on and is offered £1,000 or £2,000, that is important to him. If he is a barrister earning £250,000 a year from fees, £20,000 is neither here nor there. We cannot categorise people's morality and honesty by trying to move financial barriers up and down. That is a great failure of his argument.
The argument with which I agreed was about the difficulties of industry, and in some cases the professions, in dealing with the Government. In this country there is an enormous gap between them, and people in industry do not know how to deal with Government Departments. I discovered that 30 years ago in the European negotiations, when I found out how close businesses in the other European Union countries were to their Governments and Ministers. Business men flew to Brussels to brief them while they were carrying on negotiations. If I mentioned that I was going to Brussels, business men would ask, "What for? Where is Brussels anyway?" That is a weakness in our structure and that is why business takes the view, "These people can help us and advise us and tell us how to do things." That is why the market has grown in such a remarkable way.
I shall now deal with the question of the public having a right to know. Of course people have a right to know about our public salaries, but we have a right to privacy. Why should people have a right to know about the financial rewards for our individual private activities? That does not stand up to any examination. It has just become a cry, "They have a right to know about us." The public have a right to know about our public position and public rewards, but not about our private activities—[Interruption.] That argument has gone out of the window. What is the point of publishing the private income of hon. Members?
Mr. Bryan Davies: We are not proposing that.
Sir Edward Heath: In that case, the hon. Gentleman disagrees with the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), who says that it has to be published if someone is registered at the moment.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to correct the impression that he is giving. I am not saying that everything that is registered at the moment should be declared in terms of
642
the amount earned. At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that none of his outside interests was related to parliamentary activities. In that case, none of them is covered by my amendment requiring disclosure of amounts.
Sir Edward Heath: The hon. Lady is on two entirely separate points. The first is about activities related to parliamentary activities, and they are registered. She went on to say that of course those that are not related must also continue to be registered. But what is the point of registering them if they are not connected with parliamentary activities? There is no relationship at all.
On activities concerned with parliamentary activities, what is the argument for publishing the private income that a Member receives? There is no argument for it—none at all. It is just that the Labour party wants and has always wanted to publicise what Conservative Members are earning because it has always had a doctrine of envy and hatred. We know it—we have been dealing with it for a long time. The Labour party cannot produce a single valid argument for publishing those incomes connected with parliamentary activities.
Whatever Nolan may have said, he justified this House as being a very honourable House, and so it is. No justification exists for getting into the complicated arrangements that are set out here. That is why I have continually objected to these things and to the way in which they have been handled here. There has not been proper time to examine them. The Leader of the House will agree that his Select Committee has not had proper time. It has had to sit all through the summer recess. That is no way to handle the business.
This House has always been known as an honourable House and Members have been known as honourable Members. That is the way that we should behave in future and the matter should not be tied down with the machinations of Labour Members. If we want to know their real purpose, one has only to consider their handout which was released last weekend, entitled "News From Labour". What does it say? They are going to write to 125 Members—I have not received a letter—and say, "You must tell us what your income is."
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Read it.
Sir Edward Heath: I am not going to take up time reading out the handout—Labour Members have got copies anyhow. It says, "Unless you tell us what your income is, we shall come time and time and time again, demanding that you reveal what you are being paid." What does that mean?
Mr. Bryan Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Edward Heath: No.
That means that the next election will be fought by Labour party agitators going to meetings and interrupting the whole time with only one question, "What is your income?" They want to fight an election not on policies but on envy, greed and dislike for the people in politics.
6.11 pm
Dr. Tony Wright: The most devastating paragraph in the Nolan report is paragraph 58, which deals with the failure of the House over the years

643
to put itself into some sort of order. It says that, if the House had only done that, had attended to reports such as the Strauss report and to recommendations such as those of the Salmon commission in 1976 and had dealt with the need to have an effective Register of Members' Interests and bring it up to date, it would not have brought the present situation on itself. At the end of paragraph 58—this is the one sentence that I want to quote because it is a consummate understatement of the position in which the House finds itself—the Nolan report says:
"The overall picture is not one of an institution whose Members have been quick to recognise or respond to public concern."
That surely is the root of all that we are talking about today.
I welcome the advocacy ban, because it is an attempt finally to get to grips with things that the House thought it had established almost half a century ago, in 1947. It turned out that it had not. The House failed to respond, which is why we are at this point today.
The ban as described in the motions is not effective enough without the amendment, because it leaves open all the ways in which, informally, hon. Members can still make representations on the part of interests for which they are paid. That cannot be right. That gap must be closed to make the ban effective, but it is nevertheless important.
There are two principles in all this. One is prohibition. The House should say clearly, without any room for doubt, that it is not acceptable for a Member of Parliament to do certain things such as taking money from outside organisations to promote causes in this place. That is what the advocacy ban will do.
The second principle is that of transparency. People must be able to see what is going on here, how we conduct ourselves and what we are doing. The right hon. Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) caught the essential mood of the moment when he said, "We have to take into account not what we say about these things but what people outside are saying." If hon. Members cannot recognise the country's mood now, they do not really understand what people are trying to say to them. People want to see that we are able to clean up our act. If we seem unable to do so, they will reach conclusions that will take us into ever more desperate circumstances.
I do not believe that some of the distinctions that the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life has tried to make are ultimately tenable, as the distinction between multi-client and single-client organisations was untenable: it fell away once it had begun to be scratched. The distinction between Parliament-related activities and non-Parliament-related activities is not effective and it will begin to disintegrate when the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards begins to consider it, which is why I tabled an amendment that I suppose stands as "the income tax return" amendment. It is not that—it does not require that—but that is what it stands as.
People want to know the answer to certain questions. First, they want to know whether Members of Parliament have other jobs and, secondly, if so, what those other jobs are for. Thirdly, they want to know how much they get paid for those other jobs and, fourthly, how much time they devote to them. No doubt our constituents and the people of this country are awfully naive about these things, but those are precisely the questions that they are asking of us. They happen to think that they elect us to he Members of
644
Parliament and to represent them, and that it is a job in itself. If that is not true, now is the moment for the House to tell the people of this country that it is not true.
I notice that, over the weekend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster stumbled into that matter when he said that being a Member of Parliament was a part-time occupation. I congratulate him on the direct way in which he approaches the issue, but, if that is the House's answer to those questions, let it answer openly and not in terms of arguments about spurious distinctions that do not stand up.
Having said that, I have been prevailed upon and persuaded that Conservative Members would not understand if I were to press what is called "the income tax return" amendment—amendment (n). They say that they are confused about all this and that their confusion will be increased if the amendment is allowed to stand. From the interventions that Were made earlier, it was clear that Conservative Members were mightily confused about what was proposed. In the interests of enlightenment and the reduction of confusion, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
On any view, we are at a moment when the House and Parliament must take a view on whether they want to start the process of fundamental reform, of which this is only a part—indeed, it is only the beginning and, in some ways, the least significant part—or watch themselves decline ever further in public esteem.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said that people effectively had no right to know certain things. People do have a right to have confidence in their public institutions and, above all, in Parliament. At the moment, Parliament is getting dangerously close to eroding that confidence. What it decides today will decide whether it starts to restore it.
6.19 pm
Sir Timothy Sainsbury: I hope that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) will understand if I do not respond in detail to what he said, much as I am tempted to do so, because we are limited by time. I rather agree with those who have said that it would have been better to have a longer debate on these issues. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen) said, that would have enabled us to put the issues into a wider context, and they would then have been more easily understood.
If we are to achieve our objective—which I hope we all share—of protecting the good name of Parliament, it might have been better to consider all the issues together. Instead, we are dealing with only one of three closely related issues—the advocacy or consultancy services provided by Members of Parliament in their capacity as Members of Parliament. I recognise, as have others who have spoken, that there are difficulties of definition. However, I believe that the Select Committee is broadly right in its proposals on advocacy and that the Nolan committee and the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) are broadly right in what they say on consultancies.
I have some reservations. Indeed, the hon. Lady's amendment would attract more sympathy from me—and, I suspect, others—if it dealt with several other issues. First, there is the issue of timing. Before we began our debate, several hon. Members tried to establish whether

645
we could consider implementing full disclosure at the start of the next Parliament, rather than the next Session. That would be a fairer and simpler system, which would allow a new Parliament to start with a new set of rules. I am not saying that we should not implement other aspects of the Nolan recommendations immediately, but full disclosure, which is a radical change, should be introduced with the next Parliament. The Opposition would attract more sympathy if they accepted that.
It would be helpful if we could have a clear declaration from the Opposition Front Bench that there is no longer the intention to move to the "income tax return" suggestion of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood, and repeated several times, from a sedentary position, by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). They rather contradicted the hon. Member for Dewsbury.
The second issue that I believe the House should be debating today is the need unequivocally to declare support for the Nolan committee on another point. I refer to paragraph 19 of the first report, where the committee states clearly that it is desirable for the
"House of Commons to contain Members with a wide variety of continuing outside interests."
I sincerely believe that we will do this House and the country a grave disservice by any suggestion that all outside interests should be banned or fully disclosed.
The third issue that should be debated now has already been raised many times, but no more eloquently than by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins). I refer to the absurd and wide disparity between the pay of Members of Parliament, especially Ministers, and the salaries and remunerations that can be obtained outside the House. When I was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry, I found it bizarre to be spending much of my time in negotiation and discussion trying to help industrialists being paid five, 10 or even more times the salary of a Minister of State. Again, the House will do itself and the country a disservice if it does not agree now to deal with that issue before a general election and on an all-party basis.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing set out the reasons, facts and figures clearly. However, I want to contribute a few ideas. Perhaps it might be possible for pay to be improved in part by a much wider range of Members receiving additional payments. For example, perhaps all Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, not just a small number, should receive additional payments. Perhaps additional payments should be made to the Chairmen of Select Committees, as they clearly carry a considerable burden.
I think that the whole matter has been a little rushed and we have not had sufficient time to debate it. We are not dealing with the whole range of issues. It might have been better if not only the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but those put forward by the Opposition had been taken away for more thought.
6.25 pm
Mr. John Evans: I proudly declare that I am a skilled member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and have been since I was 16. That
646
organisation pays the sum of £600 to my constituency Labour party as well as an agreed amount of my election expenses. Those are duly recorded in the candidates' return, and always have been.
I pay tribute to the Leader of the House and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for the way in which, together, they led the Select Committee and worked hard to seek considerable areas of unanimity. However, I make the plea that never again should the House of Commons inflict such a duty on hon. Members and expect them to produce such a detailed report in such a short time.
I shall comment on two issues, one of which was raised by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), who served on the Committee: the absurd suggestion that if the House tonight agrees 'to the recommendation on disclosure of earnings, it will result in far fewer people wishing to stand as Members of Parliament. Indeed, according to the Deputy Prime Minister, it would change the very nature of the House of Commons. There was a story in The Observer last week, which I understand emanated from the Paymaster General, that if the House votes that earnings should be revealed, about 100 Tory Members will leave the House at the next election.
If there is any truth in the claim that a whole phalanx of Tories will stand down and that there will be great difficulty in attracting new candidates to take their place, that is a shocking commentary on the modern Tory party. Essentially it means that the principal interest of so many Tories is not to be elected to the House to serve their constituents or their country, but to get their hands on fat juicy consultancies to enhance their standard of living. I do not believe that there is a single word of truth in such utter nonsense. However, if senior members of the Government make such statements, it is hardly surprising if people begin to wonder what on earth the Tory party is up to.
The second point that I want to raise relates to delegations to Ministers, something on which the Committee spent some time. I made it clear in Committee that I felt it to be one of the gravest areas of concern in the entire issue of sleaze in public life. After all, if a consultant to a company can arrange a meeting for the chairman or chief executive of that company with a Minister of the Crown, he certainly justifies his salary of £5,000, £10,000 or £20,000. If the allegations in The Sunday Times about the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) were anywhere near the truth, the position is even worse than I suspected. It is not just a question of paid Members of Parliament fixing meetings for their own employers, but apparently individual Members of Parliament are anxious to meet clients who want to meet Ministers.
I can only assume that the statements of the hon. Member for Wirral, South in The Sunday Times are true, a newspaper with the background of The Sunday Times would not print them. The matter will be raised with the hon. Member for Wirral, South and he will have to deal with the occasion on which he was approached by business men claiming to be acting for the good of British industry. The hon. Gentleman said:
"And I say,'oh yeah.' In fact, what they are doing is try to use some sort of political input to advance a commercial interest. Nothing the matter with that. I have no complaint about that at all. But if it's a commercial enterprise, I'm commercial."

647
That is the clearest indication—
Mr. Barry Porter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Evans: I wrote to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot give way because I have only 10 minutes. I will talk to the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber.
Mr. Porter: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the courtesy of letting me know that he was going to raise this matter in the House. Perhaps he would be good enough the read the last paragraph of what The Sunday Times said. In case he does not have it, I shall remind him. It said that I am not in breach of any rules of this House or of any law.
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the kernel of the argument. If he is not in breach of any rules then, by God, the rules of the House need changing.
Of course, such conduct will be dealt with in future by the new parliamentary Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The need for such an expensive post—and it is expensive, at £78,000 for a four-day week—has been created by the activities of a handful of hon. Members who were willing to take cash for questions or expensive freebies in the Ritz hotel in Paris and by the Prime Minister's knee-jerk reaction to the allegations of sleaze and his establishment of the Nolan committee.
The Nolan committee established that there is widespread public concern about declining standards in public life. According to an opinion poll on page 108 of the Nolan report, 64 per cent. agreed with the statement:
"Most MPs make a lot of money by using public office improperly".
Nolan also revealed that 168 hon. Members had 356 consultancies between them. The fact that most of those 168 are Tories revealed the size of the problem that the Prime Minister inherited when Nolan called for disclosure of the earnings of Members of Parliament.
The Prime Minister dealt with the problem in typical fashion by setting up another committee, the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, and charging it with producing a report before the summer recess. It did; and recommended—and the House accepted—the appointment of a new commissioner, a new Select Committee on Standards and Privileges and a new code of conduct for Members. However, the Committee was divided on the issue of disclosure of earnings. Labour Members backed Nolan and, to no one's surprise, Tory Members on the Committee rejected disclosure.
The Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Leader of the House, dared not, at that stage, reject Nolan out of hand. After all, the Prime Minister had on 20 May, just two days after the acrimonious debate on 18 May, stated:
"I do not just accept the broad thrust of Nolan. I agree with it."
The Leader of the House produced a formula for the debate on the Select Committee's first report on 19 July which stated that the Committee needed more time to study all the aspects of disclosure of earnings. The Leader of the House—he will not mind me saying this—was conducting a charade. The Tory members of the Committee had no intention whatsoever of supporting disclosure. In the Select Committee, we were not
648
deadlocked over the issue, as the press frequently reported. The only discussion we had on the subject took about five minutes, when we had a vote on the principles of the five options relating to Lord Nolan's demand for disclosure of earnings.
The options started with full disclosure, which the Opposition parties voted for, and then moved, by stages, further away from disclosure until there was no absolutely no disclosure—and the Tories voted for that. The Committee then agreed, without further ado or debate, that both sides would write their own versions of what they wanted in the final report and that we would vote on them in the Committee's formal and final session. That is what we did.
The Tories have made a silly mistake. A third option was available to them which called for disclosure of earnings to the new commissioner only. If they had accepted that, many Conservative Members who are concerned about the matter would have been happy. They could have lived with that and voted for it. Of course, the Tories rejected it.
If the Tories win the vote tonight, they will again leave the British people with the impression that they have something dreadful to hide. That will not go away and, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said, it will certainly be an issue at the next general election.
6.35 pm
Sir John Stanley: The two issues that have run through the debate are the declaration of earnings and the implications of the ban on advocacy, which, I believe, are much more profound than some hon. Members have suggested.
I will state my position on the declaration of earnings. I believe that the Nolan recommendations were poorly drafted. They certainly failed to clarify what was meant by "contract" and by "agreement". As to the basic principle, I do not have any objection on grounds of principle to the proposition that, where hon. Members supplement their income by providing parliamentary services to outside bodies, both the source and quanta of the sums earned should be declarable. I shall support that Nolan recommendation tonight.
The main issue before the House tonight is the implications of the declaration of the ban on what has been known as paid advocacy. The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) suggested in her opening remarks that the 1947 declaration against paid advocacy has had a material effect on the conduct of the House. In the more than 20 years that I have been in the House, paid advocacy has been alive and well throughout the House.
There have been any number of debates featuring hon. Members who have declared an interest in an outside organisation, whether a trade association or trade union, and who have clearly advocated the interest of that organisation in the course of the debate. I do not know that the 1947 declaration has had much impact, if that was indeed for what it was intended.
The so-called addendum that the Government are moving is designed to carry the matter further. That has some very real implications for what I believe to be the most fundamental right of hon. Members—the right to

649
speak in our proceedings in a wholly uninhibited way and to take part in our proceedings on the same basis as would any other hon. Member.
I draw the House's attention to the fact that the motion before us, over which the hon. Member for Dewsbury skipped extraordinarily lightly, proposes to a huge extent the banning of the initiation of debates by those who receive not only payments but benefits in kind, direct or indirect. I should have thought that that would have been a matter of some interest to the Labour party. The Nolan committee reported that there are 221 hon. Members with sponsorships, financial consultancies or other sorts of financial interests from trade unions. I wonder why the Labour party is not more concerned about the implications of that ban on initiating debate.
Mr. Jeff Rooker: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Stanley: I have only a short time.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in opening the debate that, although such hon. Members may not initiate debates, they could take part in them. However, my right hon. Friend used a form of words whereby he said that, although they could take part, they would have to choose their words with care. He used the same expression in his interview on the "Today" programme last Friday. No Member of this House should be in the business of some form of self-imposed censorship—choosing his or her words carefully. I do not intend to choose my words carefully within the bounds of parliamentary expression. I am obliged to say what I think and be absolutely straight about what I believe is on the agenda.
Moreover, there is not merely to be an inhibition of power to be able to initiate debates. Paragraph 23 of the Select Committee's report postulated that hon. Members might, in some circumstances, be debarred from taking part in debates at all. That is a most profound inhibition and potential intrusion on hon. Members' right of free speech. The relevant sentence says:
"On the other hand, it is not practicable to lay down in advance, with the precision that a Resolution of the House would require, all the circumstances in which it would or would not be proper for a Member with a paid interest to take part in a debate."
It will have profound consequences if we contemplate circumstances in which a large number of hon. Members were prevented from initiating debates, obliged to choose their words with care if they were to take part in debates and, in some circumstances, were unable to participate in debates at all.
Those are profoundly important matters, and it is not sufficient for the Select Committee simply to say that they should be left to the new commissioner, who is simply an official of the House, the new Select Committee or the new code of conduct. I do not criticise the Committee, which has done a Herculean job. It has had to work under a totally artificial time constraint, which. seemed to be dictated by the political requirements of the Opposition.
I see no need to rush these proposals, because the implications of a ban on advocacy for the most fundamental right of all Members of Parliament—the right of freedom of speech—must be thought through infinitely more carefully. We must know precisely who
650
will be banned from what, which is not clear at present. The motions before us tonight should be withdrawn and the matter referred back to the Select Committee. It is for the whole House, and the House alone, to decide who will be banned from what in participating in our proceedings.
6.42 pm
Mr. David Winnick: My interests are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests in the usual way.
It gives me no pleasure to say that we heard a mischievous and disagreeable speech from the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). It was totally distorted, as is his article in the Evening Standard today. He gave the impression in his speech that all is well in the House, there is no need for change and we are an incorruptible Assembly. I would remind him—he is no longer in his place—how this matter began and why the Nolan committee was set up in the first place: it was the cash-for-questions scandal.
When we first debated the matter, I said that The Sunday Times should be not criticised for what it did. Rather, it should be congratulated because, had it not carried out such an investigation, those matters would not have come to light and the reforms and recommendations before the House today would never have been agreed to. Although I am willing to, and often do, criticise that newspaper, I believe that it was in the overall interests of the House and of parliamentary democracy to bring those matters to light. That is why I believe that what it did was justified.
It is important to recognise—the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup did not recognise this—that the main controversy over financial disclosure arises not from some sinister Labour party plot but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said, from the Nolan committee's recommendation. The Prime Minister was right to set up the Nolan committee and had our full support in so doing, so it is difficult to understand why, having said when it reported that he would support it, he has now opted out.
He has caved in to Conservative Back Benchers—some of whom are here tonight; others are not—who were totally opposed to setting up the Nolan committee in the first place. They made it perfectly clear that they did not like the idea and saw no reason why the committee should be set up. Their agitation alerted the Tory Whips to a position that has led the Prime Minister not to support a crucial part of the Nolan recommendations.
On privacy, I believe that some aspects of our personal lives are indeed our business. There was no justification for the tabloids recently exposing some of the so-called "scandals", be they about Conservative or Opposition Members, because the public interest was in no way involved. Certain aspects of hon. Members' private lives have no relevance to their parliamentary duties. However, hon. Members cannot take the view, which some Tory Members wish to take, that financial matters are purely our business and that there is no reason why the public should know what we earn from outside sources. I do not accept that view for a moment. In other countries, such as the United States, far more information must be given than what the Nolan committee recommends.

651
I doubt whether many hon. Members would dispute that there is public support on the crucial question whether matters relating to parliamentary activity—those financial details—should be given. There is overwhelming support in the country, far outside the Labour party, for the recommendation. Conservative Members who are adamant in their opposition to it form a small minority in the country. Even the newspapers that would normally support the Conservative cause have not supported the Tory Members who are opposed to Nolan on this issue. I cannot but emphasise, and I doubt whether any Conservative Members could disagree, that among the public at large there is overwhelming support for giving information on activities that arise from our parliamentary duties, as recommended by Nolan, in bands. What is wrong with that? Why are Conservative Members so reluctant to give that information?
If we lose tonight's vote, it will be a defeat not just for this crucial amendment but for the House. It will demonstrate that we are unable to reform ourselves, which will reflect on us all, including those hon. Members who vote for the amendment. There will continue to be a general feeling in the country that we are all in this for ourselves and are all on the make. That would be a most unjust attitude to take, but it is undoubtedly being taken.
As some of my hon. Friends have said, if the amendment about financial disclosure is not carried tonight, the issue will not go away. It will come back in this Parliament and even more so in the next. It will be a continued sore within the parliamentary and democratic system. Why do not we demonstrate our courage tonight and admit that parliamentary reform of this nature is necessary? It is what the country wants and I believe that the country is right to want it. If it is justified, why should we defy public opinion in this way? I trust that, despite all the difficulties of getting a majority for the amendment tonight, it will be carried.
6.49 pm
Mr. David Wilshire: Even though I have no interests covered by the resolutions, I decided to become actively involved in the matter because I am fed up with being called a sleazebag. Every time that all Tory Members of Parliament are attacked, I am included, and quite frankly, it hurts. I have absolutely no doubt, however, that the overwhelming majority of Members of Parliament, whatever their political party, are decent, honourable and hard-working people. However, the public no longer think that that is true. They have reached that conclusion because of the well-publicised activities of a few hon. Members. Tonight, we have the chance to put that behind us. If it hurts us to do that, I am afraid that we have only ourselves to blame.
Because time is short, I want to confine my remarks to one issue—the disclosure of relevant outside earnings. I have come to the conclusion that we simply must disclose them. I admit that, in an ideal world, I would disagree with that and would not want to disclose such information; but we do not live in an ideal world, and we are not in an ideal House. In my judgment, the disclosure of relevant earnings has become the price that we must pay. If we do not pay that price tonight, the issue will come back, and next time the price will be higher. If we do not pay it then, the issue will come back yet again and the price will have gone up once more.
652
I understand the arguments of colleagues and hon. Friends—that privacy is important, and that the slippery slope beckons. My constituents and the contents of my mailbag tell me that the public do not buy those arguments. They do not believe that the Select Committee has gone far enough.
The recommendations of the Select Committee go further in respect of advocacy, and my constituents and everyone else I have spoken to are absolutely delighted about that. The Select Committee stopped short, however, of the Nolan recommendations on the giving of advice. The public will not understand that, and will not be reassured by that.
Recent history has left us in the House with no choice other than not only to be above reproach but to have 150 per cent. proof that we are so. That is why we have to pay the price that some of us do not like.
I should like to mention two matters of detail covered by my amendments. The first relates to the question of disclosing bands, to which my amendments (d) and (e) refer. I am against disclosing income in bands, for two simple reasons. First, the Select Committee report requires us to draw up contracts in detail, and to submit them. If we go for bands, we shall have to Tippex out the amount in the agreement and then write another letter. I do not particularly want to do that.
Secondly, I hope that it has occurred to hon. Members that, if we agree to bands and someone chooses to pay us £100 for giving advice, we will then be put in the band ranging from £1 to £1,000. You can bet your bottom dollar, Madam Speaker, that The Sun and the Daily Mirror will report that we have received £1,000, not £100, because we are in that band. I caution against bands, but I will not go to the stake for that principle.
My amendments (j) and (o) would make financial information declarable after the next general election. I must make it clear, however, that my amendments are not designed to put off the decision of principle until after the election. We shall take that decision of principle tonight, and we will then be left to implement everything barring making a declaration about amounts of money. I believe that that is the correct approach, for two reasons.
First, some hon. Members find a salary of £33,000 more than enough, and I respect them for that. Others come to the House, however, with certain commitments, and having made salaries well in excess of a hon. Member's salary. I respect them for that, too. There is absolutely nothing dishonourable about being in that position. If we expect those people to change the circumstances in which they find themselves, I judge that five months is not time enough for them to do so. I believe that they should be given until the date of the next general election.
Secondly, the declaration of that financial information should be put off until after the next election because of the antics of some on the Opposition Benches. I respect and agree with the official line of the Labour party that such available information is for the good of the House. Some Opposition Members, however, are already grubbing around for votes. Some of them are crowing merrily and saying, "Just you wait until the next general election, when we have the resolution. We will use it for party political purposes." I deplore such an attitude. By removing the temptation to acquire any such financial information before the next general election, my amendments enable the Labour party to prove that its members are not grubbing around for votes.

653
Tonight, the House faces a clear, straightforward and simple challenge: do we have what it takes to restore public confidence in the House of Commons? Are we prepared to swallow hard and pay a high price to redeem our reputation? Tonight, we do not have to decide whether we support the Government or the Labour party. Over the past few days, journalists have kept on asking me whether I intend to vote with the Labour party. One even asked me whether I planned to do the same as the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). The answer to that was simple—hell will freeze over before I join the Labour party.
Tonight, I am not voting for the Labour party; tonight no one will be voting for Labour—people will be voting for Parliament. I am not voting against my friends and my Government, but I am voting against sleaze, and I urge the House to do the same.
6.56 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: My constituency receives financial support from Unison.
I congratulate the Select Committee on producing an excellent report after a lot of work. In particular, I further congratulate it on going down the route that I think I might modestly say that I set out during the course of my contribution to the July debate, when I referred to an extension of the 1947 resolution.
In the seconds available to me, I should like to pose the House a series of questions. What does the House believe that the public believe having read the article in yesterday's edition of The Sunday Times? Does the House believe that the public would expect us to deal with the issue of hon. Members being paid to seek introductions to Ministers for their clients? Does the House believe that that is what the public want, or does it believe that we should leave the matter alone and not meddle?
As the resolutions stand on advocacy, we are doing nothing to deal with the problem that was highlighted in The Sunday Times. The practices of those who want to sell access to Ministers will remain under the resolutions before us tonight. I believe that that is wrong.
The two amendments in my name deal with access to Ministers. The first deals with meetings—their initiation and arrangement, and participation in them. The second deals with correspondence with Ministers. In so far as both would prohibit such actions by Members of Parliament, I believe that they should be carried by the House this evening.
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is only one amendment on the Order Paper, amendment No. 2(p), which deals with one of the key issues in Nolan—the banning of multi-client lobbying public relations organisations having contracts with Members of Parliament. As you have not called anyone to speak for that amendment, Madam Speaker, how on earth can the debate be considered to be balanced? Is it the fault of the Leader of the House, who called a three-hour debate and so restricted the right of hon. Members to propose those amendments?
Madam Speaker: I think that a number of hon. Members will find themselves very disappointed and
654
frustrated today because of this short debate. They have not been called or even been able to expand on the views that they already hold.
6.59 pm
Mr. Jeff Rooker: As a result of the debate, right hon. and hon. Members have become aware of the importance of the resolution of the House of 15 July 1947 relating to privileges—a resolution which probably no one has ever read and which probably was never drawn specifically to the attention of a Member on being elected to the House, because we have no induction procedure of any description.
I want to comment briefly on what the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) said. Although he supported disclosure, he asserted that motion No. 1, which is in the name of the Leader of the House—he appeared to believe that it was in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor)—on amending and adding to the 1947 resolution, comes to the House with a unanimous recommendation from the Select Committee. The motion is in the name of the Leader of the House, whom we sincerely hope will be supported.
If right hon. and hon. Members want to sell for money their right to initiate debate on any issue, that is up to them; they do it knowingly and accordingly must be accountable to their constituents. There is a marked reluctance to reform. That has led directly to a failure to keep pace with the attitudes, outside the House, of a more mature and alert electorate.
Lord Nolan and his Committee did not invent that problem. Nor did the media invent that problem. During the debate, mention was made of yesterday's Sunday Times. One thing must be made abundantly clear about that. If, a year ago, as I understand it from The Sunday Times, it believed that a Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), had done something wrong, it was the duty of The Sunday Times to draw the matter to the attention of the Register of Members' Interests, not sit on it and use it in the scurrilous way that it did yesterday.
One or two hon. Members have asked why we should be treated differently from other people. The answer, I submit, is simple. We really are different. We are a unique group of 651 ordinary people, elected to carry out an extraordinary task on behalf of our fellow citizens. As a group—as an institution—we have lost a good deal of trust from, and are held in very low esteem by, our fellow citizens. We must win back that trust as quickly as possible, for the House, our institution of Parliament, is on trial.
I do not speak from the Opposition Dispatch Box for the Labour party, any more than the Leader of the House spoke earlier for the Conservative party. If we make the vote a party battle, we demean the House and ourselves. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may chaff at that, but that is the reality. I speak for those who accept the need for reform radical enough to show that we understand the public anxiety. That is what it is about.
The reform must involve transparency, to show that we are not on the make. Secrecy about earnings that are directly related to elected membership of the House sends a message that we are on the make. As the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said, that taints us with sleaze. I genuinely believe that transparency will sterilise the sleaze argument once and for all.

655
The right hon. Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) made an interesting and constructive speech. He mentioned a couple of issues that deserve a response from the Opposition, and certainly from the person on the Opposition Dispatch Box who is winding up the debate. We chose the amendments to operate from the new Session on 15 November, simply to stay as near in line with Lord Nolan's Committee's proposals as possible. We deliberately sought not to deviate from the Nolan Committee report, although I accept that the right hon. Gentleman's argument has validity.
I also want to say to the right hon. Member for Hove, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury and myself—for I do not speak for the Labour party on that subject but I know that I speak for a considerable number of Opposition Members—that we have no long-term aim to abolish outside interests or to seek disclosure of an hon. Member's total income. We have no long-term agenda in that respect.
I say to those hon. Members who might feel that the issue has already become too partisan, that I regret that, as do my hon. Friends. I know what it is like to sit on the Government Benches, wondering whether to support my tribe, and being effectively forced to do so by the antics of the tribe on the Opposition Benches. That does not, however, alter the fundamental issue, which is winning back the trust of the public through transparency.
I ask all hon. Members tonight to reach outside those tribal boundaries—we are freely elected to do so occasionally, and tonight is one of those occasions—in the interests of winning back the trust of those who sent us to this place.
7.5 pm
Mr. Newton: Those right hon. and hon. Members who have been present throughout the debate—which has done, as did our previous debate, considerable credit to the House in spite of occasional heated moments—will realise that, on many of the issues that were mentioned, there is little that I can add to what I said in my speech opening the debate. I certainly do not wish to take up the time available to other Members, making a long, repetitive speech. However, obviously I should comment further on some issues.
First, I shall say a word about what my right hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and for Bridgwater (Mr. King) and several others said during the debate, or said sotto voce by coming and whispering in my ear as I sat on the Treasury Bench, about the rush with which everything has been done and the disadvantages that they believe have resulted. No one who has served on the Committee or taken part in the process would wish to dismiss that. Obviously, everything has been done in a great hurry, but that, I say to my colleagues on both sides of the House, is the position in which, as a House, we were placed by the situation that had developed.
I have no doubt that, had we sought another six, eight or nine months of delay, in which we would have been attacked collectively, not from one side or the other, for failing to respond to public anxiety, and had we let those arguments range and rage in the way that they have done, it would have gravely further damaged the reputation of all of us and of the House. Therefore, it was right to proceed fast. Although I did not wish to spend virtually
656
every waking hour in a Select Committee, trying to do the job that we have done, I believe that it was worth it, and that we have made real progress to the advantage of the House.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins) and several others raised the question that my right hon, Friend put as if there were created some hiatus or gap between our comments in the paragraphs of the report referring to speeches, and the terms of the resolution. I would not dismiss what has been said, but it is inconceivable that the commissioner and the new committee would totally disregard the clear basis on which the House has been invited to take a decision tonight. Were that to happen—I do not believe that it could—I would certainly want to give careful and urgent consideration to the position that that would create, for example, for my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and others. I will say—I mention something that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said—that that would be a much stronger argument were I seeking to persuade the House tonight to pass an Act of Parliament or a set of regulations in which we really would be subject to a great deal of legalistic textual interpretation. However, I do not believe that that fear is well founded.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup mentioned unfounded complaints being widely circulated. Paragraph 26 of our first report states:
"Where, however, the Commissioner decided that no prima facie case had been established, he would merely report the facts to the committee. The Committee would inform both the complainant and the Member concerned, but no details of the complaint would be published."
That passage is underlined in red, so it must have been mentioned earlier. In view of what my right hon. Friend said, it is important for me to put that on the record again.
The other worry that has echoed through today's debate—I understand why, as we on the Committee also wrestled with it—was most eloquently expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Shropshire, North (Mr. Biffen). He doubted whether the line could be held in the position where the Committee had proposed it. He may be right on that. One of the problems that we all have to wrestle with is that the world has moved on—that is true even since I entered the House in 1974, and since the creation of the Register of Members' Interests. New problems have arisen, public perceptions have changed, the view about what should be disclosed or registered has changed. Clearly, there may have to be further changes in future. I believe that we could respectably hold the line on the Select Committee's proposal and my resolutions.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) invited me to confirm what I had said about her amendment (b) not taking us straight to the publication of tax returns. I readily confirm that that is my reading of her amendment. I want to reiterate that I am concerned that her proposal will make it much more difficult to hold the line proposed by the Select Committee and will push us steadily further down a path that almost no one in the House wishes to tread and very few think right or desirable.
Mrs. Ann Taylor: I confirm that I do not wish to go down that path, and neither do the amendment's co-proposers. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the amendment that I tabled on disclosure relates only to

657
the agreements that he is recommending, which should be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and is therefore limited?
Mr. Newton: That is certainly my understanding. I have never sought to mislead anyone about anything in the affair. I hope that the hon. Lady and all hon. Members will bear in mind when they decide how to vote that I have no doubt that, even though the hon. Lady says that she does not want to move in that direction, her amendment (b) will create a far greater risk of an inescapable slide towards the end that she does not want. I therefore cannot recommend her amendment to the House, and I hope that it will approve my motions.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 587, Noes 2.

Division No. 233]

[7.13 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Booth, Hartley

Adams, Mrs Irene

Boswell, Tim

Ainger, Nick

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Bowis, John

Alexander, Richard

Boyes, Roland

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Bradley, Keith

Allen, Graham

Brandreth, Gyles

Alton, David

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Amess, David

Brazier, Julian

Ancram, Michael

Bright, Sir Graham

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Arbuthnot, James

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

Armstrong, Hilary

Browning, Mrs Angela

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Budgen, Nicholas

Ashton, Joe

Burden, Richard

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Burns, Simon

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Burt, Alistair

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Butler, Peter

Austin-Walker, John

Byers, Stephen

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Caborn, Richard

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Callaghan, Jim

Baldry, Tony

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Barnes, Harry

Campbell-Savours, D N

Barron, Kevin

Canavan, Dennis

Bates, Michael

Cann, Jamie

Batiste, Spencer

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Battle, John

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Bayley, Hugh

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Carrington, Matthew

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Cash, William

Bell, Stuart

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Bellingham, Henry

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Bendall, Vivian

Chidgey, David

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Chisholm, Malcolm

Bennett, Andrew F

Church, Judith

Benton, Joe

Clapham, Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Clappison, James

Bermingham, Gerald

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Berry, Roger

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Betts, Clive

Clarke, Erie (Midlothian)

Blunkett, David

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Boateng, Paul

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Body, Sir Richard

Clelland, David

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

658

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Coe, Sebastian

Fishburn, Dudley

Coffey, Ann

Fisher, Mark

Cohen, Harry

Flynn, Paul

Colvin, Michael

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Congdon, David

Forth, Eric

Connarty, Michael

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Conway, Derek

Foster, Don (Bath)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Foulkes, George

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Fraser, John

Corbett, Robin

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Corbyn, Jeremy

French, Douglas

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Fyfe, Maria

Corston, Jean

Galbraith, Sam

Couchman, James

Gale, Roger

Cousins, Jim

Galloway, George

Cox, Tom

Gapes, Mike

Cran, James

Gardiner, Sir George

Cummings, John

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Garnier, Edward

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Garrett, John

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

George, Bruce

Cunningham, Roseanna

Gerrard, Neil

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

Gill, Christopher

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Gillan, Cheryl

Dafis, Cynog

Godman, Dr Norman A

Dalyell, Tam

Godsiff, Roger

Darling, Alistair

Golding, Mrs Llin

Davidson, Ian

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

Gordon, Mildred

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Gorst, Sir John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Graham, Thomas

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

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

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Day, Stephen

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Denham, John

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Devlin, Tim

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Dewar, Donald

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Dicks, Terry

Grocott, Bruce

Dixon, Don

Grylls, Sir Michael

Dobson, Frank

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Donohoe, Brian H

Gunnell, John

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Hague, Rt Hon William

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Hain, Peter

Dover, Den

Hall, Mike

Dowd, Jim

Hamilton, Sir Archibald

Duncan, Alan

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Hampson, Dr Keith

Dunn, Bob

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Hannam, Sir John

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Hanson, David

Durant, Sir Anthony

Hardy, Peter

Dykes, Hugh

Hargreaves, Andrew

Eagle, Ms Angela

Harman, Ms Harriet

Eastham, Ken

Harris, David

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Harvey, Nick

Elletson, Harold

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Etherington, Bill

Hawkins, Nick

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Hayes, Jerry

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Heald, Oliver

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Henderson, Doug

Evennett, David

Hendron, Dr Joe

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Hendry, Charles

Faber, David

Heppell, John

Fatchett, Derek

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Faulds, Andrew

Hicks, Robert

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

659

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Lightbown, Sir David

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Hinchliffe, David

Litherland, Robert

Hodge, Margaret

Livingstone, Ken

Hoey, Kate

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Lord, Michael

Home Robertson, John

Loyden, Eddie

Hood, Jimmy

Luff, Peter

Hoon, Geoffrey

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Horam, John

Lynne, Ms Liz

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

McAvoy, Thomas

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

McCartney, Ian

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

McCartney, Robert

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Macdonald, Calum

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

McFall, John

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

McGrady, Eddie

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Hoyle, Doug

MacKay, Andrew

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

McKelvey, William

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

McLeish, Henry

Hunter, Andrew

Maclennan, Robert

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

McLoughlin, Patrick

Hutton, John

McMaster, Gordon

Illsley, Eric

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Ingram, Adam

McNamara, Kevin

Jack, Michael

MacShane, Denis

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

McWilliam, John

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Madden, Max

Jamieson, David

Maddock, Diana

Janner, Grevilie

Madel, Sir David

Jenkin, Bernard

Mahon, Alice

Jessel, Toby

Maitland, Lady Olga

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Mallon, Seamus

Johnston, Sir Russell

Malone, Gerald

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Mandelson, Peter

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Mans, Keith

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Marek, Dr John

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Martlew, Eric

Jewell, Tessa

Mates, Michael

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Keen, Alan

Maxton, John

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Meacher, Michael

Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

Meale, Alan

Key, Robert

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Khabra, Piara S

Merchant Piers

kilfoyle, Peter

Michael, Alun

King, Rt Hon Tom

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Kirkwood, Archy

Milburn, Alan

Knapman, Roger

Miller, Andrew

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Mills, Iain

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

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

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Knox, Sir David

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Moate, Sir Roger

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Morgan, Rhodri

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Morley, Elliot

Legg, Barry

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Leigh, Edward

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Moss, Malcolm

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Lewis, Terry

Mudie, George

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Mullin, Chris

Lidington, David

Murphy, Paul

660

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Nelson, Anthony

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Shersby, Sir Michael

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Nicholls, Patrick

Short Clare

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Simpson, Alan

Norris, Steve

Skeet Sir Trevor

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Skinner, Dennis

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

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

O'Hara, Edward

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Olner, Bill

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

O'Neill, Martin

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Snape, Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Soames, Nicholas

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Soley, Clive

Ottaway, Richard

Spearing, Nigel

Page, Richard

Speed, Sir Keith

Paice, James

Spellar, John

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Spencer, Sir Derek

Patten, Rt Hon John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Pawsey, James

Spink, Dr Robert

Pearson, Ian

Spring, Richard

Pendry, Tom

Sproat, Iain

Pickles, Eric

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Pickthall, Colin

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Pike, Peter L

Steen, Anthony

Pope, Greg

Steinberg, Gerry

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Stern, Michael

Porter, David (Waveney)

Stevenson, George

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Stewart, Allan

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Stott, Roger

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Straw, Jack

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Streeter, Gary

Primarolo, Dawn

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Purchase, Ken

Sweeney, Walter

Quin, Ms Joyce

Sykes, John

Radice, Giles

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Randall, Stuart

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Raynsford, Nick

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Redmond, Martin

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Reid, Dr John

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Rendel, David

Thomason, Roy

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Richards, Rod

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Riddick, Graham

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Robathan, Andrew

Timms, Stephen

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Tipping, Paddy

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Touhig, Don

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Tracey, Richard

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Tredinnick, David

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Trend, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Trimble, David

Rogers, Allan

Trotter, Neville

Rooker, Jeff

Turner, Dennis

Rooney, Terry

Twinn, Dr Ian

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Tyler, Paul

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Rowlands, Ted

Vaz, Keith

Ruddock, Joan

viggers, Peter

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Walden, George

Sackville, Tom

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Salmond, Alex

Wallace, James

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Waller, Gary

Sedgemore, Brian

Walley, Joan

Shaw, David (Dover)

Ward, John

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Sheerman, Barry

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wareing, Robert N

661

Waterson, Nigel

Wilshire, David

Watson, Mike

Wilson, Brian

Watts, John

Winnick, David

Wells, Bowen

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Welsh, Andrew

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Wise, Audrey

Whitney, Ray

Wood, Timothy

Whittingdale, John

Worthington, Tony

Wray, Jimmy

Wicks, Malcolm

Wright, Dr Tony

Widdecombe, Ann

Yeo, Tim

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Wigley, Dafydd

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Wilkinson, John

Willetts, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Mr. Robert Hughes and Mr. Michael Brown.

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

NOES

Fabricant, Michael

Sims, Roger

Tellers for the Noes

Mr. John Butterfill and Mr. Tony Marlow.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Resolution of the House of 15th July 1947 relating to Privileges shall be amended by adding at the end the words—
'and that in particular no Member of the House shall, in consideration of any remuneration, fee, payment, reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect, which the Member or any member of his or her family has received is receiving or expects to receive—

(i) advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body or individual, or

(ii) urge any other Member of either House of Parliament, including Ministers, to do so,
by means of any speech, Question, Motion, introduction of a Bill or amendment to a Motion or Bill'.

Madam Speaker: I remind the House that votes should always follow voices when a Division is called. Will the Leader of the House now move formally motion No. 2?
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That—
(1) with effect from Wednesday 15th November 1995, any Member proposing to enter into an agreement which involves the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament shall conclude such an agreement only if it conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members; and that a copy of any such agreement, excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at the same time as it is registered in the Register of Members' Interests;
2) any Member who has an existing agreement involving the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament which conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members, but which is not in written form, shall take steps to put the agreement into written form; and that no later than 31st March 1996 a copy of any such agreement, excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests; and
3) any Member who has an existing agreement which does not conform to the Resolution of the House on 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members shall, by 31st March 1996, either redraw the agreement so that it conforms to the said Resolution or withdraw from the agreement; and that a copy of any such redrawn agreement, excluding the amount of any fee or benefit payable, shall
662
be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests by that date.—[Mr. Newton.]
Amendment proposed: (b) in line 6, leave out from 'a' to 'shall' in line 7 and insert
'full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 322, Noes 271.

Division No. 234]

[7.34 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Corbett, Robin

Ainger, Nick

Corbyn, Jeremy

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Corston, Jean

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Cousins, Jim

Allen, Graham

Cox, Tom

Alton, David

Cummings, John

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Armstrong, Hilary

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Ashton, Joe

Cunningham, Roseanna

Austin-Walker, John

Dafis, Cynog

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Dalyell, Tam

Barnes, Harry

Darling, Alistair

Barron, Kevin

Davidson, Ian

Battle, John

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Bayley, Hugh

Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Bell, Stuart

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

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Day, Stephen

Bennett, Andrew F

Denham, John

Benton, Joe

Dewar, Donald

Bermingham, Gerald

Dixon, Don

Berry, Roger

Dobson, Frank

Betts, Clive

Donohoe, Brian H

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Dowd, Jim

Blunkett David

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Boateng, Paul

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Boyes, Roland

Dykes, Hugh

Bradley, Keith

Eastham, Ken

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Etherington, Bill

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

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

Fabricant, Michael

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Fatchett, Derek

Burden, Richard

Faulds, Andrew

Byers, Stephen

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Caborn, Richard

Fisher, Mark

Callaghan, Jim

Flynn, Paul

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Foulkes, George

Campbell-Savours, D N

Fraser, John

Canavan. Dennis

Fyfe, Maria

Cann, Jamie

Galbraith, Sam

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Galloway, George

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Gapes, Mike

Chidgey, David

Garrett, John

Chisholm, Malcolm

George, Bruce

Church, Judith

Gerrard, Neil

Clapham, Michael

Godman, Dr Norman A

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Godsiff, Roger

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Gordon, Mildred

Clelland, David

Graham, Thomas

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Coffey, Ann

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Cohen, Harry

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Connarty, Michael

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Grocott, Bruce

663

Gunnell, John

Mallon, Seamus

Hain, Peter

Mandelson, Peter

Hall, Mike

Marek,Dr John

Hanson, David

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hardy, Peter

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Harvey, Nick

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Hattersley, Fit Hon Roy

Martlew, Eric

Henderson, Doug

Maxton, John

Hendron, Dr Joe

Meacher, Michael

Heppell, John

Meale, Alan

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Michael, Alun

Hinchliffe, David

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Hodge, Margaret

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Hoey, Kate

Milburn, Alan

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Miller, Andrew

Home Robertson, John

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Hood, Jimmy

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hoon, Geoffrey

Morgan, Rhodri

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

Morley, Elliot

Howarth, George (Knowsley North

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hoyle, Doug

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Mudie, George

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Mullin, Chris

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Murphy, Paul

Hutton, John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Illsley, Eric

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Ingram, Adam

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Jamieson, David

O'Hara, Edward

Janner, Greville

Olner, Bill

Johnston, Sir Russell

O'Neill, Martin

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Pearson, Ian

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pendry, Tom

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Pike, Peter L

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Pope, Greg

Jowell, Tessa

Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Keen, Alan

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Khabra, Piara S

Primarolo, Dawn

Kilfoyle, Peter

Purchase, Ken

Kirkwood, Archy

Quin, Ms Joyce

Legg, Barry

Radice, Giles

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Randall, Stuart

Lewis, Terry

Raynsford, Nick

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Redmond, Martin

Litherland, Robert

Reid, Dr John

Livingstone, Ken

Rendel, David

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Loyden, Eddie

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

McAllton, John

Roche, Mrs Barbara

McAvoy, Thomas

Rogers, Allan

McCartney, Ian

Rooker, Jeff

McCartney, Robert

Rooney, Terry

Macdonald, Calum

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McFall, John

Rowlands, Ted

McGrady, Eddie

Ruddock, Joan

McKelvey, William

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Mackinlay, Andrew

Salmond, Alex

McLeish, Henry

Sedgemore, Brian

Maclennan, Robert

Sheerman, Barry

McMaster, Gordon

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McNamara, Kevin

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

MacShane, Denis

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

McWilliam, John

Short, Clare

Madden, Max

Simpson, Alan

Maddock, Diana

Sims, Roger

Mahon, Alice

Skinner, Dennis

664

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Turner, Dennis

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

Tyler, Paul

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Vaz, Keith

Snape, Peter

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Soley, Clive

Wallace, James

Spearing, Nigel

Waller, Gary

Spellar.John

Walley, Joan

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Wareing, Robert N

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Watson, Mike

Steinberg, Gerry

Welsh, Andrew

Stevenson, George

Wicks, Malcolm

Stewart, Allan

Wigley, Dafydd

Stott Roger

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Straw, Jack

Wilshire, David

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Wilson, Brian

Sweeney, Walter

Winnick, David

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wise, Audrey

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Worthington, Tony

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Wray, Jimmy

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wright, Dr Tony

Thurnham, Peter

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Timms, Stephen

Tipping, Paddy

Tellers for the Ayes:

Touhig, Don

Mr. John Evans and Ms Angela Eagle.

Tredinnick, David

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Coe, Sebastian

Alexander, Richard

Colvin, Michael

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Congdon, David

Amess, David

Conway, Derek

Ancram, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Arbuthnot, James

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Couchman, James

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Cran, James

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Baldry, Tony

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Devlin, Tim

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Dicks, Terry

Bates, Michael

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Batiste, Spencer

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bellingham, Henry

Dover, Den

Bendall, Vivian

Duncan, Alan

Beresford, Sir Paul

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Dunn, Bob

Boswell, Tim

Durant, Sir Anthony

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Elletson, Harold

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Bowis, John

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Brandreth, Gyles

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Brazier, Julian

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Bright, Sir Graham

Evennett, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Faber, David

Browning, Mrs Angela

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Budgen, Nicholas

Fishburn, Dudley

Burns, Simon

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Burt, Alistair

Forth, Eric

Butler, Peter

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Butterfill, John

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Carrington, Matthew

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Cash, William

French, Douglas

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Gale, Roger

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Gardiner, Sir George

Clappison, James

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Garnier, Edward

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Gillan, Cheryl

665

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Mans, Keith

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Mates, Michael

Gorst, Sir John

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Merchant, Piers

Grylls, Sir Michael

Mills, Iain

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hague, Rt Hon William

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Hamilton, Sir Archibald

Moate, Sir Roger

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Moss, Malcolm

Hannam, Sir John

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Hargreaves, Andrew

Nelson, Anthony

Harris, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hawkins, Nick

Nicholls, Patrick

Hayes, Jerry

Norris, Steve

Heald, Oliver

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Oppenheim, Phillip

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Ottaway, Richard

Hendry, Charles

Page, Richard

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Paice, James

Hicks, Robert

Patrick, Sir Irvine

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Patten, Rt Hon John

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Pawsey, James

Horam, John

Pickles, Eric

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Porter, David (Waveney)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Powell, William (Corby)

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hunter, Andrew

Richards, Rod

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Riddick, Graham

Jack, Michael

Robathan, Andrew

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Jenkin, Bernard

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jessel, Toby

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Sackville, Tom

Key, Robert

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

King, Rt Hon Tom

Shaw, David (Dover)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knapman, Roger

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shersby, Sir Michael

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

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

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Knox, Sir David

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Soames, Nicholas

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Speed, Sir Keith

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Leigh, Edward

Spink, Dr Robert

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Spring, Richard

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Sproat, Iain

Lidington, David

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lightbown, Sir David

Steen, Anthony

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Stephen, Michael

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Stern, Michael

Lord, Michael

Streeter, Gary

Luff, Peter

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

MacKay, Andrew

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Thomason, Roy

McLoughlin, Patrick

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Madel, Sir David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Malone, Gerald

Tracey, Richard

666

Trend, Michael

Whitney, Ray

Trotter, Neville

Whittingdale, John

Twinn, Dr Ian

Widdecombe, Ann

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Viggers, Peter

Wilkinson, John

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Willetts, David

Walden, George

Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Wood, Timothy

Ward, John

Yeo, Tim

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Waterson, Nigel

Watts, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Wells, Bowen

Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Robert C. Hughes.

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Speaker: Amendments (c) and (d) fall. May we be clear that amendment.(e), in the name of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), is withdrawn in favour of amendment (f).
Mr. Wilshire: I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment proposed: (f), in line 9, at end insert
`and made available for inspection by the public'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Amendment (f) appears to repeat the wording of the last line of the amendment on which the House has just voted. In my view, therefore, amendment (f) is necessary.
Madam Speaker: The House is dividing on amendment (f).
The House having divided: Ayes 325, Noes 202.

Division No. 235]

[7.50 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Adams, Mrs Irene

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

Ainger, Nick

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Burden, Richard

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Byers, Stephen

Allen, Graham

Caborn, Richard

Alton, David

Callaghan, Jim

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Armstrong, Hilary

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell-Savours, D N

Austin-Walker, John

Canavan, Dennis

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cann, Jamie

Barnes, Harry

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Barron, Kevin

Carrington, Matthew

Battle, John

Chidgey, David

Bayley, Hugh

Chisholm, Malcolm

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Church, Judith

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clapham, Michael

Bell, Stuart

Clark Dr David (South Shields)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Benton, Joe

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Bermingham, Gerald

Clelland, David

Berry, Roger

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Betts, Clive

Coffey, Ann

Blunkett, David

Cohen, Harry

Boateng, Paul

Connarty, Michael

Boyes, Roland

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Bradley, Keith

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Corbett, Robin

667

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hoey, Kate

Corston, Jean

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Cousins, Jim

Home Robertson, John

Cox, Tom

Hood, Jimmy

Cummings, John

Hoon, Geoffrey

Cunliffe, Lawrence

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

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

Cunningham, Roseanna

Hoyle, Doug

Dafis, Cynog

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Dalyell, Tam

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Darling, Alistair

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Davidson, Ian

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Hutton, John

Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

Illsley, Eric

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Ingram, Adam

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

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

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Day, Stephen

Jamieson, David

Denham, John

Janner, Greville

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Johnston, Sir Russell

Dewar, Donald

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Dixon, Don

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Dobson, Frank

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Donohoe, Brian H

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Dowd, Jim

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Jowell, Tessa

Eagle, Ms Angela

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Eastham, Ken

Keen, Alan

Etherington, Bill

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Kennedy, Jane (L'pod Br'dg'n)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Key, Robert

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Khabra, Piara S

Fabricant, Michael

Kilfoyle, Peter

Fatchett Derek

Kirkwood, Archy

Faulds, Andrew

Legg, Barry

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Fisher, Mark

Lewis, Terry

Flynn, Paul

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Litherland, Robert

Foster, Don (Bath)

Livingstone, Ken

Foulkes, George

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Fraser, John

Loyden, Eddie

Fyfe, Maria

Lynne, Ms Liz

Galbraith, Sam

McAllion, John

Galloway, George

McAvoy, Thomas

Gapes, Mike

McCartney, Ian

Garrett, John

McCartney, Robert

George, Bruce

Macdonald, Calum

Gerrard, Neil

McFall, John

Godman, Dr Norman A

McGrady, Eddie

Godsiff, Roger

McKelvey, William

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mackinlay, Andrew

Gordon, Mildred

McLeish, Henry

Graham, Thomas

Maclennan, Robert

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

McMaster, Gordon

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

McNamara, Kevin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

MacShane, Denis

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

McWilliam, John

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Madden, Max

Grocott, Bruce

Maddock, Diana

Gunnell, John

Mahon, Alice

Hain, Peter

Mallon, Seamus

Hanson, David

Mandelson, Peter

Hardy, Peter

Marek, Dr John

Harman, Ms Harriet

Marlow, Tony

Harris, David

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Harvey, Nick

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Henderson, Doug

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Hendron, Dr Joe

MarrJew, Eric

Heppell, John

Maxton, John

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Meacher, Michael

Hinchliffe, David

Meale, Alan

Hodge, Margaret

Michael, Alun

668

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Milburn, Alan

Short, Clare

Miller, Andrew

Simpson, Alan

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Sims, Roger

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Skinner, Dennis

Morgan, Rhodri

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Morley, Elliot

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

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Snape, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Soley, Clive

Mowlam, Marjorie

Spearing, Nigel

Mudie, George

Spellar, John

Mullin, Chris

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Murphy, Paul

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Steinberg, Gerry

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Stevenson, George

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Stott, Roger

O'Hara, Edward

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Olner, Bill

Straw, Jack

O'Neill, Martin

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Sweeney, Walter

Pearson, Ian

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pendry, Tom

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Pickthall, Colin

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Pike, Peter L

Thurnham, Peter

Pope, Greg

Timms, Stephen

Porter, David (Waveney)

Tipping, Paddy

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Touhig, Don

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Tredinnick, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Trimble, David

Turner, Dennis

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Tyler, Paul

Primarolo, Dawn

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Purchase, Ken

Wallace James

Quin, Ms Joyce

Waller, Gary

Radice, Giles

Walley, Joan

Randall, Stuart

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Raynsford, Nick

Wareing, Robert N

Redmond, Martin

Watson, Mike

Reid, Dr John

Welsh, Andrew

Rendel, David

Wicks, Malcolm

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Wigley, Dafydd

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Wilkinson, John

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Wilshire, David

Rogers, Allan

Wilson, Brian

Rooker, Jeff

Winnick, David

Rooney, Terry

Wise, Audrey

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Worthington, Tony

Rowlands, Ted

Wray, Jimmy

Ruddock, Joan

Wright, Dr Tony

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Salmond, Alex

Sedgemore, Brian

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sheerman, Barry

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and Mr. Mike Hall.

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Alexander, Richard

Boswell, Tim

Amess, David

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Ancram, Michael

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Arbuthnot, James

Bowis, John

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Brandreth, Gyles

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Brazier, Julian

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bright, Sir Graham

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Baldry, Tony

Browning, Mrs Angela

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Budgen, Nicholas

Bates, Michael

Burns, Simon

Batiste, Spencer

Burt, Alistair

Bellingham, Henry

Butler, Peter

669

Cash, William

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

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Knox, Sir David

Clappison, James

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Coe, Sebastian

Leigh, Edward

Conway, Derek

Lidington, David

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Luff, Peter

Couchman, James

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Cran, James

MacKay, Andrew

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Devlin, Tim

Malone, Gerald

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Mans, Keith

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Dover, Den

Mates, Michael

Duncan, Alan

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Dunn, Bob

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Durant, Sir Anthony

Merchant Piers

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Elletson, Harold

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Moate, Sir Roger

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Moss, Malcolm

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Evennett, David

Nelson, Anthony

Faber, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Forth, Eric

Nicholls, Patrick

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Norris, Steve

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Oppenheim, Phillip

French, Douglas

Ottaway, Richard

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Page, Richard

Garnier, Edward

Paice, James

Gillan, Cheryl

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Patten, Rt Hon John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Pickles, Eric

Gorst Sir John

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Grylls, Sir Michael

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Richards, Rod

Hague, Rt Hon William

Riddick, Graham

Hamilton, Sir Archibald

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Hannam, Sir John

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Hargreaves, Andrew

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Hawkins, Nick

Sackville, Tom

Heald, Oliver

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Shaw, David (Dover)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Hendry, Charles

Shersby, Sir Michael

Heseftine, Rt Hon Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Hicks, Robert

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Soames, Nicholas

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Speed, Sir Keith

Horam, John

Spencer, Sir Derek

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Spink, Dr Robert

Hunter, Andrew

Spring, Richard

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Sproat, Iain

Jack, Michael

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Jenkin, Bernard

Steen, Anthony

Jessel, Toby

Stern, Michael

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Streeter, Gary

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Knapman, Roger

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

670

Trend, Michael

Whittingdale, John

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Widdecombe, Ann

Viggers, Peter

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Willetts, David

Walden, George

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Ward, John

Wood, Timothy

Waterson, Nigel

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

Tellers for the Noes:

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Robert C. Hughes.

Whitney, Ray

Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment made: (g), in line 14, leave out from 'a' to 'shall' in line 16 and insert
`full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £.5,000.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
Madam Speaker: Amendment (h) now falls.
Amendment made: (i), in line 17, after 'Interests', insert
`and made available for inspection by the public'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
Madam Speaker: Amendment (j) therefore falls.
Amendment made: (k), in line 22, leave out from 'a' to `shall' in line 23 and insert
`full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
Madam Speaker: Amendment (1) in the name of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) now falls.
Amendment made: (m), in line 24, at end add
`and made available for inspection by the public'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
Madam Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood has withdrawn amendment (n). Is that clear? Amendment (o) now falls.
Amendment proposed: (p) in line 24, at end add—
`(4) notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1–3 of this Resolution with effect from Wednesday 15th November 1995, no Member shall enter into an agreement for the provision of services in his/her capacity as a Member of Parliament with any individual or organisation engaged in lobbying or public relations on behalf of more than one client:.—[Mr. Salmond.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 243.

Division No. 236]

[8.04 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Foster, Don (Bath)

Alton, David

Godsiff, Roger

Ashton, Joe

Gordon, Mildred

Austin-Walker, John

Harvey, Nick

Barnes, Harry

Hoey, Kate

Body, Sir Richard

Hughes, Simon (Southward)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Canavan, Dennis

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Chidgey, David

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kirkwood, Archy

Cunningham, Roseanna

Litherland, Robert

Dafis, Cynog

Livingstone, Ken

Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

Loyden, Eddie

Flynn, Paul

Lynne, Ms Liz

671

Mackinlay, Andrew

Spearing, Nigel

Maclennan, Robert

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Maddock, Diana

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Michle, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Trimble, David

Michle, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Tyler, Paul

Mills, Iain

Wallace, James

Mullin, Chris

Wigley, Dafydd

Rendel, David

Wise, Audrey

Salmond, Alex

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Simpson, Alan

Mrs. Margaret Ewing and Mr. Andrew Welsh.

Skinner, Dennis

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Dunn, Bob

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Durant, Sir Anthony

Alexander, Richard

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Elletson, Harold

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Amess, David

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Ancram, Michael

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Arbuthnot, James

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Ashby, David

Evennett David

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Faber, David

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Fabricant, Michael

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Fishburn, Dudley

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Baldry, Tony

Forth, Eric

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bates, Michael

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Batiste, Spencer

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Bellingham, Henry

French, Douglas

Beresford, Sir Paul

Gale, Roger

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Gallie, Phil

Booth, Hartley

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Boswel, Tim

Garnier, Edward

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Gillan, Cheryl

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bowis, John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Gorst, Sir John

Brandreth, Gyles

Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

Brazier, Julian

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bright, Sir Graham

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Grylls, Sir Michael

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Budgen, Nicholas

Hague, Rt Hon William

Burns, Simon

Hamilton, Sir Archibald

Burt, Alistair

Hampson, Dr Keith

Butler, Peter

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hannam, Sir John

Cash, William

Hargreaves, Andrew

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Harris, David

Clappison, James

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hawkins, Nick

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Hayes, Jerry

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Heald, Oliver

Coe, Sebastian

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Colvin, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Conway, Derek

Hendry, Charles

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Grantham)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Horam, John

Couchman, James

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Cran, James

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Hunter, Andrew

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jack, Michael

Dicks, Terry

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Jenkin, Bernard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jessel, Toby

Dover, Den

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Duncan, Alan

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

672

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Key, Robert

Sackville, Tom

Kirkhope, Timothy

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Knapman, Roger

Shaw, David (Dover)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

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

Shersby, Sir Michael

Knox, Sir David

Sims, Roger

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Soames, Nicholas

Leigh, Edward

Speed, Sir Keith

Lidington, David

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Luff, Peter

Spink, Dr Robert

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Sproat, Iain

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

MacKay, Andrew

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Steen, Anthony

McLoughlin, Patrick

Stern, Michael

Maitland, Lady Olga

Streeter, Gary

Malone, Gerald

Sumberg, David

Mans, Keith

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mates, Michael

Thomason, Roy

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Merchant Piers

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Tracey, Richard

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Tredinnick, David

Moate, Sir Roger

Trend, Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Trotter Neville

Moss, Malcolm

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Nelson, Anthony

Walden, George

Neubert, Sir Michael

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Waller, Gary

Nicholls, Patrick

Ward, John

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Waterson, Nigel

Norris, Steve

Watts, John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wells, Bowen

Ottaway, Richard

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Page, Richard

Whitney, Ray

Paice, James

Whittingdale, John

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Widdecombe, Ann

Patten, Rt Hon John

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Pickles, Eric

Wilkinson, John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Willetts, David

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Richards, Rod

Wood, Timothy

Riddick, Graham

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Robathan, Andrew

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Tellers for the Noes:

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Robert C. Hughes.

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
Resolved,
That—
(1) with effect from Wednesday 15th November 1995, any Member proposing to enter into an agreement which involves the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament shall conclude such an agreement only if it conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members; and that a full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–5,000,

673
£5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000, shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at the same time as it is registered in the Register of Members' Interests and made available for inspection by the public;
(2) any Member who has an existing agreement involving the provision of services in his capacity as a Member of Parliament which conforms to the Resolution of the House of 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members, but which is not in written form, shall take steps to put the agreement into written form; and that no later than 31st March 1996 a full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000, and thereafter in bands of £5,000 shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests and made available for inspection by the public; and
(3) any Member who has an existing agreement which does not conform to the Resolution of the House on 6th November 1995 relating to Conduct of Members shall, by 31st March 1996, either redraw the agreement so that it conforms to the said Resolution or withdraw from the agreement; and that a full copy of any such agreement including the fees or benefits payable in bands of: up to £1,000, £1,000–£5,000, £5,000–£10,000 and thereafter in bands of £5,000 shall be deposited with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and registered in the Register of Members' Interests by that date and made available for inspection by the public.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House agrees with the recommendations in the Second Report from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life (House of Commons Paper No. 816) relating to—
(1) the recording of deputations in the Register of Members' Interests (paragraph 31); and
(2) the cessation of paid advocacy (paragraph 54).—[Mr. Newton.]
Amendment proposed: (a), in line 4, leave out paragraph (1).—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 266.

Division No. 237]

[8.15 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

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

Adams, Mrs Irene

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ainger, Nick

Burden, Richard

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Byers, Stephen

Allen, Graham

Caborn, Richard

Alton, David

Callaghan, Jim

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Armstrong, Hilary

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell-Savours, D N

Austin-Walker, John

Canavan, Dennis

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Cann, Jamie

Barnes, Harry

Chidgey, David

Barron, Kevin

Chisholm, Malcolm

Battle, John

Church, Judith

Bayley, Hugh

Clapham, Michael

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Bell, Stuart

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clelland, David

Bennett, Andrew F

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Benton, Joe

Coffey, Ann

Bermingham, Gerald

Cohen, Harry

Berry, Roger

Connarty, Michael

Betts, Clive

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Blunkett, David

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Boateng, Paul

Corbett, Robin

Boyes, Roland

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bradley, Keith

Corston, Jean

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cousins, Jim

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Cox, Tom

674

Cummings, John

Hutton, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Illsley, Eric

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Ingram, Adam

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Cunningham, Roseanna

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Dafis, Cynog

Jamieson, David

Dalyell, Tam

Janner, Greville

Darling, Alistair

Johnston, Sir Russell

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

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

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Denham, John

Jowell, Tessa

Dewar, Donald

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dixon, Don

Keen, Alan

Dobson, Frank

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Donohoe, Brian H

Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

Dowd, Jim

Khabra, Piara S

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kirkwood, Archy

Eastham, Ken

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Etherington, Bill

Lewis, Terry

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Fatchett, Derek

Litherland, Robert

Faulds, Andrew

Livingstone, Ken

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Fisher, Mark

Loyden, Eddie

Flynn, Paul

Lynne, Ms Liz

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McAllion, John

Foster, Don (Bath)

McAvoy, Thomas

Foulkes, George

McCartney, Ian

Fraser, John

Macdonald, Calum

Fyfe, Maria

McFall, John

Galbraith, Sam

McKelvey, William

Galloway, George

Mackinlay, Andrew

Gapes, Mike

McLeish, Henry

Garrett, John

Maclennan, Robert

George, Bruce

McMaster, Gordon

Gerard, Neil

McNamara, Kevin

Godman, Dr Norman A

MacShane, Denis

Godsiff, Roger

McWilliam, John

Golding, Mrs Llin

Madden, Max

Gordon, Mildred

Maddock, Diana

Graham, Thomas

Mahon, Alice

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Mallon, Seamus

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mandelson, Peter

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Marek, Dr John

Grocott, Bruce

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Gunnell, John

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Hain, Peter

Martlew, Eric

Hall, Mike

Maxton, John

Hanson, David

Meacher, Michael

Hardy, Peter

Meale, Alan

Harman, Ms Harriet

Michael, Alun

Harvey, Nick

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Henderson, Doug

Milburn, Alan

Heppell, John

Miller, Andrew

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Hinchliffe, David

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hodge, Margaret

Morgan, Rhodri

Hoey, Kate

Morley, Elliot

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Home Robertson, John

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hood, Jimmy

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Mowlam, Marjorie

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

Mudie, George

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Mullin, Chris

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

Murphy, Paul

Hoyle, Doug

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

O'Hara, Edward

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Olner, Bill

675

O'Neill, Martin

Soley, Clive

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Spearing, Nigel

Pearson, Ian

Spellar, John

Pendry, Tom

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Pickthall, Colin

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Pike, Peter L

Steinberg, Gerry

Pope, Greg

Stevenson, George

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Stott, Roger

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Straw, Jack

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Primarolo, Dawn

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Purchase, Ken

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Radice, Giles

Timms, Stephen

Randall, Stuart

Tipping, Paddy

Raynsford, Nick

Touhig, Don

Redmond, Martin

Trimble, David

Reid, Dr John

Turner, Dennis

Rendel, David

Tyler, Paul

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Walley, Joan

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Wareing Robert N

Rogers, Allan

Watson, Mike

Rooker, Jeff

Welsh, Andrew

Rooney, Terry

Wicks, Malcolm

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wigley, Dafydd

Rowlands, Ted

Ruddock, Joan

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Salmond, Alex

Wilson, Brian

Sedgemore, Brian

Winnick, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Wise, Audrey

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Worthington, Tony

Short, Clare

Wray, Jimmy

Simpson, Alan

Wright, Dr Tony

Skinner, Dennis

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

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

Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mr. John Evans and Ms Angela Eagle.

Snape, Peter

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Alexander, Richard

Browning, Mrs Angela

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Budgen, Nicholas

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Burns, Simon

Amess, David

Burt, Alistair

Ancram, Michael

Butler, Peter

Arbuthnot, James

Butterfill, John

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Ashby, David

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Carrington, Matthew

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Cash, William

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Clappison, James

Baldry, Tony

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Bates, Michael

Coe, Sebastian

Batiste, Spencer

Congdon, David

Bellingham, Henry

Conway, Derek

Bendall, Vivian

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Booth, Hartley

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Boswell, Tim

Couchman, James

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Cran, James

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

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

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Bowis, John

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Brandreth, Gyles

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Brazier, Julian

Devlin, Tim

Bright, Sir Graham

Dicks, Terry

676

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Dover, Den

Legg, Barry

Duncan, Alan

Leigh, Edward

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Dunn, Bob

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Durant, Sir Anthony

Lidington, David

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Elletson, Harold

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Lord, Michael

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Luff, Peter

Evennett, David

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Faber, David

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Forth, Eric

Madel, Sir David

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Maitland, Lady Olga

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Malone, Gerald

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Mans, Keith

French, Douglas

Marlow, Tony

Gale, Roger

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Garnier, Edward

Mates, Michael

Gillan, Cheryl

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Merchant, Piers

Gorst, Sir John

Mills, Iain

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Moate, Sir Roger

Grylls, Sir Michael

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Moss, Malcolm

Hague, Rt Hon William

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Hamilton, Sir Archibald

Nelson, Anthony

Hampson, Dr Keith

Neubert, Sir Michael

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hannam, Sir John

Nicholls, Patrick

Hargreaves, Andrew

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Harris, David

Norris, Steve

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hawkins, Nick

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hayes, Jerry

Ottaway, Richard

Heald, Oliver

Page, Richard

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Paice, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Patrick, Sir Irvine

Hendry, Charles

Pawsey, James

Hicks, Robert

Pickles, Eric

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Horam, John

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Richards, Rod

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Riddick, Graham

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Robathan, Andrew

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jack, Michael

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jenkin, Bernard

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Jessel, Toby

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Sackville, Tom

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Key, Robert

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Shersby, Sir Michael

Kirkhope, Timothy

Sims, Roger

Knapman, Roger

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

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

Soames, Nicholas

Knox, Sir David

Speed, Sir Keith

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

677

Spink, Dr Robert

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Spring, Richard

Viggers, Peter

Sproat, Iain

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Walden, George

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Steen, Anthony

Waller, Gary

Stephen, Michael

Ward, John

Stern, Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Streeter, Gary

Watts, John

Sumberg, David

Wells, Bowen

Sweeney, Walter

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Whitney, Ray

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Whittingdale, John

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Widdecombe, Ann

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Wilkinson, John

Thomason, Roy

Willetts, David

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Wood, Timothy

Tracey, Richard

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Tredinnick, David

Trend, Michael

Tellers for the Noes:

Trotter, Neville

Mr. Michael Fabricant and Mr. Jacques Arnold.

Twinn, Dr Ian

Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendment proposed: (b), in line 6, at end add
`and further that a Member with a paid interest should not initiate or participate in, including attendance, a delegation where the problem affects only the body from which he has a paid interest.'.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 264.

Division No. 238]

[8.30 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Adams, Mrs Irene

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Ainger, Nick

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Campbell-Savours, D N

Allen, Graham

Canavan, Dennis

Alton, David

Cann, Jamie

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Chidgey, David

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Armstrong, Hilary

Church, Judith

Ashton, Joe

Clapham, Michael

Austin-Walker, John

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Barnes, Harry

Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

Barron, Kevin

Clelland, David

Battle, John

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Bayley, Hugh

Coffey, Ann

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Cohen, Harry

Beith,Rt Hon A J

Connarty, Michael

Bell, Stuart

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Cook, Robin (Livingston)

Benton, Joe

Corbett, Robin

Bermingham, Gerald

Corbyn, Jeremy

Berry, Roger

Corston, Jean

Betts, Clive

Cousins, Jim

Blunkett, David

Cox, Tom

Boateng, Paul

Cummings, John

Boyes, Roland

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bradley, Keith

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Cunningham, Roseanna

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

Dafis, Cynog

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Dalyell, Tam

Burden, Richard

Darling, Alistair

Byers, Stephen

Davidson, Ian

Caborn, Richard

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

Callaghan, Jim

Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

678

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

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

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Denham.John

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Dewar, Donald

Jowell, Tessa

Dixon, Don

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dobson, Frank

Keen, Alan

Donohoe, Brian H

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Dowd, Jim

Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)

Dunnachie, Jimmy

Khabra, Piara S

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kilfoyle, Peter

Eagle, Ms Angela

kirkwood, Archy

Eastham, Ken

Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

Etherington, Bill

Lewis, Terry

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Litherland, Robert

Fatchett, Derek

Livingstone, Ken

Faulds, Andrew

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Loyden, Eddie

Fisher, Mark

Lynne, Ms Liz

Flynn, Paul

McAllion, John

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McAvoy, Thomas

Foster, Don (Bath)

McCartney, Ian

Foulkes, George

Macdonald, Calum

Fraser, John

McFall, John

Fyfe, Maria

McKelvey, William

Galbraith, Sam

Mackinlay, Andrew

Galloway, George

McLeish, Henry

Gapes, Mike

Maclennan, Robert

Garrett, John

McMaster, Gordon

George, Bruce

McNamara, Kevin

Gerrard, Neil

MacShane, Denis

Godman, Dr Norman A

McWilliam, John

Godsiff, Roger

Madden, Max

Golding, Mrs Llin

Maddock, Diana

Gordon, Mildred

Mahon, Alice

Graham, Thomas

Mandelson, Peter

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Marek, Dr John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Grocott, Bruce

Martlew, Eric

Gunnell, John

Maxton, John

Hain, Peter

Meacher, Michael

Hanson, David

Meale, Alan

Hardy, Peter

Michael, Alun

Harman, Ms Harriet

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Harvey, Nick

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Milburn, Alan

Henderson, Doug

Miller, Andrew

Heppell, John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hinchliffe, David

Morgan, Rhodri

Hodge, Margaret

Morley, Elliot

Hoey, Kate

Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Home Robertson, John

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Hood, Jimmy

Mowlam, Marjorie

Hoon, Geoffrey

Mudie, George

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

Mullin, Chris

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Murphy, Paul

Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Hoyle, Doug

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

O'Hara, Edward

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Olner, Bill

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

O'Neill, Martin

Hutton, John

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Illsley, Eric

Pearson, Ian

Ingram, Adam

Pendry, Tom

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Pickthall, Colin

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Pike, Peter L

Jamieson, David

Pope, Greg

Janner, Greville

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Primarolo, Dawn

679

Purchase, Ken

Stevenson, George

Quin, Ms Joyce

Stott, Roger

Radice, Giles

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Randall, Stuart

Straw, Jack

Raynsford, Nick

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Redmond, Martin

Sweeney, Walter

Reid, Dr John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Rendel, David

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Timms, Stephen

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Tipping, Paddy

Rogers, Allan

Touhig, Don

Rooker, Jeff

Trimble, David

Rooney, Terry

Turner, Dennis

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Tyler, Paul

Rowlands, Ted

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Ruddock, Joan

Walley, Joan

Salmond, Alex

Wareing, Robert N

Sedgemore, Brian

Watson, Mike

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Welsh, Andrew

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Wicks, Malcolm

Wigley, Dafydd

Short, Clare

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

Simpson, Alan

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Skinner, Dennis

Wilson, Brian

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Winnick, David

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

Wise, Audrey

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Worthington, Tony

Snape, Peter

Wray, Jimmy

Soley, Clive

Wright, Dr Tony

Spearing, Nigel

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Spellar, John

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Mr. Mike Hall and Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

Steinberg, Gerry

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Butterfill, John

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Alexander, Richard

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Carrington, Matthew

Amess, David

Cash, William

Ancram, Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Arbuthnot, James

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Clappison, James

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grove)

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Ashby, David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Coe, Sebastian

Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

Colvin, Michael

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Congdon, David

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Conway, Derek

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Baldry, Tony

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

Bates, Michael

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Batiste, Spencer

Couchman, James

Bellingham, Henry

Cran, James

Bendall, Vivian

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

Beresford, Sir Paul

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Booth, Hartley

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Boswell, Tim

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Devlin, Tim

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Dicks, Terry

Bowis, John

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Brandreth, Gyles

Dover, Den

Brazier, Julian

Duncan, Alan

Bright, Sir Graham

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Dunn, Bob

Browning, Mrs Angela

Durant, Sir Anthony

Budgen, Nicholas

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Burns, Simon

Elletson, Harold

Burt, Alistair

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Butler, Peter

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

680

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Evennett, David

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Faber, David

MacKay, Andrew

Fabricant, Michael

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Fenner, Dame Peggy

McLoughlin, Patrick

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Madel, Sir David

Forth, Eric

Maitland, Lady Olga

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Malone, Gerald

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Mans, Keith

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Marlow, Tony

French, Douglas

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Gale, Roger

Mates, Michael

Gallie, Phil

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Garnier, Edward

Mellor, Rt Hon David

Gillan, Cheryl

Merchant, Piers

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Mills, Iain

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Moss, Malcolm

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Nelson, Anthony

Grylls, Sir Michael

Neubert, Sir Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hague, Rt Hon William

Nicholls, Patrick

Hamilton, Sir Archibald

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Norris, Steve

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Hannam, Sir John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Hargreaves, Andrew

Ottaway, Richard

Harris, David

Page, Richard

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Paice, James

Hawkins, Nick

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Heald, Oliver

Pawsey, James

Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

Pickles, Eric

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Hendry, Charles

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hicks, Robert

Rathbone, Tim

Hill, James (Southampton Test)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Horam, John

Richards, Rod

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Riddick, Graham

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Robathan, Andrew

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Jack, Michael

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Jenkin, Bernard

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Jessel, Toby

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Sackville, Tom

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Shaw, David (Dover)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Key, Robert

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

King, Rt Hon Tom

Shersby, Sir Michael

Kirkhope, Timothy

Sims, Floger

Knapman, Roger

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

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

Soames, Nicholas

Knox, Sir David

Speed, Sir Keith

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Spink, Dr Robert

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Spring, Richard

Legg, Barry

Sproat, Iain

Leigh, Edward

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Steen, Anthony

Lidington, David

Stern, Michael

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Stewart, Allan

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Streeter, Gary

Lord, Michael

Sumberg, David

Luff, Peter

Sweeney, Walter

681

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Waterson, Nigel

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Watts, John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wells, Bowen

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Thomason, Roy

Whitney, Ray

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Whittingdale, John

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Widdecombe, Ann

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Tracey, Richard

Wilkinson, John

Trend, Michael

Willetts, David

Trotter, Neville

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Twim, Dr Ian

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Wood, Timothy

Viggers, Peter

Yeo, Tim

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Walden, George

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Tellers for the Noes:

Waller, Gary

Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

Ward, John

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House agrees with the recommendations in the Second Report from the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life (House of Commons Paper No. 816) relating to the cessation of paid advocacy (paragraph 54); and further that a Member with a paid interest should not initiate or participate in, including attendance, a delegation where the problem affects only the body from which he has a paid interest.
Ordered,
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 128 (Select Committee on Members' Interests) be repealed;
(2) Standing Order No. 121 (Committee of Privileges) be repealed when the Committee of Privileges shall have reported to the House in respect of the matters of the complaints referred to it; and
(3) Standing Orders (Committee on Standards and Privileges) and (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) below be made.
Standing Order (Committee on Standards and Privileges)
(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Committee on Standards and Privileges—

(a) to consider specific matters relating to privileges referred to it by the House;

(b) to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members' Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; and to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; and

(c) to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in any code of conduct to which the House has agreed and which have been drawn to the committee's attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to such code of conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary.

682
(2) The committee shall consist of eleven Members, of whom five shall be a quorum.
(3) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
(4) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of no more than seven Members, of whom three shall be a quorum, and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee; and shall appoint one such sub-committee to receive reports from the Commissioner relating to investigations into specific complaints.
(5) The committee and any sub-committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.
(6) The committee shall have power to order the attendance of any Member before the committee or any sub-committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of a sub-committee or of the Commissioner, be laid before the committee or any sub-committee.
(7) The committee shall have power to refuse to allow proceedings to which strangers are admitted to be broadcast.
(8) Mr. Attorney General, the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland, being Members of the House, may attend the committee or any sub-committee, may take part in deliberations, may receive committee or sub-committee papers and may give such other assistance to the committee or sub-committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment.
Standing Order (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards)
(1) There shall be an officer of this House, called the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who shall be appointed by the House.
(2) The principal duties of the Commissioner shall be—

(a) to maintain the Register of Members' Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House, and to make such arrangements for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of those registers as are approved by the Committee on Standards and Privileges or an appropriate sub-committee thereof;

(b) to provide advice confidentially to Members and other persons or bodies subject to registration on matters relating to the registration of individual interests;

(c) to advise the Committee on Standards and Privileges, its sub-committees and individual Members on the interpretation of any code of conduct to which the House has agreed and on questions of propriety;

(d) to monitor the operation of such code and registers, and to make recommendations thereon to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or an appropriate sub-committee thereof; and

(e) to receive and, if he thinks fit, investigate specific complaints from Members and from members of the public in respect of—

(i) the registration or declaration of interests, or

(ii) other aspects of the propriety of a Member's conduct,
and to report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or to an appropriate sub-committee thereof.

(3) The Commissioner may be dismissed by resolution of the House.—[Mr. Newton.]

Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
8.41 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I beg to move,
That Sir Gordon Stanley Downey, KCB, be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission (HC 789), dated 30th October.
It might be helpful if I say a few words about the role of the House of Commons Commission. It was given the task of coming up with a name acceptable to the House, believes that it has done so and invites the House to accept the proposal.
8.42 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I want to raise a number of points. As a Government Back Bencher, I find it offensive that the. House, through the House of Commons Commission, should seek to appoint Sir Gordon Downey as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at a salary of £72,500. I admit that he is a distinguished person, but he is retired and in receipt of a very substantial index-linked pension, yet he will be assessing the position, salary and circumstances of Back Benchers who, for a full week's work, will be in receipt of less than half of his salary. Setting up this gentleman in the position that he will hold is offensive to Parliament. I believe that it is the first time in history that this High Court of Parliament will, to all intents and purposes, have an outsider deciding its behaviour—in short, the behaviour of Members of this House. I do not believe that we should agree to that.
Tonight, the House of Commons has committed suicide. The independence of the House is now very much in doubt, as is its authority and influence. To all intents and purposes, we have set up a House of Commons that will be ruled by the civil service, because the overwhelming majority of hon. Members will have neither the experience nor the authority to exercise an influence that is good for Government, good for Parliament and good for this country.
I say to the House that it will rue this day and rue the decisions that have been taken. It is a pity that the Press Gallery is almost deserted, because it is only a matter of time before Sir Gordon, or a successor, will be looking at the interests of those privileged individuals, the Lobby journalists, who exercise immense influence—dare I say it, much more influence than a Back Bencher? The abilities of Back Benchers will be immensely restricted by the decisions that the House has taken.
I must ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) what expertise Sir Gordon has—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Bugger all.
Mr. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is, from time to time, pertinent and accurate in his remarks. I must confess that, while I disagree with the language, I admire his plain speaking.
We have an outsider to this High Court of Parliament. Surely this High Court of Parliament can rule itself, judge itself and, when necessary, penalise those who abuse their
684
position. But to have an outsider, indeed, a retired outsider, on such a substantial salary—more than twice as much as a Back Bencher and more than a Cabinet Minister—presiding over the standards of those in public life and responsible for standards in this place is offensive.
I know the problems that you face, Madam Speaker, and I well understand why the amendments in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) have not been selected, but perhaps there are times when we should look to other democracies to see how they would operate in such circumstances. Of course, in the United States of America no public servant is in receipt of a salary higher than that of a member of Congress. That rule should obtain in this House. If it did, Members of Parliament would be very much better paid—which they all deserve for the hours that they put in and for the increased work that Parliament decides they should undertake—and, dare I say it to hon. Members on both sides of the House, would better meet the expectations of their electorates.
I rise to speak briefly on this part of our debate in sadness and with regret. I put the question again to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed—
Mr. Skinner: He is a Liberal.
Mr. Winterton: Indeed, he is a Liberal Democrat—educated in my constituency at King's school, but that is only an aside.
What qualifications does Sir Gordon Downey have to undertake the tasks that the House is allocating to him? What justification is there for giving him, as a retired civil servant in receipt of a substantial index-linked pension, a salary of more than twice as much as the people whose standards of behaviour he will be assessing? That is an insult to democracy and a disaster for Parliament. I am very unhappy and sad at what the House has done today to the authority of Parliament.
When I came to the House nearly 25 years ago—
Mr. Nicholas Budgen: A quarter of a century.
Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend says a quarter of a century ago. It is not yet that long. I hope that I may be honoured to serve my constituents for a quarter of century and beyond. I hope that they will accept that at no time in the years that I have been the Member for Macclesfield have I done anything dishonourable about which I would not be prepared to talk to them openly.
How can the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who chairs the House of Commons Commission—I apologise Madam Speaker: you chair it and he speaks on its behalf—justify to the House what the Commission is doing in appointing this individual to deal with what I agree are very important matters? I believe that standards of behaviour are critical. Sadly, I do not believe that what the House has done tonight will improve the image of Parliament in the eyes of electorate. That can be done only by the individual examples of every right hon. or hon. Member.
I seek to set an example and I know that many other hon. Members do so too. The fact that there are a few rotten apples in the basket does not mean that the whole House should be summed up in that way. I believe that Parliament has served the United Kingdom well. I fear

685
that it will not be able to do so in future and I hope that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed will justify what we are supposed to agree to tonight.
8.52 pm
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I understand that some years ago the Government Whips Office offered a jeroboam of champagne to anybody who spotted the late Bonner Pink and Sir Frederic Bennett in the Division Lobby at the same time. I do not know whether that champagne was ever called upon but it could also have been offered for the first occasion on which my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) appeared together on an amendment to a motion.
My hon. Friend and I proposed amendments because we both have a keen sense of the ridiculous. As someone who has wanted to be a Member of the House for as long as I can remember, and as someone with a sense of history and of the traditions of the House, I am worried that, despite all the partisan glee on the Opposition Benches—which will continue as the night goes on—we are in severe collective danger as a House of Commons of making ourselves ridiculous.
It is worth pausing and reflecting for one moment on how we got into this position at all. It was because two stupid, silly greedy Members did something that most of us would never do. The story that both sides of the House should have run with was that, of the 20 hon. Members approached, only two behaved in that way—80 per cent. did not. That is the message that we should have communicated to the people outside. We signally failed to do so.
After that, it was downhill all the way, with a committee presided over by a judge who made it clear at the outset that he had already reached his conclusions and was hoping to find some evidence to back them up. Those of us who have made a living in the courts often suspected that that is what the judiciary did but we had not expected to have it confirmed in such a spectacular way.
From inauspicious and tiny beginnings, we have reached the position that we are in today. Whatever else we say, we should not disguise from ourselves the anomalous and paradoxical situation that we have created. How on earth can we ask Sir Gordon Downey to police a distinction between our advisory work and the other things that we do?
For example, I heard the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on a radio programme yesterday. He was being employed not for the lightness of his wit or the elegance of his table manners but because he was a Member of Parliament.
I have a high regard for my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) but having briefly, in a misguided moment, dipped into "A Parliamentary Affair", I should think that people would read that book not because they think that she is the personification of Tolstoy but because they think that, as a Member of Parliament, she might have something to say.
Those are examples of hon. Members receiving remuneration that arises directly from their membership of the House. They are not included in the proposed arrangements. Why not? It is because too many Labour Members would suddenly find that they had to declare
686
their income. It would mean that we would have to find out—because morality is absolute and does not start only tonight—from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) how much she was, until recently, really paid by Westminster Communications. We could find out how a former Labour Prime Minister was able to buy a Suffolk dairy farm on the wage of a Back-Bench Member of Parliament.
We could go into a great deal to try to get a vision of the matter. A commissioner for ethics? I do not know where Opposition Members have been. I have about 75,000 commissioners for ethics—my electorate. I have the judgment of my peers, of my hon. Friends and of Opposition Members. There are many examples of hon. Members whom one may not like but whose probity one understands. The idea that we can substitute the judgment of our electorate, of our hon. Friends and of the House of Commons by setting up a commissioner for ethics is bizarre.
Consider the salary involved. Ethics are relative; they vary. One has to put oneself, to an extent, in the position of those who are making those difficult judgments—the judgments that we all have to make. We make those judgments when we back our Government's view against our inclinations. As party people on both sides of the House, hon. Members realise that we can make progress only if we combine in a political party. That can produce some pretty hard choices for hon. Members, especially for those in government.
There are all sorts of difficulties, such as when one feels that one has a duty to one's region but there is a conflict with the interest of one's county. Such conflicts happen all the time. All hon. Members deal with them by working a seven-day week and by earning £33,000 a year.
I understand why some of my hon. Friends have done so, but I have never criticised the payment of a parliamentary salary under the present arrangements. If, however, the commissioner for ethics is to do anything other than sum up what a ridiculous spectacle we have made of ourselves, he should have some insight into the people on whom he passes judgment. He might even care, as my third amendment proposes, to be on the salary of a Back Bencher. Alternatively—I note that he thinks that he can do the job in four days a week—perhaps he would like to work for four sevenths of the salary of a Back Bencher and nod along on £18,000 a year.
I tabled the amendments to make the point about how ridiculous this proposal is. I do not suggest for a moment that Members of Parliament—we may hear cries of "Shame" in a moment—should be paid £126,000 a year, but if Sir Gordon Downey is giving us an example of what a Member of Parliament should be paid for his four days, that is what the salary would amount to. It would make us look ridiculous. The idea that, ultimately, we shall impress our electorate, raise the standards of this House or serve our constituents better by employing somebody at that salary makes us a laughing stock.
When was the job advertised? Are we supposed to believe that, despite all the efforts of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), no one could be found to do a four-days-a-week job for less than £74,000? Perhaps it comes to this: if one is to do such a ridiculous job, the very institution of which underlines and undermines everything that the House should stand for, the salary must be made very high indeed.

687
I have no criticism of Sir Gordon Downey, who has clearly had a career of distinguished public service. In his twilight years, he must have thought that this was the best thing that had ever happened to him. On one level, so say all of us, but when this House legislates not to try to take forward the condition of the people but to exact political revenge on its opponents, it has a good night out but it demeans itself and this institution.
In due course, the lawyers among us will swarm over the fine print of the recommendation to make sure that it hangs Opposition Members when we really get stuck into the nature of their trade union funding. The mere fact that we can enjoy that does not alter for a moment the fact that what we have done tonight, in a spirit of rancour on one side of the House and sheer cravenness on the part of many of my hon. Friends, undermines an institution to which our constituents sent us to preserve. Many of us should be ashamed of ourselves.
9 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin: I favour the appointment of Sir Gordon Downey. It is sad that we have had to make such an appointment, but we have had to do so because there have been abuses. It is a red herring for Conservative Members to argue about his salary. When unemployed people in my constituency look at my salary and those of other hon. Members, they wish that they had such a salary. It cannot be argued that a Member of Parliament should not be appointed because of his salary.
I have seen problems that could be referred to an independent body. I left the Select Committee for Trade and Industry because I was deeply concerned about what hon. Members were doing when they visited countries at the expense of this House. When I went with the Select Committee to China, we were treated like royalty. I was deeply ashamed when members of the delegation handed out their business cards, which were written in Chinese for the benefit of their hosts, and said, "This is my business card. Get in touch with me if you need advice on a particular industry." One day, an hon. Member took an interpreter supplied to us by the Chinese Government to a meeting on private business for a telecom company with which the hon. Member was involved. Now that this appointment has been made, hon. Members can at least go to the commissioner, say that something is worrying them and ask whether he will look into it so that standards do not deteriorate.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have seen the setting up of all-party groups. Anyone can tell that those groups are set up to become involved in lobbying in the House. Sir Gordon Downey, and even we in this House, could look into that ridiculous set-up. We have the best facilities that can be offered in the centre of London. They are given free of charge to hon. Members with an important all-party affair that they want to bring forward. Yet at this very moment, lobbyists are going around Parliament seeking to set up all-party groups for their own ends. Perhaps Sir Gordon will also look at the activities of those so-called all-party groups.
Dame Jill Knight: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. Surely, a Member who suspects that another Member is
688
doing something wrong can report that either to Madam Speaker or to the Chairman of the Privileges Committee, or some such body. What is wrong with that?
Mr. Martin: It is getting to the stage when so many complaints are made that the Chief Whips and you, Madam Speaker—I know that I should not draw you into the argument—are fed up with listening to Members like me talking about the type of abuses that are going on.
Dr. Robert Spink: Rubbish.
Mr. Martin: The hon. Gentleman and many others have attacked me because I am a sponsored member of a trade union. I have put on my declaration the information that my constituency party, not me, gets £150 a quarter. There is a big difference between that and what some hon. Members are getting from promoting their consultancies in the House.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We appreciate the service that the hon. Gentleman gives to the House. I have never cast any aspersions on what sponsorship or support he may get, but a little earlier he cast aspersions on a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry which visited China. He said that one or more members of that delegation handed over a business card, as he put it—a visitors' card, or personal card—to those Chinese people whom they met in the People's Republic of China.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, when Members of Parliament go abroad, those whom they meet, whatever their position—Members of Parliament, civil servants, business people and people in social work—frequently give them a card? I have thousands in my desk that I have been given over the years. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that that frequently happens?
Madam Speaker: Order. Let me remind hon. Members that we are straying from the motion on the Order Paper. We have little time for this debate. Many wish to speak, so I hope that Members who are called will make their points briefly.
Mr. Martin: I will be brief, but I should like to point out that I sat through the previous debate, so I have not just come into the Chamber.
Let me spell it out to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—I do not think that he listened to what I said. Certain Members gave out their private business cards when they were part of a delegation visiting China on the business of the House. One hon. Member took away the interpreter who had been supplied for the benefit of the Select Committee in order to do business for a private company. That is the point that I am trying to make, and if the hon. Gentleman has not picked it up, there must be something wrong with his hearing. You are right, Madam Speaker: perhaps I am straying from the motion. I see standards deteriorating all the time. That must stop, for the benefit and good name of the House.
I hope that the commissioner will also look at the activities of some people in the press, because they are not so honourable. They are prepared to take payments to write certain stories that suit their own ends. There are also lobbyists going around this building who are interested not in our constituents or in the honour of the House but merely in their own private and personal gain.
9.8 pm
Mr. John Butterfill: I regret that the decisions made earlier this evening will make it necessary for us to appoint Sir Gordon Downey. That is no criticism of Sir Gordon, whom I have known for many years. He is a man of great ability and integrity. There are few people we could choose who would do the job better than him.
The difficulty is that what we have done this evening has created a situation in which we will be seen as naughty schoolchildren, who have had to put someone above us in order to ensure that we behave. That is a tragedy.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I was one of those who voted against the first motion, and I then voted against the amendment tabled by the Opposition. I did so, as you know, not because I was worried about disclosing what I receive in consultancy payments for the British Venture Capital Association and for the British Insurance and Investment Brokers Association—because you know that I had intended in my speech, before the Division, to reveal what I was paid by those organisations. I shall reveal it now, because I do not want it to be thought that I was in any way going to be forced to do so.
I am paid by each of those organisations a sum of between £10,000 and £15,000, to use the bracket of revelation that we must now use. I have never done anything for either of those organisations of which I would be ashamed. However, what we have done tonight is to ensure that, because of the ban on advocacy and because we shall have to go to Sir Gordon to obtain permission to do things now, we cannot now speak freely in the House in the way that we might have done previously—a right that we won from Charles I and have given away this evening.
For example, when we introduced the insurance premium tax a little while ago, I and other hon. Members who represent the insurance industry in the House said to the insurance industry, "You cannot resist the imposition of that tax, but we must ensure that the way in which it is implemented is as efficient as possible, both for the public and for the industry."
The Government were proposing that the tax should be implemented on net payments after commission. The problem with that was that it would have been impossible to calculate the tax because of the various commission structures and bonus commissions and everything else, so I, along with others, went to Ministers and said, "That is a crazy way to proceed; it must be calculated on gross commissions." The net effect of persuading them that that was the case is that it is much easier for the Inland Revenue to collect money, and the industry has a much easier way to proceed.
In future, we shall not be allowed to do that; we shall have to go to a commissioner and obtain permission.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman can do those things. Nothing in the world stops him from doing them. All he has to do is to resign his consultancy.
Mr. Butterfill: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but he knows that those of us who take on that work engage in considerable additional work to do so, and it is not necessarily unreasonable that we should be paid. I do not
690
suppose that the hon. Gentleman takes on consultancies of that nature free, although I have done some free. I acted, for example, for—
Madam Speaker: Order. I must bring the attention of the House back to the motion before us. We are not concerned with an earlier debate. We are simply concerned with the appointment of a parliamentary commissioner, and that is set out in three lines on the Order Paper. Hon. Members must relate what they have to say to that motion and not stray as far as they are doing now.
Mr. Butterfill: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, and I shall return to that issue.
What I object to in the appointment of a commissioner is that we, as Members of the House, are making ourselves subject to someone who is not a Member of the House. We should not be accountable to a commissioner. We should not be accountable to a Select Committee set up by the Government and Opposition Whips Offices. We should not even, with great respect to your person and your office, Madam Speaker, be accountable to you. We should be accountable only to our constituents.
By doing what we are doing tonight, we are taking away that sovereignty of Parliament in a way that I believe is damaging. I believe that we shall not restore the confidence of the public because now we shall be seen to be behaving only because we have to behave.
If we had had a voluntary register and the opportunity to register all the details of our employment—I am grateful that we now have that opportunity because, as you are aware, Madam Speaker, I would have so registered—we should have had to account to each of our constituents as to why we were not registering those things that our constituents thought that we should enter. We would be behaving like honourable Members, and that is the only way ultimately that we shall obtain the respect of the public.
9.13 pm
Mr. David Harris: As someone who has never sought to have paid interests outside the House, I have no personal problem in being made accountable to the proposed commissioner. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) spoke for many of us in the House, both in his speech tonight and in what he wrote in the Evening Standard earlier today, when he posed serious questions about the effect of tonight's business on the well-being of the House of Commons. I heartily agree with what he said and wrote.
To turn directly to the matter before the House, I shall ask a succinct question of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who speaks for the House of Commons Commission. Precisely how was the sum of £72,000 per year that Sir Gordon is to receive arrived at? What was the basis of fixing on that precise level of payment to Sir Gordon? Is there any truth in the suggestion that that was the minimum that he said he would have to be paid if he was to accept the appointment? Could the right hon. Gentleman answer those direct questions?
9.15 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: I do not take the same apocalyptic view as the hon. Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and for Teignbridge

691
(Mr. Nicholls) who spoke at the beginning of the debate. I wonder how the commissioner will be able to fill four days a week after the initial flurry of activity—I think that he will be pressed to do so. I think that there should be full disclosure of Members' incomes from all sources—that would resolve the problem, as we would not have to pay his £72,000 a year to arbitrate on the different sources of Members' incomes.
I have a few questions to ask the Leader of the House—who appears to have made a run for it—or his representative on earth about how the commissioner was appointed. Was the job advertised? I believe that it was. How many applications were received? How many names were short-listed? What form did the interviews take? I hope that before the end of the debate the Leader of the House or his representative will answer those questions, as I am curious to know the answers.
9.17 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I am deeply concerned about what we are doing this evening. When, over the passage of time, people look at the votes that took place earlier and at the appointment to which the motion refers, they will wonder why we went to so much trouble when the mechanisms required to discipline, organise and manage this place already exist.
The unwritten United Kingdom constitution was our inheritance and we were fortunate to inherit it. As a Member of Parliament who represents a minority of the UK population who live in Scotland and look to this place to look after their interests within the UK, I am aware of the deep concern among my constituents that the High Court of Parliament will no longer take the final decisions on matters affecting their representative. I do not represent a narrow partisan view, any more than does anyone else in this place. All my constituents have the right to come to me and to expect me to be able to ask questions on matters that directly affect them as constituents.
I am concerned that we are putting in place a structure, a mechanism, that is substantially flawed. Anyone who has attempted to read the measure on which we voted earlier will realise that the commissioner will face considerable problems. How does one ask an individual to arbitrate on articles that have been written in newspapers about specific matters affecting future votes in the House on how money is spent? Often, the individual concerned is paid handsomely for his efforts because he is a Member of Parliament.
Articles written by hon. Members appear in the Scottish press every week. Will those hon. Members be debarred from leading parliamentary delegations that may affect the national health service or from asking questions or initiating and participating in debates? I believe that we have put in place the most appalling, structurally deficient measures, which are comparable to what has come out of Europe in recent years. They do the House no favours.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Hon. Members would be debarred only if they had already entered into some form of commercial contract with a pharmaceutical company, for example, and they are not obliged to do that.
Mr. Walker: I make it clear that I do not have any problems with the measures personally. However, I am concerned about what we are asking the ombudsman to do.
692
I believe that lawyers will have a field day with the measures that we have attempted to insert into the structures and rules of this place. The hon. Member for Newham, South shakes his head, but he may live to regret his actions.
I return to the example of hon. Members who write articles for newspapers. Those individuals are paid to write articles because they are Members of Parliament and because they have direct access to the House. In fact, they often base their articles on questions that they have asked in this place. I do not want those hon. Members to stop writing articles, any more than I want other hon. Members to cease gaining similar experience outside the House. It is that sort of experience that makes the Chamber what it is. If all hon. Members shared the same backgrounds and experiences, the Chamber simply would not function properly. The unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom depends vitally on the independence of hon. Members who represent all their constituents.
As an aside, I was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) criticise all-party groups. I think particularly of the delightful Scotch whisky all-party group, of which I regularly speak in favour although I am a teetotaller. I digress for a moment because I find his comments horrendous.
I believe that the House is more important than any narrow, partisan point-scoring exercise. I want my grandchildren to inherit what we were lucky enough to enjoy: all the benefits that the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom provides.
9.22 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: I did not intend to speak in the debate until a few moments ago. However, the tone of the debate that has followed the voting suggests that Conservative Members are bitter about what has occurred tonight. That underlying bitterness is coming through in the debate.
I am among those who have followed the debate very closely over the years and I suspect that many hon. Members are exaggerating the effect of the changes that we have made. There will be much discussion about the changes in the Committee that is to be established. I believe that a number of rulings will be arrived at through precedent and, when those rulings are laid down, hon. Members will be able to identify to what extent they are in order when they speak in the House of Commons or use the procedures of this place. Hon. Members must take stock and not react in the hysterical manner that seems to have characterised the debate tonight.
Mr. Butterfill: The hon. Gentleman is wrong in what he says about feelings of bitterness: we accept what has happened. However, even if we ban advocacy, there is not a legislature in the world where that does not occur. Surely all that we have done tonight is drive it underground, and that is never a good thing.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not want to stray from order and it would not be in order for me to reply directly to the hon. Gentleman, but he should consider what he has said. To suggest that advocacy will be driven underground suggests that some Members are prepared and are now giving notice of the fact that they intend to breach the

693
rules of the House of Commons. That would be a grave error of judgment and I hope that the hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to correct what he said.
Mr. Butterfill: I shall happily do so.
Madam Speaker: Order. I have cautioned the House before that we are dealing with a very small motion and hon. Members in their interventions are leading those hon. Members who have the Floor down quite the wrong path. I hope that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will not give way. He must speak to the motion that is before us. The hon. Gentleman's interventions do not deal with the motion at all.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Let me say something in defence of Sir Gordon Downey. Together with other members of the Public Accounts Committee, I worked closely with him for many years. I was on the Public Accounts Committee for 11 or 12 years and Sir Gordon was there for about six of them. He has an extremely incisive mind and sees his way through very complicated issues. That came out often during deliberative sessions of the Public Accounts Committee. Anyone who was on that Committee in those years can only endorse what I have to say.
If Conservative Members are concerned about what will happen in the Committee, they will find that Sir Gordon, in bringing his mind to the problems that may confront us, will certainly find ways to resolve those problems that will be endorsed by the Committee.
Mr. Winnick: Does my hon. Friend accept that, if the proposal had been put before us some years ago, I probably would have opposed it? Does he agree that it was the failure of the Select Committee on Members' Interests time and again to tackle some of the issues which undoubtedly embarrassed the House and which has now made such a measure inevitable? It is right that we should go ahead with the appointment.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Sadly, that is the case. When I was on the Select Committee on Members' Interests we had a very good team. The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) was here this evening, but he is not in his place at the moment. He will recall that we had a particularly good team and worked very well together through a number of difficult inquiries. However, late last year and at the beginning of this year, the Committee ran into the long grass and found that it could no longer proceed. I was not on the Committee, as I came off it two years ago.
The Committee was required to examine a couple of complaints. It was almost impossible for it to proceed because, for a variety of reasons outside the Committee's control, Parliament was polarising on those issues in the light of the scandals that had been reported in the national press. In my view, that polarisation made it difficult to proceed without the intervention of an independent person or persons to adjudicate on those matters. We effectively started with Nolan. Nolan was there to some extent to adjudicate on the best way forward and make recommendations to Parliament with which we could then proceed. We have now reached the next stage and perhaps an independent element will help the Committee avoid the log jams that will inevitably arise over the coming months.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I would like to bring the hon. Gentleman back to the central point of our debate this evening. He has given his opinion of the gentleman who will preside over the new Committee. The hon. Gentleman has now recommended him to the House. No one is making slighting references to the gentleman in question. The point surely is that many hon. Members on both sides of the House think that a salary of £72,000 is obscene—not to mention the cost of his secretarial back-up, his office and so on. Perhaps if the man in question has retired on an index-linked pension and is comfortably off, he should be public-spirited enough to offer to do the job for nothing.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Lady's intervention reminds me to correct an error in what her spouse said earlier. Sir Gordon Downey was an Officer of the House of Commons: he is not an outsider. He understands this House. If, over time, he believes that his salary is not warranted, it will come as no surprise to hon. Members to hear me say that he will probably ask for the salary to be renegotiated. He is not the sort of man to demand such a salary ad infinitum if he knows he does not warrant it. He sought a salary of that grade on the basis that he felt that the amount of work required of him would go with a substantial salary—
Mr. Nicholls: Four days a week!
Mr. Campbell-Savours: We do not know that—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has already made a contribution to the debate.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I do not usually spend my time defending salaries of this size; but in certain circumstances we have to pay the market price if we want good people. Sir Gordon will not be working four days a week. He will probably spend much of his week just as we spend ours. The public think we work three and a half or four days a week, but the hon. Member for Teignbridge talked about our working seven days a week. During his first year in the job, Sir Gordon will certainly not work a four-day week. He will find that he has to do an immense amount of work that will certainly warrant a large salary in the early period. But eventually he may volunteer to have the salary renegotiated.
Mr. Nicholls: The resolution refers to a four-day week, although there may be a little more work to begin with. The hon. Gentleman appears to be saying that he is authorised by Sir Gordon to say that he will apply for a pay cut in the near future. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House, so may I ask him whether he thinks £72,000 a year is too much, too little or just right?
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I must sit down soon, but I will end on this note. My party has stood accused for decades of promoting the politics of envy. I sense a little envy in what the hon. Gentleman is saying this evening.
9.33 pm
Mr. Beith: With the leave of the House, I shall try, in the time available, to reply to the main points of the debate. I do so not, as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) thinks, on behalf of the Leader of the

695
House, nor, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) thinks, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, but on behalf of a Commission on which Front and Back Benchers of all three parties are represented, under the independent chairmanship of Madam Speaker.
Aspects of the debate have gone over the same ground as the previous debate. The Commission had no authority to question the House's decision to appoint a Commissioner for Standards, which was taken on 19 July. The Commission has no power whatever over the salaries of Members, which are decided on a resolution of the House. So we could do nothing about either matter even if we had chosen to do so.
The Commission considered the question of salary carefully and at some length. In fixing the annual salary at £72,000, on the basis of what has been determined as a four-day week, the commission was obliged to take account of a number of factors. They included the importance attached to the duties involved, the previous salaries of likely suitable candidates and our statutory responsibility to pay salaries in line with those in the civil service. We also had regard to the problem presented by the difference between salary levels suggested to us and the salaries of right hon. and hon. Members, with whom the commissioner will have to deal. Some of us held particularly strong views on that point.
The recommended salary, which is at the bottom end of the permanent secretary scale reduced by one fifth because of the four-day week, represents a compromise—and one that I hope that the House will accept, so that there will be no delay in the detailed implementation of the decisions taken by the House this evening.
Mr. Ray Whitney: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: First, I must try to answer the questions of right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) asked how the choice was made. The Commission was assisted by the board, chaired by the First Civil Service Commissioner, and benefited from advice given by consultants who contacted 135 individuals in a general trawl. Eighty applications were received in response to advertisements in two newspapers. Short and long lists were devised. At the end of that extended process, the commission was unanimous in approving the appointment of Sir Gordon Downey.
I say to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that Sir Gordon's wide experience and considerable reputation suited him well for the post. The details of his career are set out in the report on which the resolution is based, which the hon. Gentleman can read. As Comptroller and Auditor General—and I attach particular importance to that post, as did the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)—Sir Gordon had extensive experience of the workings of the House, of Committees and of Members of Parliament individually, as well as of the pressures under which they work. All those represented compelling reasons for appointing Sir Gordon.
Mr. Mullin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Beith: I will give way to the first hon. Gentleman who asked me to do so.
Mr. Whitney: Against the background that the misdemeanours that gave rise to the whole Nolan process
696
have been so few and far between, is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he and the Commission seriously believe that when the arrangement is in operation, there will be a sufficient number of problems of the kind in question to keep Sir Gordon occupied four days every week? Did the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Commission really reach that conclusion?
Mr. Beith: We were advised by the Select Committee. If the hon. Gentleman will read its report, he will find references to the possibility of full-time and part-time work in the post. Initially, the Commission reached the conclusion that for the first year or two at least, a full-time post could be fully justified. Only after some discussion was the post reduced to one of four days a week. We recognise that once the system has become established, it may prove possible for the work to be undertaken with a smaller commitment of time. We envisage that happening, and it is assumed that the post will be reviewed at an appropriate stage. Perhaps the number of days will be reduced, in which case the salary will be adjusted accordingly.
Mr. Harris: Can the right hon. Gentleman refute the suggestion that £72,000 was the absolute minimum that Sir Gordon would accept? In other words, that he insisted on being paid £72,000—true or false?
Mr. Beith: If I had been a party to any negotiations with individuals, which I was not, I would not disclose them on the Floor of the House—any more than one would expect any person to do. The Commission made a decision as to the level of salary and made a recommendation to the House. It did so having considered a range of factors that go in conflicting directions. The salary is less than that paid to others in the service of the House. Even the full-time equivalent—I touch on a point made by the right hon. Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins)—is less than the salary of the Comptroller and Auditor General, who is paid significantly more.
Sir Terence Higgins: I did not actually say that. As right hon. and hon. Members will be required to deposit their contracts with Sir Gordon, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Sir Gordon's contract has been deposited in the Library? In particular, can the right hon. Gentleman remind the House of the term of Sir Gordon's contract and the circumstances under which it may be renegotiated?
Mr. Beith: The Select Committee made it clear that the commissioner should be in a position of some independence and be capable of being dismissed only on a resolution of the House. The contract is, if I recall rightly, a three-year term, and it can only be ended short of that period on such a resolution. Most of the details of the appointment are set out in the report itself. I commend it to the House.
Sir Terence Higgins: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Speaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving way, or has he finished?
Mr. Beith: I have finished, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to make a speech, as there is time?
Sir Terence Higgins: Briefly, as it seemed appropriate to ask what the term was. I am not at all clear why, if we are to renegotiate the terms, it should be a three-year term.
9.39 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: I had not intended to get involved in the debate, but I am a bit stunned. I follow the excellent speeches that were delivered by my hon. Friends the Members for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I find it astounding that, month by month, year by year, we hear from Opposition Members how wrong it is for individuals with high salaries to be appointed, particularly to run industries where wealth can be accrued, but where, as suggested by Opposition Members, individuals should not benefit to the full level of their contribution.
Here we have an individual who is in retirement, who has undoubtedly given great service to this country in the past, but who is being brought out of retirement on a salary of £72,000 a year. I feel quite sure that Opposition Members will find it very difficult indeed to justify to their constituents how they can support such a move.
I honestly feel that the House has got it wrong on this issue and that it is setting a very bad example indeed.
Mr. Mullin: Did the hon. Gentleman hear me ask a moment ago how many people were on the shortlist for that particular job and how many were interviewed? Did he notice that I got no reply and that when I attempted to intervene to follow it up I was the only person who failed to catch the attention of the hon. Gentleman concerned? Does he think that we should have an answer to that question?
Mr. Gallie: I believe that the hon. Gentleman should have had an answer. I believe that such a position should have been advertised to the fullest extent, in line with the wishes and desires of Opposition Members and so many expressions in the past—
It being one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Madam Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Order [3 November].
The House divided: Ayes 231, Noes 71.

Division No. 239]

[9.42 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bright, Sir Graham

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

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

Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Amess, David

Burden, Richard

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Burns, Simon

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Burt, Alistair

Arbuthnot, James

Butler, Peter

Ashton, Joe

Callaghan, Jim

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Baldry, Tony

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Barnes, Harry

Campbell-Savours, D N

Barron, Kevin

Canavan, Dennis

Bates, Michael

Cann, Jamie

Battle, John

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Carrington, Matthew

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Cash, William

Bellingham, Henry

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Beresford, Sir Paul

Chisholm, Malcolm

Bermingham, Gerald

Clappison, James

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Booth, Hartley

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Boswell, Tim

Coe, Sebastian

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Cohen, Harry

Bowis, John

Colvin, Michael

Brandreth, Gyles

Congdon, David

698

Connarty, Michael

Jowell, Tessa

Conway, Derek

Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Kennedy, Jane (L 'pool Br'dg'n)

Couchman, James

Khabra, Piara S

Cran, James

King, Rt Hon Tom

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Dalyell, Tam

Kirkwood, Archy

Davidson, Ian

Knapman, Roger

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Delvin, Tim

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Dewar, Donald

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Donohoe, Brian H

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lidington, David

Dowd, Jim

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Duncan, Alan

Luff, Peter

Eastham, Ken

McAvoy, Thomas

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

McFall, John

Elletson, Harold

MacKay, Andrew

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Evans Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

McLeish, Henry

Evennett, David

Maclennan, Robert

Faber, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fatchett, Derek

McMaster, Gordon

Fishburn, Dudley

Maitland, Lady Olga

Forman, Nigel

Malone, Gerald

Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

Forth, Eric

Mates, Michael

Foulkes, George

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Merchant, Piers

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Fraser, John

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Milburn, Alan

French, Douglas

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Fyfe, Maria

Moss, Malcolm

Galbraith, Sam

Nelson, Anthony

Galloway, George

Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

Garnier, Edward

Norris, Steve

Gillan, Cheryl

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Godman, Dr Norman A

Oppenheim, Phillip

Golding, Mrs Llin

Ottaway, Richard

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Page, Richard

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Paice, James

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Pearson, Ian

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Pickles, Eric

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Pike, Peter L

Gunnell, John

Pope, Greg

Hague, Rt Hon William

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Hanson, David

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Hardy, Peter

Rathbone, Tim

Hawkins, Nick

Reid, Dr John

Heald, Oliver

Richards, Rod

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Henderson, Doug

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Hendry, Charles

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Rooker, Jeff

Home Robertson, John

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Hood, Jimmy

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Hoon, Geoffrey

Sackville, Tom

Horam, John

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Shersby, Sir Michael

Jack, Michael

Short, Clare

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Simpson, Alan

Jenkin, Bernard

Sims, Roger

Jessel, Toby

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

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Soames, Nicholas

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Spencer, Sir Derek

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Spink, Dr Robert

699

Spring, Richard

Watts, John

Sproat, Iain

Wells, Bowen

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Streeter, Gary

Whittingdale, John

Sweeney, Walter

Widdecombe, Ann

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Wilkinson, John

Willetts, David

Thomason, Roy

Winnick, David

Tredinnick, David

Wood, Timothy

Trend, Michael

Worthington, Tony

Walden, George

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

Waterson, Nigel

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Lynne, Ms Liz

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Maddock, Diana

Alton, David

Madel, Sir David

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Mills, Iain

Ashby, David

Moate, Sir Roger

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Bendall, Vivian

Neubert, Sir Michael

Bennett, Andrew F

Nicholls, Patrick

Budgen, Nicholas

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Carlisle, John (Luton North)

Pawsey, James

Chidgey, David

Porter, David (Waveney)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Powell, William (Corby)

Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Dover, Den

Rendel, David

Dunn, Bob

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Durant, Sir Anthony

Shaw, David (Dover)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Gallie, Phil

Skinner, Dennis

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Gorst, Sir John

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Stephen, Michael

Grylls, Sir Michael

Sykes, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Hannam, Sir John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Harris, David

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Harvey, Nick

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Hicks, Robert

Viggers, Peter

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Johnston, Sir Russell

Wallace, James

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Whitney, Ray

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

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Knox, Sir David

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Leigh, Edward

Tellers for the Noes:

Lewis, Terry

Mr. Tony Marlow and Mr. Michael Stern.

Loyden, Eddie

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That Sir Gordon Stanley Downey, KCB, be appointed Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on the terms of the Report of the House of Commons Commission (HC 789), dated 30th October.

Orders of the Day
  Medical (Professional Performance) Bill
  Lords amendments considered.
Clause 2

  VOLUNTARY REMOVAL FROM THE REGISTER
  Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 3, leave out lines 25 to 29 and insert ("—

  (a) providing for the erasure by the Registrar from the register of medical practitioners of the name of any person who applies, in the manner prescribed by the regulations, for his name to be erased from the register;

  (b) providing for the refusal by the Registrar of applications under paragraph (a) above in such cases and circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations;

  (c) making provision")

  9.48 pm
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendment No. 2.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Lords amendment No. 1 relates to the part of the Bill that allows registered medical practitioners voluntarily to withdraw from the register. The debate in this place, both Upstairs in Committee and here, was inevitably linked to the reasons for that, to the acceptance or otherwise of a voluntary application for erasure from the register and—I put this within the ambit of this discussion—to the terms on which there should be any application for readmission to the register.
  Labour Members' concern was recalled by the noble Baroness Cumberlege, and I understand that I can quote her on this matter as she is a member of the Government, giving a Government view: She said:
  "during the debate in another place there was concern that some doctors might abuse the provisions of clause 2 to avoid proceedings concerning serious professional misconduct. The Opposition tabled a number of amendments aimed at addressing that but none of them gave the GMC the flexibility it requires."
  I fear that she was not reading at least some of the concerns of Labour Members and, I hope, of the whole House. Parliament lays down the ambit for the rules within which the General Medical Council works, but it appeared from her remarks that the GMC was requesting a degree of flexibility that at least Labour Members, both in Committee and on Report, were asking for, and it was denied on those grounds.
  The amendment provides
  "(a) … for the erasure by the Registrar from the register of medical practitioners of the name of any person who applies, in the manner prescribed by the regulations, for his name to be erased from the register",
  and
  "(b) … for the refusal by the Registrar of applications under paragraph (a) above in such cases and circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations".

  701
  The obvious purport of that amendment was made clear by the noble Baroness Cumberlege when she said:
  "If a doctor decides he cannot maintain a good standard of performance or does not wish to undertake remedial training, he should be allowed to remove his name from the register. Clause 2 provides for this and other similar circumstances in which a doctor may simply no longer wish to be registered; for example, if he is going to work abroad. It also has the effect of providing a quick and easy way for a doctor to remove himself from practice."
  The Government and the noble Baroness claim that the loophole allowing a doctor to remove his name from the register when he is about to be, or suspects that he is to be, subject to either the performance channel, which is opened up in the Bill, or the professional conduct channel, which is there at present, is to be stopped up to some extent, but that is not so, at least in relation to the wishes of the House. The loophole is stopped up to allow the registrar to act on regulations prescribed by the General Medical Council, and we do not know what those are.
  A continuous theme of the debate both upstairs and on the Floor of the House was that the Bill provides the General Medical Council with powers to make regulations and a very wide discretion which, in the view of many hon. Members, were too imprecise. The regulations to which the amendment refers cover one of seven pages of the schedule and about three pages of the main Bill and therefore there is concern that the clause, although no one could oppose it because it partially stops up something that has been spotted, does not go anything like far enough. The provision is not linked in any precise way with the following part of the clause, which is not being amended and which allows for application for reinstatement.
  The GMC has the discretion to restore a member. That does not reassure the public, despite the fact that the noble Baroness said:
  "The amendments will enable the GMC to make regulations to allow its registrar to refuse applications for voluntary removal in defined circumstances."
  I interpret those circumstances to be those defined in regulations, not defined by this House. She continued:
  "this will not only give the GMC flexibility, but also send a message to the profession and the public that the GMC takes a grave view of matters of serious professional misconduct."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 July 1995; Vol. 566, c. 490–91]
  It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Lords amendment stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Lords Amendments to the Medical (Professional Performance) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
  Question agreed to.
  Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Spearing: I beg to contest the noble Baroness's statement. As I said, it is a very loose arrangement with the regulations being entirely in the hands of the GMC. My understanding—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong as these matters are not simple because there is a whole mass of interlocking regulations—is that the regulations must have the approval of the Privy Council,
  702
  which was the historic origin of the GMC, quite properly, a century ago, and indeed, probably quite properly, of its court of appeal.
  I am not sure whether the regulations relating to voluntary removal and reinstatement have to come back to the House under a negative procedure. I am sure that it will not be the affirmative procedure because that proposal was thrown out in Committee. I suspect that the regulations will require only the approval of the Privy Council and no more. If that is so, contrary to what the noble Baroness said, it is evidence that the question of serious professional misconduct and what then happens is in the hands of the Privy Council and the GMC alone, without any reference to this House.
  Another matter that was debated in Committee in the other place was raised by Lord Rea. He referred to me because his amendment related to the Archer case, which is well known to the GMC and to the House. His amendment would have allowed the existing professional conduct committee, of which the noble Baroness is so proud, to deny its right to send back to the professional performance committee a finding on a doctor whose performance was considered to be professional misconduct, but not serious. It was suggested that the matter would have to go back to the screener.
  Although I do not think that anyone could oppose the Lords amendment, it exemplifies not only the complexity of the Bill and the schedule, but the fact that virtually the whole Bill allows the GMC enormous scope to make its own regulations. This House will have very little opportunity—in fact, none in some cases—to approve the regulations. The operation of the Bill, when it is enacted, may not provide—not least because the professional procedure is in secret—the advantages and the improvements that the GMC says that it wants and that the Government say that the Bill will produce.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I am glad that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that no one could oppose the amendment. I am sure that we can dispose of it fairly quickly. I am glad that he approves of the amendment in principle, recognising the concern that some doctors could take advantage of the clause and the Bill to avoid proceedings for serious professional misconduct and that there could therefore be instances when the public interest would be served by a doctor remaining on the register and facing a committee hearing. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the regulations allowed by the amendment are too broad but we believe that experience shows that we can give the GMC the flexibility that it needs to strike a balance in the matter. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 2 agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No, 3, after clause 2, to insert the following new clause—Preliminary proceedings: interim orders—
  ". —( 1) Section 42 of the Medical Act 1983 (preliminary proceedings as to professional misconduct and unfitness to practise) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (3), in paragraph (c) for the word "two" there shall be substituted the word "six".

  703
  (3) In subsection (4), for the words "No order for interim suspension or for interim conditional registration shall be made by the Preliminary Proceedings Committee" there shall be substituted the words "No order under subsection (3)(b) or (c) above or (6A)(b) to (d) below shall be made by any Committee".
  (4) In subsection (5), for the words "If the Committee decide" there shall be substituted the words "If the Preliminary Proceedings Committee decide".
  (5) In subsection (6), for the word "two" there shall be substituted the word "six".
  (6) After subsection (6) there shall be inserted—
  "(6A) Where an order for interim suspension or for interim conditional registration has been made in relation to any person under any provision of this section (including this subsection) the Preliminary Proceedings Committee, the Professional Conduct Committee or the Health Committee may, subject to subsection (4) above—

  (a) revoke the order or revoke any condition imposed by the order;

  (b) vary any condition imposed by the order;

  (c) if satisfied that to do so is necessary for the protection of members of the public, make an order for interim suspension; or

  (d) if satisfied that to do so is necessary for the protection of members of the public or is in the interests of the person concerned, make an order that his registration shall be conditional on his compliance, during such period as is specified in the order, with such requirements so specified as the Committee think fit to impose for the protection of members of the public or in his interests.

  (6B) An order under subsection (6A)(c) or (d) above—

  (a) shall take effect as from a date not later than the date on which the interim suspension or interim conditional registration would otherwise come to an end; and

  (b) shall specify a period not exceeding three months.

  (6C) If an order is made under subsection (6A)(a) to (d) above the Registrar shall forthwith serve a notification of the order on the person to whose registration it relates.
  (6D) Where an order has been made under any provision of this section, the court (within the meaning of section 38 above) may—

  (a) in the case of an order for interim suspension, terminate the suspension,

  (b) in the case of an order for conditional registration, revoke or vary any condition imposed by the order,

  (c) in either case, substitute for the period specified in the order some other period which could have been specified in the order when it was made;
  and the decision of the court on any application under fin; subsection shall be final.".

  (7) Subsection (7) shall cease to have effect."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Sackville.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 8, 12, 13 and 15.
  Mr. Sam Galbraith: Lords amendment No. 3 allows for the suspension of a doctor by the General Medical Council, through its preliminary proceedings committee, for the safety of the public in a case in which an issue has been raised against the doctor in respect of his or her health or professional conduct.
  There is a difference between suspension on health grounds and on professional conduct grounds in that suspension on health grounds is unlikely to be controversial and there would be only limited doubt about it. However, a doctor could be suspended because of allegations about his or her professional conduct without having had a chance to answer the allegations.
  In most cases, that will not be a problem. I accept that because I foresee that, in the majority of cases, complaints would have been raised with the health board or hospital, which would have pursued the matter and may or may not have then terminated the doctor's contract. The matter would then be further referred to the GMC and no controversy would be involved.
  However, there will be cases where allegations will be made specifically by the public without the employing authority or the doctor having been involved. In that case, suspension by the General Medical Council will have serious implications for the employment of doctors before they have had the chance to answer the allegations against them.
  I know that the GMC is separate from the employing authority. I understand that distinction and it is right that the matter is not covered in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will accept that this is one of the difficult grey areas relating to employment which arise as a consequence of the Bill. I hope that he will discuss the matter with the British Medical Association when it reaches conclusions about the future employment of its members who are suspended under those conditions.
  Mr. Sackville: I certainly accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The House will agree, because it was discussed extensively during earlier stages of the Bill, that interim suspension should be extended to a longer period to allow the General Medical Council more time to bring proceedings. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acceptance of that.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 15 agreed to.

PETITION

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  10.10 pm
  Mr. Peter Snape: I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the national officers and council of executive members of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.
  Tonight, of all nights, I had better declare an interest. I am a member of the RMT and was a member of the union when it was known as the National Union of Railwaymen, of which my father was also proud to be a member.
  The officers and council of executive members declare that it is in the interests of the economy, industry and environment of the United Kingdom, and in the best interests of those employed in the railway industry of the United Kingdom, that a high-speed railway line between London and the Channel tunnel be constructed as expeditiously as possible. It is a sad commentary on our transport policy that, when a high-speed line has already been constructed in France and is in the process of construction in Belgium, I should have to bring this petition before the House. The petitioners therefore request that this House of Commons uses its influence to ensure that such a high-speed railway line is constructed at the earliest possible date.
  I do not have to remind you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the depth of railway experience among the officers and members of the executive. On their behalf, the petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Campbell Soups
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  10.11 pm
  Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: This is a story of deception, intrigue, exploitation and injustice. It is the story of how a large multinational company, with profits of $698 million last year, more than $7 billion in net sales world wide and an international reputation—a company responsible for marketing a branded product, known throughout the world for its quality—targeted for closure a small, technologically advanced, highly profitable food company in north-west England. In so doing, it totally undermined the morale of a town.
  The multinational company concerned is Campbell Soups of America, one of the largest food producers in the world. The plant in north-west England is Homepride Cook-in Sauces in Maryport, a town reeling from the effects of escalating unemployment, which, in parts, reaches nearly 25 per cent.
  Having purchased Homepride's operations in Maryport under the procedure of a mock auction, that multinational company in pursuit of profits gave those in the work force assurances as to their employment, fooled the vendor as to the plant's future and effectively stole the brand name. Within eight weeks, it announced the sacking of the work force with a spurious offer of transfer to other plants. That created mayhem, distress, anger and a deep sense of seething injustice and resentment among the local community.
  In 16 years of being the Member of Parliament for Workington, I have witnessed and experienced many closures. I have seen the rundown of the footwear industry, with the closure of Bata and other footwear companies. I have witnessed the rundown of parts of British Steel Corporation's Workington operations, the closure of the Leyland-Volvo bus plant, and many other closures. But this closure has been the worst of the lot because it can be justified neither morally nor commercially and because a poor but proud and loyal community is being punished for having made a success of a company that threatened the market share of a predator multinational.
  I want to say a few words about the background to the sale. Dalgety, the former owner of the cook-in sauce business, having recently acquired Quaker European pet foods operations for £422 million, found that it needed to raise a substantial amount of money. To raise those funds, it decided to sell off a number of its more profitable processed food operations.
  Earlier in March, Dalgety had said that it was looking for bids for various food operation divisions. In the case of Homepride in Maryport, a number of organisations were either invited by Dalgety or approached by it with a view to purchasing those Homepride operations.
  A de facto auction was announced and over a period of months a number of organisations became involved in the bidding arrangements. They included, first, BSN Danone—I understand that that company is registered in France; secondly, the CPC organisation; thirdly a venture capital arm of the National Westminster bank; fourthly, Schroder—its interest appears in part to have centred on

  707
  its role as adviser for CPC; fifthly, a separate arm of Schroder specialising in venture capital projects; and, sixthly, Legal and General Insurance. Those are but some of the organisations that expressed an interest in acquiring the Homepride Maryport operations.
  A number of bids came from organisations that were putting together packages that involved a combination of privately held equity, institutional equity and offshore funding. Even organisations such as Investors in Industry—3i—were partially involved. Some bids relied on the services of a management buy-out team, which in certain circumstances would have held direct equity, and perhaps even share options.
  One of the problems was that it was recognised that a trade buyer would always be more risky than acquisition by a consortium sponsored by a financial institution, but no one could say anything. No one was allowed to warn the work force of the dangers. Why? Because the whole sale was shrouded in confidentiality. The Homepride sales prospectus, a veritable limited edition publication, was kept under lock and key. Any individual or institution in any way involved in the sale or purchase of Homepride was bound by what can only be described as an oath of confidentiality. In other words, "Keep your big mouths shut, because if you don't, we'll sue." That meant that no one could identify the motives of the individual players.
  What I can now reveal is that, apart from one, all the people who were bidding wanted to keep the plant open. They all realised that it was a highly profitable company; indeed, it was the jewel in the crown of Dalgety's profitability. They recognised Maryport Homepride, with its ever-increasing production and profit potential, as a cash cow. There was, however, one company bidding that did not want to keep the plant open—Campbell Soups. It knew that it had to close the plant down because it threatened its strategy for the United Kingdom.
  Campbell Soups was so determined to close the plant down that it outbid all the other bidders and signed a deal on 4 August. What did it buy? It bought a business with a book asset value of £9 million and a profit of £4 million on a turnover of £28 million—all for the princely sum of £58.6 million. The size of that figure suggests the desperate nature of its desire to acquire the business, grab the brand name and close down Maryport operations.
  Sadly, in the final hours of the negotiations, Dalgety failed to recognise the dangers, with the effect that it failed to secure an undertaking guaranteeing the retention of the work force on the Maryport site, as had happened in the Reckitt and Colman sale of its sauces business in a back-to-back deal with Bass and Unilever.
  Campbell Soups, of course, did not want such a deal, so why did it want to close the operation down? First, it wanted to acquire the substantial brand name of Homepride. Its overriding, overarching obsession with brand names is clearly demonstrated in the 1995 annual report of the United States parent operation. Secondly, it wanted to acquire a turnover injection of nearly £30 million in Campbell's United Kingdom operations. It desperately needed that because of its failure to turn in good figures on its existing operations, which some in America were questioning.
  Finally, Campbell's desperately needed to secure the removal of capacity from the Maryport site, which could potentially damage its commercial objectives in the cook-in sauce market. We have to understand that the
  708
  Maryport operation, in spite of a high profit against asset/turnover ratio, still left immense scope for further production and profit taking.
  At the time of the takeover of 4 August, in a series of carefully prepared news releases and statements, Campbell's, hiding behind ambiguity, set out to convince the West Cumbrian public, the Maryport work force and, to some extent, even City institutions that the acquisition was good news for Maryport. Certainly the work force was misled because, at a meeting between Mr. Al Simpson and Mr. Daryl Brewster and the work force held on site at the beginning of August, they even had the gall to suggest that they were considering bringing new products to Maryport. I quote them:
  "We are thinking of bringing pasta sauces to Maryport".
  I further quote from a letter of 4 August 1995 from Mr. J.W.T. Mustoe:
  "We are proud to be the new owners of Homepride sauces. There is no doubt that it is a fine brand, and, as many of you will know, Homepride Sauces was at the forefront of developing the cook-in sauce market. It fits in very well with our portfolio of brands which included Campbell's Soups, Fray Bentos, Rowat Pickles and Campbell's/Food service Businesses. You may be unaware that Campbell's is the biggest sauce manufacturer in the world and it is fitting that the UK's largest cook-in sauce brand"—
  Homepride—
  "has joined us. We believe that we can build on the strength of the Homepride Sauces name as well as develop and grow"
  business in
  "the cook-in sauce market."
  To avoid those in the work force being alerted to the impending disaster confronting them, Campbell's even went through the spurious exercise of conning local management, who in the main appeared to have been in blissful ignorance of what was happening, into organising, in August, Investors in People status for the Maryport plant. The document produced by the company and given to the work force in August stated:
  "We"—
  the company—
  "firmly believe that implementing the Investors In People Programme as part of our overall strategy will allow our Company to continually develop, expand and build on the success of introducing new product ranges and processes into our operations here at Maryport … The Programme will cover everyone within the Company and we firmly believe that it will be a major benefit to our organisation and to everyone working within the Company and further demonstrate our commitment to the development of people within Maryport, however, we recognise that our success with the Investors in People will only be achieved with everyone working together."
  Furthermore, having put local management through that hoop of deception, Campbell's then had Mr. Mustoe, United Kingdom group managing director, tell me that local management supported the closure as it thought that there was no alternative. Closure of that highly profitable plant—what a betrayal of the truth and of his own newly acquired employees.
  It was all a deception, which has now persisted for more than 14 weeks, and we are only at the beginning of a struggle.
  As recently as last week, I learned of a decision that had been taken in early August to put a new production line into another Campbell's plant for the production and handling of Homepride cook-in sauces. Last week, the company

  709
  announced that 50 workers were seriously considering moving to Campbell's other plants. Another "porky"—the real figure is nearer 10 and may be as low as six.
  Perhaps the company's wriggling and shifty footwork of last week is an even clearer sign of its intentions. Last week, I asked the Campbell's UK group managing director whether he would arrange for me to address the board of Campbell's at its New Jersey headquarters in the United States of America. I offered to cross the Atlantic. I also asked to be given the option to attend the annual general meeting, which is due on 16 November, and Campbell's could have allowed me to enter as a guest. I understand that that is the position under American law.
  A public relations company started ringing up both myself and the media offering irrelevant responses in an attempt to evade the central questions that I have been asking. My questions still remain unanswered and I shall be tackling those issues when I visit King's Lynn next week, to appeal to the workers of the King's Lynn Campbell plant to black production lines transferred from Maryport in my constituency.
  This is a saga of deceit and dishonour. The conduct of the company's UK operations is totally at variance with the standards of corporate governance set out in the memorandum of 6 October 1995 provided to shareholders who were invited to attend this year's annual general meeting in Camden, New Jersey in 10 days' time. Paragraph 18 of that document—which has only just been published in America and was sent over from America to me last week by sympathetic people—states:
  "The company does not have a poison pill"—
  the Campbell company is talking about itself—
  "or other anti takeover devices because it believes that the way to remain independent is via superior performance in building shareholder wealth".
  The people of Maryport did just that: they built the shareholder wealth of Dalgety through its Homepride operations. They, too, did not have a poison pill because they believed that they were the jewel in the Dalgety crown.
  I am sure that well-respected and internationally regarded old-money members of the Dorrance family on the board of Campbell's American operations will understand what I mean when I suggest that new-money business decisions taken in little old England appear to lack principle. If the Dorrance family still remain unconvinced, I would ask them to look at the memorandum that I have just mentioned. Under the heading,
  "Requirements of Managers and Directors"
  it refers to
  "Strong, principled and ethical leadership".
  The family have been let down by people on this side of the Atlantic who should have known better. I beg them to intervene out of a sense of Christian conscience. What is happening is wrong; it is immoral; it is unprincipled and must be stopped.
  10.27 pm
  The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I appreciate the force of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for
  710
  Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), who has sought to raise the issue in the House on a number of occasions. I have been present when he has made points of order and asked questions of myself and ministerial colleagues. I congratulate him on his success in bringing the subject to the Floor of the House tonight. By the emotion that he brought to his remarks, he demonstrated his strength of feeling over the issue.
  It must be recognised that industry generally operates in a competitive environment, and the Campbell company has existed in the United Kingdom since 1959. It currently employs more than 2,000 people—I think the figure is 2,100—in five locations in the United Kingdom. It has plants in King's Lynn, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), who is watching tonight's debate, and in the constituency of my former hon. Friend, now the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth). It has three other plants in Glasgow, Salford and Peterlee, but they are not so central to the change in operations mentioned by the hon. Member for Workington. In my remarks I hope to outline the way in which the Office of Fair Trading has previously considered the issue.
  Campbell's has invested quite heavily in the United Kingdom food industry in the past 12 months. The hon. Gentleman referred to its £56 million purchase of the Homepride sauces plant and, collectively, I believe that its expenditure has been about £100 million. In the context of tonight's debate—the impact of Campbell's decision on Maryport in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—I recognise that announcements such as that to which the hon. Gentleman referred can be a body blow in areas of high unemployment. That fact was reflected in the force of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
  For what it is worth, Campbell's has sought to safeguard the 123 jobs at its plant by offering employment at its two sites at Stratford-on-Avon and King's Lynn. I recognise, however, that the practicalities of accepting such offers are bound to be limited. The hon. Gentleman said that the company announced last week that some 50 people might take advantage of the offer. Irrespective of whether 10 or 50 people do so, they must deal with the practical difficulty of moving from the hon. Gentleman's constituency to the two alternative locations.
  I recognise that the closure is a deep disappointment in Maryport. In dealing with such matters, the Government endeavour to do their best to assist in developing new job opportunities within the constituency affected. I shall detail those endeavours later in my speech.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister give me a straight answer to a very simple question? Does he believe that it is right in principle that a company such as Campbell Soups of America can move into a constituency such as mine and close down an extremely profitable operation with huge potential? I have seen the Dalgety production forecasts well into the next century. Does he believe that it is right in principle that a foreign conglomerate with a huge international reputation should have the market power to move in and destroy jobs in an area of high unemployment? Will the Minister give me a straight answer to that question, because it is what my constituents want to hear?
  Mr. Evans: I shall certainly give the hon. Gentleman a straight answer in the context of the reaction of any

  711
  Member of Parliament facing a similar difficulty. I am sure that all hon. Members would share the great concerns that he has expressed. However, he invites me to come to the Dispatch Box as a Minister and to outline the Government's response to the situation. He knows well that the Government are not in a position to intervene, other than in certain circumstances that I shall outline briefly in the course of my remarks.
  Before I do so, it is important to list some of the areas in which the Government are providing assistance both in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and, more broadly, in the north-west. I think that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the work of the local training and enterprise council and Inward in trying to attract businesses to the area. As the Department of Trade and Industry Minister with special responsibility for the north-west, I have been present in the Chamber when the hon. Gentleman has paid tribute to the work undertaken by Inward in an attempt to attract additional investment to his constituency. I know that he recognises that work.
  I am also aware that Cumbria training and enterprise council has met Campbell's to offer its guidance and help to employees at this particularly difficult time. The training for work programme has been very successful in the Cumbria area. I understand that 74 per cent. of participants in courses held as part of that programme have gone on to secure other jobs or to engage in further education and training. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that west Cumbria enjoys assisted area and European objective 2 status, which I am sure will prove helpful in the long term.
  I shall now clarify an issue that the hon. Gentleman did not raise tonight but which he has raised previously. The Department of Trade and Industry paid a regional selective assistance grant to the Dalgety company in order to safeguard jobs at the Maryport plant. One instalment of the grant was paid in July 1993. The Government office for the north-west will be seeking the recovery of those moneys in view of the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has outlined.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: May I press the Minister again on the issue that I raised with him previously? I am seeking a value judgment. Do the Government condemn the actions of multinational companies that go into assisted areas of the United Kingdom which have been helped to grow by Government resources and close down profitable companies irrespective of the impact on the local economy? Ministers must have a view on such matters. I am asking for a value judgment. Do the Government find it acceptable and feel that it is all part of the play of market forces or do they say, "No, we do not like these activities"? I want an honest response about the Minister's position.
  Mr. Evans: I gave the hon. Gentleman a fairly honest response previously. Although he is disappointed by the announcement, at least two hon. Members will have gained because new job opportunities have been announced in King's Lynn and in Stratford-on-Avon arising from those circumstances. With respect, I am showing sympathy for the predicament of the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
  712
  The hon. Gentleman has mentioned on previous occasions his concern about how takeover rules apply in such circumstances and I am aware of that.
  The merger control procedures that we operate under the Fair Trading Act 1973 place a duty on the Director General of Fair Trading to advise my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on merger matters. The hon. Gentleman will know from his previous questions that the Director General of Fair Trading advises on whether a merger should be referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, but it has to be a qualifying merger. He will know that the general policy that the Government have adopted is to consider the impact of a proposal on the development of competition. That remains our broad policy.
  In compiling his advice, the Director General of Fair Trading takes account of all relevant factors, including the views of third parties, but not all mergers are large enough to be considered by him under the Fair Trading Act: one of two tests has to be met. One is that the assets being acquired are worth at least £70 million.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: This is not relevant to Campbell Soups.
  Mr. Evans: I am raising the matter with the hon. Gentleman because I am very much aware of the concern that he raised specifically in his press release, drawing attention to the impact of takeover rules. It is important for his constituents that I outline exactly what those rules are and explain that in the circumstances the tests were not satisfied for the merger control procedures to be activated.
  The Director General of Fair Trading examined the matter before reaching the conclusion that it did not qualify and that under merger control procedures he was unable to make any recommendation to the Government. In those circumstances, the Government have no power to act or intervene.
  Furthermore, I am aware of factors concerning the development of the soup market generally. The hon. Gentleman did not refer specifically to it, so I do not intend to deal with the Government's view of Campbell's role in the soup market.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Destructive.
  Mr. Evans: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman feels that, as he represents the area that is most markedly affected.
  In essence, the Government broadly sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The training and enterprise council and the inward investment bodies in the north-west stand ready to assist in the development of new job opportunities in Maryport. Although I certainly recognise that the hon. Gentleman remains very worried about the activities of Campbell's, which acquired a plant and closed it down within two months, that is ultimately a matter for the commercial judgment of the company. It is not a matter in respect of which the Government are in a position to intervene.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Mental Incapacity
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the proposed legislation by the Law Commission on mental incapacity; and if he will make a statement. [41357]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Government have welcomed the Law Commission's report on mental incapacity as an important contribution to the debate on decision making where a person lacks capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Government recognise, however, that the report raises important and sensitive issues of principle. We set up an interdepartmental working group to co-ordinate consideration of the report on 15 March 1995. The group produced an initial report for Ministers by its target date of 1 September. Ministers are considering the group's report with that of the Law Commission.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to complete his consideration of the draft Mental Incapacity Bill; and if he will make a statement. [41589]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Government set up an interdepartmental working group to co-ordinate consideration of the Law Commission report on 15 March 1995. The group produced an initial report for Ministers by its target date of 1 September. Ministers are now considering the group's report with that of the Law Commission.

  Frederick West (Memoirs)
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received regarding the proposals by the Official Solicitor(a) for the publication of the memoirs based on the confession of the late Frederick West and (b) for the proceeds of such publication to go to the West family. [40691]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has received five separate representations regarding proposals by the Official Solicitor(a) for the publication of the memoirs based on the confessions of the late Frederick West and (b) for the proceeds of such publication to go to the West family. In addition, an early-day motion on this subject has been tabled.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Electro-shock Weapons
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his answer of 3 July,Official Report, column 76, what further progress has been made in the investigation into
  534
  matters relating to British Aerospace and the export of electro-shock equipment. [41482]

  The Solicitor-General
  The police have submitted a report to the Crown Prosecution Service which has been considered. No decision will be made regarding the institution of criminal proceedings until the conclusion of the separate inquiries being conducted by the Strathclyde police.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Attorney-General, pursuant to his Department's letter of 11 September, if the Strathclyde police have completed their investigations into the allegations made in the Dispatches programme in respect of the export of electro-shock equipment involving ICL Technical Plastics Ltd. of Glasgow. [41434]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I have been asked to reply since the question relates to a Scottish police investigation. The inquiries being conducted by Strathclyde Police into these allegations are being pursued with due expedition but are not, as yet, concluded.

TREASURY

  Inflation
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average inflation rate between October 1974 and May 1979 and May 1979 to date; and if he will make a statement. [40679]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Between October 1974 and May 1979 the average rate of inflation, as measured by the retail prices index, was 15.1 per cent. per annum. This compares with 6.4 per cent. for the period May 1979 to September 1995, the latest month for which information is available.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners in each standard region of the United Kingdom, in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and for the United Kingdom as a whole, are exclusively or very largely dependent on state pension; and if he will express that figure as a percentage of the overall number of pensioners. [40456]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Data on the number of pensioners mainly dependent on state pension are not available. The figures show, for the standard regions, England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom as a whole, the number of retired households mainly dependent on state pensions and other state benefits as a percentage of all retired households, as estimated from the 1994–95 family expenditure survey. The figures are subject to sampling variations.

  Retired households mainly dependent on state pensions and other state benefits as a percentage of all retired households

  Percentage

  United Kingdom

  45

  England

  45

  North

  50

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  48

  North West

  46

  East Midlands

  50

  West Midlands

  51

  535

  Retired households mainly dependent on state pensions and other state benefits as a percentage of all retired households

  Percentage

  East Anglia

  51

  Greater London

  39

  South East excluding Greater London

  43

  South West

  35

  Wales

  44

  Scotland

  45

  Northern Ireland

  54

  Capital Gains Tax (National Grid)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much capital gains tax he expects to receive in connection with the demerger of the national grid. [41392]

  Mr. Jack
  The tax affairs of particular companies are a confidential matter between those companies and the Inland Revenue.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to release a figure for the amount of capital gains tax levied in connection with the demerger of the national grid. [41393]

  Mr. Jack
  I am unable to release such a figure because the tax affairs of particular companies is a confidential matter between those companies and the Inland Revenue.

  Unquoted Shares
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate(a) the value of unquoted shares sold in the latest year available, including shares in wholly owned companies and (b) the taxable gains on these shares before allowing for any (i) reliefs or (ii) exemptions claimed. [41394]

  Mr. Jack
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Tax Relief
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate for the latest available year(a) the number of people and (b) the value of tax relief given under capital gains tax (i) retirement relief and (ii) re-investment relief. [41391]

  Mr. Jack
  The latest estimates for the costs of capital gains tax retirement and re-investment reliefs are given in table 1.6 in the 1995 edition of "Inland Revenue Statistics". Reliable estimates for the numbers of people claiming these reliefs are not available.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the total amount of capital gains tax that(a) has been deferred and (b) is still deferred through use of the various reliefs afforded to capital taxpayers. [41395]

  Mr. Jack
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the rules and regulations he proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation 536
  Committee before the end of 1995; and if he will make a statement. [41542]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I refer to the answer that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave to my hon. Friend earlier today.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Inland Revenue's business plan and the way it will now work on deregulation policy with the Department of Social Security. [41519]

  Mr. Jack
  The Inland Revenue management plan for 1995–96 to 1997–98 foreshadowed plans for the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency of the Department of Social Security to work more closely together with a view to providing a better service to customers and lifting the burdens on business. Details of the joint working programme were announced on 19 September 1995.

  The joint working programme is an important part of each Department's deregulation initiative. It has been drawn up with small businesses particularly in mind and should help to make their dealings with the government machine more straightforward and less burdensome.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer by the repeal of each rule and regulation which has so far been the subject of a reference to the Deregulation Committee from his Department; and in how many cases a compliance cost assessment has been carried out. [41543]

  Mrs. Knight
  The Treasury has laid three draft deregulation proposals to date. The Deregulation (Building Societies) Order was laid on 9 May, the Deregulation (Credit Unions) Order on 11 July and the Deregulation (Friendly Societies) Order on 17 July. The draft orders will not lead to any significant cost savings for the Exchequer.

  The explanatory documents which were presented to the committee alongside each of the draft orders contain an assessment of the cost savings to business and any other persons whom the draft orders are intended to benefit.

  Inquiries (Small Firms)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many compulsory inquiries are issued by the Central Statistical Office to small firms each year; how many Prodcom quarterly inquiries are sent out to small firms each year; and what is the estimated total cost of these inquiries to(a) each small business and (b) the Exchequer. [41548]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information on the number of forms to the level of detail requested is currently held only for those inquiries included in the interdepartmental business register. Out of a total of 663,000, 304,500 forms were sent to businesses with fewer than 25 employees between July 1994 and June 1995. Some 1,170 small firms with fewer than 25 employees were included in the Prodcom quarterly inquiry, resulting in 4,680 forms in that year.

  In July 1995 the Central Statistical Office took over responsibility for the former Employment Department's employer surveys. Including the inquiries conducted by the former Employment Department, there were in total

  537
  some 1,743,000 forms sent to businesses in the 1994 calendar year. This figure includes an estimate for the former Employment Department's biennial census of employment based on an average of the number of forms sent out for that inquiry in 1993 and 1994. The 1994 costs on the same basis were estimated at £22 million to business and £23 million to the Exchequer. Information which would enable a breakdown of these costs between smaller and larger businesses is currently not available in respect of all the inquiries. The Central Statistical Office is in the process of developing a compliance plan which will provide more detailed breakdowns of the costs of all the inquiries. This will be available in April 1996 and a copy placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Grants
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for what grant-giving funds his Department is responsible, requiring a private sector contribution, where the use of national lottery funds is now allowed to count towards that private sector portion. [38611]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for National Heritage on 31 October, columns 186–87.

  Tax Allowances and Reliefs
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) of 11 February 1992,Official Report, column 430, on average tax allowances and reliefs for those with gross earnings up to £120,000, differentiating between reliefs and allowances claimed at the marginal rate and reliefs and allowances claimed at other rates. [39107]

  Mr. Jack
  Available estimates for taxpayers in 1995–96 are in the table. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for the specified bands above £100,000.

  Gross income range £ per year

  Average amount of tax reliefs and allowances claimed at marginal rates set against income

  Average amount of tax reliefs and allowances claimed at other rates, set against income

  0–10,000

  3,900

  650

  10,000–20,000

  4,100

  1,550

  20,000–30,000

  4,600

  2,250

  30,000–40,000

  5,100

  2,600

  40,000–50,000

  5,900

  2,800

  50,000–60,000

  6,500

  2,850

  60,000–70,000

  7,100

  2,900

  70,000–80,000

  7,800

  2,900

  80,000–90,000

  7,900

  2,700

  90,000–100,000

  9,000

  2,700

  Over 100,000

  13,800

  2,750

  Average

  4,300

  1,400

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list figures for the donations and cost of tax relief on(a) covenants to charities and (b) gift aid for taxpayers with gross income of over (i) £40,000, (ii) £60,000, (iii) £80,000 and (iv) £100,000. [39110]
  538
  Mr. Jack
  Provisional estimates for individual taxpayers in 1995–96 are as, follows:

  Covenants to charities

  Total income

  Donors

  Gross donations £ million

  Cost of tax relief £ million

  Over £40,000

  156,000

  150

  60

  Over £60,000

  70,000

  80

  30

  Over £80,000

  40,000

  50

  20

  Over £100,000

  27,000

  40

  15

  Gift aid

  Total income

  Donors

  Gross donations £ million

  Cost of tax relief £ million

  Over £40,000

  20,000

  90

  35

  Over £60,000

  11,000

  65

  25

  Over £80,000

  6,500

  55

  20

  Over £100,000

  5,000

  50

  20

  Gilts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking in respect of sharp movements in gilts prior to the impact day of the new tax regime; and if he will make a statement. [40961]

  Mr. Jack
  Gilt prices respond to a variety of influences, of which prospective tax change is only one. My right hon. and learned Friend has already announced his proposals for tax reform in this field in broad outline, and the date on which it should come into effect. He does not believe any special measures are needed as these plans move towards implementation.

  Housing Benefit Payments
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impediments exist to details of payment of housing benefit to private landlords being made available to the tax authorities. [40904]

  Mr. Jack
  There are no impediments to the Inland Revenue's powers to require returns from local authorities of housing benefit payments made to private landlords.

  Inheritance Tax
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions exemption from inheritance tax has been granted for bequests to political parties since 1988; and how much revenue was forgone. [40777]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: I regret that this information is not available.

  Profit-related Pay
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the revenue yield from restricting relief on profit-related pay to relief at the marginal rate of(a) 25 per cent. and (b) 20 per cent. giving in each case the number of people affected and the average loss per taxpayer. [40783]
  539
  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: Information about profit-related pay schemes is derived from annual returns provided by employers. These show the total amounts of profit-related pay and the numbers of participants but do not include information about the distribution of earnings. The total revenue cost of the scheme is tentatively estimated on the assumption that the distribution of participants by marginal tax rate is similar to that for employees generally. On this basis, the revenue yield from restriction to 25 per cent. and 20 per cent. might be about £90 million and £230 million respectively at 1995–96 levels. But it would be misleading to provide estimates about numbers of losers and average amounts of loss on the basis of very general assumptions.

  Personal Allowances
  Mrs. Maddock
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Darby v. Sweden case which was considered by the European Court of Human Rights in 1990 and its implication for the eligibility of women with disabled husbands for additional personal allowance. [40841]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: The case of Darby v. Sweden concerned a Finnish resident who worked in Sweden and was required to pay the Swedish church tax simply because he was not registered as a resident of Sweden. Dr. Darby's complaint, which was upheld by the court, was brought under article 1 of protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights which concerns the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. That article has no relevance to the eligibility of claimants to additional personal allowance.

  Tobacco Duty
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received regarding the duty on tobacco products; what the nature of such representations has been; what response he has given to any such representations; and if he will make a statement. [41294]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: We have received a number or representations. The majority of these asked that tobacco taxation not be increased in the forthcoming Budget. All representations concerning tobacco taxation will be considered very carefully in the period leading up to the Budget, but it would be inappropriate for me to comment further at this stage.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the percentage of those working in domestic service are(a) of ethnic minority origin and (b) female. [39945]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The labour force survey for spring 1995 shows that of an estimated 151,000 people employed as domestic personnel in private households, 76 per cent. were female. The LFS sample of people of ethnic minority origin in this group is too small to provide a reliable estimate.

  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many 20 to 24-year-olds were employed(a) at the
  540
  latest date for which information is available and (b) 12 months earlier. [41822]

  Mrs. Knight
  Information from the labour force survey shows there were 2.637 million persons aged 20 to 24 years in employment in Great Britain at summer 1995 and 2.657 million at summer 1994.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  School Milk Subsidies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to alter the current subsidy arrangements for school milk. [40918]

  Mr. Baldry
  Our participation in the discretionary elements of the EC school milk subsidy scheme is kept under review.

  Fishing Licences
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has reached a decision on the National River's Authority's Anglian Coast (Limitation of Net Licences) Order 1994. [41882]

  Mr. Baldry
  My hon. Friend has previously drawn my attention to the views expressed by his constituents on this issue. I am now pleased to tell him that I have received the inspector's report on the public inquiry into this order. It recommends that the order be confirmed, provided that a number of amendments are made. The most significant amendment proposed by the inspector is that licences for this fishery should not be limited to those dependent on fishing for their livelihood. I have accepted these recommendations, and, provided the NRA consents to the amendments, intend to confirm the order on this basis. All existing licence holders will therefore continue to be eligible to hold licences. No new licences will be issued, however, and the fishery will gradually be phased out.

  People's Dispensary for Sick Animals
  Sir Terence Higgins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the additional cost of treating various kinds of sick animals by PDSA dispensaries as a result of European Union legislation. [39360]

  Mrs. Browning
  The PDSA has represented that changes to United Kingdom law made by the Medicines (Restrictions on the Administration of Veterinary Medicinal Products) Regulations 1994 to implement EC legislation will increase the cost of treating companion animals. These regulations contain provisions which had already passed into good veterinary practice in the UK, by means of the British Veterinary Association's code of practice for the prescribing of medicinal products, introduced in 1991. Following a recent meeting between officials from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and the director general of the PDSA at which these issues were discussed and clarified, we have been able to give assurances which should ensure that that the PDSA does not incur additional costs as a result of the application of the regulations.
  541

  Public Appointments, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Martin Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list all the non-departmental public bodies to which his Department makes appointments in the county of South Yorkshire, indicating the total annual budget and the number of appointments made or renewed for each body in each of the last four years. [39424]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In the county of South Yorkshire there are three non-departmental public bodies to which the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food makes appointments.

  The Yorkshire regional flood defence committee is a statutory executive committee of the National Rivers Authority, which meets its administrative costs. Expenditure is accounted for by the National Rivers Authority. In 1994, four appointments were made or renewed. There have been no other appointments in the last four years.

  The appointments of two MAFF appointed members of the South and West Yorkshire agricultural wages committee were renewed in each of the years 1993 and 1994. No other appointments have been made in the last four years. There is no separate regional budget for agricultural wages committee work.

  Appointments are made to the regional panel for the Ministry's north-east region which includes the county of South Yorkshire. Regional panel members do not receive a fee for their services but may claim travel and subsistence allowances.

  Year

  New/renewed appointments

  Total annual budget £

  1992–93

  13

  2,900

  1993–94

  3

  2,100

  1994–95

  3

  3,300

  1995–96

  2

  14,000

  1 Estimate.

  Temporary and Part-time Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many staff are currently employed in his Department and in related agencies on(a) temporary or casual employment contracts and (b) part-time employment contracts, given as an actual figure and as a proportion of the total work force; and what were the corresponding figures for five years ago. [41113]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Breakdown by Department and executive agency for 1 April 1995 of the number of permanent staff, the number of casual staff—normally those engaged for a period of up to 12 months, but exceptionally up to two years—and of the number of part-time staff are presented in the civil service staff in post summary table for 1 April 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Estimates on a comparable basis on 1 April 1990 have also been placed in the Library of the House.
  542

  EC Agriculture Council
  Mr. Harry Barnes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon), of 18 October 1995,Official Report, columns 285–86, what was the voting record of each member state on items agreed at the meeting of the European Community's Agriculture Council held on 25 September; and if he will make it his practice to list all votes, including where there have been no votes, in the future. [41090]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The answer referred to makes clear that the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 25 September 1995 took two decisions, both by qualified majority, Portugal voting against in one instance and the United Kingdom opposing in the other. The affirmative vote by all other member states, in each case, is implicit.

  Peanut Allergy
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to raise awareness in catering establishments and takeaways of the dangers of peanut allergy. [41136]

  Mrs. Browning
  Following the publicity about the dangers to allergic individuals of severe reactions to peanuts and other nuts, my officials met various sectors of the food industry, including the catering sector, to discuss what could be done. We are continuing to explore ways of improving awareness and encouraging information exchange and we are also in touch with consumer groups including the Anaphylaxis Campaign which has itself done much to alert sufferers to the dangers and to heighten awareness in the industry. In addition, the Ministry is investing £500,000 per year in research on food allergies to help elucidate the nature of the problem.

  Dimetridazole
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the ban of the use of dimetridazole and its effect on the United Kingdom bird industry. [41625]

  Mrs. Browning
  We are aware of the concerns about this ban and a number of options to assist the game bird industry are under active consideration.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Co-operative Organisations (Central and Eastern Europe)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the British organisations delivering consultancy to co-operatives in central and eastern Europe are themselves co-operatives; and what is the extent to which co-operative organisations are on the tender lists for such co-operative projects in central and eastern Europe. [40916]

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no co-operatives on the ODA's register of organisations interested in know-how fund work. Nor is there any record of co-operatives having been awarded contracts for KHF work.
  543
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what amount of funds is allocated to developing and restructuring the co-operative sectors of the countries in central and eastern Europe as a proportion of private sector projects; how many projects make up the allocation to the co-operative sector in central and eastern Europe; and what percentage of such projects has been awarded to British organisations to deliver the consultancy requirements. [40917]

  Mr. Hanley
  The know-how fund does not allocate funds specifically to the co-operative sectors of the countries in central and eastern Europe. Nor does it keep statistics specifically on the amount of money spent on the co-operative sector, but if a proposal to support co-operatives is received and it meets the criteria applied by the know-how fund it will be considered on its merits.

  The know-how fund awards all its contracts to British organisations.

  Poverty
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that any proposals for a reduction in the overseas budget shall not affect those programmes aimed at fighting poverty in the developing world. [39936]

  Mr. Hanley
  The overriding goal of the British aid programme is to improve the quality of life of people in poorer countries by contributing to sustainable development and reducing poverty and suffering. Her Majesty's Government will maintain a substantial and effective programme increasingly focused on the poorest countries.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had from the president of the World bank about the priority to be accorded to fighting poverty in the developing world by the developed nations. [39962]

  Mr. Hanley
  At the annual meetings of the World bank and IMF in October, the president made a strong appeal for adequate funding of the International Development Association to ensure that global efforts to support poverty reduction in the poorest countries are not set back.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Secretary of State for Defence about the reduction of arms sales as a contribution to fighting poverty in the developing world. [39938]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has made no representations to the Secretary of State for Defence on this matter.

  The United Kingdom actively supports the emphasis placed by the donor community, including the International Monetary Fund and the World bank, in their relations with developing countries on the implications for economic and social development of an excessive level of military expenditure. We have made it clear that we consider the setting of an appropriate level of military expenditure to be an important part of good government. It is one of the factors we take into account when deciding our allocations of bilateral aid.
  544
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth, Affairs what commitment Her Majesty's Government have made to encouraging economic and social development in the world's poorest nations as recommended in the 1980 Brandt report. [39942]

  Mr. Hanley
  Sustainable economic and social development is at the heart of the United Kingdom's overseas aid programme. Many of the recommendations of the 1980 Brandt report have been incorporated into policy making. Around two thirds of our bilateral aid allocatable by income group goes to the world's poorest countries.

  Aid Expenditure
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the United States authorities about overseas aid expenditure. [39937]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has not held such discussions. However, my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development last held discussions about overseas aid expenditure with the US authorities when she visited Washington in June this year.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government plan a reduction in the proportion of gross national product currently spent on overseas aid. [39940]

  Mr. Hanley
  Future levels of aid will depend on the outcome of the public expenditure survey, which is currently under way.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what comparison he has made between the proportion of gross national product spent on foreign aid by the United Kingdom and(a) Denmark and (b) Sweden. [39941]

  Mr. Hanley
  The United Kingdom, Denmark and Sweden spent the following proportions of gross national product on aid in the last three years.

  Percentage

  1992

  1993

  1994

  (a)United Kingdom

  0.31

  0.31

  0.31

  (b) Denmark

  1.02

  1.03

  1.03

  (c) Sweden

  1.03

  0.99

  0.90

  Women's Programmes
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the Government's recent proposals for the overseas aid budget will affect those programmes aimed at helping women in the developing world to which the Government committed itself at the UN women's conference in Beijing. [39939]

  Mr. Hanley
  Programmes aimed at helping women in the developing world will continue to be an important priority for ODA. Future spending plans are currently under discussion.
  545

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Millennium Exhibition
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will issue guidance on entrance charges to the proposed millennium exhibition. [40082]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall reply to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Millennium Funding
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what study or consideration she has given to the relative income generation potential of the bids for millennium funding in Wales from the Welsh national stadium and the Cardiff Bay opera house. [38048]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall reply to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what consultations she has had in relation to the compliance with the publicly stated conditions for funding from the Millennium Commission of(a) the redevelopment of the Welsh national rugby stadium and (b) the Cardiff Bay opera house; [37819]

  (2) if she will list the reports prepared for the Millennium Commission in relation to the bids for funding (a) the Cardiff Bay opera house and (b) redevelopment of the Welsh national rugby stadium; and what were the main positive and negative recommendations contained in each report with respect to the project under review; [37823]

  (3) what estimate she has of the level of matching private funds available corresponding to the bids for assistance from the Millennium Commission for (a) the Cardiff Bay opera house and (b) the redevelopment of the Welsh national rugby stadium; [37821]

  (4) what estimates she has made of the relative levels of public support in Wales for the proposals to obtain Millennium Commission funding for (a) the redevelopment of the Welsh national rugby stadium and (b) the Cardiff Bay opera house; and if she will make a statement; [37820]

  (5) what deadline she has given for the determination of the bids for funding from the Millennium Commission of (a) the Cardiff Bay opera house and (b) the redevelopment of the Welsh national rugby Stadium. [37822]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  [holding answer 19 October 1995]: This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall reply to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what consultations she has had with the organisations applying to the Millennium Commission for funding; and what guidance she has issued to them concerning their eligibility or otherwise for funding where geographically applicable from(a) the European regional
  546
  development fund, (b) the Wales tourist board, (c) the Welsh Development Agency and Development Board for Rural Wales and (d) other public grant-aiding bodies; and what proposals she has to issue further clarification in the guidelines. [38416]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  [holding answer 20 October 1995]: This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall reply to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what special measures she proposes for ensuring that appropriate tests of public support are carried out in respect of millennium fund projects submitted from Wales; and if she will make a statement. [40724]

  Mrs. Bottomley
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall reply to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

PRIME MINISTER

  Remploy Consortium
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has had from the trade union side secretary of the Remploy Consortium; what reply he is sending; what action he is taking; and if he will make a statement. [40934]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received one such representation, which will be responded to in due course by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Education and Employment.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) pursuant to his oral answer of 2 May,Official Report, columns 167–68, what progress is being made towards repealing those regulations identified as unnecessary burdens to business; [41569]

  (2) if a compliance cost assessment has been completed on each regulation to be repealed; and what is the estimated saving to (a) small businesses and (b) the public funds from the repeal of each regulation. [41570]

  The Prime Minister
  We have identified over 1,000 regulations for repeal or amendment and are on target to have dealt with over half of those by the end of the year. The requirement to carry out a compliance cost assessment applies to regulations imposing additional burdens on business while the programme of repeals and amendments is concerned with reducing the burden. However, to take an example, simplification of the food temperature control regulations will help small businesses and generate savings of about £40 million a year for the industry as a whole without removing any necessary public health protection.

  Overseas Aid Budget
  Ms Lestor
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) how many letters about the size of the overseas aid budget he has
  547
  received from hon. Members since 1 September; and what was the comparable figure for the same period in the previous year; [41664]

  (2) how many letters about the size of the overseas aid budget he has received from non-governmental organisations since 1 September; and what was the comparable figure for the same period in the previous year; [41662]

  (3) how many letters about the size of the overseas aid budget he has received from members of the public since 1 September; and what was the comparable figure for the same period in the previous year. [41663]

  The Prime Minister
  I have received a substantial number of representations on this matter over the past 12 months.

  President Chirac
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library(a) a copy of the memorandum on defence and security co-operation agreed with President Chirac of France on 30 October and (b) the text of the press conference he jointly hosted with President Chirac on 30 October. [41473]

  The Prime Minister
  I have already done so.

  Quebec (Ex-premier's Remarks)
  Mr. Mates
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it clear to the ex-premier of Quebec Her Majesty's displeasure at his remarks about ethnic minority groups and the recent referendum. [41327]

  The Prime Minister
  The outcome of the referendum is a matter for Canadians in Canada. The Canadian Prime Minister has called for reconciliation. We wish the Canadian people well in the task of working together to this end.

  Official Inquiries
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list all the official inquiries he and his department have undertaken over the last five years indicating the dates they were initiated and the date when the findings were released to the public. [41450]

  The Prime Minister
  I have set up no further inquiries since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster answered a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) on 25 May,Official Report, columns 717–20.

  Marriage
  Mr. Patten
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to help married families since April 1992; [40898]

  (2) what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to strengthen the institution of marriage since April 1992. [40899]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are fully committed to supporting the institution of marriage. Marriage is the bedrock of family life. Stable families are good for our children. They are a source of love and discipline, and of support for weaker members. However,548
  we recognise that marriage is also a personal matter. We have taken several steps to support marriage, while at the same time respecting the privacy of personal relationships and choice.

  This Government believe that married couples should receive recognition in the tax system. Married couples therefore receive tax treatment on both income and capital. They pay nearly £260 per year less in tax than most single people on the same income, at a total cost of £2.7 billion in 1995, and are treated more favourably for capital gains and inheritance tax. Inheritance tax reliefs for married couples are alone worth around £950 million in 1995–96.

  We also believe that people should have access to help to overcome problems in their marriages. The Government have therefore given £8.5 million to marriage guidance and research organisations since April 1992.

  To take this further, an interdepartmental group on marriage was set up in April this year to identify how Government can develop additional services to help couples who are considering marriage or whose marriages are in difficulty.

  Housing is a crucial issue for married families. Our White Paper "Our Future Homes" sets out the aim of ensuring that a decent home is in reach of every family. We want to make sure that the allocation of social housing includes the need to support married couples who take a responsible approach to family life as an important objective.

  We want to take away as many barriers to marriage as possible. For this reason, the Government supported a private Member's Bill in 1994 which widened the choice of venues for couples wishing to marry by civil ceremony.

  Government Ministers meet representatives from the Churches and other organisations supporting marriage on an on-going basis to discuss the scope for further initiatives.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for(a) the financial year 1994–95 and (b) the estimated figures for the financial year 1995–96, for each executive agency for which he is responsible. [39479]

  Mr. Hanley
  The FCO diplomatic wing has one agency, Wilton Park, for which the information requested is given in the table. For the ODA, the chief executive of the Natural Resources Institute will write shortly to the hon. Member with the details requested.

  Staffing levels

  1994–95

  1995–96

  HCS 5

  1

  1

  HCS 6

  1

  1

  HCS 7

  5

  5

  EO

  8

  8

  AO

  2

  3

  PS

  3

  3

  CM III

  1

  1

  549

  Staffing levels

  1994–95

  1995–96

  CHEF II

  3

  3

  SGB II

  8

  8

  Total cost

  £630,538

  £664,000

  Figures are gross and include national insurance contributions and superannuation.

  Letter from Anthony Beattie to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 3 November 1995:

  NATURAL RESOURCES INSTITUTE—STAFFING

  In his reply of 30 October to your question to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about staffing in executive agencies, Mr Hanley indicated that I would write to you separately about the position in the Natural Resources Institute (NRI). I now attach the information which you require. It needs some explanation.

  Numbers of staff in NRI by grade, and their cost in 1994–95 and 1995–96

  1994–95 (actual)

  1995–96 (estimated)

  Man years

  Pay cost £

  Man years

  Pay cost £

  Grade 3

  1.0

  76,054

  1.0

  78,008

  Grade 5

  4.7

  264,851

  4.2

  202,494

  Department Regional Vet Officer

  1.7

  97,372

  0.9

  38,632

  Grade 6

  22.4

  1,258,534

  22.7

  965,257

  Advisory Officer 1

  16.4

  660,537

  10.4

  367,966

  Grade 7 (Accountant)

  1.0

  35,253

  0.9

  28,783

  Grade 7

  106.6

  4,107,098

  93.2

  3,105,853

  Advisory Officer II

  2.6

  111,848

  2.3

  64,016

  Senior Scientific Officer

  74.2

  2,329,698

  66.5

  1,724,471

  Senior Research Officer

  19.5

  476,447

  15.1

  311,292

  Senior Executive Officer (Accountant)

  0.5

  17,069

  0.9

  20,736

  Senior Executive Officer

  3.4

  100,922

  5.2

  124,417

  Senior Information Officer

  2.0

  35,603

  1.7

  42,648

  Higher Scientific Officer

  54.0

  1,338,217

  45.5

  895,525

  Higher Executive Officer

  4.2

  131,632

  3.1

  64,929

  Higher Graphics Officer

  1.0

  24,301

  0.9

  18,492

  Higher Mapping and Charting Officer

  1.0

  24,617

  0.9

  18,672

  Scientific Officer

  30.8

  601,838

  29.0

  463,804

  Information Officer

  1.0

  41,431

  0.9

  15,972

  Librarian

  1.0

  3,857

  0.9

  17,439

  Executive Officer

  19.3

  355,919

  14.4

  220,618

  Typing Manager

  2.0

  36,821

  1.7

  27,296

  Administrative Officer

  44.5

  559,503

  42.0

  458,823

  Assistant Scientific Officer

  17.3

  285,597

  12.8

  168,750

  Administrative Assistant

  2.6

  27,492

  2.5

  21,463

  Assistant Information Officer

  1.0

  18,270

  1.7

  27,670

  Assistant Librarian

  2.5

  37,337

  1.7

  26,750

  Graphics Officer

  1.0

  10,256

  0.9

  10,780

  Mapping and Charting Officer

  1.0

  21,790

  0.9

  16,609

  Mapping and Charting Tech Grade 1

  1.0

  15,256

  0.0

  0

  Personal Secretary

  11.8

  217,873

  9.2

  126,001

  Professional and Technology Officer

  2.0

  39,346

  1.7

  9,964

  Support Grade Band 1

  8.5

  108,272

  6.9

  73,124

  Support Grade Band 2

  12.3

  135,968

  10.4

  95,823

  Tech Grade 1

  5.9

  92,098

  5.2

  69,078

  Typist

  8.3

  87,614

  8.3

  95,375

  490.0

  13,786,591

  426.3

  10,017,526

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what information Her Majesty's Government had received on activities conducted since 1985 in connection with(a) the BADR-2000 missile, (b) project 144 on missile modification,
  550
  The first point is that staffing levels in NRI are highly variable. They reflect day to day changes in the large number of individual projects and contracts which make up our business. It is therefore not meaningful to speak in terms of absolute numbers in a particular grade for a complete year as the numbers will change significantly over that period.

  We have therefore based the data on the number of man-years of employment in each grade over the two years about which you have asked.

  There is a further complication in respect of the estimated figures for 1995/96. We are currently in the process of implementing a voluntary redundancy programme which has as its aim the reduction of staffing levels to 360 by 1 April 1996. We do not know - and cannot reasonably speculate about - the identity of the staff who will volunteer to accept redundancy or when precisely they might be released. We have therefore compiled the 1995/96 estimate on the assumption that the volunteers will be evenly distributed across all grades and that the timing of their departures will occur on a straight-line basis between the end of September (when the first departures began to occur) and 31 March 1996.

  All this does mean, I am afraid, that the 1995/96 estimate is subject to a considerably greater degree of uncertainty that might ordinarily be the case.

  (c)project 1728 on liquid propellant rocket engines and
  (d) the Karama project on production of missile guidance and control by Iraq, prior to the publication of the eighth biannual United Nations Special Commission report on the visits of the UN Special Commission on Iraq, pursuant to UN Security Council resolution 687 of 1991; [41505]
  551
  (2) what information Her Majesty's Government had received on activities conducted since 1985 at (a) the Muthanna state establishment, (b) the Al Hakan facility, (c) the Al Hazen Ibn Al Haythan Institute in Al Salman,
  (d) the single cell protein plant at Tajis, (e) the Sammarra drug factory and (f) the Muhammadiyat weapons test range in Iraq, in regard to development of biological and chemical weapon or precursor agent development, prior to the publication on 11th October of the UNSCOM eight biannual report on its mission to Iraq. [41504]

  Mr. David Davis
  It is not our practice to comment in detail on information given to us in confidence by UNSCOM. Nor do we comment on intelligence matters.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional assistance has been offered by Her Majesty's Government to meet the acute shortage of funds detailed at page 35 of the UNSCOM eighth biannual report on its mission in Iraq pursuant to UN Security Council resolution 687 of 1991. [41472]

  Mr. Davis
  We strongly support the work on UNSCOM and make a major effort to supply personnel, equipment and expertise. The funds which the United Kingdom commits to this have been about £1 million per annum. We have no plans to increase this.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 27 October,Official Report, column 862, if he is following up any evidence that British companies have supplied materials relevant to Iraqi programmes to acquire weapons of mass destruction; and if he will make a statement. [41433]

  Mr. Davis
  Inspections by the UN Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency have revealed the names of many companies from Britain and other countries which have traded with Iraq. UNSCOM and the IAEA inform us in confidence of British equipment found in order to help verify Iraqi statements. However, it is not our practice to comment on information passed to us by these organisations or to publish the names of the companies. Any evidence of wrong-doing will be investigated and, if appropriate, will be a matter for the courts.

  Crown Colonies (Governors)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) of 30 October,Official Report, columns 10–11, if the obligation to restrict political activities also applies to governors of Crown colonies. [41280]

  Mr. Hanley
  Most governors of our dependent territories are diplomatic service officers and are therefore subject to diplomatic service regulations which restrict political activities. Where politicians are appointed as governors, on contract, these regulations do not apply and they may make political statements in their personal capacity.
  552

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Sri Lanka and on reports of the recent massacres of civilians in the north and east. [42020]

  Mr. Hanley
  We condemn the recent brutal massacres of civilians which have taken place, especially those in villages in the north and east of Sri Lanka. These outrages bear all the hallmarks of operations carried out by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam—LTTE—and deserve the condemnation of the entire international community. We deplore the loss of life and destruction resulting from this conflict, and urge both the Government and the LTTE to take all possible steps to avoid further civilian casualties.

  We continue to believe that a lasting solution to the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka can be achieved only through a sustainable political settlement, reached through peaceful negotiation. The Government of Sri Lanka have put forward wide-ranging proposals for constitutional reform, which we believe could provide the basis for a negotiated settlement acceptable to all Sri Lankans. We urge all who are concerned to see a lasting and peaceful settlement to the conflict to make every effort to persuade the LTTE to respond positively to the constitutional opportunities now emerging.

  Arms Sales (Peru and Equador)
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy on arms sales to Peru and Ecuador following the outbreak of fighting in January in the long-standing border dispute. [42021]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The Government's policy is to support sales of UK defence equipment where this is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests. At all times, we have followed our established and public practice of considering individual sales to Peru and Ecuador on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with the international guidelines to which we are committed. We shall continue to process applications on a case-by-case basis. Some licence applications for the export of military equipment were not approved during the period of heightened tension between Peru and Ecuador. The recent reduction in tension between the two countries is encouraging.

  Bosnia
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning requests to UN headquarters in Zagreb in July for air strikes to protect Srebrenica; and if he will make a statement. [41220]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in the House on 12 July 1995,Official Report, columns 947–66.
  553

  Immigration
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to introduce a system whereby a reference number is allocated to each individual who contacts entry clearance staff about an application for a visitor's visa, who is advised not to proceed, and then acts upon the advice, and if he will make a statement. [41396]

  Mr. Hanley
  Some entry clearance issuing posts operate a preliminary assessment system whereby an applicant may be advised by an entry clearance officer that his application is unlikely to succeed, should he choose to proceed with the application. A fee is not taken unless an application is formally lodged. It is made clear to applicants that they are not obliged to follow this advice.

  Posts are required to maintain a record of the number of those who accept preliminary assessment advice. Additionally, posts are required to retain a record of those individuals who accept this advice for a period of six months after their inquiry to help deal with any subsequent inquiries.

  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many potential applicants in(a) 1994 and (b) January to June 1995 seeking visitors' visas at (i) Islamabad, (ii) Delhi, (iii) Bombay and (iv) Lagos have been advised not to pursue their application; and if he will make a statement. [41397]

  Mr. Hanley
  The number of potential applicants for non-settlement visas who were offered and accepted advice that their application was unlikely to succeed before they had paid their (non-refundable fee) in;

  (a) 1994 was:

  (i) Islamabad 10803

  (ii) New Delhi 8179

  (iii) Bombay 1689

  (iv) Lagos 916

  (b) January to June 1995 was:

  (i) Islamabad 4853

  (ii) New Delhi 3125

  (iii) Bombay 2231

  (iv) Lagos 165

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set out, for the most recently available 12-month period, the figures of applications for settlement in the United Kingdom from each country in the world, categorised by reasons for application and, in each case, the number and percentage of acceptance and refusals with, where available, reasons for rejection; and if he will, as appropriate, provide the same information with regard to applications for visits. [41712]

  Mr. Hanley
  Information on visas granted and refused by country of application is published in table 2.1 of the Home Office Command Paper "Control of Immigration Statistics United Kingdom 1994" issued on 10 August 1995, Cm HMSO, a copy of which is in the Library.
  554
  Figures are not available in any format categorised by reasons for application or reasons for refusal in either settlement or visit cases. To compile such statistics would incur disproportionate cost.

  Brazil
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attempts have been made by Her Majesty's embassy in Brazil to meet representatives of the Makuxi people in Roraima concerning their land rights and the implementation of the Group of Seven policies. [41824]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  A British embassy official met representatives of the Makuxi people in Roraima between 8 and 15 October.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to him recently on behalf of the Makuxi Indians in Brazil; and what was his response. [41812]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Representatives of the Makuxi had discussions with officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 1 November.

  United Arab Emirates
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's ambassador has made to the Government of the United Arab Emirates about the proposed flogging of a 16-year-old Filipina girl; and if he will make a statement. [41628]

  Mr. Hanley
  The UAE Government are well aware of the international concern over Sahara Balabagan. The judicial process has still not been exhausted, and we will continue to follow the case.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications for Her Majesty's Government's policy of the recent attack on the Pakistan embassy in Kabul. [41711]

  Mr. Hanley
  We condemn the attack by demonstrators on the Pakistan embassy in Kabul in September. We continue to support the efforts of the UN Secretary-General's special representative to broker a peace agreement. Permanent peace in Afghanistan will be achieved only if the major Afghan leaders and their supporters genuinely want it.

  Peru
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings have been held by her Majesty's embassy in Peru with the Government of Peru to discuss the operation of the emergency provisions and human rights; and if he will make a statement. [41825]
  555
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Meetings are held regularly, most recently on 25 October with the director general for human rights in the Peruvian Foreign Ministry.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his letter of 14 July, ref. 132969, when he expects to reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Ealing, North of 13 July relating to the case of Mr. Neil McGowan. [41710]

  Mr. Hanley
  An interim reply has been sent to the hon. Member for Ealing, North from the migration and visa correspondence unit. A substantive reply will follow as soon as possible. The delay is regretted.

SCOTLAND

  Pollution (Loch Lomond)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to reduce pollution in Loch Lomond. [40478]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The Clyde River Purification Board is responsible for monitoring and controlling pollution in Loch Lomond.

  Scottish Natural Heritage
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amounts awarded by SNH in 1994 under section 15 agreements for each owner and occupier. [40311]

  Mr. Kynoch
  This is a matter for Scottish Natural Heritage. I have asked the chief executive to reply to the hon. Member.

  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the current review of SNH to be completed; if he will make a statement on its remit; and if its findings will be published. [40312]

  Mr. Kynoch
  My right hon. Friend will make a statement on the conclusions of the study group on SNH shortly.

  Incapable Adults (Legislation)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the legislation proposed by the Scottish Law Commission on incapable adults. [41356]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend welcomes the publication of this very important report, which contains a number of far-reaching proposals in relation to incapable adults. He is giving careful consideration to these proposals.

  Forestry Grants
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for 556
  Scotland if he will list the current recipients of forest access grants, the value of the grant for each year and the total value for Scotland. [41704]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of the signed letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Respite and Continuing Care Beds
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) NHS and (b) private respite care beds were available (i) by region and (ii) by health authority in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [41406]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS continuing care beds have been available in each(a) region and (b) district in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [41421]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is available for regions only and is shown in the table.

  National Health Service Hospitals in Scotland—Average available staffed beds in the specialties of mental handicap, psychogeriatrics and geriatric long stay:

  Years ending 31 March

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Region

  Scotland

  19,378

  19,594

  18,305

  16,910

  15,878

  Borders

  375

  349

  308

  301

  292

  Central

  1,607

  1,530

  1,454

  1,451

  1,384

  Dumfries and Galloway

  553

  562

  547

  550

  511

  Fife

  1,474

  1,430

  1,301

  1,238

  1,152

  Grampian

  2,271

  2,269

  1,928

  1,711

  1,612

  Highland

  580

  559

  531

  525

  598

  Lothian

  2,571

  2,492

  2,378

  2,200

  2,202

  Orkney

  64

  78

  69

  47

  51

  Shetland

  87

  87

  87

  86

  81

  Strathclyde

  8,099

  8,568

  8,134

  7,340

  6,604

  Tayside

  1,597

  1,584

  1,475

  1,371

  1,308

  Western Isles

  98

  87

  93

  89

  83

  Financial Reserves
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what financial reserves have been held(a) by trusts and (b) health authorities in each region in each of the last three years; [41418]

  (2) if he will itemise the financial reserves of each (a) trust and (b) health authority in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [41425]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  NHS trusts and health boards, in the interests of sound financial planning and management, do maintain financial reserves, for use in year. The total involved will vary throughout the year. Detailed information on these constantly changing amounts is not held centrally.
  557

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fireworks
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when Kanash Ltd. imported consignments of Red Lion fireworks to the United Kingdom; how many container loads were included; what checks were undertaken at the port of entry; and the number of container loads the location of which the Health and Safety Executive is now aware. [41726]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I understand from Customs and Excise and the Health and Safety Executive that the fireworks in question were imported through Southampton in September 1995. A total of seven container loads were brought in. Existing arrangements do not specifically require analytical tests to be carried out on each consignment of fireworks at the port of entry and none was undertaken in this instance. Such tests do, of course, require specialised equipment and facilities. I understand that some fireworks remain at the importer's leased deport at Chorley but the bulk were distributed to various parts of the United Kingdom. The importer is co-operating with the Health and Safety Executive in providing full details and is recalling all its imported fireworks.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what provision of the Explosives Act 1875 may be enforced by trading standards officers in metropolitan areas. [41767]

  Mr. Evans
  Enforcement of the majority of the provisions of the Explosives Act 1875 is provided for by the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1989. In metropolitan counties, enforcement is a matter for fire authorities or, depending upon the provision in question, the Health and Safety Executive. The regulations do not, however, provide for enforcement of a number of specific provisions of the 1875 Act. These include, for example, section 31—sale of gunpowder and explosives to children. My Department takes the view that trading standards departments are able to bring prosecutions under this section in cases where the police have not become involved or have decided not to proceed.

  My Department draws no distinction between metropolitan and other areas in this respect.

  Research Councils
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will name the members of the two appointments panels set up to select the new chief executives of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and the Medical Research Council. [41883]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The membership of the recruitment boards for the appointment of new chief executives to the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and the Medical Research Council is as follows:

  The permanent secretary, Department of Trade and Industry (board chairman);

  The chief scientific adviser, Office of Science and Technology;

  The Director General of Research Councils, Office of Science and Technology;

  558

  The chairman of the relevant research council;

  Two independent members—one from academe, and one from the relevant industry.

  Campbell's Soups
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to meet representatives of Campbell's Soups to discuss competition in the production of soup. [39715]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  I have no such plans.

  Dounreay (Reprocessing of Nuclear Fuel)
  Mr. Chisholm
  to ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to hold consultation exercises to assess the opinion of the Scottish people with regard to the reprocessing of American spent fuel rods at Dounreay. [41627]

  Mr. Page
  Reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel at Dounreay is an established industrial process which has been undertaken at Dounreay for more than 30 years. It is carried out subject to nuclear installations inspectorate and Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate regulation. There is no reason to engage in public consultation about the continuation of such a well-established and well-regulated activity.

  Commercial reprocessing will be an important factor in maintaining employment levels in the Dounreay area. The DTI will continue to support it provided that the appropriate regulatory requirements continue to be met and there is a commercial return.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what correspondence he has received from the United States Government concerning opposition to the reprocessing of American spent fuel rods at Dounreay. [41626]

  Mr. Page
  The US Department of Energy has sent my officials two copies of letters they have received opposing reprocessing at Dounreay.

  Home Brewery, Nottingham
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what representations he has received on the future of the Home Brewery, Nottingham; [41963]

  (2) what information he has on the effect the merger of Scottish and Newcastle Ltd. and Courage Ltd. will have on Home Brewery, Nottingham. [41969]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Department received a number of representations about the Scottish and Newcastle/Courage merger including the future of the Home Brewery in Nottingham. In giving his advice to me on the merger, the Director General of Fair Trading took account of all relevant factors, as I did in making my decision on the case. Any information about the commercial operations of the parties supplied to the DOFF or myself under merger control procedures, including about the future of the Home Brewery, must remain confidential.

  Brewery Mergers
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) how many public houses Scottish and
  559
  Newcastle Ltd. owned or supplied before the merger with Courage Ltd.; [41967]

  (2) how many public houses Scottish Courage currently own; and how many Scottish Courage will own or supply after fulfilling the undertakings given to prevent reference of the merger between Scottish and Newcastle Ltd. and Courage Ltd. to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. [41968]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  At the time of giving his advice to me on the Scottish and Newcastle/Courage merger, the Director General of Fair Trading estimated that the parties would between them have owned or supplied about 7,500 pubs, which included some 4,350 pubs owned by Inntrepreneur Estates Ltd. and supplied by Courage. This figure is not complete as it does not include all supply agreements entered into by the parties as part of their normal commercial activities. The undertakings provide for the reduction in Scottish and Newcastle's tied estate to a maximum of 2,624–115 pubs fewer than its maximum permitted tied estate under the beer orders—and for the early release of 1,000 pubs from the supply agreement with IEL. It is not possible to say how many public houses the merged company, Scottish Courage, will supply in total in the future since that will depend on how successful the company is in competing for supply agreements in the competitive beer market.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what percentage of the United Kingdom's final beer sales is Scottish Courage's share after the merger of Scottish and Newcastle Ltd. and Courage Ltd.; [41965]

  (2) what percentage of the United Kingdom's beer sales was Scottish and Newcastle Brewery Ltd.'s share before the merger with Courage Ltd.; [41964]

  (3) what percentage of the United Kingdom's final beer sales will be Scottish Courage's share after the merger of Scottish and Newcastle Ltd. and Courage Ltd. [41966]

  Mr. Evans
  At the time of giving his advice to me on the Scottish and Newcastle/Courage merger, the Director General of Fair Trading estimated the parties' combined share of final beer sales in the UK to be about 30 per cent., of which Scottish and Newcastle had 11 per cent.

  Walker Wingsail Systems, Plymouth
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what financial assistance has been given by his Department to Walter Wingsail, Plymouth, since 1987. [41336]

  Mr. Page
  I believe that the hon. Member is referring to Walker Wingsail Systems plc. My Department has not provided any financial assistance to the company in question since 1987, with the exception of a small contribution of some £4,000 towards some consultancy work under the enterprise initiative.

  Ministerial Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what has been the cost of ministerial transport in each of the past five years; what allowance has been paid 560
  to Ministers who use their own vehicles; and what has been the cost in each of the past five years. [40734]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The total cost, excluding VAT, of ministerial transport provided from the government car service and under private contract for the financial years:

  1990–91: £165,724

  1991–92: £178,982

  1992–93: £272,524

  1993–94: £349,520

  1994–95: £362,167

  These figures reflect structural and ministerial changes within the Department resulting from machinery of government changes. Ministers who use their own vehicles on official business are entitled to claim the standard motor mileage allowance, which currently ranges from 19p to 46p depending on engine size and distance travelled. A breakdown of such claims could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest outturn forecast for regional selective assistance offers and expenditure in England in 1995–96; and how it relates to planned expenditure. [41784]

  Mr. Eggar
  The forecast outturn for offers of RSA in 1995–96, in England, is £140 million. Expenditure in 1995–96 is expected to be close to our estimate of £103.7 million. Grants are paid in instalments against progress on the project, typically over a period of three to five years. Most of the expenditure on grants offered in 1995–96 will be spread over future years.

  Small Firms Conference
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the organisations which have been invited to participate in next year's conference on small firms; [41518]

  (2) when he expects next year's UK conference on small firms to take place; who will fund it; how much he expects it to cost; how much of the cost will be met from public funds; and what topics he expects it to cover. [41517]

  Mr. Page
  The "Your Business Matters" series of conferences, the majority of which will take place in 1995, are being run by a team of leading business organisations—the Institute of Business Directors, the CBI, the British chambers of commerce, the TEC National Council, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business. The timing and funding of the conferences is the responsibility of the organisers.

  I understand that the topics likely to be covered will be a reflection of the issues raised at the regional conferences.

  Total Access Communications System
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library copies of all issues of his specifications for a total access communications system including extended total access communications
  561
  system and BABT—British Approvals Board for Telecommunications—six special investigation test schedules and relevant specifications for authentication. [41386]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: I have arranged for the information to be placed in the Library of the House. Detailed specifications for authentication are subject to commercial confidentiality provisions.

  3-Dimensional Pharmaceuticals
  Sir Trevor Skeet
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect that granting a patent upon combinatorial chemistry 3-Dimensional Pharmaceuticals will have on restricting the scope and availability of basic science research. [41980]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My officials in the Patent Office have been unable to identify any patent granted to an organisation called 3-Dimensional Pharmaceuticals. However, the grant of a patent would not prevent others from doing acts for experimental purposes relating to the subject matter of the invention. If that research were to lead to a new invention which fell within the scope of the patent, it would be necessary to obtain a licence under the patent before it could be commercialised. If the invention were such as to make a substantial contribution to the art and three years had elapsed since the grant of the patent, a licence could not be refused.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what regulations his Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1995; if he proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost assessment to assess the advantages or disadvantages of such a repeal. [41562]

  Mr. Lang
  There are no plans to repeal any further regulations by the end of 1995. However, four proposals for deregulatory amendments to company and competition law are currently before the Select Committee on Deregulation.

  The requirement to carry out a compliance cost assessment applies to regulations which impose additional burdens on business while the programme of repeals and amendments is concerned with reducing the burden. However, it is estimated that cost savings of at least £100,000 a year will result from the amendments currently proposed.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer by the repeal of each rule and regulation which has so far been the subject of a reference to the Deregulation Committee from his Department; and in how many cases a compliance cost assessment has been carried out. [41547]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department has laid four draft deregulation proposals to date. The savings to the Exchequer as a result of these orders are virtually impossible to quantify but are likely to be very small.
  562
  However, it is estimated that they will result in savings to business of at least £100,000 a year.

  The explanatory document which is presented to the Committee alongside each draft order is required to contain an assessment of the cost savings to business and any other persons whom the draft order is intended to benefit.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Deportations
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if M15 is to work with the immigration service in respect of deportations. [39934]

  Mr. Howard
  It remains the case that the Security Service may provide information to assist in the exercise of powers under immigration legislation in cases involving national security.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to amend the regulations regarding deportation of those who leave their employers because of mistreatment and abuse. [39947]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  None. The immigration laws are applied firmly but fairly to all persons liable to deportation. However, full consideration is always given to the compassionate circumstances of each case before any decision is taken.

  Foreign Workers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the possible outcome for foreign domestic workers suffering abuse from their employers. [39933]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Domestic workers who are abused by their employers are advised to contact the police. Information about this is set out in the leaflet issued to domestic workers before arrival in the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to act vigorously against employers who mistreat foreign domestic employees. [39935]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The Government deplore all abuse of foreign domestic workers. The procedures in place guard against abuse as far as is possible. Any employer who uses violence towards an employee would be subject to the criminal law.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the extent to which immigration procedures may contribute to an increase in the number of individuals working in domestic service but unregistered as such. [39963]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  None. Current procedures are designed to ensure that only those domestic workers entitled to work as such in the United Kingdom are admitted or allowed to remain.
  563
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are allowed to remain in the United Kingdom only because they have a contract of employment. [39946]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  None. A person subject to immigration control needs to qualify for leave to remain under the immigration rules, or, in the case of overseas domestic workers, under the terms of the relevant concession.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment his Department has made of(a) the numbers of those people brought into the United Kingdom as domestic employees and (b) the percentage of those who suffer mistreatment and abuse. [39948]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Comprehensive information on domestic workers admitted to the United Kingdom is not available. There are some entry clearance data for the 21 posts abroad which are likely to deal with the vast majority of applications by domestic workers. In the first six months of this year, nearly 6,300 visas were issued at these posts to domestic workers.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will inform in-country asylum seekers from countries who have undergone events likely to give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution that their entitlement to social security benefits will not cease on 8 January 1996. [41036]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  If declarations are made in respect of individual countries in accordance with the proposed benefit regulations, nationals of the countries concerned who submitted in-country asylum applications would be informed, as would relevant organisations and voluntary groups.

  The benefit entitlement of all in-country applicants whose claims were lodged before 12 October will be protected until the next decision on their claim, regardless of whether their countries have undergone such events.

  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many of those applying for asylum in 1994 had children with them in the United Kingdom; what percentage of the total this represents; and how many children were involved; [41502]

  (2) how many persons applied to the United Kingdom for asylum in 1994; and how many were successful. [41499]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In 1994, 32,830 principal applicants applied for asylum in the United Kingdom. Of those, approximately 4,000, 12 per cent., were accompanied by dependants. The estimated total number of dependants was 9,400, of whom approximately half were minor children.

  In 1994, 825 principal applicants were granted asylum and a further 3,660 were refused asylum but granted exceptional leave: 16,500 were refused asylum.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of those seeking asylum do 564
  so (a) at the port of entry and (b) within the United Kingdom mainland after entry. [41500]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  In the last year, October 1994 to September 1995, there have been 40,180 applications for asylum. Of these, approximately 30 per cent. were made at the port of entry and 70 per cent. made after entry into the United Kingdom.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people are currently awaiting a decision on their application for asylum in the United Kingdom; and what is the date of the oldest application; [41498]

  (2) how many of those currently awaiting determination of their applications for asylum in the United Kingdom submitted their application (a) after their existing leave to remain had expired and (b) within three weeks of its expiry. [41496]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The number of outstanding applications for asylum in the United Kingdom as at 30 September 1995 was 64,415. The oldest outstanding application for asylum is not separately identifiable.

  Of the 64,415 outstanding asylum applications, approximately 31,000 were lodged by people who had previously been given leave to enter or leave to remain in the United Kingdom. An estimated 7,200 of these applications were lodged after such leave had expired. Information regarding the number of these applications submitted within three weeks of their leave expiring is not readily available.

  Remand Prisoners
  Sir John Hunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current number of remand prisoners who have been held in custody for a period in excess of three months. [41091]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Sir John Hunt, dated 6 November 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what is the current number of remand prisoners who have been held in custody for a period in excess of three months.

  The latest provisional information relates to the length of time since first reception into a Prison Service establishment in England and Wales on 30 June 1995 and is given in the attached table.

  Remand prisoners in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales on 30 June 1995 held on remand for over 3 months1

  On 30 June 1995

  Number on remand for over 3 months

  24,200

  1 Awaiting trial or sentence. Time since first reception on remand into a Prison Service establishment. This includes any intervening time spent on bail, but excludes any time spent in police cells beforehand.

  2 Rounded provisional estimate.

  565

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of his Department's inspectors monitor the use of research animals by personal licensees, project licence holders and designated establishments; and if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the inspection system. [41041]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  All members of the animals (scientific procedures) inspectorate are involved in monitoring the use of animals in research. I am satisfied that the system is fully effective in delivering the objectives of the legislation.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of(a) personal licensees, (b) project licence holders and (c) designated establishments in the United Kingdom are permitted to carry out research on animals. [41042]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  At 31 December 1994, there were 15,807 personal licensees, 4,013 project licence holders and 331 certificates of designation.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many procedures on animals were carried out for tobacco research in(a) 1993 and (b) 1994; and if he will give details of the experiments carried out for tobacco research; [41043]

  (2) how many procedures on animals were carried out for alcohol research in (a) 1993 and (b) 1994; and if he will make a statement; [41044]

  (3) if he will list the areas of research which were responsible for the increased use of primates between 1993 and 1994; [41046]

  (4) if he will list the pharmaceutical products which use primates in their research; and what was the number of primates used in (a) 1993 and (b) 1994 for each product. [41086]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The numbers of procedures on animals are listed in "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain" for 1993, Cm 2746, and 1994, Cm 3012.

  Prior to 1 January, figures for the number of animal used in fundamental or applied research involving tobacco or its products were not separately recorded.

  The number of procedures for alcohol research for 1993 was 7,328 and for 1994, 9,119.

  The increase in the use if primates is attributable to increased demands for regulatory testing of medical and dental products.

  Primates are used in many ares of medical research. Where regulatory testing is concerned, it is not always known, at the time of testing, the product for which individual ingredients may be used.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the reasons for the delays in 566
  publishing "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals Great Britain" for (a) 1993 and (b) 1994. [41045]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies which the then Under-Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 18 January,Official Report, column 527, and the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) on 27 January, Official Report, column 455. It was not practical to publish in July this year since the returns were not complete by that date. The annual Command Paper was last published in July in 1992, and for reasons explained in the earlier replies the annual publication is likely to appear in the autumn in future.

  Sentenced Prisoners Convention
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many countries have ratified the European Council convention concerning the return of sentenced prisoners; how many have agreements with the United Kingdom; how many British citizens have been repatriated to prisons in the United Kingdom over the last five years to date; what discussions have taken place with each country to determine the principles of repatriation agreements; if he will list the main features of each such agreement; what arrangements exist to review them; if the receiving country may reduce the sentence imposed by another jurisdiction; and if he will make a statement; [41047]

  (2) how many British citizens given prison sentences in America have been repatriated to prisons in the United Kingdom in the last five years, to date; what prior agreement was reached in each case on the sentence to be served in the United Kingdom; what principles were agreed in discussions between both Governments before repatriation procedures were agreed; what arrangements were made for reviewing such procedures; and if he will make a statement; [41084]

  (3) if Her Majesty's Government reserve the right to arrange to vary any prison sentence set by an overseas jurisdiction in the case of any person legally repatriated to prison in the United Kingdom under international agreement; how many such persons in the last five years, to date, applied for such a variation to be applied; to whom such applications have been made; and if he will make a statement. [41085]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons has been ratified by the United Kingdom and 31 other countries. The United Kingdom and four other countries have ratified the Commonwealth repatriation scheme. The United Kingdom has also entered into a bilateral prisoner repatriation agreement with Thailand.

  The principles of repatriation are set out in each of the three agreements, copies of which have been placed in the Library. The main features of all three agreements are that: repatriation requires the consent of both jurisdictions and the prisoner concerned; the prisoner's sentence is not subject to further appeal and has at least six months left to run, and the prisoner is a national of the jurisdiction to which repatriation is sought and the acts which gave rise

  567
  to the sentence would have constituted a criminal offence there.

  The operation of the convention is reviewed by the European committee on crime problems of the Council of Europe. The Commonwealth scheme may be reviewed by the Commonwealth Secretariat. The bilateral agreement may be reviewed by either jurisdiction.

  All repatriation requests are considered on their individual merits in consultation with the foreign jurisdiction. The United Kingdom has opted to conduct repatriation arrangements on the basis of continued enforcement of the original sentence. Under these arrangements, the jurisdiction responsible for administering a prisoner's sentence following repatriation is bound by the legal nature and duration of the original sentence. It is not therefore possible for the United Kingdom to vary or reduce the sentence imposed by a foreign jurisdiction. If, however, a foreign sentence is by its nature or duration incompatible with the law of the United Kingdom, the sentence may be adapted to a sanction prescribed in law for a similar offence. Any such adaptation must not aggravate by its nature or duration the sanction imposed by the sentencing state or exceed the maximum prescribed by law in the United Kingdom. Since 1990, the United Kingdom has conducted one repatriation of a British prisoner on the basis of the original sentence being adapted in this way with the consent of the sentencing jurisdiction and the prisoner concerned.

  Between 1990 and 1994, 44 British prisoners were repatriated to the United Kingdom from foreign jurisdictions, including 11 prisoners repatriated from the United States of America. In each case, repatriation was conducted on the basis of both jurisdictions and the prisoner concerned consenting to the arrangements to be made for the continued enforcement of the sentence imposed.

  Internet
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what investigations his Department has made into the practicality of the regulation of material available on the Internet; [41819]

  (2) what representations he has received about the possible regulation of material available on the Internet. [41817]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of letters expressing concern about the availability of obscene and pornographic material on the Internet. The interdepartmental group on obscenity is examining this issue and hopes shortly to be discussing it with Internet service providers.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible for more general questions relating to the regulation of the Internet and other computer networks.

  Industry is responsible for more general questions relating to the regulation of the Internet and other computer networks.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers are available to the police 568
  to take action against users who make material available on the Internet which would be illegal in any other medium. [41818]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The provisions of the criminal law apply to material disseminated on the Internet in the same way as to material disseminated on other media. It is, for example, an offence to publish obscene material or child pornography on the Internet. We have recently taken action in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to ensure that our controls keep pace with advances in technology. This has included clarification of the law to assist the police in gaining access to computer bulletin boards.

  Ridgewell Air Force Base
  Sir Alan Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consideration is being given to the former Air Force base at Ridgewell in Essex as the site for a new high security prison; and if he will make a statement. [41709]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Sir Alan Haselhurst, dated 6 November 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the former airforce base at Ridgewell in Essex as I have operational responsibility for the Prison Service.

  The Prison Service has not been considering this site for a new high security prison. If the site is available, the Prison Service will examine its suitability as a potential site for new prison development.

  Prisons Ombudsman
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of cases referred to the prisons ombudsman since his appointment. [40943]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The prisons ombudsman had received 1,810 letters of complaint by 31 October 1995, of which 464 were eligible for investigation by his office; the eligibility of a further 159 was being considered.

  Prisons (Drugs)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the number of persons in the last 12 months who have been caught trying to take illegal drugs into prison while visiting an inmate. [41859]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 6 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of persons in the last 12 months who have been caught trying to take illegal drugs into prison while visiting an inmate.

  569
  Between 1 January and 30 September this year, the total number of incidents reported to Prison Service headquarters of visitors caught trying to take illegal drugs into prison while visiting an inmate was 1,109.

  Visitors' Visas
  Mr. Fatchett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many visitors' visas were(a) granted and (b) refused from applicants in (i) Pakistan, (ii) India, (iii) Bangladesh and (iv) Nigeria in (1) 1992, (2) 1993, and (3) 1994. [41723]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on visas granted and refused by country of application is published in table 2.1 of the Home Office Command Paper "Control of Immigration: Statistics United Kingdom 1994", issued on 10 August 1995, Cm 2935, by HMSO, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Fires
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) deaths and (b) severe injuries from fires occurred in houses in multiple occupation for the years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95. [41053]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information about deaths and injuries in fires in houses in multiple occupation, attended by local authority fire brigades, is published in table G of the Home Office publication "Fire Statistics United Kingdom 1993", available in the Library; 1993 is the latest year for which such statistics are available.

  Discretionary Life Sentences
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has issued a notice of appeal against the High Court judgment concerning the case of Paul Norwey, Stephen Nordone, Sean Kinsella, Noel Gibson and Brendan Dowd; what action he is taking to change procedures concerning discretionary life sentence prisoners applying for parole; and if he will make a statement. [40565]

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon and learned Friend has decided not to appeal against the High Court judgment in this case. Arrangements are now in hand to ensure that the cases of discretionary life sentence prisoners are referred to the Parole Board so that they may be heard by a discretionary lifer panel immediately on expiry of the prisoners' tariffs or shortly thereafter. It will be entirely a matter for the panel to decide whether to direct release.

  New Prisons
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will name the prisons to be built by 2000, with the costs of each. [40459]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 6 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about new prisons to be built by the year 2000.
  570
  Six new prisons are planned to be built under the private sector design, construct, manage and finance (DCMF) initiative announced by the Home Secretary on 2 September 1993. The first two prisons will be at Bridgend in South Wales and at Fazakerley on Merseyside. These are due to open in 1997–98. A site for a third prison has been identified in the Salford area of Greater Manchester, but the local planning authority have objected to the proposal. The Prison Service is considering making a request to the Secretary of State for the Environment to determine the dispute and this could lead to a public inquiry. Site searching for the remainder of the DCMF projects is in progress and it is too early to give locations and likely timescales.
  In addition to the six new DCMF prisons, the former Lowdham Grange prison near Nottingham will be rebuilt as a 500 bed, category B prison to be operated by the private sector. The prison is planned to open during 1997–98.
  An annual management charge will be paid, subject to contract, so far as Fazakerley and Bridgend prisons, are concerned. Costs are not available at this time. Costs for Lowdham Grange and the other DCMF prisons are not yet known.

  Prison Escorts
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will break down the savings achieved for each privatised prison escort area, showing how the savings are achieved; [40463]

  (2) what is the cost for letting each escort contract; to whom each contract has been let; what is the budget reduction for each area as a result of the privatisation of the escort service, to how many staff posts is this equivalent; and what redundancies have occurred so far. [40462]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 6 November 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the contracted out court escort service.
  To date contracts have been implemented for the provision of this service in four of the eight court escort areas in England and Wales. This work was previously undertaken by the Prison Service and the police.
  The attached table shows the contractor in each area together with information about costs and, insofar as the Prison Service is concerned, budget reductions expressed in financial and staffing terms. The savings relate to posts in the police and Prison Service deployed on court escort duties on a full time and part-time basis and vehicle mileage costs.
  The actual level of reduction in respect of police service posts could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. Decisions about how to manage the reductions, which were effected by top slicing police service budgets, were taken locally.
  The direct costs to the Prison Service of the process of letting the contracts were approximately £150,000 per area.
  571

  Area

  Contractor

  Annual cost £ million1

  Previous cost £ million2

  Saving £ million

  Budgetary reduction (Prison Service) £ million3

  Number of staff posts lost (Prison Service) 4

  Redundancies

  7 (East Midlands)

  Group 4 Court Services

  8.1

  10.7

  2.6

  1.6

  78

  —

  3 (London)

  Securicor Custodial Services Ltd.

  22.0

  29.8

  7.8

  3.8

  250

  3

  4 (East Anglia)

  Group 4 Court Services

  7.8

  8.3

  0.5

  1.9

  86

  1

  6 (Merseyside, Greates Manchester North Wales)

  Group 4 Court Services

  12.5

  14.7

  2.2

  2.7

  124

  —

  1 Contract cost based on first year of full operation.

  2 Equivalent cost of the Police and Prison Service operation prior to contracting out (includes overheads, vehicle costs, catering and medical support).

  3 Budgetary reductions relates to Prison Service only.

  4 The posts shown as being given up were those sufficient to meet the cost of the Prison Service contribution to the contract cost. Other officers previously employed on court escort work were redeployed to other operational duties.

  Certified National Accommodation
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of certified national accommodation for each of the next five years. [40458]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 6 November 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent question about the estimate of certified normal accommodation in prisons in England and Wales for each of the next five years.

  The most recent available projections were those published in May as part of the Prison Service's 1995 corporate plan. Revised and updated projections will be published in the new year as part of the 1996 corporate plan.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Salaries
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what was the(a) lowest and (b) highest full-time salary paid to any employee in his (i) Department (ii) agencies and (iii) non-departmental public bodies in (1) 1994–95 and (2) 1995–96.

  Mr. Newton
  It is the Government's normal policy to publish civil servants' salaries in bands. Accordingly, the lowest full-time salary in payment within the Privy Council Office fell within the band £10,000 to £14,999 in both 1994–95 and 1995–96. The highest full-time salary fell within the band £65,000 to £69,999 in both years.

  I am not responsible for any agencies or non-departmental public bodies.

  Annual Remuneration
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Lord President of the Council if he will estimate the number of individuals in his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies whose annual remuneration including
  572
  benefits in kind exceeded (i) £100,000, (ii) £200,000 and (ii) £300,000 in (1) 1985–86, (2) 1990–91, (3) 1992–93 and (4) 1994–95 and (5) 1995–96.

  Mr. Newton
  No member of the Privy Council Office staff receives or has received annual remuneration in excess of £100,000. I am not responsible for any agencies or non-departmental public bodies.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Strangers' Cafeteria
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the staff who work in the Strangers' Cafeteria have yet been consulted on the proposed rearrangement of the cafeteria. [41387]

  Mr. Beith
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: Yes. The management of the Refreshment Department has actively sought the views of staff who work in both the Members' and Strangers' Cafeterias since proposals were first made for the modernisation of these outlets in a consultant's report in July 1992.

  Payment of Claims
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will highlight, in the 1995–96 and subsequent reports of the Commission, in how many cases claims submitted by the hon. Members to the Fees Office are delayed for more than 50 per cent. of the average number of days for the year claimed. [40275]

  Mr. Beith
  At present such statistics are not collected. A monitoring exercise such as the one described by the hon. Gentleman could be implemented only at disproportionate cost and with a loss of effective processing time which would lead to additional delays.

  Mr. Stern
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps he is taking to restore the average delay in payment of claims submitted by hon. Members to the Fees Office to the levels achieved in 1993–94. [40274]
  573
  Mr. Beith
  The average delay in payment fluctuates with the number of claims received and available resources. The current turnaround of claims is better than the level recorded in the Commission's annual report for 1993–94 and therefore restoration measures are not required.

  Staff (Ethnic Monitoring)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what proportion of those employed in domestic service in the House are from ethnic minority backgrounds. [39943]

  Mr. Beith
  Ethnic monitoring of staff employed by the Commission has been in place since 1988. This is carried out on a voluntary basis and not all staff choose to respond to the ethnic monitoring questionnaire. The current figures for staff in the respective ethnic groupings are as follows:

  Numbers of staff

  Percentage

  White

  877

  64.9

  Asian (East African)

  1

  0.01

  Asian (Indian)

  12

  0.9

  Asian (Other)

  8

  0.6

  Black (African)

  23

  1.7

  Black (Carribbean)

  26

  1.9

  Black (Other)

  3

  0.2

  Other

  8

  0.6

  Questionnaires not returned

  394

  29.1

  Total

  1,352

  Contracted-out Services
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, which House of Commons work has now been contracted out; if he will give the date when the contract commenced and the numbers of workers; and what numbers of staff are not subject to any contracting out arrangements. [39323]

  Mr. Beith
  [holding answer 23 October 1995]: Services are contracted out by House Departments where this can meet the requirements of the House and provide benefits in quality, efficiency and value for money. The area where this is done on the largest scale is new works and maintenance of the parliamentary estate, where 96 per cent. of the work is contracted out by the Parliamentary Works Directorate. A team of 97 directly employed labour provides a service in dealing with emergencies, urgent minor requests and shift working to attend boilers and other plant.

  If the hon. Member has any particular areas on which he would like detailed information, I would ask him to contact the Director of Works or the relevant Head of Department.
  574

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what access provision is being made for disabled people in the new parliamentary building; what organisations have been consulted; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  A ramp is provided between the pavement to the main entrance and the main courtyard level, a rise of 0.5 m. The lifts at each corner of the courtyard will reach all floors of the building. The six Members' rooms on the sixth floor are the only rooms not readily accessible to disabled persons, as they are reached from the floor below by spiral staircases. There are lavatories for the disabled on all the main floors. The new parliamentary building has been designed according to good practice and current regulations. Consultation with appropriate organisations is undertaken from time to time as necessary but has not so far taken place in connection with the new parliamentary building.

  Decanting of Parliamentary Buildings
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee which buildings in the Palace of Westminster were decanted to be refurbished or cabled during the summer recess; if he will place the tender specifications in the Library; what delays there have been in the work contracted; what fines have been levied on the contractors; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The parts of the Palace of Westminster decanted for summer recess works were the Upper Committee Corridor North in the Commons and Principal Floor West Front and the Lord Chancellor's Department in the other place. The ground floor of the Norman Shaw North building and No. 2 The Abbey Garden were also vacated.

  Tender specifications for specific contracts can be made available by the Director of Parliamentary Works should the hon. Member wish to consult him. All offices were available for occupation when the House returned from the recess in October. No fines have been levied on the contractors.

  Travel Costs
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what would be the reduction of the annual total costs of travel by hon. Members if the travel allowance rates for staff in the Treasury were substituted for the rates that may be claimed.

  Mr. Newton
  This information is not available and could be produced only at a disproportionate cost.

  Charity Payroll Giving
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Lord President of the Council, pursuant to his answer of 19 October,Official Report, column 303, if he will list by party affiliation the 45 right hon. and hon. Members who are signed up to the charity payroll giving scheme operated by the Fees Office.
  575
  Mr. Newton
  The party affiliation of the 45 right hon. and hon. Members who participate in the charity payroll giving scheme operated by the Fees Office is not a matter of public record.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many orders were put before Parliament in each of the years between 1979–94 during parliamentary recesses; and if he will indicate those Government Ministers responsible for those orders and the number of orders per Government Department.

  Mr. Newton
  The numbers of statutory instruments laid before the House of Commons in each year from 1979 to 1994, during parliamentary recesses, including Christmas, Easter, Whitsun and summer are as follows:

  1979: 236

  1980: 216

  1981: 206

  1982: 233

  1983: 170

  1984: 207

  1985: 161

  1986: 258

  1987: 232

  1988: 267

  1989: 253

  1990: 231

  1991: 323

  1992: 275

  1993: 293

  1994: 425

  It would not be possible, except at disproportionate cost, to provide figures by reference to the presenting Minister or Government Department.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many orders were laid before Parliament during the summer adjournment; by which bodies; and on which date.

  Mr. Newton
  The number of statutory instruments laid before the House of Commons during the summer adjournment was 260. The Departments responsible were the Treasury (18), the Home Office (eight), the Department of Trade and Industry (13), the Department of Transport (16), the Privy Council (five), the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (18), the Department of the Environment (29), the Welsh Office (eight), the Department of Social Security (10), the Scottish Office (54), the Department of National Heritage (three), the Northern Ireland Office (nine), the Department of Education and Employment (12), the Department of Health (41) and the Lord Chancellor's Department (12). There were four Instruments from the General Synod, relating to ecclesiastical law, which were laid in the name of the Clerk of the House.
  576

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Deregulation
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress towards deregulation. [39725]

  Mr. Freeman
  Among recent initiatives, we have agreed to launch a joint initiative with the French Government to consider the reduction of regulatory burdens on small businesses.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, pursuant to the answer of 27 March,Official Report, column 410, what progress is being made towards realising the target of repealing those regulations identified as unnecessary burdens to business; how many of these will be repealed by the end of the year; and if he will make a statement. [41574]

  Mr. Freeman
  Over 1,000 regulations have been targeted by Departments for repeal or amendment to remove unnecessary burdens on business and we are on target to have dealt with over half of those by the end of the year.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what new deregulation initiatives he is considering. [39726]

  Mr. Freeman
  With the help of the deregulation task force, we continue to identify changes to existing rules and requirements to reduce the burdens they impose without removing necessary protections. Particular areas the task force will be focusing on over the next few months include the labour market, planning, building regulations, financial services, the health sector and different approaches to regulation. We are also working to make enforcement provisions fairer, more transparent and more consistent, including use of the new powers in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. In order to ensure that new requirements are introduced only where they are really needed, Ministers have agreed to certify when regulation is brought forward that the regulation strikes an appropriate balance between cost and benefit.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will list the rules and regulations he proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1995, and if he will make a statement. [41546]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Cabinet Office provides the Deregulation Committee with a monthly statement showing those deregulation proposals which are the subject of consultation and an indication of those which may be brought forward as draft proposals in the following two months. Copies of the October statement have been placed in the Vote Office.

  Ministerial Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what has been the cost of ministerial transport in each of the past five years; what allowance
  577
  has been paid to Ministers who use their own vehicles; and what has been the cost in each of the past five years. [40745]

  Mr. Freeman
  The cost of ministerial transport for Ministers located in the Cabinet Office, excluding VAT, in each of the last five financial years up to 31 March 1995 is as follows:

  1990–91: £82,950

  1991–92: £94,916

  1992–93: £102,076

  1993–94: £102,596

  1994–95: £132,479

  No allowances were paid to Ministers for the use of their own vehicles during this period.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Farming and Forestry Industry (Accidents)
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer on 16 October,Official Report, column 178, what action his Department is taking to reduce the number of fatal accidents in the farming and forestry industry. [38867]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Department of Agriculture's health and safety inspectorate will, through its on-going programme of statutory inspections and accident prevention education, continue to work towards improving health and safety awareness in the farming and forestry industry. There are also strong links developing with the Republic of Ireland on this matter to share information and experience.

  Ormeau Road Arrests
  Rev. Ian Paisley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were arrested or charged for disturbance on the lower Ormeau road over the marching season; and how many of these people are from the lower Ormeau road. [39365]

  Sir John Wheeler
  A total of 26 arrests were made during the "marching season" on the lower Ormeau road. Of these, 17 were from the lower Ormeau road area and nine were from elsewhere. On all cases files are with the Director of Public Prosecutions for decision.

  Domestic Electricity Costs
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many homes in Northern Ireland are heated solely by electricity. [39637]

  Mr. Ancram
  Figures for the 1994–95 continuous household survey show that an estimated 9 per cent. of households in Northern Ireland are heated solely by electricity. The 1991 census recorded a total of some 530,000 households in Northern Ireland.

  Ministerial Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost of ministerial transport in each of the past five years; what allowance 578
  has been paid to Ministers who use their own vehicles; and what has been the cost in each of the past five years. [40747]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Records on ministerial transport, including internal and overseas air transport, are available only for the last three financial years, April to March. These costs, which are greatly inflated by necessary security requirements, were:

  1993–94: £992,663

  1994–95: £1,041,077

  1995–96: £365,641 (to 31 October 1995)

  Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office do not use their own vehicles. Consequently, no allowances have been paid.

  James Dixon Home, Belfast
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what have been the security costs incurred at the former James Dixon home in Rugby avenue, Belfast since it was vacated by the Eastern health and social services board; and what consideration is being given to making it available for(a) student accommodation and (b) single accommodation by transfer to a registered housing association or similar body. [40886]

  Mr. Moss
  The building has been unoccupied since June and is currently being secured 24 hours per day at a cost of £2,000 per month.

  South and East Belfast Trust has been considering alternative uses for the premises. An approach has been made by the Belfast Community Housing Association and the trust, in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Services, will be entering into discussions with the housing association in the near future to consider its proposals for the future use of this facility.

  Child Support
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those Department of Health and Social Services benefits that are not taken into account in child support assessments; if they are taxable; and if he will make a statement. [40889]

  Mr. Moss
  The benefits which are disregarded in the calculation of net income under the child support formula are listed in schedule 2 to the Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1992. I have arranged for a copy of the regulations to be placed in the library. The social security benefits listed in the schedule are non-taxable.

  GPs' Dispensing Lists
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what process of consultation was undergone before it was decided that patients living less than 5 km from a pharmacy would no longer be able to collect medication from a general practitioner's surgery; what considerations underlie the application of the 5 km rule to Northern Ireland and the one-mile rule in Great Britain; what effect the rule change will have on residents of Lisbane, County Down; and if he will make a statement [41229]
  579
  Mr. Moss
  Extensive consultation and deliberation have taken place over two and a half years, involving health and social services boards, the Central Services Agency and the representative bodies of both the medical and pharmaceutical professions. Health and social services councils are now going to be consulted about the final draft of the revised guidelines. When boards come to implement the guidelines they will be approaching individual patients about their needs and circumstances, as they review their general practitioners' dispensing lists.

  Regulations governing dispensing by doctors in Northern Ireland are similar to those operating in Scotland, but different to those which apply in England and Wales. The guidelines operating under the various regulations are therefore also different. The one-mile rule in England and Wales is actually contained in regulations but is not used in determining whether a patient has serious difficulty in obtaining medication from a pharmacy. Under the revised Northern Ireland guidelines it is proposed to use 5 km distance from a pharmacy as the general basic test for serious difficulty. This is considered reasonable, given that a two-mile rule has been in operation from 1957 and there have been significant improvements in transport and telecommunications since then. In addition, many pharmacies are now providing collection and delivery services, making it easier for patients to get their drugs. Boards will, however, have the flexibility to exercise judgment in relation to individual patients when reasons other than distance exist for serious difficulty. In exercising such judgment, boards will have as their paramount concern the overall needs of patients and their access to the professional services of both general medical practitioners and community pharmacists.

  The effect of the changes on the residents of Lisbane, County Down, will not be known until the revised guidelines are applied by the Eastern health and social services board, in relation to individual patients on general practitioners' dispensing lists.

  Waste Disposal, Newtownards
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment his Department has made of the risks to public health arising from the unofficial dump in the disused quarry at the intersection of the Ballybarnes and Tullynagardy roads in Newtownards; and if he will make a statement about provision of official dumps in the Newtownards area. [41230]

  Mr. Moss
  The licensing of waste disposal facilities is a matter for the district council—in this case Ards borough council. The council has licensed the site in question at Craiganee quarry and reports that there are no matters relating to the site which constitute a public health nuisance. The council has adopted a 10-year waste disposal plan for the borough which is regularly reviewed.

  Stormont Fire
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list those recommendations of the Doyle report into the Stormont fire which have already been implemented by Government Departments and those which have not. [41231]
  580
  Mr. Moss
  The Doyle report made 30 recommendations in relation to fire safety of Crown buildings in Northern Ireland. To date, some 22 of these have been put into practice by Northern Ireland Departments while the remaining eight are in the process of implementation.

  Those recommendations which have already been implemented are contained in the following paragraphs of the report:

  Paras 1.4.1 to 1.4.3

  Paras 1.4.6 to 1.4.12

  Paras 1.4.15 to 1.4.16

  Paras 1.4.18 to 1.4.23

  Paras 1.4.25 to 1.4.28

  Roads Expenditure
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the capital expenditure on each class of road in each of the past five years in the borough of ards; when the proposed link road at Portaferry/Comber road, Newtownards was first included in the local area plan; at what stage is the design and acquisition of lands for the road; and if he will make a statement about the programme for construction of this link road. [41232]

  Mr. Moss
  Details of capital expenditure by roads classification are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate costs. Overall capital expenditure covering major and minor works, traffic management and accident remedial schemes, street lighting and car park provision in the Ards borough council area was for the years in question as follows:

  1990–91: £1,101,000

  1991–92: £472,000

  1992–93: £792,000

  1993–94: £612,000

  1994–95: £558,000

  The Portaferry road-Comber road link, Newtownards appeared in the North Down area plan which was published in 1972. At the moment, design work is at a very preliminary stage and a final line for the road has yet to be determined. The scheme is included in the current major road works programme with a planned starting date in the 1999–2000 financial year, subject to the necessary finance being available.

  Health and Social Services Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial reserves have been held(a) by trusts and (b) by health authorities in each region in each of the last three years. [41416]

  Mr. Moss
  The financial reserves held by health and social services trusts and boards are disclosed in the annual financial accounts.

  The reserves held by the health and social services trusts and boards in each area are as follows:

  581

  Table 1: Health and social services trusts summary of reserves

  £ thousands

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Eastern board

  34,019

  31,769

  Western board

  n/a

  n/a

  Southern board

  2,899

  2,254

  Northern board

  n/a

  n/a

  Table 2: Health and social services boards summary of reserves

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Eastern board

  442,603,370

  191,760,873

  13,382,566

  Southern board

  104,032,224

  79,039,728

  42,301,620

  Northern board

  113,255,648

  159,409,479

  149,872,036

  Western board

  133,211,810

  143,012,738

  143,511,842

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will itemise the financial reserves of each(a) trust and (b) health authority in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [41426]

  Mr. Moss
  The financial reserves held by health and social services trusts are disclosed in the annual financial accounts. The tables itemise the reserves held by trusts in each area for 1993–94 and 1994–95.

  Table 1: Health and social services trusts reserves 1993–94

  £ thousands

  Revaluation reserve

  Donation reserve

  Income and expenditure reserve

  Total reserves

  Eastern board area

  Belfast City hospital

  8,050

  321

  2,628

  10,999

  Ulster North Down and Ards

  2,691

  4,111

  797

  7,599

  Royal Group of hospitals

  6,708

  2,476

  1,602

  10,786

  Greenpark

  2,655

  830

  931

  4,416

  Eastern Ambulance service

  131

  —

  88

  219

  Total

  20,235

  7,738

  6,046

  34,019

  Southern board area

  Craigavon Area hospital

  2,213

  —

  686

  2,899

  Total

  2,213

  —

  686

  2,899

  The comparative figures for this trust were restated in 1994–95. The figure tabled is the restated amount.

  Table 2: Health and social services trusts reserves 1994–95

  £ thousands

  Revaluation reserve

  Donation reserve

  Income and expenditure reserve

  Total reserves

  Eastern board area

  Belfast City hospital

  5,516

  480

  1,619

  7,615

  Ulster North Down and Ards

  1,937

  4,424

  (217)

  6,144

  Royal Group of hospitals

  4,985

  3,033

  1,958

  9,976

  Greenpark

  2,117

  899

  806

  3,822

  Eastern Ambulance service

  119

  —

  4

  123

  Mater hospital

  (76)

  3,372

  113

  3,409

  South and east Belfast

  (761)

  130

  1,291

  660

  582

  Table 2: Health and social services trusts reserves 1994–95

  £ thousands

  Revaluation reserve

  Donation reserve

  Income and expenditure reserve

  Total reserves

  North and West Belfast

  (473)

  50

  169

  (254)

  North Down and Ards

  (186)

  —

  962

  776

  Down and Lisburn

  (1,023)

  46

  475

  (502)

  Total

  12,155

  12,434

  7,180

  31,769

  Southern board area

  Craigavon Area hospital

  1,741

  12

  495

  2,248

  Newry and Mourne

  (384)

  62

  135

  (187)

  Craigavon and Banbridge

  (237)

  10

  420

  193

  Total

  1,120

  84

  1,050

  2,254

  Only six trusts were in existence in 1993–94 and there were none before that date. Thirteen trusts existed in 1994–95.

  The reserves held by health and social services boards are disclosed in the annual financial accounts. The table itemises the reserves held by boards in each area for the last three years.

  Table 3: Health and social services boards

  Health and social services board

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  1994–95 £

  Eastern board

  Capital Account

  427,062,751

  180,092,696

  8,358,987

  Donation Reserve

  5,870,066

  3,982,357

  0

  Balance due to/from Department

  9,670,553

  7,685,820

  5,023,579

  Total

  442,603,370

  191,760,873

  13,382,566

  Southern board

  Capital Account

  102,702,412

  76,386,249

  36,975,989

  Donation Reserve

  145,316

  537,946

  437,960

  Balance due to/from Department

  1,184,496

  2,115,533

  4,887,671

  Total

  104,032,224

  79,039,728

  42,301,620

  Northern board

  Capital Account

  107,835,922

  152,836,035

  142,946,098

  Donation Reserve

  768,456

  379,094

  507,858

  Balance due to/from Department

  4,651,270

  6,194,350

  6,418,080

  Total

  113,255,648

  159,409,479

  149,872,036

  Western board

  Capital Account

  128,209,888

  135,840,456

  135,970,475

  Donation Reserve

  444,227

  380,785

  328,717

  Balance due to/from Department

  4,557,695

  6,791,497

  7,212,650

  Total

  133,211,810

  143,012,738

  143,511,842

  The figures for 1994–95 are provisional pending final clearance from the appointed auditor.

  Continuing Care Beds
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many NHS continuing care beds have been available in each(a) region and (b) district in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [41420]
  583
  Mr. Moss
  Information is not available in the format requested. The table shows the average number of available beds in long stay wards only for people who have a learning disability or are mentally ill, and the average number of available beds in wards for elderly and young physically disabled patients.

  Year

  Long-stay

  Elderly

  Young physically disabled

  1990–91

  3,481

  2,519

  39

  1991–92

  3,182

  2,315

  42

  1992–93

  2,826

  2,121

  37

  1993–94

  2,312

  1,934

  55

  1994–95

  1,931

  1,830

  55

  Respite Care Beds
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) NHS and (b) private respite care beds were available (i) by region and (ii) by health authority in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [41408]

  Mr. Moss
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Advertising Expenditure
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission how much has been spent on outside advertising agencies for each year since 1979; and if he will list the specific advertising campaigns undertaken by his Department, their purpose and their cost. [32480]

  Sir Peter Hordern
  The National Audit Office does not engage in advertising campaigns, other than for graduate and specialist recruitment. The costs of advertising for recruitment purposes are currently around £90,000 each year.

DEFENCE

  No. 13 Air Experience Flight
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of annual savings to the defence budget of the proposed closure of No. 13 Air Experience Flight, Royal Air Force volunteer reserve. [41389]

  Mr. Soames
  The estimated annual savings to the defence budget of the closure of No. 13 Air Experience Flight of the Air Cadet Organisation would be £190,000.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the air experience flights of the Royal Air Force volunteer reserve in the United Kingdom identifying which it is planned to(a) close and (b) move in the next three years. [41398]
  584
  Mr. Soames
  The current air experience flights of the Air Cadet Organisation are listed. A proposal to close No. 13 Air Experience Flight of the Air Cadet Organisation has recently been the subject of consultation and is now receiving consideration. The amalgamation of the flying operations of university air squadrons and air experience flights at regional locations, using the University Air Squadron Bulldog aircraft, has recently been announced and will be implemented in 1996. One of the effects will be that six air experience flights, which are marked with asterisks on the list, will reform at new locations.

  Current Structure

  No. 1—RAF Manston*

  No. 2—Hurn Airport*

  No. 3—Colerne Airfield

  No. 4—Exeter Airport*

  No. 5—Cambridge Airport

  No. 6—RAF Benson

  No. 7—RAF Newton

  No. 8—RAF Shawbury*

  No. 9—RAF Finningley*

  No. 10—RAF Woodvale

  No. 11—RAF Leeming

  No. 12—RAF Turnhouse*

  No. 13—Belfast City Airport

  Rifle Ammunition
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tests have been performed on rifle ammunition purchased from the Portuguese firm INDEP to determine their failure rate; what was the failure rate of the ammunition; what is his Department's standard failure rate of rifle ammunition; if his Department has encountered any technical problems with the ammunition; and if the ammunition purchased from INDEP has been assessed as satisfactory. [41568]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The 7.62 mm sniper rifle round produced by INDEP, which won the recent competition to supply ammunition for the National Rifle Association, has been subjected to three sets of tests. Prior to INDEP's inclusion in the tender invitation list, the design integrity of their round was established. During production, sample rounds underwent a number of acceptance tests examining different aspects of the manufacture of the rounds and their functioning in service weapons. Pass-fail criteria varied from test to test but were rigorous; no critical defects were allowed and major defects could not occur in more than one round in 1,000. To date all acceptance tests have been satisfactory. Finally, following the NRA's reports of misfires, the Defence Test and Evaluation Organisation carried out extensive tests during which over 1,500 rounds of INDEP ammunition were fired from service issue sniper rifles. No misfires occurred. We remain satisfied that the INDEP ammunition is to the specification laid down in the contract.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department purchased rifle ammunition from the Portuguese firm INDEP; how many rounds of ammunition were purchased; and what was the total value of the order. [41567]
  585
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  INDEP was awarded a contract for 1.3 million rounds of 7.62 mm sniper rifle ammunition on 10 February 1995. The contract value is commercially confidential.

  Reserve Forces
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to(a) disband, (b) merge and (c) move any units of the Territorial Army and Royal Naval reserve in Northern Ireland in the next three years. [41400]

  Mr. Soames
  None.

  Anglo-French Defence Measures
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the joint defence measures agreed with the Government of France on 13 October. [41564]

  Mr. Soames
  The UK-French summit on 30 October reviewed the wide range of bilateral defence co-operation between the United Kingdom and France and agreed to build further on this. Discussions also highlighted a common position on a wide range of defence issues.

  Mobile Cellphones
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures his Department possesses to prevent the accidental monitoring of mobile cellphones. [41566]

  Mr. Soames
  It is MOD policy that only cellphones used by MOD personnel for official use are subjected to monitoring, and the equipment can be programmed to monitor only calls involving specified cellphones.

  If a non-MOD call is unintentionally intercepted during a scanning sweep of frequencies then the procedure laid down, in accordance with the Interception of Communications Act 1985, requires the operator to stop monitoring of the call immediately, dispose of all recorded material from that intercept and log the incident.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the rules and regulations he proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1995; and if he will make a statement; [41531]

  (2) what regulations his Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1995; if he proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost assessment to assess the advantages or disadvantages of such a repeal; [41554]

  (3) what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer by the repeal of each rule and regulation which has so far been the subject of a reference to the Deregulation Committee from his Department; and in how many cases a compliance cost assessment has been carried out. [41532]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department is not a regulator of business so it does not refer proposals to the Deregulation Committee. As a non-regulatory Department we are 586
  playing a full part in the deregulation initiative by focusing our efforts on relieving unnecessary administrative burdens on our suppliers, streamlining contracts procedures and improving communications.

  RAF University Cadetships
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his estimate of the cost in the academic year 1996–97 of the travelling and accommodation expenses of students at Queen's university, Belfast holding university cadetships sponsored by the Royal Air Force to attend training at university air squadrons in Great Britain. [41403]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently no students at Queen's university holding university cadetships sponsored by the RAF. Assessments of the costs of travel and accommodation for any future students at Queen's university awarded a cadetship sponsored by the RAF in the future will be made as and when awards are approved.

  Cadet Forces (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has(a) to disband, (b) merge and (c) move units of the Army Cadet Force and for the Cadet Corps in Northern Ireland in the next three years. [41399]

  Mr. Soames
  There are currently no plans to disband, merge or move units of the Army Cadet Force or the Combined Cadet Force in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements he is making for the Royal Air Force to provide air experience in powered aircraft to cadets of the Air Training Corps and Combined Cadet Force in Northern Ireland following the closure of No. 13 Air Experience Flight of the Royal Air Force volunteer reserve. [41390]

  Mr. Soames
  A proposal for the closure of No. 13 Air Experience Flight of the Air Cadet Organisation is still receiving consideration. If accepted, air cadets in Northern Ireland would be offered the same level of flying opportunities as cadets on the mainland, the establishment of a volunteer gliding school offering powered gliding, and the provision of opportunities for air experience flights during annual camps on the mainland.

  Army Helicopter (Misuse)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a statement on the conclusions of his Department's special investigation branch into the allegations concerning the misuse of an Army helicopter to transport a commanding officer to a golf competition in Scotland. [41565]

  Mr. Soames
  The special investigations branch has completed and submitted a report into the allegations concerning the misuse of an Army helicopter. This is now being considered by my Department and I will advise the hon. Member of the outcome shortly.

  University Air Squadron
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the complement of aircraft and qualified flying instructors of university
  587
  air squadrons in Great Britain to provide training for students from Queen's university, Belfast holding university cadetships sponsored by the Royal Air Force following the closure of Queen's University Air Squadron, Belfast. [41401]

  Mr. Soames
  At present, there are no plans to increase the complement of aircraft or qualified flying instructors at university air squadrons in Great Britain to provide flying training for students at Queen's University, Belfast holding university cadetships sponsored by the RAF. Should the decision be taken to close the Queen's University Air Squadron, the flying training of any students holding RAF sponsored cadetships would be undertaken from within existing resources.

  Radioactive Debris
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made since 1965 by the Meteorological Office of the fallout pattern of radioactive debris arising from the French atmospheric weapon tests conducted in the Algerian Sahara desert between 1960 and 1966; and if he will make a statement on what(a) public protection and (b) information measures have been taken since 1965 in the United Kingdom. [40258]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Meteorological Office makes no assessment of fallout patterns of radioactive debris. It does, however, provide essential meteorological data and forecasts to the other Government Departments with responsibility for public protection and information measures.

  AEA Technology, formerly a division of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, has measured the deposition and air concentration of long-lived radioactive material produced as a result of weapons tests in the atmosphere since the late 1950s. Annual reports have been published.

  In the event of an accident involving defence nuclear material in the UK, the Ministry of Defence nuclear accident response organisation would work in conjunction with the appropriate civil agencies to ensure an effective response to safeguard the public. Where appropriate, the information necessary to deal with such an event has been issued by the MOD under the provisions of the Public Information for Radiation Emergencies Regulations 1992.

  Public safety schemes exist in respect of all UK berths used by nuclear powered submarines, and guidance on appropriate protective measures in the event of an accident during the transportation of nuclear weapons has been issued to local authorities and the emergency services.

  A national response plan, which is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, was put in place in 1988 to deal with the possible impact on the UK from overseas nuclear accidents or major radioactive release overseas, of whatever origin.
  588

  Air Force Recruitment
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current maximum age requirement for recruits to enter the Air Force; what was this age limit two years ago; and if he will make a statement. [41563]

  Mr. Soames
  The information is as follows:

  Years and under

  Age requirement from 1 September 1995

  Age requirement two years ago

  Officers

  General Duties (Air) Pilot

  24

  24

  General Duties (Air) Navigator

  26

  26

  General Duties (Ground) Air Traffic Control

  25½

  30

  General Duties (Ground)

  Fighter Control

  30

  30

  General Duties (Ground)

  Intelligence

  30

  30

  Engineer

  29½

  130

  Supply

  26½

  130

  Administrative (Secretarial)

  25½

  130

  Administrative (Education)

  27½

  130

  Administrative (Catering)

  27½

  130

  Administrative (Physical Education)

  27½

  127

  Security (Regiment)

  25½

  26

  Security (Provost)

  30

  130

  Specialists

  Legal

  330

  330

  Chaplains

  339

  339

  PMRAFNS

  35

  35

  Medical Secretarial

  130

  130

  Medical

  39

  439

  Dental

  333

  33

  Airmen/Aircrew

  31

  226

  Ground Trades

  24

  39

  1 Exceptionally, recruits could be considered up to the age of 39 years.

  2 Exceptionally, recruits could be considered up to the age of 31 years.

  3 Older candidates could be considered on their merits.

  4 Older candidates could be considered in exceptional circumstances.

  Temporary age restrictions have been imposed from 1 September 1995 on entry to training in the RAF. Given reductions and restructuring in the RAF following changes in the strategic environment, these restrictions are necessary to maintain a balanced age-rank structure for the future. The revised age criteria will be kept under regular review.

  Training Assistance
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to which foreign Governments training assistance has been offered since 1992; and what was the total receipt in respect of such assistance in the financial years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95. [40492]

  Mr. Soames
  According to available records the following countries have received United Kingdom assistance since 1992:
  589

  Country

  Albania

  Angola

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Austria

  Australia

  Bahamas

  Bahrain

  Bangladesh

  Barbados

  Belarus

  Belgium

  Belize

  Bermuda

  Botswana

  Brazil

  British Virgin Islands

  Brunei

  Bulgaria

  Burma

  Cambodia

  Cameroon

  Canada

  Cayman Islands

  Chad

  Chile

  Colombia

  Cyprus

  Czech Republic

  Denmark

  Dominica

  Ecuador

  Egypt

  Estonia

  Falkland Island

  Fiji

  Finland

  France

  Gambia

  Germany

  Ghana

  Gibraltar

  Greece

  Grenada

  Guatemala

  Guyana

  Honduras

  Hong Kong

  Hungary

  India

  Indonesia

  Ireland

  Israel

  Italy

  Ivory Coast

  Jamaica

  Japan

  Jordan

  Kenya

  Kuwait

  Latvia

  Lebanon

  Lesotho

  Malawi

  Malaysia

  Maldives

  Malta

  Mauritus

  Mexico

  Montserrat

  Mozambique

  Morocco

  Namibia

  Nepal

  Netherlands

  New Zealand

  590

  Nigeria

  Norway

  Oman

  Pakistan

  Paraguay

  Peru

  Philippines

  Poland

  Portugal

  Qatar

  Romania

  Russia

  Saudi Arabia

  Senegal

  Seychelles

  Sierra Leone

  Singapore

  Slovakia

  Slovenia

  South Africa

  South Korea

  Spain

  Sri Lanka

  St. Kitts

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent

  Sudan

  Swaziland

  Sweden

  Switzerland

  Tanzania

  Thailand

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Turkey

  Turks and Caicos

  Uganda

  Ukraine

  UAE

  Uruguay

  USA

  Venezuela

  Yemen

  Zaire

  Zambia

  Zimbabwe

  The list covers training provided in the UK and training provided by UK service personnel overseas. In addition, forces on exercise overseas often provide limited training to, or train alongside, the armed forces of the host nation. A central record of such training is not maintained.

  According to available records the following total receipts were received from foreign Governments in respect of such assistance in financial years 1992–93, 1993–94 and 1994–95:

  1992–93: £35,298,325

  1993–94: £45,117,356

  1994–95: £51,126,747

  Military Hospitals (Health Services)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the administrative cost of market testing and contracting out the services provided by the military hospitals at Ruinteln and Wegberg in Germany; when these hospitals will close; how many(a) service personnel and (b) United Kingdom civilian staff will be made
  redundant; how many organisations made full bids to take
  over these services; and if the contract was awarded to
  the lowest bidder. [40760]
  591
  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to my answers to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on 16 October 1995,Official Report, columns 32–35. The total cost of mounting the project in terms of the full-time project and in-house bid teams and consultancy support is estimated at some £1,700,000. The Health Alliance submitted the lowest compliant bid to provide full primary, community and secondary health care to the Army and primary and community health care to the RAF in Germany from 1 April 1996.

  Royal Flight
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many aircraft, of which type, make up No. 32, the Royal Squadron; what is the original capital value of each aircraft; how old each is; and what is its present value. [41383]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of the composition of No. 32, the Royal Squadron, which is responsible for royal, VIP and other communications flying, are set out in the table. Under the Government's resource accounting initiative, the capital values of all such assets are being identified; however, this work will not be complete until April 1998.

  Aircraft of No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron—at 1 November 1995

  AC Type

  Date procured

  Current age

  Total AC by type

  Flight A

  BAe 146 100 Series

  April 1986

  9 years, 6 months

  13 AE

  BAe 146 100 Series

  July 1986

  9 years, 3 months

  BAe 146 100 Series

  January 1991

  4 years, 9 months

  Flight B

  Wessex HCC Mk4

  June 1969

  26 years, months

  2 AE

  Wessex HCC Mk4

  June 1969

  26 years, 4 months

  Gazelle HT Mk4

  18 January 1984

  11 years, 9 months

  Gazelle HT Mk3

  31 August 1978

  17 years, 2 months

  2 AE +

  Gazelle HT Mk3(IUR)

  31 July 1973

  22 years, 3 months

  22IUR

  Gazelle HT Mk3(IUR)

  5 July 1973

  22 years, 4 months

  Flight C

  BAe 125 700 Series

  23 February 1983

  12 years, 8 months

  6 AE

  BAe 125 700 Series

  14 March 1983

  12 years, 7 months

  BAe 125 700 Series

  15 April 1983

  12 years, 6 months

  BAe 125 700 Series

  23 August 1983

  12 years, 2 months

  BAe 125 700 Series

  26 November 1983

  11 years, 11 months

  BAe 125 700 Series

  17 February 1984

  11 years, 8 months

  BAe 125 600 Series

  24 April 1973

  22 years, 6 months

  1 AE +

  BAe 125 600 Series(IUR)

  26 April 1973

  22 Years, 6 months

  1 IUR

  1Aircraft established.

  2In use reserve.

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the usage of the royal flight in each of the five years to April 1995 was used by the royal family(a) as a proportion of occasions used and (b) as a proportion of distance covered. [41384]

  Mr. Soames
  The percentage of passenger carrying flights by the Queen's flight on which a member of the royal family was a passenger in each financial year from 1990–91 to 1994–95 was as follows:

  1990–91: 94 per cent.

  1991–92: 95 per cent.

  1993–94: 94 per cent.

  1993–94: 90 per cent.

  1994–95: 88 per cent.

  592
  Information on distance covered could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

  Nuclear Weapons, France
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial arrangements are in place governing the Franco-British Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy and Doctrine. [41447]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 23 October,Official Report, column 476.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the memoranda of understanding which currently exist between Britain and France with regard to all aspects of nuclear weapons; and if he will set out the purpose of each memorandum giving the date on which each one was signed, whether its text is still classified, on what dates each one has been amended, why it was amended on each occasion and what other countries are party to it. [41446]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 24 October,Official Report, column 587.

  Jobs, Clwyd
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the number of(a) defence and (b) defence-related jobs in Clwyd; and if he will make a statement. [41250]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This information is not available in the form requested. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) on Monday 16 October,Official Report, columns 32–33. There are currently 423 service men and 1,285 civilians based in Clwyd, mainly at RAF Sealand.

  Military Hospitals, Germany
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the revenue cost of running(a) Rinteln and (b) Wegberg military hospital in Germany in each of the last five years: and what the annual cost will be of replacement medical services provided by the Health Alliance. [40762]

  Mr. Soames
  The running costs for the British military hospital Rinteln and the RAF hospital Wegberg in the last five years, including an estimate of expenditure for the current financial year, are as follows:

  RAF (H) Wegberg

  £ million BMH Rinteln

  1991–92

  10.7

  9.2

  1992–93

  11.7

  10.6

  1993–94

  12.2

  13.2

  1994–95

  12.3

  15.7

  1995–96

  12.5

  16.6

  It is not possible to give comparable figures for the replacement service as there will be a fundamental change in the method of provision of health care services and there will be overlap with other elements of the health care service in Germany.
  593
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent on capital projects at(a) Rinteln and (b) Wegberg military hospitals in Germany in each of the last five years. [40761]

  Mr. Soames
  There has been no capital expenditure at RAF hospital Wegberg in the last five years. Capital expenditure at the British military hospital Rinteln in the last five years, in deutschmark millions, was:

  BMH Rinteln

  1991–92

  0

  1992–93

  0

  1993–94

  2.6

  1994–95

  0.3

  1995–96

  8.4

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of(a) his Department's invitation to tender documents and (b) the service specification that forms part of the contract awarded to the Health Alliance for replacing the health services provided currently by the military hospitals at Rinteln and Wegberg. [40763]

  Mr. Soames
  A copy of the invitation to tender will be placed in the Library of the House. A copy of the statement of requirement—service specification—is already available in the Library of the House.

  Corporate Head Office Technology System
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the future of the corporate head office technology system; if he intends to update the Unix-based OfficePower system; and how CHOTS will relate to the relocated Procurement Executive. [41119]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Unix-based corporate headquarters office technology system is currently being upgraded for the fourth time since the start of implementation in 1991. This latest upgrade delivers OfficePower Version 7 replacing the existing version of OfficePower 450 on CHOTS. There are no plans to update OfficePower beyond version 7.

  A review involving a wide range of existing and potential CHOTS users established a clear need to operate a range of modern commercial software on the CHOTS workstation. As a result, it was agreed in May 1995 that a further development be undertaken. This work is now well under way with the objective of providing MicroSoft Windows applications on CHOTS. The full extent to which current and future CHOTS installations will use this development is still under consideration.

  A number of CHOTS terminals will be installed at Abbey Wood. These terminals, plus connections with other IT systems, at Abbey Wood will allow the relocated Procurement Executive headquarters to communicate with the wider CHOTS population.

  Gurkha Troops
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Gurkha troops qualify for the same pay and conditions as their British counterparts. [41108]
  594
  Mr. Soames
  Pay and conditions of service for Gurkhas serving the Crown are largely governed by the 1947 tripartite agreement, between the Governments of the United Kingdom, India and Nepal. Under the terms of this agreement, Gurkha basic pay is linked to Indian army rates of pay. British Gurkhas do, however, receive a substantial addition to their basic pay which takes into account the cost of living at their duty station. In the United Kingdom, where the tasks carried out by Gurkhas are similar to their regular counterparts, the addition is calculated to ensure comparability. British Gurkha conditions of service are also governed by the tripartite agreement and are comparable to those in the Indian Army; they do, however, recognise the unique cultural and religious character of British Gurkha personnel.

  Temporary and Part-time Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are currently employed in his Department and in related agencies on(a) temporary or casual employment contracts and (b) part-time employment contracts, given as an actual figure and as a proportion of the total work force; and what were the corresponding figures for five years ago. [41124]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Breakdowns by Department and executive agency for 1 April 1995 of the number of permanent staff, the number of casual staff—that is normally those engaged for a period up to 12 months, but exceptionally up to two years—and of the number of part-time staff are presented in the civil service staff in post summary table for 1 April 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Estimates on a comparable basis for 1 April 1990 have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Employees (Disabled People)
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many registered disabled civilians are employed by his Ministry. [41507]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  At 1 April 1995 my Department and its agencies employed 1,355 registered disabled civilians, representing 1.1 per cent. of all civilian staff.

  Gulf War (Misappropriated Funds)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons why £43,000 was misappropriated from public funds during the Gulf war; and to which cost centre the sum was reimbursed in the transaction mentioned at page 20 of his departmental appropriation accounts, 1994–95, volume 1, class 1 on defence, HC paper 757–I, of 17 October. [41469]

  Mr. Soames
  The sum of £43,000 was reimbursed in the transaction mentioned at page 20 of the MOD's departmental appropriation accounts, 1994–95, volume 1, class 1 on defence, HC paper 757–I, of 17 October, following the conviction of an officer who admitted he had defrauded the MOD of that sum while on service in the middle east between May 1992 and October 1993.

  By their nature, consolidated fund extra receipts are sums that the MOD is not allowed to retain for the benefit

  595
  of defence votes. Therefore, no departmental cost centre has been reimbursed with this recovery.

  VC10 Aircraft (Repainting)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) United Kingdom and (b) non-United Kingdom companies bid for the contract A3a/453 with his Department for re-painting of RAF VC10 aircraft; on what grounds Sogerma-Socea of Bordeaux was selected; and if he will make a statement. [41322]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Three companies bid for the contract for repainting RAF VC10 aircraft, two UK and one non-UK. The contract was placed on the basis of the lowest price and lowest risk. None of the bidders proposed to paint the aircraft in the UK.

  Nuclear Weapons (Legality)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what official monitoring his Department has of the proceeding begun at the International Court of Justice in The Hague on 30 October on the legality of nuclear weapons. [41470]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We have maintained a close interest in the requests by the World Health Organisation and the UN General Assembly to the International Court of Justice for advisory opinions on the legality of nuclear weapons since May 1993.

  Indonesian Pilots (Training)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements have been made to train Indonesian pilots at RAF Valley. [41385]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not Government policy to reveal specific details of training undertaken by overseas students in the United Kingdom.

  Field Ambulances
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement regarding the order for field ambulances. [41279]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We expect to make an announcement by early 1996.

  Departmental Properties, Southampton
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many domestic properties owned by his Department are unoccupied in Marchwood and Calshot, near Southampton. [41455]

  Mr. Soames
  As at 30 September 1995, there were 54 vacant married quarters at Marchwood and Calshot. Of these, 30 were awaiting demolition as part of the plan to demolish 64 underscaled maisonettes and redevelop the area with houses. The remainder of the vacant properties were either awaiting major maintenance work, already allocated to service families due to move in shortly or formed part of the management margin needed to ensure that accommodation is available to house entitled service personnel.
  596

  Royal Welch Fusiliers (Gorazde)
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the statement of the General-Secretary of the United Nations in respect of the Royal Welch Fusiliers in Gorazde. [41285]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: The UN Secretary-General's statement of 18 August reflected the British Government's decision not to replace the Royal Welch Fusiliers in Gorazde at the end of their tour. British troops has served in the town for 18 months. The London conference in July, and subsequent air action by NATO, made abundantly clear the international community's resolve to deter attacks on Gorazde and other safe areas.

  Solvent Buoyage
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answers of 31 October,Official Report, column 165, on Solvent buoyage, if he will define the limits of the Dockyard port; and if his answers include the navigation buoys laid in the Solvent by the Navy outside the entrance to Portsmouth harbour. [41368]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: The limits of the dockyard port of Portsmouth are defined at paragraph 3 of Statutory Instrument 1978 No. 1881, the Dockyard Port of Portsmouth Order 1978, a copy of which is found in the Library of the House. All navigation buoys located within the limits of the Portsmouth dockyard port area are the responsibility of the Queen's harbour master, Portsmouth.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report, column 165, if the Queen's harbour master charges light dues on the Navy's buoyage in the Solvent to merchant shipping. [41369]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: The Queen's harbour master at Portsmouth does not charge any dues for buoyage within the area for which he is responsible.

ENVIRONMENT

  Urban Regeneration, Sheffield
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many initiatives have been taken since June 1987 to deal with urban dereliction and inner-city decay in Sheffield by means of encouraging development and improvements to the city; if he will list each initiative, indicating the amounts expended under each heading; and if he will include grants which have been made to Sheffield, including all funding from European Union sources. [40572]

  Mr. Curry
  Between 1 April 1987 and 31 March 1996, estimated, Sheffield metropolitan district will have benefited from approximately £262.688 million of grant funding from United Kingdom Government—Department of the Environment—and European Union sources for
  597
  regeneration schemes. The amount for each initiative is set out in the table.

  £ million

  Urban programme

  58.017

  English partnerships1

  10.986

  Estate action

  55.7762

  Urban development corporation

  93.210

  Urban partnership fund

  0.675

  Challenge fund

  2.568

  European regional development fund

  39.830

  European social fund3

  1.626

  1 Includes city grant and derelict land grant prior to 1 April 1994.

  2 Grant and SCAs.

  3 From 1 January 1994. Earlier figures are available only on a county basis.

  Ministerial Transport
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the cost of ministerial transport in each of the past five years; what allowance has been paid to Ministers who use their own vehicles; and what has been the cost in each of the past five years. [40735]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is provided in respect of all DOE Ministers:

  1990–91: £270,000

  1991–92: £265,000

  1992–93: £254,000

  1993–94: £258,000

  1994–95: £258,000

  All figures are exclusive of VAT.

  No DOE Ministers use their own vehicles for official purposes.

  Meetings with Local Authorities
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the delegations from local authorities whose meetings with Ministers in his Department have been cancelled in the past two weeks. [40654]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  [holding reply given Tuesday 31 October 1995]: No ministerial meetings with local authorities have been cancelled within the past two weeks. However, Earl Ferrers, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, was obliged to withdraw from attending the Association of District Councils conference on 31 October.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times in the past year he has met local authority organisations to discuss the services that they provide and the means by which they are financed. [41138]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State met representatives of the local authority associations on six occasions in the past year to discuss a range of issues affecting local government.

  Carers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much the Carers (Recognition and 598
  Services) Act 1995 is to cost local authorities in (a) England and (b) the west midlands; and if local authorities will receive extra funding from central Government to meet the cost of implementation. [41014]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We do not expect the implementation of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 to add significantly to local authorities' costs.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has sent to provide him about the increase in local authority spending needed to provide the same level of public services for the year 1995–96 as in 1994–95 in(a) England and (b) the west midlands. [41011]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The local authority associations submitted a joint report in October 1994 which indicated that local authorities in England would need to increase aggregate expenditure in 1995–96 by approximately £3 billion at 1994–95 prices over 1994–95. There were no separate figures for the west midlands.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the increase in local authority spending needed to provide the same level of public services as in 1994–905 for the year 1995–96 in(a) England and (b) the west midlands. [41010]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Each year, the Government estimate the total revenue spending which authorities in England should incur. This is known as total standard spending and mounted to £43.507 billion in 1995–96 including provision of £50 million for the transitional costs of local government reorganisation. In 1994–95, TSS amounted to £42.664 billion including provision of £10 million for local government reorganisation. Authorities have discretion within their capping limits to spend more than this on services.

  In arriving at a figure for 1995–96, the Government took account not only of demographic pressures and inflation but of the scope for efficiency gains and re-prioritising. TSS was distributed to local authorities through standard spending assessment which reflect local circumstances.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many times a month he has met the Chancellor of the Exchequer to discuss exclusively the spending requirements of local authorities. [41012]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend has met his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on numerous occasions in recent months. The spending requirements of local authorities have been among the many subjects they have discussed.

  South Yorkshire Fire and Civil Defence Authority
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make available additional finance under the Bellwin scheme, or any other scheme, to South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority in view of its unforeseen expenditure in 1995. [41365]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend has recently considered a request from the South Yorkshire fire and
  599
  civil defence authority for support through the Bellwin scheme for additional expenditure incurred as a consequence of the increased demand for fire services during the recent drought. The Bellwin scheme is intended to support expenditure resulting from sudden one-off emergencies, rather than in response to conditions which have led to an increased demand for an authority's normal services over a prolonged period. My right hon. Friend has decided, therefore, not to establish a Bellwin scheme of financial assistance for South Yorkshire fire and civil defence authority on this occasion. The authority has been advised accordingly. We have no plans to make any additional grants available in respect of this expenditure.

  Goole
  Mr. Cran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers he has and in what circumstances to refer back the Local Government Commission's recommendations concerning Goole and rural Goole for reconsideration. [41610]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Where a report on a review is submitted to the Secretary of State by the Commission he may, under section 15(6) of the Local Government Act 1992. if he thinks fit, direct the commission to conduct a further review of any area to which the report relates and to make revised recommendations as respects that area.

  Further Education Development Association
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what grant his Department has paid to the Further Education Development Association; on what date this grant was made; what consultation with local authorities preceded payment; and what statutory provisions govern such payment. [41806]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Each year my right hon. Friend makes a determination of the amount of revenue support grant payable in the forthcoming financial year to bodies specified in regulations made under section 76(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. In the Local Government Finance Report 1995–96, approved by this House on 1 February, the amount of £71,656 was determined as payable in 1995–96 to the staff college. This amount was in accordance with the expressed wishes of the local authority associations, which my right hon. Friend consulted before determining the sum concerned. My Department makes payments of revenue support grant in 12 monthly instalments. From 7 April 1995, the Further Education Development Agency became the sole trustee of the staff college and in this capacity has been paid revenue support grant of £41,797 to date in 1995–96.

  Somerset House
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to what uses Somerset house is currently put. [40231]

  Mr. Gummer
  The east, west and new wings of Somerset house are occupied by the London headquarters of the Inland Revenue. The south wing is occupied by the principal registry of the family division of the High Court. The north wing of the building is leased to the Courtauld 600
  Institute of the university of London for an art gallery and library.

  Town Centre Rents
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what studies he has made of the impact of upward-only rent reviews on the town centre property market. [40232]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  None.

  The Government considered the issue of upward-only rent reviews in their review of commercial property leases concluded in 1994. We urged the commercial property industry to introduce a code of practice dealing with upward-only rent reviews, among other issues. The industry plans to publish a code very soon.

  Domestic Water Meters
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 23 October,Official Report, column 410, what proportion of domestic premises in each of the English regional water companies were fitted with water meters in (a) 1994–95, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1992–93. [41223]

  Mr. Clappison
  In 1993–94 and 1994–95 the proportion of metered water customers of the 10 water and sewerage companies was as follows:

  Households percentage1

  1994–95

  1993–9

  Anglian

  11.2

  6.1

  Dwr Cymru

  2.7

  2.5

  North West

  4.1

  3.0

  Northumbrian

  0.6

  0.4

  Severn Trent

  7.0

  6.2

  South West

  6.9

  5.4

  Southern

  11.2

  10.5

  Thames

  4.8

  4.1

  Wessex

  8.4

  6.6

  Yorkshire

  5.4

  4.1

  1 Company estimates. Comparable information for 1992–93 is not available.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 23 October,Official Report, column 410, what is the current charge made by each of the English regional water companies for the installation of a water meter in domestic premises. [41222]

  Mr. Clappison
  Where water companies adopt a programme of metering they do not make a charge to customers for the cost of installing the meter. Where a customer chooses to have a meter, the customer pays for the installation. The amount varies between companies and Ofwat is pressing hard to secure lower installation charges where companies' charges are too high. The current charges made by each of the water companies are shown in tables 5.1 and 5.2 in Ofwat's 1995–96 report on tariff structures and charges, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.
  601

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the timetable for establishing a UK environment agency; how many staff will it employ and at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [41520]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government are not intending to establish a UK environment agency. However, the Environment Agency for England and Wales was established on 8 August and is planning to take over the functions of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution, the National Rivers Authority and the local waste regulation authorities on 1 April 1996. Approximately 9,000 staff will be transferred to the Environment Agency from the predecessor bodies. Staffing costs will be met out of the agency's provision which will be determined in the light of the Government's decisions on public expenditure, to be announced by the Chancellor later this month.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the rules and regulations he proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1995; and if he will make a statement. [41521]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer to the oral answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster earlier today.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer by repeal of each rule and regulation which has so far been the subject of a reference to the Deregulation Committee from his Department; and in how many cases a compliance cost assessment has been carried out. [41522]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has not yet laid any draft order before the Committee.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations his Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1995; if he proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost assessment to assess the advantages or disadvantages of such a repeal. [41550]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In response to recommendations made by the Health and Safety Commission in its review of regulations to simplify and clarify health and safety law, I will shortly be laying before Parliament the Health and Safety (Repeals and Revocations) Regulations 1995 which will repeal:

  Section 133 of the Factories Act 1961

  Homework Orders 1911, 1912, 1913, 1929 and 1938

  The Slaughterhouse Order 1962

  The Slaughterhouse (No. 1) Regulations 1962

  The Slaughterhouse (No. 2) Regulations 1962

  The Railway Running Sheds Order 1961

  The Railway Running Sheds (No. 1) Regulations 1961

  The Railway Running Sheds (No. 2) Regulations 1961

  The Hours of Employment (Conventions) Acts 1936

  The Horizontal Milling Machines (Amendment) Regulations 1934

  602
  This programme of repeals is concerned with reducing the burden of regulation on business. As they do not impose any new costs on business a cost-benefit assessment was not necessary.

  I will also be laying before Parliament before the end of the year the Health and Safety Information for Employees (Modification and Repeals) Regulations 1995, which will remove 53 legal requirements to display posters and notices. However, it is estimated that these proposals will result in an overall estimated cost saving of £1.4 million over 10 years.

  The cost to the Health and Safety Executive of producing a cost-benefit assessment will vary depending upon the complexity of the proposed regulatory package, and the amount of supporting information that needs to be collected. A cost-benefit assessment for a relatively straightforward proposal to repeal regulations, such as those of posters and notices, would typically be in the region of £5,000.

  Housing (Pensioners)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what national, regional and local figures his Department maintains on forms of housing tenure among pensioners. [41415]

  Mr. Clappison
  Information on the tenure of pensioners is available from the 1991 census and from regular interview surveys, notably the survey of English housing, the general household survey and the labour force survey. The household surveys can provide national and regional figures but sample sizes are not large enough to provide reliable figures for smaller areas. The House of Commons Library holds reports on the census and on all these surveys.

  National and regional information is also available from a special survey sponsored by my Department in 1991 and 1992. The results are published as "A National Survey of Elderly People in the Community", a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where each of the container loads of Red Lion fireworks were stored; for how long, and what monitoring was carried out during storage. [41728]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The nominated legal place of keeping required for Red Lion fireworks was at Chorley. Samples were taken of the fireworks held there and submitted to compliance testing at recognised test houses. Seven container loads were moved to Chorley on 16 and 17 September and three of those were subsequently re-exported on 23 September.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports the Health and Safety Executive has received from Cleveland trading standards departments about the number of fireworks produced by Black Cat which contain sulphur chlorate, and what response the HSE has made. [41774]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The HSE received information from Cleveland trading standards department of first one and then a further eight fireworks sold by Black Cat that were alleged to contain sulphur and chlorate admixtures.
  603
  Each firework type mentioned was tested by the health and safety laboratory for the HSE, the results were evaluated and as a result a general recall was ordered for the "Thunderstorm". Results obtained for the remainder were sent in writing to the Cleveland trading standards department on 1 November 1995.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration the HSE has given to prosecuting Kanash Ltd. and the Royal Ordnance factory in respect of Red Lion fireworks and if he will make a statement. [41778]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The HSE issued notices to Kanash Ltd. to prohibit any further distribution or sale of those Red Lion fireworks which failed spot checks. The question of legal proceedings is under consideration.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information about compliance with BS 7114 appeared on the "Thunderstorm" firework produced by Red Lion Fireworks; and what assessment he has made as to the extent of such compliance. [41787]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The label on the "Thunderstorm" firework says that is complies with BS7114:2:88. Tests for compliance are carried out by trading standard officers.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when and by whom the HSE was informed of the presence of sulphur chlorate in "Thunderstorm" fireworks, produced by Black Cat; and what action was taken on the basis of the information supplied. [41772]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Information was received in two ways. The more comprehensive was provided by trading standards offices in Cleveland on 26 October and led to the further sampling and testing by HSE on 27 and 28 and the general recall then immediately ordered.

  Earlier information received from a competitor company on 3 and 17 October was less precise and came only after HSE had visited Black Cat as part of its national campaign.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment where and when were tests carried out on the consignment of Red Lion fireworks; what were the results; and when they were communicated to the HSE. [41776]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The sequence of events was set out by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Competition and Consumer Affairs on 1 November 1995,Official Report, columns 273–74.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment which companies' firework products were tested by the Health and Safety Executive for sulphur chlorate between 1965 and 1995; which products were involved; and what were the results and dates of the tests. [41790]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Due to statutory restrictions on disclosure of information it is not possible in the time available to list the names of the companies involved. Information for years prior to 1984 would be available only at disproportionate cost.
  604

  Year

  Number of companies

  Number of fireworks tested

  Number fail test

  Number pass test

  1995*

  13

  30

  3

  27

  1993

  Not recorded

  17

  0

  3

  1992

  Not recorded

  3

  0

  17

  1991

  1

  1

  0

  1

  1990

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1989

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1988

  1

  3

  0

  3

  1987

  11

  126

  3

  123

  1986

  10

  80

  9

  71

  1985

  —.

  —

  —

  —

  1984

  5

  47

  0

  47

  Total

  311

  16

  295

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are now the whereabouts of the container loads of Red Lion fireworks. [41729]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I understand that some fireworks remain in the leased depot at Chorley, but the bulk were distributed to various parts of the United Kingdom. The importer is co-operating with the Health and Safety Executive in providing full details and is recalling all its imported fireworks.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many container loads of Red Lion fireworks were at the Royal Ordnance depot in Chorley; for how long; and what tests were carried out there. [41775]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Seven container loads of fireworks were moved to Chorley on 16 and 17 September when released from the port of importation. Three of them were re-exported on 23 September.

  Samples were taken for testing at recognised test houses in Derbyshire and Yorkshire, and later by HSE for check test purposes.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment is sulphur chlorate is permitted as a constituent of fireworks. [41789]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Order in Council 15 of 30 April 1894 to the Explosives Act 1875 prohibits the manufacture, import, keeping, conveyance or sale of any fireworks containing an admixture of sulphur and chlorate.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what arrangements the Health and Safety Executive put in place to investigate and monitor Kanash Ltd. and Red Lion fireworks. [41727]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive made arrangements to receive test reports from recognised test houses in Great Britain—to show compliance with British standard 7114:1988 and with Order in Council 15 on the prohibition of admixtures of sulphur with a chlorate before distribution could begin. All results were satisfactory and authorisation was given. However, two fireworks failed spot checks and prohibitions were then placed on any further distribution of them.
  605
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the steps taken by the HSE to ensure the withdrawal of "Thunderstorm" fireworks from sale. [41773]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The distributor, Black Cat, was required to stop any further distribution and to make arrangments to recover all "Thunderstorm" fireworks or selection boxes which contained that item from its retail outlets. At the same time, a press notice was issued to advise the public that a fault had been detected and that the firework or selection box should be returned to the place of purchase.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what attempts the HSE have made to trace buyers of Red Lion fireworks; and what records Kanash Ltd. has provided to assist them. [41777]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive issued a press notice to alert the public and Kanash Ltd. has been co-operating with officials in recalling the fireworks in question.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when Kanash Ltd. applied to the Health and Safety Executive for approval to import Red Lion fireworks to the United Kingdom; what was the Health and Safety Executive's response to that application; and what was the date of that response. [41724]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The sequence of events was set out by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Competition and Consumer Affairs on 1 November 1995,Official Report, columns 273–74.

  Mr. Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the terms of the approval given to Kanash Ltd. regarding the import of Red Lion fireworks. [41725]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Kanash Ltd. was required to show evidence of compliance with conditions for authorisation as set out in section 40(9) of the Explosives Act 1875, as amended.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the implications for the import of explosive devices into the United Kingdom of non-compliance with BS7114. [41768]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  BS7114 relates only to fireworks. Compliance with that standard is one of the main conditions to be satisfied for the authorisation of any firework and is an important element in deciding if any particular firework is safe. Non-compliance means that the firework cannot be supplied in Great Britain.

  Housing Improvement Grants
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total sum paid towards housing improvement grants by English local authorities annually since 1979. [41720]
  606
  Mr. Clappison
  The table shows total payments of all types of house renovation grant by local authorities in England, as reported to the Department. It covers payments under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the Housing Act 1985 and earlier legislation. The figures include estimates to cover local authorities that did not provide this information to the Department.

  House renovation grants: total final grants payments

  England

  £ million

  1979

  100.2

  1980

  127.3

  1981

  148.2

  1982

  282.2

  1983

  655.5

  1984

  839.4

  1985

  525.1

  1986

  394.9

  1987

  362.0

  1988

  247.2

  1989

  328.7

  1990

  314.0

  1991

  299.4

  1992

  398.9

  1993

  428.7

  1994

  468.4

  Canary Wharf
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total contribution from public funds to the Canary wharf office complex from(a) grants, (b) subsidies, and (c) write-offs. [41722]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  No grants or subsidies have been provided by the London Docklands development corporation. As a result of Olympia and York—the developers of Canary wharf—going into administration, the LDDC, in common with other creditors, received 15p in the pound on its debts outstanding as at spring 1992 with Olympia and York contractors and Olympia and York Canary Wharf Ltd. The LDDC, therefore, wrote off 85 per cent. of its debt which amounted to £608,167.

  Dangerous Wild Animals
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many licences have been issued by local authorities to private individuals to keep dangerous wild animals. [41721]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not held centrally since licensing under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 is the responsibility of district councils and the councils of London boroughs.

HEALTH

  Doncaster Health Commission
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the legal fees incurred by Doncaster health commission form part of its management running costs. [39007]

  Mr. Sackville
  Yes.
  607

  Measles, Mumps and Rubella
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the recommendation made by his departmental scientist and others that a second dose of measles, mumps and rubella vaccine should be administered before school age has been implemented. [40079]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation's recommendation is presently under consideration.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the likelihood of the adverse reactions to the administration of both MR and MMR vaccines; and what account is taken of the possibility of under-reporting of(a) rash, (b) fever, (c) arthritis in all children, (d) arthritis in females of child-bearing age, (e) meningitis, (f) encephalitis and (g) convulsions following such vaccinations. [40063]

  Mr. Sackville
  The measles and rubella components of the MR vaccine are the same as those in MMR and the profile of adverse reactions to these components of both vaccines is the same. Prior to the national introduction of MMR vaccine in the United Kingdom in 1988, post-immunisation symptoms were assessed, using active surveillance, in more than 10,000 children, including some for whom it was the second dose of measles. Published studies from the United States, which used active and passive reporting systems, have also been considered by my Department.

  It is well established that there is under-reporting of suspected adverse reactions to any medicinal product, but serious conditions are more likely to be reported. This fact is taken into account when assessing data from spontaneous reports. However, in respect of MR vaccine, doctors were asked by the chief medical officer to report all reactions. It is likely that this, combined with the widespread awareness and magnitude of the campaign, led to enhanced compliance with the reporting of certain conditions that may not be casually related to the vaccine. The public health laboratory service is conducting on-going studies to look at MMR immunisation and meningitis, encephalitis and convulsions.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice is given to parents of children who have suffered life-threatening anaphylaxis following egg ingestion before the planned administration of MR vaccine. [40071]

  Mr. Sackville
  The leaflet "Measles: Why every child in school needs to be protected from measles this autumn", containing a consent form, was sent to all parents before immunisation took place; it stated that MR injection should not be given if their child has had a serious life-threatening reaction after eating eggs. This advice was also given to all health professionals.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what survey or other scientific information underlay his Department's press release of 28 July 1994 on the plans for a nationwide measles vaccine campaign. [40075]

  Mr. Sackville
  A list of articles and scientific papers will be placed in the Library, all of which have been published and underpinned the decision of the Joint 608
  Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation to recommend to Ministers that a measles immunisation campaign was necessary.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has as to the average length of the immunity established in children vaccinated with MMR or MR vaccinations. [40067]

  Mr. Sackville
  Follow-up of the first children to receive measles vaccine in the United Kingdom 30 years ago has shown that immunity to measles persists at least this length of time. Rubella vaccine for school girls and adult women was introduced 25 years ago and immunity has been shown to persist in this group for at least this long. The combined MMR vaccine was only introduced for young children in the UK in 1988 but studies in other countries show persistence of immunity in this age group for at least 20 years. However, most of this information relates to persistence under conditions where the natural diseases are still circulating and may be boosting immunity. Also, with each vaccine there is a proportion of children—5 to 10 per cent.—who do not develop immunity the first time that they are vaccinated.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to arrange for public access to the data held at the National Institute for Biological Standards on the effects of vaccines upon children known to suffer from allergies. [40081]

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Institute for Biological Standards and Control does not hold information on the effects of vaccines upon children known to suffer from allergies.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a scheme to encourage parents or guardians to submit their own reports on suspected vaccine damage from MMR or MR directly to(a) the Committee on Safety of Medicines and (b) the Medicines Control Agency. [40065]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have no such plans. Parents and guardians are, however, recommended to discuss any concerns with their family doctor. Health professionals are encouraged to report suspected adverse reactions to the Medicines Control Agency. It is important that the details of the patient's medical condition and medication that has been taken are known. Therefore, it is most appropriate to obtain reports of suspected vaccine damage from the patient's doctor who will be able to supply all the information needed.

  All reports of suspected adverse drug reactions are assessed by professional staff of the MCA. The Committee on Safety of Medicines is an independent expert committee that advises the licensing authority and Ministers on matters relating to the safety, quality and efficacy of medicines.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the scientific papers on the association between the RA 27/3 rubella vaccine and arthritis of which his Department took account in formulating the national campaign of MR vaccination last November. [40080]
  609
  Mr. Sackville
  A comprehensive list of papers is contained in the publication "Adverse effects of pertussis and rubella vaccine" published by the United States National Academy Press, ISBN 0 309 0449 5. A copy of the extract will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what follow-up his Department has established in respect of reported cases of convulsions linked to vaccinations. [40064]

  Mr. Sackville
  Follow-up is carried out after a serious reaction is reported under the yellow card system to obtain further details of the patient's medical history and other factors relevant to the reaction, in order to assess whether the reaction is likely to be associated with the vaccine. This procedure is carried out by the professional staff of the Medicines Control Agency.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the children for whom there are reports of suspected damage from the administration of MR vaccine were known to have a history of(a) asthma, (b) allergies and (c) fitios febrile convulsions. [40070]

  Mr. Sackville
  Over 8 million children in the United Kingdom have been immunised with MR vaccine. By October 1995, the Medicines Control Agency had received 2,735 suspected adverse reactions affecting 1,202 children. Some children were reported as having more than one reaction. However, the receipt of a report of a reaction does not necessarily mean that it has been caused by the vaccine.

  Of the 1,202 children with suspected reactions to MR vaccine, 41 were reported as having a history of asthma—or chest symptoms suggestive of asthma—32 were reported as having preexisting allergic conditions and four febrile convulsions.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in how many instances financial penalties have been applied to the manufacturers of the measles-rubella vaccine used in the vaccination campaign begun in November 1994 because of an identified fault in the supply of vaccines or instruments as to its preparation. [40078]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Deliveries of the vaccine and the immunisation equipment were made on time. Surplus stocks of vaccine occurred because of an excess in the amount of diluent provided. These surplus stocks have been returned to the supplier and credits have been received.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what information he has received in regard to the number of children who have suffered physical or psychological trauma as a suspected result of immunisation against measles. [40365]

  Mr. Sackville
  To October 1995, the Medicines Control Agency has received reports of 2,690 physical reactions relating to the MMR campaign, out of approximately 8 million children who received MR vaccine in the United Kingdom. For MMR vaccine, since 1987, the MCA have received 4,264 reports of physical reactions and 38 psychiatric/psychological reactions. Some 9.6 million doses of MMR have been distributed in the UK since the vaccine was introduced. However, the receipt of a report of a reaction does not necessarily mean that it has been caused by the vaccine.
  610
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been carried out by his Department of the effects of booster shots of measles vaccinations. [40266]

  Mr. Sackville
  Studies have been carried out by the public health laboratory service since 1987 in this country and there are a number of other international publications.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specialist medical advice is available from the health service to counsel and support children who have suffered from the suspected adverse effects of measles vaccination. [40269]

  Mr. Sackville
  All children with illness, of whatever sort, receive advice and support from appropriate medical specialists.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library copies of all letters received by his Department's principal medical officer from(a) the United States Government's health authorities and (b) the US national immunisation program in the past year on measles immunisation programmes; and if he will make a statement on the advice received from his American counterpart on measles immunisation. [40287]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: The Department's principal medical officer has not received letters from the United States Government's health authority or the US national immunisation programme in the past year on measles immunisation.

  In 1994, advice on adverse reactions following a second dose of MMR was received from US authorities and this was included in information sent to all doctors in September 1994; a copy of this information is in the Library.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to establish a structured interview programme in respect of families alleging deleterious effects from immunisation against measles. [40270]

  Mr. Sackville
  There is already a well-established satisfactory system in place for monitoring adverse reactions to all medicines, including vaccines.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will set out(a) the month of manufacture of the component constituents, (b) the date of cultivation of the viruses and (c) the dates of alteration of the viruses used in the measles and rubella vaccination campaign launched in November 1994. [40284]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: Two manufacturers supplied the vaccines used in the measles and rubella vaccination campaign. The finished batch products, produced in August and September 1994 were manufactured from a number of bulk component constituents each of which was made over a period of several months in 1989, 1992, 1993 and 1994. Cultivation of the viruses used in these batches occurred during manufacture of the bulk component constituents. The viruses were obtained from master seed viruses attenuated some 25 to 30 years ago.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation was made by his Department of the reasons why the Trivirix MMR vaccine was withdrawn from use in Canada in May 1990; what considerations led
  611
  to his Department's to withdraw the MMR vaccine from use in the United Kingdom; and when it was withdrawn. [40288]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: The decisions that were taken by the Canadian authorities to discontinue using Urabe strain mumps vaccines were known to other licensing authorities. At that time, there was insufficient evidence of a problem with the strain of mumps vaccine in the United Kingdom for a change in vaccine policy to be advised.

  Alerted to the existence of a potential problem of mumps vaccine virus meningitis by the Canadians, the Department of Health commissioned the public health laboratory service to undertake a study which allowed the detailed monitoring of possible vaccine associated cases. The studies undertaken were of an intensity that had not been undertaken anywhere else in the world. This involved 13 health districts. Some 28 vaccine associated cases were identified, all in recipients of MMR vaccines containing the Urabe mumps strain, indicating a risk of one in 11,000 with the vaccines.

  As soon as data were available confirming the extent of the risk, showing that an alternative vaccine did not have this level of risk and was equally effective, and adequate alternative supplies were available, the Urabe vaccines were replaced. This occurred in September 1992.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the evidence his Department has evaluated in respect of suspected links between vaccinations administered for tuberculosis and(a) epileptic fits and (b) febrile convulsions. [40730]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: All reports of suspected adverse reactions to vaccines are regularly reviewed by professional staff of the Medicines Control Agency. The report of a reaction does not necessarily mean it was caused by the vaccine.

  Since 1963, reactions have been reported in 795 people who had received BCG vaccine. In 11 children suspected reaction were classified as "convulsions". Six of these reactions were closely related to immunisation and were associated with fainting. The number that were febrile convulsions cannot be identified from the available information. Approximately 500,000 BCG vaccinations are given each year mostly in schoolchildren aged 10 to 13 years.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans exist to introduce improved vaccine monitoring of the side effects of the administration of MMR vaccinations. [40069]

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to change the monitoring of the side effects of the administration of MMR vaccine. There is a well-established satisfactory system in place already for monitoring adverse reactions to all medicines, including vaccines.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what survey his Department has conducted of children vaccinated against measles, mumps and rubella in the past year in regard to the numbers and the proportion suffering from a reaction rash to the administration of the vaccine. [40072]
  612
  Mr. Sackville
  Between 26 October 1994 and 26 October 1995, there have been 220 spontaneous reports in the United Kingdom of suspected adverse reactions in patients who have received measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. Of these, 67 were rashes or other similar skin reactions. However, the receipt of a report of a reaction does not necessarily mean that it has been caused by a vaccine. There have been 950,000 doses of MMR distributed in the UK in the past year.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies have been done by his Department, or consultants to his Department, into the causes of sub-acute sclerosing panencephalitis; and what steps have been taken to combat this disease. [40076]

  Mr. Sackville
  Sub-acute sclerosing panencephalitis was shown to be due to wild measles virus in 1967 by a United Kingdom virologist working in Belfast. The effects on SSPE of the introduction of measles vaccination in 1968 has been investigated by the public health laboratory service which keeps a register of all cases. This surveillance has shown that the vaccine protects against SSPE and that the incidence of this condition has dramatically decreased since routine measles immunisation was introduced.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what study his Department has set up to correlate vaccination records for MMR with(a) school attendance records, (b) hospital admission records and (c) general practitioners' records. [40068]

  Mr. Sackville
  The public health laboratory service is conducting studies to look at adverse events associated with MMR vaccination using hospital admissions data and general practioners' records. Pilot studies in single districts with hospital records have been published. Larger studies using both data sets are in progress. MMR is given routinely at 12 to 15 months, an age when children do not attend school. No study has been set up to look at school attendance records.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made by his Department of secondary complications arising from(a) measles, (b) mumps and (c) rubella. [40077]

  Mr. Sackville
  A number of investigations have been carried out by the public health laboratory service over the last 30 years that have looked at the severity and complications of natural measles, mumps and rubella infection. These studies have been based on hospital admissions and laboratory confirmed cases. Numerous other studies, both in this country and abroad, have also been conducted and these have been considered by my Department. Studies continue to confirm that there is significant morbidity associated with measles and mumps infection and with rubella infection during pregnancy.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what variation has been recorded in the incidences of congenital rubella syndrome in the United Kingdom since 1986. [40073]

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of reported cases of congenital rubella in the United Kingdom since 1986 is shown in the table.
  613

  Number of Cases

  1986

  30

  1987

  40

  1988

  25

  1989

  15

  1990

  13

  1991

  3

  1992

  17

  1993

  3

  1994

  7

  1Includes triplets (thus, number of affected pregnancies = 5).

  These was a substantial drop in the number of cases following the introduction of MMR in October 988 and an increase in 1994. The figures for the most recent years—1990 onwards—are not complete as some affected children are not diagnosed or reported until they are older.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment hid Department has made as to whether natural measles normally convey life-long immunity. [40061]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is established medical fact that measles is a serious disease which does convey life-long immunity for those who survive it.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department was informed of the likelihood of a measles epidemic in the winter of 1994–95. [40268]

  Mr. Sackville
  Evidence was presented to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation in November 1993 that pointed to an epidemic between 1996 and 1997. By the middle of 1994, it became apparent that an epidemic could occur earlier.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent information he has received from the World Health Organisation in regard to its assessment of the spread of measles. [40271]

  Mr. Sackville
  The conclusions and recommendations of the 10th meeting of the World Health Organisation's European advisory group on the expanded programme on immunisation held in Copenhagen on 24 to 25 April stated:"single dose measles immunisation strategies would not reach the Regional targets and with such strategies there would continue to be recurrent epidemics. The alternative augmented strategies will impose higher resources requirements but will be cost-effective by preventing cyclical epidemics".

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the(a) expected and (b) actual number of deaths from measles in each year since 1987; what is the expected number of deaths for the next year; and what is the mortality rate from measles; [40272]

  (2) which historic outbreaks of measles were considered when assessing the number of children expected to die of measles before the establishment of the measles immunisation campaign in November 1994; and how many deaths occurred in each such epidemic. [40676]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: Measles has been a notifiable disease since 1940. Epidemics, with associated deaths occurred regularly until the introduction of vaccine in 1968. This historic data, along with notifications and deaths from 1968 to 1993, were used in making predictions for future epidemics. Details of deaths since 1987 are shown in the table.
  614
  In predicting deaths in future epidemics, consideration was given to the expectation than an epidemic would primarily affect older individuals than previously. In such individuals, case fatality rates from measles are much higher.

  Deaths recorded at Office of Population Censuses and Surveys having measles as an underlying cause for all ages in England and Wales 1987–94

  Year

  Total expected

  Total observed

  1987

  6

  6

  1988

  1

  16

  19891

  7

  3

  19901

  2

  1

  19911

  1

  1

  19921

  1

  2

  19931

  1

  4

  19941

  3

  21

  1 After the introduction of MMR vaccine in 1988, measles notification are not an accurate measure of the incidence of disease (Brown et al, British Medical Journal 1994, so for 1989–94 notifications are corrected for misdiagnosis before applying mortality rates.

  2 Provisional figure.

  No deaths due to indigenously acquired acute measles are expected within the five to 16 year age group in 1996.

  The age specific case fatality rates from measles during the period of 1971–88 were:

  Age group

  Deaths per 100,000 cases

  <1 year

  41

  1–4 years

  16

  5–9 years

  10

  10–14 years

  32

  15–24 years

  89

  25+ years

  92

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what resources were given to each area health authority to support the vaccination campaign against measles and rubella started in November 1994. [40286]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: District health authorities were supplied free of charge with measles and rubella vaccine, syringes, needles, sharps containers and publicity materials. Implementation costs were met from existing national health service resources.

  Immunisation Campaigns
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter on the measles and rubella immunisation campaign by the chief medical officer sent to all doctors on 27 September 1994; and if he will indicate whether his chief medical officer received any negative responses to his letter. [40074]

  Mr. Sackville
  A copy of the letter is available in the Library. The letter was sent to over 90,000 health care professionals and the chief medical officer received 35 written replies to his letter, only two of which were negative about the campaign.
  615
  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which countries in the European Union have conducted immunisation campaigns against measles, mumps and rubella in the past 10 years. [40235]

  Mr. Sackville
  All countries of the European Union have immunisation programmes that include MMR vaccine. Almost all of them follow two dose programmes for MMR.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings(a) he, (b) other departmental Ministers or (c) departmental officials have had for the past two years with representatives of the Justice Awareness and Basic Support group to discuss problems with immunisation campaigns conducted by his Department. [40267]

  Mr. Sackville
  I am not aware that the Justice Awareness and Basic Support group have formally requested a meeting with Ministers or officials.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the measles innoculation campaign of winter 1994–95. [40285]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 31 October 1995]: The campaign was highly effective. Some 92 per cent. of the children aged five to 16 years were immunised. In much of the country, measles virus transmission has been interrupted. An epidemic has been averted. Since January 1995, there have been approximately 50 confirmed cases, of which eight were imported.

  Cemfuel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 24 October,Official Report, column 567, what assessment he has made of the second report of the Environment Committee on burning of secondary liquid fuel in cement kilns, HC479 of Session 1994–95; and if he will commission studies into the possible health effects of burning cemfuel. [40452]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department of Health will contribute to the Government response to the Environment Committee report. We have no plans to commission any studies on this subject.

  Internet
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals in(a) Sheffield, (b) Yorkshire and (c) Humberside have been connected to the Internet; and if he will make a statement. [40574]

  Mr. Sackville
  Records are not available centrally of individual connections to the Internet by prospective national health service users. However, framework contracts have been awarded to British Telecom and Mercury for wide area network services to establish a NHS-wide networking service to support the business requirements of NHS organisations. This electronic communications infrastructure dedicated to the NHS will, in turn, be able to be connected to the Internet through secure, centrally managed, gateways. It will remain for individual organisations to decide whether to take up the option of being connected to the Internet through the secure gateway available as part of the NHS-wide networking service.
  616

  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many psychiatric hospitals are due to close(a) in 1996 and (b) in years subsequent to 1996; [41103]

  (2) how many psychiatric hospitals have closed in 1995 and in each year since 1979. [41100]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information is available on the closure of large mental illness hospitals in the report "Survey of English Mental Hospitals March 1994—Monitoring the Closure of the Water Towers", copies of which are available in the Library. Information for 1994–95 is not available centrally.

  Residential Care Homes and Nursing Homes
  Mr. Butcher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will instruct the social services inspectorate to consult proprietors of private residential homes and nursing homes in Coventry about the impact of Coventry social services department's variation from the conditions of registration with particular reference to staffing requirements. [40896]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have reminded local and health authorities, in recently published guidance, of the need to consult all providers about local standards. Copies of the guidance LAC(95)12 and HSG(95)41 are available in the Library. Representations by proprietors of residential care or nursing homes in Coventry should be made through the independent unit advisory panel, the local authority complaints procedure or the local government ombudsman.

  Temporary and Part-time Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff are currently employed in his Department and related agencies on(a) temporary or casual employment contracts and (b) part-time employment contracts, given as an actual figure and as a proportion of the total work force; and what were the corresponding figures for five years ago. [41120]

  Mr. Sackville
  Breakdowns by Department and executive agency for 1 April 1995 of the number of permanent staff, the number of casual staff—that is, normally those engaged for a period of up to 12 months, but exceptionally up to two years—and of the number of part-time staff are presented in the civil service staff in post summary table for 1 April 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Estimates on a comparable basis for 1 April 1990 have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Adipose Tissue
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into causes of layers of adipose tissue on the wall of the abdomen, tapering to the hip bones; and if he will make a statement. [40953]

  (b) Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 30 October,Official Report, columns 35–37.
  617
  Evaluation of research into abdominal obesity is covered by "Reversing the increasing problem of obesity in England: a report from the Nutrition and Physical Activity Task Forces", recently published by my Department.

  Beta-Interferon
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make it his policy to restrict the use of beta-interferon to controlled trials; and if he will make a statement. [41508]

  Mr. Sackville
  Currently there are no marketing authorizations—product licences—for beta-interferon in the United Kingdom but approval has been given for clinical trials to test the efficacy of beta-interferon in multiple sclerosis.

  In addition to the use of beta-interferon in controlled clinical trials, if a doctor identifies the need to treat a patient using this unlicensed medicine, he would be able to do so on a "named-patient" basis in accordance with section 9(1) of the Medicines Act 1968 without the patient taking part in a clinical trial and without the doctor notifying the licensing authority. However, a doctor prescribing an unlicensed product does so entirely on his own responsibility. To stop such a use of beta-interferon would be a restriction on clinical freedom and prevent a doctor from offering his patient what in his clinical judgment is the most appropriate treatment for that patient.

  NHS Estates Agency
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the framework document for the NHS Estates agency. [42095]

  Mr. Sackville
  I have today published the agency's new framework document, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Nut Allergies
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken since May 1994 to ensure that all general practitioners in England and Wales make it a rule to refer patients with nut allergy to a specialist allergy clinic. [41135]

  Mr. Sackville
  The chief medical officer's update No. 2, which was sent to all doctors in May 1994, included advice on the management of peanut anaphylaxis. In October 1994, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Pathologists jointly produced guidelines on good allergy practice and standards of care for providers and purchasers of allergy services within the NHS. The treatment of individual patients is a matter of professional clinical judgment.

  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many deaths from peanut allergy have been recorded in the past 12 months. [41134]

  Mr. Sackville
  There were two deaths in 1994—the latest year for which data are available—in which the cause of death was stated as an allergic reaction to nuts.

  The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys has no record of any specific mention of peanuts appearing on any death certificate during this period.
  618

  Bed Closures
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence his Department has of whether a halt to bed closures in London is necessary. [41260]

  Mr. Malone
  Developments in health care, such as day surgery, non-invasive treatment and improved drug therapies, mean that more patients are being treated with fewer beds. London health authorities are responsible for planning the level of provision to meet patients' needs.

  Community Psychiatric Nurses
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many community psychiatric nurses there are(a) in total and (b) per head of population in each health authority area. [41410]

  Mr. Bowis
  I will write to the hon. Member.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the rules and regulations he proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1995; and if he will make a statement. [41533]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave him today.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what regulations his Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1995; if he proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost assessment to assess the advantages or disadvantages of such a repeal. [41555]

  Mr. Sackville
  By the end of 1995, we expect to amend three regulations covering exemptions from clinical trials, hospices and registration of mother and baby homes. We are also consulting on a number of proposals for deregulation including those which will repeal unnecessary regulations on imported food.

  The requirement to carry out a compliance cost assessment applies to regulations which impose additional burdens on business while the programme of repeals and amendments is concerned with reducing burdens.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer of the repeal of each rule and regulation which has so far been the subject of a reference to the Deregulation Committee from his Department; and in how many cases a compliance cost assessment has been carried out. [41534]

  Mr. Sackville
  My Department has not yet laid any draft orders before the Committee.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all mergers that have taken place between trusts, indicating the reason given for each merger. [41428]
  619
  Mr. Malone
  Mergers have taken place between the following national health service trusts:

  Guy's Hospital (formerly part of Guy's and Lewisham NHS Trust) with St. Thomas's Hospital NHS trust;

  Harrow Community Health Services NHS trust with Hillingdon Community Health NHS trust;

  Homewood NHS trust with Weybourne Community NHS trust;

  Royal Liverpool University Hospital NHS trust with Broadgreen Hospital NHS trust;

  West Dorset Community Health NHS trust with West Dorset Mental Health NHS trust;

  Wolverley NHS trust with North Warwickshire NHS trust.

  The main reason for any trust merger is to improve patient care. Further information on the reasons for the above trust mergers may be obtained from the individual trusts.

  GP Lists
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients were deregistered by general practitioners in each of the last 10 years in each family health services authority and in total, at the request of the general practitioner; and if he will list whether reasons were given and whether the general practitioner was a fundholder or not. [41492]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) on 2 November, column 457. The fundholding status of the general practitioner is not separately identified.

  Mrs Beckett
  To ask the Secretary for Health what consideration has been given to making it a condition of the striking off of a patient by the general practitioner that an explanation is given. [41479]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 29 June,Official Report, column 789.

  GP Fundholders
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary for Health what is his latest evidence on whether there are different levels of service to patients of fundholders and others. [41573]

  Mr. Malone
  Every independent study of the fundholding scheme, from the National Audit Office to the Office of Economic Co-operation and Development, has found that fundholding has brought real benefits to patients including reduced waiting times and improved access to services; this has had the effect of driving standards up for all patients.

  Personal Social Services
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary for Health what has been the level of spending on personal social services in each year since 1992–93 in respect of(a) the elderly, (b) children, (c) learning disabilities, (d) young physically disabled, (e) mentally ill and (f) others. [41414]

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authority net expenditure on services for the personal social services client groups from 1990–91 to 1993–94, the latest year for which information is 620
  available, is given in table 7.6, page 116 of health and personal social services statistics for England 1995, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Domiciliary Care
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary for Health what information his Department maintains about failure rates among private sector domiciliary nursing or residential care providers. [41412]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information about failure rates in any sector is not collected by the Department.

  Market Testing
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the expenditure on the introduction and implementation of market testing in each of the last five years. [41571]

  Mr. Sackville
  Detailed information on market-testing costs since the Government's competing for quality programme began in 1992 can be found in the "Market Testing Bulletin—Special Report" dated 9 January 1995. Copies of the bulletin are available in the Library.

  Nursing Home Fees
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what would be the level of the present £8,000 capital disregard for nursing home fees if it had been uprated by the rate of inflation since its introduction. [41430]

  Mr. Bowis
  Since its introduction in April 1993, it would have increased to £8,478 in April 1995.

  Population Statistics
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 October,Official Report, column 422, when he expects to be in a position to release the mid-1994 population estimates together with the corresponding 1995 electorate figures. [41304]

  Mr. Sackville
  Shortly.

  Financial Reserves
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will itemise the financial reserves of each(a) trust and (b) health authority in each of the last three years for which figures are available; [41427]

  (2) what financial reserves have been held (a) by trusts and (b) by health authorities in each region in each of the last three years. [41419]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information from central returns will be placed in the Library.

  Community Care
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of per capita spending on community care services is undertaken in each local area of England. [41411]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to key indicators of local authority social services 1995, a copy of which is available in the Library.
  621

  Hospital Readmissions
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department maintains on hospital readmission rates(a) by health authority and (b) by trust. [41429]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  NHS Patients
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients have refused to be discharged from NHS care to a nursing or residential home(a) nationally, (b) regionally and (c) by health authority area since February 1995, indicating where patients have subsequently been placed. [41413]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Continuing Care
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many NHS continuing care beds have been available in each(a) region and (b) district in each of the last five years for which figures are available; [41423]

  (2) how many (a) NHS and (b) private respite care beds were available (i) by region and (ii) by health authority in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [41405]

  Mr. Bowis
  Information collected from the national health service is published in "Bed Availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library. Information from the independent sector does not identify the purpose for which beds are provided.

  Psychiatric Beds
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many acute psychiatric beds are available(a) in total and (b) per head of population in each health authority area. [41409]

  Mr Bowis
  The information available centrally is shown in the table and provides the average daily number of available beds for short stay mental illness in 1993–94 and beds per 100,000 population by former English regional health authority.

  Average daily number of available beds—short stay mental illness—all ages—1993–94

  Beds1

  Beds per 100,000

  Northern

  1,467

  47.28

  Yorkshire

  1,743

  47.00

  Trent

  1,900

  41.75

  East Anglian

  850

  40.57

  North West Thames

  1,607

  45.64

  North East Thames

  1,701

  44.61

  South East Thames

  1,243

  33.43

  South West Thames

  1,296

  43.21

  Wessex

  1,153

  36.56

  Oxford

  930

  35.86

  South Western

  1,421

  42.65

  West Midlands

  2,110

  39.88

  622

  Average daily number of available beds—short stay mental illness—all ages—1993–94

  Beds1

  Beds per 100,000

  Mersey

  1,273

  52.75

  Northern Western

  2,069

  51.32

  England

  21,293

  43.87

  Note:

  Trusts in the regions listed do not provide services exclusively for the populations of those regions. Overall figures for short stay psychiatric beds have remained stable since 1988.

  Source:

  1 DH KHO3 returns.

  South and West Regional Health Authority
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the South and West regional health authority's submission to the Ministry of Defence "Front Line First" review. [41478]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the South and West regional health authority. The right hon. Member may wish to contact Ms Rennie Fritchie, chair of the authority, for details.

  Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare NHS Trust
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evidence his Department has on whether Winchester and Eastleigh Healthcare national health service trust has an explicit policy of giving preference to patients from general practitioner fundholders. [41572]

  Mr. Malone
  None.

  Locum Medical Staff
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department maintains on the number and costs of using locum medical staff. [41431]

  Mr. Malone
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Service Medical Staff: England 30 September 1994—Whole-time equivalent.

  Number

  All permanent paid and honorary staff

  47,030

  Locum staff

  2,740

  Locums as a percentage of all staff

  5.8

  Information on costs of using locum medical staff is not available centrally.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all private finance initiative proposals for the development of national health service hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [41622]

  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) on 28 June,Official Report, column 690.

  Since that reply, three further schemes with a capital value over £1 million have been approved under the private finance initiative, as follows:

  623

  (1) NHS-wide clearing service; for exchange of activity data to support NHS contracts and to provide nationally required statistics. Capital value approximately £5.5 million.

  (2) Royal Berkshire and Battle NHS trust; for the provision of car parks, office accommodation, private patient wing, sympathetic retail outlets and leisure centre at a capital value of approximately £15 million.

  (3) Aintree Hospitals NHS trust; for the provision of a patient hotel conference and dining facility at a capital value of approximately £2.7 million.

  Health Authority Cash Limits
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what provisions are made for local health commissioning(a) when health authorities face shortfalls in their budget and general practitioner fundholders have unspent allocations; and if he will make a statement. [41623]

  Mr. Sackville
  It is for regional health authorities to manage overall spending within the regional cash limit set by the national health service executive. Regional health authorities set cash limits for health authorities and agree budgets for general practice fundholders. They are therefore responsible for managing any over or underspends within the overall resources available to them.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the minimum number of hours per week the office of a community health council must be open to the public in order to comply with the Community Health Councils (Access to Information) Act 1988. [41719]

  Mr. Malone
  The Community Health Council (Access to Information) Act 1988 does not place any duty on community health councils in respect of minimum opening hours.

  Secure Unit Places
  Mr. Michael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what were the numbers of secure places (beds) available on 1 January and 1 July for each year from 1985 to 1995(a) for children and young people and (b) for children and young people aged 15 and 16 years, in each case indicating the number available (i) for boys, (ii) for girls, (iii) for both and (iv) in total; [41334]

  (2) what were the total numbers of local authority secure places (beds) available for holding children and young people on 1 January and 1 July in each year since 1985. [41335]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information available centrally is contained in "Children accommodated in secure units, year ending 31 March 19XX".

  Employment of Children
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to bring the Employment of Children 624
  Act 1973 into effect; and if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards implementation of that Act. [41686]

  Mr. Bowis
  A comprehensive framework for the protection of children at work already exists. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on 30 October,Official Report, columns 42–43, detailing my recently announced proposals for some minor improvements to that system.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what responsibility falls to local authorities for the care of asylum seekers' children who have no other means of support; and if he will make a statement. [41828]

  Mr. Bowis
  The responsibility that falls to local authorities for the care of asylum seekers' children is the same responsibility they have for any other children who may be "in need" as set out in section 17 of the Children Act 1989.

  NHS Management Numbers and Costs
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each year sine 1989 the number and cost of general and senior managers in the NHS by region and total. [39385]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: I refer the right hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 21 July 1994—Official Report, columns 591–92, and to the replies I gave the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 24 October 1994, Official Report, column 451, on 31 October 1994, Official Report, columns 902–3, on 3 November 1994, Official Report, column 1267, and on 18 July, Official Report, columns 1152–53.

  Information on the number of general and senior managers at 30 September 1994 is shown in the table. Information on costs for 1994–95 is not yet available.

  NHS hospital and community health services—general and senior managers by region at 30 September 1994

  Numbers

  England Total

  22,950

  Northern

  1,040

  Yorkshire

  2,020

  Trent

  1,720

  East Anglian

  980

  North West Thames

  1,080

  North East Thames

  1,960

  South East Thames

  1,570

  South West Thames

  1,160

  Wessex

  1,290

  Oxford

  1,080

  South Western

  1,110

  West Midlands

  2,180

  Mersey

  1,070

  625

  NHS hospital and community health services—general and senior managers by region at 30 September 1994

  Numbers

  North Western

  1,600

  SHAs and Others

  3,080

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical work force census.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10 whole-time equivalents. The total does not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.

  NHS Priority Setting
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the participants, and the organisations that they represented, who attended the recent conference initiated by his Department, the Royal College of Physicians and the British Medical Association in respect of establishing a national framework for rationing national health service treatment; if he will send the hon. Member for Don Valley a copy of the letter since circulated to participants at the conference by Mr. Alasdair Liddel, giving his assessment of the conference; and if he will make a statement. [41007]

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what(a) meetings and (b) other consultations he has had with health authorities and health commissions with regard to the introduction of a national framework for health care rationing in the NHS; and if he will make a statement; [40923]

  (2) what (a) meetings and (b) other consultations he has had with any organisations representing the medical profession with regard to the introduction of a national framework for health care rationing in the NHS; and if he will make a statement; [40924]

  (3) what studies his Department has undertaken regarding the introduction of a national framework for health care rationing in the NHS; [40925]

  (4) what plans he has to introduce a national framework of rationing in the NHS; [40926]

  (5) what report he has received about the meeting in September initiated by the NHS executive about a national framework for the rationing of health care in the NHS; who proposed that the meeting should take place; if he will list those present; if he will make available the report of the meeting; and if he will make a statement; [40927]

  (6) what plans he has to hold meetings to discuss national rationing of health care in the NHS; who will participate; and if he will publish the reports of those meetings. [40928]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 2 November 1995]: There are no plans to introduce a national framework for rationing services and no work has taken place to prepare such a framework. In their response earlier this year to the Health Select Committee on priority setting, Cm 2826, the Government set out their approach to priority setting at three levels, in the following terms:
  626
  Ministers, advised by the Department of Health, set out the framework of national priorities and targets for improvement. This is done through annual priorities and planning guidance to the NHS and through important policies such as "The Health of the Nation" White Paper and the patient's charter;
  Health authorities and GP fundholders assess the needs of the people they serve and decide what treatments and services are required to meet those needs. This process should be informed by proper consultation with the public;
  Individual clinicians decide the most clinically appropriate treatment and clinical priority for each patient, based on their assessment of that patient's needs.

  Earlier this year, officials in the NHS executive agreed with leaders of the medical profession and senior NHS managers that it would be helpful to meet together to discuss priority setting issues. This meeting took place on 28 September 1995 and involved a wide range of interests including patients' representatives. Views were exchanged on a personal and non-attributable basis. The note sent to participants summarising the discussion was not intended as a public document and to publish the letter would break the undertaking given to the participants.

  There was general consensus at the meeting that:

  setting priorities was a necessary part of life in any health care system

  the role of Ministers and the NHS executive in setting a small number of national priorities was acceptable with no dissent about the current set of priorities.

  individual clinicians want to be free to take decisions about individual patients, but do not want to be left taking responsibility in isolation for difficult decisions

  there is scope for spreading good practice in approaches to priority-setting at local (health authority) level.

  NHS Expenditure
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the spending per head of population on(a) primary care and (b) secondary care in (i) inner London, (ii) outer London, (iii) England and (iv) by each family health services authority in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement on variations in amounts. [40793]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: Primary care has been interpreted as family health services and per capita spend is for family health services authorities. Secondary care has been interpreted as hospital and community health services and per capita spend is for district health authorities.

  For the per capita spend for DHAs and FHSAs for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94, I refer the right hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 12 December 1994, Official Report, column 465, and to the reply the then Minister for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) gave him on 26 May 1994, Official Report, column 305.
  627
  The total FHSA and DHA per capita spend for England for 1991–92, 1992–93 and 1993–94 is shown in the table.

  1991–92 £

  1992–93 £

  1993–94 £

  England DHA per capita spend

  355

  376

  370

  England FHSA per capita spend

  115

  132

  153

  Total DHA and FHSA per capita spend

  470

  508

  523

  Note:

  Comparisons of these figures should be treated with caution as not all expenditure covered arises from population activities and crude populations do not take into account difference in age structure or relative health needs across the country. In addition, FHSA per capita spend includes GP fundholder expenditure on both primary and secondary care services and this will vary with the distribution of GP fundholders.

  Source:

  Annual accounts of health authorities and mid-year population estimates.

  Assisted places scheme

  Numbers of assisted pupils in academic year

  Region

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  North East

  806

  873

  913

  939

  995

  North West

  6,365

  6,408

  6,542

  6,550

  6,569

  Yorks and Humberside

  1,742

  1,794

  1,839

  1,893

  1,940

  East Anglia

  1,267

  1,340

  1,377

  1,430

  1,436

  East Midlands

  1,735

  1,846

  1,914

  2,002

  2,020

  West Midlands

  2,591

  2,721

  2,776

  2,869

  2,932

  South West

  3,129

  3,246

  3,381

  3,451

  3,499

  South East

  4,193

  4,403

  4,762

  4,891

  5,008

  Greater London

  4,912

  5,010

  5,170

  5,266

  5,348

  Figures relate to England only.

  Cornish Language
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is her Department's assessment of the current level of the teaching of the Cornish language; and what measures she proposes to promote the teaching of the Cornish language. [40552]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend does not collect information on the teaching of Cornish. She has no proposals to promote Cornish teaching: it is for schools and other education establishments to decide what subjects to teach once they have met the requirements of the national curriculum and other statutory requirements.

  Primary Schools
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action she is taking to raise standards in primary schools. [40553]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The national curriculum and its assessment, national tests, regular inspections, improvements to teacher training and our improving schools programme all act to raise standards in primary schools. The chief inspector of schools has confirmed that our reforms are improving the quality of education.
  628

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils(a) in each local education authority band and (b) in each region received support under the assisted places scheme in each of the past five years. [40938]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Information on the place of residence of pupils in the assisted places scheme is not collected centrally. Many schools serve wide catchment areas and may offer places to pupils from outside the local authority area in which they are situated. I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) gave to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on 3 July,Official Report, columns 35–37, containing information on the numbers of assisted place holders at schools situated within each local authority area for the academic year 1994–95. Information for earlier years is not readily available.

  The numbers of assisted place holders within each region for each of the last five years are given in the table:

  Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) of 19 October,Official Report, column 379, what was the voting record of each member state on items agreed at the meeting of the European Community's Social Affairs Council held on 5 October; and if she will make it her practice to list all votes, including where there have been no votes, in the future. [41089]

  Mr. Forth
  There were no votes taken at the Council. The resolutions on the image of men and women in the media, the fight against racism and xenophobia, and co-operation with third countries in the field of youth were adopted unanimously, without discussion.

  Grant-maintained Status
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many "Going GM" conferences her Department has organised; at what cost; and how many more are planned. [41087]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has organised 54 "Going GM" conferences at a total cost of around £720,000. We have firm plans to hold another nine
  629
  between now and February 1996. Conferences this term have been over-subscribed and we are reviewing how to meet the increased demand for places.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list for each education authority the number of(a) voluntary-aided, (b) voluntary-controlled, (c) special agreement, (d) county and (e) grant-maintained schools; in each case what is the total number of pupils and the number in each category in (a) the primary sector and (b) the secondary sector; and what is the number of schools in England in each category. [41299]

  Number of parental ballots of grant-maintained status

  Number of ballots

  "Yes" ballots

  "No" ballots

  (i)1 September 1993 to 31 August 1994

  (a) Voluntary aided

  59

  31

  28

  (b) Voluntary controlled

  25

  16

  9

  (c) Special agreement

  1

  1

  0

  (d) County

  184

  109

  75

  (ii) 1 September 1994 to 31 August 1995

  (a) Voluntary aided

  15

  6

  9

  (b) Voluntary controlled

  13

  10

  3

  (c) Special agreement

  0

  0

  0

  (d) County

  57

  34

  23

  Note:

  "Yes" ballots are those where a majority of parents voted in favour of seeking grant-maintained status, and "No" ballots are those where a majority voted against. Initial ballots have been disregarded where a second ballot was required because of low turnout or the Secretary of State having declared a ballot void.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total number of parents voting (i) in favour of and (ii) against grant-maintained status in ballots between(a) 1 September 1992 and 31 August 1993 (b) 1 September 1993 and 31 August 1994 and (c) 1 September 1994 and 31 August 1995. [41301]

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

  Number of parents voting in grant-maintained ballots

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  1 September 1992 to 31 August 1993

  1 September 1993 to 31 August 1994

  1 September 1994 to 31 August 1995

  (i) Parents voting in favour of GM status

  251,250

  63,703

  17,322

  (ii) Parents voting against GM status (including spoilt papers)

  142,593

  57,078

  18,087

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the full-year cost in(a) transitional grant and (b) formula allocation of capital grant in the event of all the present voluntary aided schools becoming grant-maintained during the same financial year. [41303]
  630
  Mr. Squire
  I shall place the information in the Library.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the number of parental ballots on grant-maintained status in(a) voluntary-aided, (b) voluntary-controlled, (c) special agreement and (d) county schools (i) between 1 September 1993 and 31 August 1994 and (ii) between 1 September 1994 and 31 August 1995; and in each case, how many ballots have resulted in a majority of parent voting (1) in favour of and (2) against grant-maintained status. [41300]

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

  Mrs. Gillan
  It is for the Funding Agency for Schools to determine the balance between the level of formula allocation and other forms of capital grant. The cost in(a) transitional grant and (b) formula allocation becoming grant-maintained during the same financial year will depend on levels of grant prevailing at the time.

  Voluntary-aided Schools
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been(a) the level of capital expenditure and (b) the governor's share of capital expenditure in voluntary-aided schools in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [41302]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The level of capital expenditure over the past three years has been as follows:

  £ thousands

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  (a) Total Governors' expenditure eligible for grant on which grant was paid

  95,681

  94,104

  89,139

  (b) —of which Governors' Contribution

  14,352

  14,116

  13,371

  Notes:

  1. Governors' contribution based on 15 per cent. of approved building work costs. Information on additional annual expenditure incurred by governors, not approved for grant assistance, on cash-limited and off-programme work, is not held centrally.

  2. Governors' contribution includes expenditure supported by Central Government loans.

  3. The figures do not include local authority capital expenditure at aided schools, information on which is not held centrally.

  4. The figures do not include expenditure on repairs.
  631
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what time scale has been allowed for responses to her Department's consultation paper on self-government for voluntary-aided schools; and what factors underlay her Department's rejection of the time scale periods recommended in(a) the Department of Environment publication "Action for Central Government" and (b) her Department's document on efficient scrutiny into the administrative burdens on schools. [41714]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The consultation paper was published on 27 October with a request for responses by 24 November 1995. As the paper made clear, my right hon. Friend intends to consider the possibility of legislation in the coming parliamentary Session in the light of responses. This necessitates an unusually short consultation period, for which an apology was given in the letter to consultees accompanying the paper.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to publish in full responses to her Department's consultation paper on self-government for voluntary-aided schools and if she will make a statement. [41716]

  Mr. Squire
  A summary of responses will be made available on request, and a copy will be placed in the Library. Wider access to the responses themselves will be subject to consultees' consent.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what dates copies of her Department's consultation paper on self-government for voluntary-aided schools were sent to(a) voluntary-aided schools, (b) grant-maintained former VA schools, (c) local authority associations and (d) local education authorities. [41717]

  Mr. Squire
  The consultation paper was published on 27 October 1995. Some 4,400 copies were dispatched on that day and on the following two working days.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the rules and regulations she proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1995; and if she will make a statement. [41529]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what regulations her Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1995; if she proposes to conduct a cost compliance assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a cost compliance assessment to assess the advantages or disadvantages of such a repeal. [41553]

  Mr. Forth
  There are no plans to repeal any regulations by the end of 1995.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer by the repeal of each rule and regulation which has so far been the subject of a reference to the Deregulation Committee from her Department; and in 632
  how many cases a cost compliance assessment has been carried out. [41530]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend has laid one draft deregulation proposal to date. The draft order, which speeds up the process by which schools may change their session times, will not lead to any savings to the Exchequer.

  Community Action Scheme
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are on the community action scheme. [41833]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Stephen Byers, dated 6 November 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question about the number of people presently on the Community Action programme.

  At the end of September 1995 there were 12,900 people on Community Action.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Accelerated Modern Apprenticeships
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are undertaking accelerated modern apprenticeships; and how many to date have completed such a course. [41832]

  Mr. Paice
  Reliable information on the number in training or completing accelerated modern apprenticeships is not available at present.

  Youth Training
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the number of 16 and 17-year-olds on youth training in each region in August 1994 and August 1995. [41834]

  Mr. Paice
  The number on youth training in each region is given in the table. Information has been given for July 1995, the latest available month. It is not possible to provide figures for those aged 16 and 17 on youth training. Therefore, the table covers all those on youth training.

  Youth training Great Britain and regions number in training

  Region

  August 1994

  July 1995

  South east

  25,700

  24,500

  London

  18,200

  16,800

  Eastern

  21,500

  19,600

  South west

  18,000

  19,100

  West Midlands

  27,100

  26,300

  East Midlands

  22,400

  22,700

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  27,600

  26,100

  Merseyside

  11,100

  12,300

  North west

  37,100

  32,900

  North east

  18,900

  16,800

  Wales

  14,600

  13,000

  Scotland

  32,300

  30,300

  Great Britain

  274,500

  263,700

  Source:

  TEC Management Information Returns, Welsh Office, The Scottish Office, Employment Service.
  633

  Training Programmes
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people were on training for work programmes in each month of 1995. [41830]

  Mr. Paice
  Information on the number on training for work up to July 1995, the latest month for which figures are available, is given in the table.

  Training for work—Great Britain 1995

  Month

  Number on programme

  January

  130,100

  February

  132,900

  March

  118,100

  April

  99,000

  May

  95,200

  June

  92,600

  July

  85,800

  Source:

  TEC Management Information Returns, Welsh Office, The Scottish Office.

  Internet
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received about the regulation of material available to schoolchildren on the Internet. [41820]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department has received a number of comments on this issue in response to the Education Department's consultation paper "Superhighways for Education". A summary of the responses will be published later this month.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to improve the regulation of material available in schools on the Internet. [41814]

  Mr. Squire
  The National Council for Educational Technology earlier this year published advice for teachers and parents on access to computers and on-line communications. These issues were also covered in the Education Department's consultation paper "Superhighways for Education". The outcomes of this consultation will be announced shortly.

  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Educational and Employment what guidelines currently exist to restrict the material made available to schoolchildren on the Internet. [41813]

  Mr. Squire
  The National Council for Educational Technology has published guidance for schools and colleges on the use of the Internet, including considerations relating to access to undesirable materials. The NCET has also published guidance for teachers and parents on these issues.

  Pre-School Learning Alliance
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what annual grant has been made by her Department to the Pre-School Learning Alliance or to its predecessor the Pre-School 634
  Playgrounds Association in each year since 1990; for what purpose the grant is intended; and what plans she has for the continuance of such a grant for such purposes once plans for universal nursery vouchers are fully implemented. [41629]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Grants paid by the Department since 1990–91 are as shown in the table. They support the training of playgroup staff, and are reviewed annually. No decisions have been taken about the level of grant from 1997–98, when the voucher scheme is to be implemented fully.

  Financial year

  £ thousands

  1990–91

  179

  1991–92

  327.5

  1992–93

  649.5

  1993–94

  887

  1994–95

  1,195

  1995–96

  1,195

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to implement the recommendations of the study commissioned by her Department and undertaken in 1994 into the use of the grant made by her Department to the Pre-School Learning Alliance. [41630]

  Mr. Squire
  The independent review into the use of the Pre-School Playgroups Association of its grant from the Department in support of staff training was undertaken in 1993. The review found that the PPA made effective use of its grant and obtained value for money. The review's findings were taken into account by the Department in determining its grant to the PPA in 1994–95, which increased by 35 per cent. over the preceding year.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimates she has made of the impact of the proposed nursery voucher scheme on nursery provision for three-year-olds; and if she will make a statement. [41707]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The voucher scheme should not affect existing places for three-year-olds. The proposed funding mechanism will allow local authorities and other providers to continue to spend on such places as they judge appropriate.

  Modern Apprenticeship Scheme
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are on the modern apprenticeship scheme. [41831]

  Mr. Paice
  Modern apprenticeship prototypes started in September 1994. Modern apprenticeships became available in all TEC areas in September 1995. An early estimate of numbers of modern apprenticeships in September 1995 is 4,000.
  635

WALES

  Primary Care
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the spending per head of population on primary

  Expenditure in 1994–95 £000s

  Population

  Spending by FHSAs per head of population £

  Primary care—provision of health care by FHSAs

  Clwyd

  79,084

  417,400

  189

  Dyfed

  70,499

  352,300

  200

  Gwent

  80,416

  452,300

  178

  Gwynedd

  45,647

  240,400

  190

  Mid Glamorgan

  92,136

  544,600

  169

  Powys

  26,806

  120,200

  223

  South Glamorgan

  70,966

  414,800

  171

  West Glamorgan

  74,049

  371,000

  200

  Wales

  539,603

  2,913,000

  185

  Secondary care—provision of health care by district health authorities

  Clwyd

  165,505

  417,400

  404

  East Dyfed

  101,291

  238,700

  424

  Gwent

  192,783

  452,300

  426

  Gwynedd

  113,909

  240,400

  474

  Mid Glamorgan

  255,750

  544,600

  470

  Pembrokeshire

  49,522

  113,600

  436

  Powys

  56,804

  120,200

  473

  South Glamorgan

  225,410

  414,800

  543

  West Glamorgan

  155,387

  371,000

  419

  Wales

  1,319,361

  2,913,000

  453

  Notes:

  1. Primary care is interpreted as expenditure on health care by FHSAs. It includes all GP fundholders' expenditure.

  2. Secondary care is interpreted as expenditure on health care by district health authorities.

  3. Expenditure are as reported by authorities in their annual accounts for 1994–95.

  4. Population data are as reported in 1994 survey (as at 30 June) by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 27 October,Official Report, columns 845–6, what plans he has to collate information about the number of children in classes in Wales. [41286]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 3 November 1995]: The annual schools census collects information from primary schools on the number of registered classes by size of class, but not on the precise number of pupils in those classes. Such information is sufficient to monitor trends in the number of larger classes in primary schools and I have no plans at present to collect further information. The census results are published in table 3.06 of "Statistics of Training and Education in Wales: Schools" No. 3 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. From these results, broad estimates can be made of the number of pupils in each class size.

  Grants
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales for what grant-giving funds his Department is responsible requiring a private sector contribution, where the use of national lottery funds is not allowed to count towards that private sector portion. [38594]
  636
  care (a) in the health authority areas and (b) in total; if he will list the figures for secondary care; and if he will make a statement on variations in amounts. [40812]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 1 November 1995]: The information requested is set out as follows:

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on Tuesday 31 October by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, the Department of National Heritage,Official Report, column 186.

  Measles Immunisation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to establish a structured interview programme for families in Wales allegedly suffering from deleterious effects from immunisation against measles. [40647]

  Mr. Richards
  None. There is already a well-established satisfactory system in place for monitoring adverse reactions to all medicines, including vaccines.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of pupils on the assisted places scheme received a free place in each year since its operation. [41158]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is as follows:
  637

  Assisted places scheme—Wales

  Academic year

  Total APS pupils

  Number of pupils with full free remission

  Percentage with full fee remission

  1981–82

  114

  50

  44

  1982–83

  220

  96

  44

  1983–84

  318

  157

  49

  1984–85

  403

  178

  44

  1985–86

  495

  202

  41

  1986–87

  580

  248

  43

  1987–88

  622

  256

  41

  1988–89

  633

  240

  38

  1989–90

  631

  226

  36

  1990–91

  634

  222

  35

  1991–92

  662

  252

  38

  1992–93

  700

  294

  42

  1993–94

  691

  283

  41

  1994–95

  720

  318

  44

  Nursery Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average unit cost of providing a nursery place in(a) nursery schools and (b) nursery classes in primary schools; and what are the figures for each local education authority. [41172]

  Mr. Richards
  Expenditures on nursery and primary schools are not separately identified on local government returns to the Welsh Office so separate unit costs cannot be calculated. Unit costs for nursery and primary schools combined are contained in an education finance bulletin produced by the Welsh Office's training and education intelligence unit. A copy of the bulletin is in the Library of the House.

  Temporary and Part-time Staff
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many staff are currently employed in his Department and in related agencies on(a) temporary or casual employment contracts and (b) part-time employment contracts, given as an actual figure and as a proportion of the total work force; and what were the corresponding figures for five years ago. [41117]

  Mr. Hague
  Breakdowns by department and executive agency for 1 April 1995 of the number of permanent staff, the number of casual staff—that is, normally those engaged for a period of up to two years—and of the number of part-time staff are presented in the civil service staff in post summary table for 1 April 1995, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. Estimates on a comparable basis for 1 April 1990 have also been placed in the Library of the House.

  Hospices
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy concerning the funding of hospices; and if he will make a statement. [41265]

  Mr. Richards
  Since 1 April 1995, funds for hospices have been included in the health authority allocations. Authorities will be expected to assess local health needs and commission an appropriate level of palliative care, entering into three-year rolling contracts, where possible.
  638

  Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease have been reported in Wales and if he will make a statement. [41248]

  Mr. Richards
  Since May 1990, details of suspected cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in the United Kingdom have been reported to the national CJD surveillance unit in Edinburgh. Suspected cases are classified as definite, probable or possible. During the period May 1990 to October 1995, there were 15 definite, one probable and five possible cases of CJD from Wales.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of general practitioners in Wales are currently fundholders; and if he will make a statement. [41264]

  Mr. Richards
  There are 649 general practitioners, some 38 per cent. of all GPs, working in 146 GP fundholding practices in Wales.

  Carers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) male and (b) female carers there are in each county in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [41247]

  Mr. Richards
  This information was collected for the first time this year as part of the Welsh health survey. Comprehensive results from the survey will be published early in 1996.

  Voluntary-aided Schools
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many voluntary-aided schools there are in each of the Welsh counties; and if he will make a statement. [41251]

  Mr. Richards
  The number of voluntary-aided primary and secondary schools in each local education authority as at January 1995 is shown in the table. Details of school denomination are collected only for primary and secondary schools.

  Local Education Authority

  Primary schools1

  Secondary schools1

  Clwyd

  25

  3

  Dyfed

  16

  1

  Gwent

  19

  2

  Gwynedd

  7

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  16

  4

  Powys

  9

  —

  South Glamorgan

  32

  6

  West Glamorgan

  112

  2

  Wales

  136

  18

  1 Includes Voluntary Church in Wales aided and Voluntary Roman Catholic. Provisional data.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to publish a consultation paper on self-government for voluntary-aided schools; and what time period will be allowed for responses to be made. [41715]
  639
  Mr. Richards
  A bilingual consultation paper was issued on 31 October. Responses are requested by 24 November.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the rules and regulations he proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1995; and if he will make a statement. [41541]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer by the repeal of each rule and regulation which has so far been the subject of a reference to the Deregulation Committee from his Department, and in how may cases a compliance cost assessment has been carried out. [41577]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department has not yet laid any draft orders before the Committee.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what regulations his Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1995; if he proposes to conduct a compliance cost assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a compliance cost

  Number of residents in short stay care

  As at 31 March

  Clwyd

  Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  1990

  Residential Care

  Homes1

  21

  16

  6

  24

  3

  1

  19

  15

  105

  Nursing Homes2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1991

  Residential Care

  Homes1

  26

  13

  9

  21

  8

  5

  45

  22

  149

  Nursing Homes1

  9

  6

  6

  18

  —

  2

  3

  13

  57

  1992

  Residential Care

  Homes1

  35

  10

  3

  12

  2

  8

  56

  23

  149

  Nursing Homes1

  19

  9

  40

  10

  3

  —

  5

  14

  100

  1993

  Residential Care

  Homes1

  56

  16

  2

  14

  1

  3

  51

  37

  180

  Nursing Homes1

  34

  20

  36

  4

  2

  —

  8

  29

  133

  1994

  Residential Care

  Homes1

  41

  18

  5

  12

  3

  7

  48

  22

  156

  Nursing Homes1

  61

  39

  31

  18

  3

  1

  14

  12

  179

  1 Excluding residents in residential care homes for people with substance misuse and in homes with fewer than four residents in total.

  2 Numbers of short stay residents were not collected for nursing homes before 1991.

  NHS Financial Reserves
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will itemise the financial reserves of each(a) trust and (b) health authority in each of the last three years for which figures are available; [41424]
  640
  assessment to assess the advantages or disadvantages of such a repeal. [41559]

  Mr. Hague
  There are no plans to repeal any regulations by the end of 1995.

  Continuing and Respite Care
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many NHS continuing care beds have been available in each(a) region and (b) district in each of the last five years for which figures are available; [41422]

  (2) how many (a) NHS and (b) private respite care beds were available (i) by region and (ii) by health authority in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [41407]

  Mr. Richards
  Information concerning the number of beds in NHS hospitals is collected centrally on the basis of specialties recognised by the royal colleges. As neither continuing care nor respite care are recognised specialities the information requested is not available for NHS hospitals.

  Private and voluntary residential care homes and private nursing homes make returns to the Welsh Office of the numbers of residents who were admitted as short-stay residents. These are defined as persons for whom the home is intended to provide a holiday or temporary care, for example while their relatives or usual carers are on holiday. The most recent figures are shown in the table.

  (2) what financial reserves have been held (a) by trusts and (b) by health authorities in each region in each of the last three years. [41417]

  Mr. Richards
  As the information requested is detailed, I have placed a copy in the Library of the House.
  641

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how Welsh-speaking medical students are currently undertaking courses leading to a qualification as a general medical practitioner in the university of Wales; and what the figures were in 1990 and 1995. [41486]

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to increase the number of Welsh-speaking general medical practitioners in Wales. [41485]

  Mr. Richards
  My right hon. Friend has no jurisdiction in this matter. Recruitment policies are the responsibility of family health services authorities and, in the case of partnerships, the existing doctors in the practice. The distribution of doctors throughout England and Wales is the responsibility of the Medical Practices Committee.

  Science Education
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the promotion of science education in Wales. [41624]

  Mr. Hague
  The basis for action on the promotion of science education in Wales is to be found in the two documents "Science in the National Curriculum" and "A Bright Future: Getting The Best for Every Pupil at School in Wales", copies of which are available in the Library of the House.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his latest outturn forecast for regional selective assistance offers and expenditure in Wales in 1995–96 and its relationship to planned expenditure. [41783]

  Mr. Hague
  The latest estimate of the total value of regional selective assistance offers accepted by businesses in Wales during 1995–96 is £60 million. The original voted expenditure for the year was £42.429 million, but subject to parliamentary approval of a supplementary estimate, a further £11.009 million will be made available to meet anticipated additional demand in-year.

  Grant is paid in instalments against progress on projects, typically over a period of three to five years, so much of the grant offered in 1995–96 will not fall to be paid until later years.

  OSIRIS
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report, column 231, what is the life of the OSIRIS contract. [41835]

  Mr. Hague
  The life of the OSIRIS contract is expected to be seven years.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report, column 231, which firms have tendered for the OSIRIS project; and what is the approximate estimated annual rental payment for the capital, repair and running costs of the system and the duration of the approximate rental period. [41837]
  642
  Mr. Hague
  The information requested cannot be given as it is commercially confidential.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report, column 231, on the OSIRIS system, what evaluation he has made of the relative merits of having fewer staff with more personal computers as against the present level of staff with fewer computers; and if he will make a statement. [41836]

  Mr. Hague
  The requirement for the OSIRIS contract was evaluated on the basis of any given level of staff gaining efficiency by sharing better access to, and usage of, information.

  Estatecare Division (Sale)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date he submitted his proposed advertisement for the sale of the Estatecare division of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority to the European Communities Official Journal. [41839]

  Mr. Hague
  There is no requirement to advertise the sale in the Official Journal.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 30 October,Official Report, columns 101–2, if he will list the procedures for merging trusts or amending their area of coverage; what consultations he has had with the chairmen of the trusts in Wales in relation to mergers and takeovers and if he will make a statement. [41843]

  Mr. Hague
  Applications from trusts significantly to alter their configuration are subject to public consultation in the normal way. If an application is approved, the existing trust(s) would be dissolved and immediately re-established in line with the approval. I have had no consultations with trust chairmen on this issue.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 30 October,Official Report, columns 101–2, if he will list those mixed function trusts which are deemed to cover a different geographical area for different functions. [41841]

  Mr. Hague
  Trusts are not confined to particular geographical areas for the services they offer. Currently those mixed function trusts which are deemed to cover a different geographical area for different functions are:

  Llandough Hospital and Community NHS trust Rhondda Healthcare NHS trust

  Bridgend and District NHS trust

  Glan-y-Mor NHS trust

  Cardiff Community Healthcare NHS trust Gwent Community Health NHS trust.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 30 October,Official Report, columns 101–2, if he will list for each trust the total money turnover figure estimated for the present financial year and, for those trusts with more than one category at health care provision, the financial turnover in each category. [41840]
  643
  Mr. Hague
  The estimated operational income of each NHS trust in Wales in 1995–96 is shown in the following table:

  £ thousands

  NHS Trust

  Operational Income

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance

  8,330

  North Wales Ambulance

  12,830

  South and East Wales Ambulance

  17,883

  West Wales Ambulance

  10,218

  East Glamorgan

  49,122

  Glan Clwyd

  60,246

  Glan Hafren

  90,103

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  59,959

  Morriston Hospital

  69,148

  Nevill Hall and District

  42,452

  Swansea

  59,179

  University of Wales Healthcare

  166,591

  Velindre

  11,524

  Wrexham Maelor Hospital

  57,020

  Pembrokeshire

  42,480

  Carmarthen and District

  39,170

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  22,487

  Llandough Hospital

  58,686

  Llanelli/Dinefwr

  30,974

  Powys Healthcare

  42,339

  Rhondda Healthcare

  30,349

  Bridgend and District

  66,999

  Glan y Mor1

  70,505

  Cardiff Community

  57,261

  Clwydian Community Care

  61,643

  Gwent Community

  58,173

  Gwynedd Community

  48,605

  Derwen

  23,403

  University Dental Hospital

  8,338

  In shadow form. A breakdown of these figures into each category of health care provision is not held centrally.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 30 October,Official Report, columns 101–2, what representations he has received in relation to trusts taking over directly managed units; and what consultations he has had with Welsh Association Health Authorities and Trusts in relation to collusion by trusts interested in taking over directly managed units. [41844]

  Mr. Hague
  Three months' public consultation on applications from Bridgend and District NHS trust and Glan Hafren NHS trust to merge with the Hensol health unit and the Rhymney Valley health unit respectively commenced on 25 September 1995. To date, nine representations have been received. WAHAT has been consulted but has not responded to date.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 30 October,Official Report, columns 101–2, if he will list the principal differences between the trusts he has listed as providing community services, either on their own or in combination with acute, and those trusts he has listed as offering community services in combination with mental health services. [41842]

  Mr. Hague
  Apart from the range of services provided, there is no fundamental difference in the way which trusts are established or managed.
  644

  Derwen NHS Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the geographical area of coverage of the Derwen national health service trust. [41785]

  Mr. Hague
  Trusts are not confined to particular geographical areas for the services they offer. Currently, the Derwen national health service trust provides mental health/illness and learning disability services for the areas of the new unitary authorities of Cardiganshire and Carmarthenshire, and in-patient psychiatric services for Pembrokeshire.

  A-level Students
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students sat A-level examinations in the summer term 1995 in each secondary school and further education college in Wales. [41684]

  Mr. Richards
  I intend to publish the information requested in school and college performance booklets later this month. Copies of the booklets will be sent to the hon. Member and further copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many students were registered to begin A-level courses in September 1993 in each secondary school and further education college in Wales. [41685]

  Mr. Richards
  The information requested is not readily available. I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 31 October,Official Report, column 230, what consultations he has had with Welsh local authority associations regarding his proposals for (a) elected member and (b) local government officer representation on the monitoring committees of the structural funds. [41838]

  Mr. Hague
  I shall be meeting the local authority associations next month to discuss their proposals for an economic development strategy for Wales. I understand that the associations will wish to discuss at that meeting various matters concerning the management of the structural funds.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Mortgage Protection Insurance
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to monitor the effect on social security recipients of mortgage protection insurance policies. [39698]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We continue to monitor the quality, availability and cost of mortgage protection insurance and welcome the developments so far. We are also monitoring the scheme to ensure that an appropriate balance is maintained between public and private provision.
  645

  Occupational Pensions
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his assessment of the current regulatory environment for occupational pensions. [39699]

  Mr. Heald
  The Pensions Act 1995, to which Royal Assent was given in July, introduces a number of measures which will give greater security and accountability to the occupational pensions sector, including the establishment of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority.

  Mr. Sumberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he will take to combat fraud in occupational pensions. [39704]

  Mr. Heald
  The measures in the Pensions Act 1995, which received Royal Assent in July, reflect the Government's commitment to safeguarding the security of occupational pension scheme assets.

  Benefits and Taxation
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reform the relationship between benefits and taxation. [39700]

  Mr. Burt
  In 1988 we reformed the relationship between income-related benefits and tax to reduce the incidence of high marginal tax rates. In line with the Government's long-standing policy that benefits which replace earnings should be taxable in the same way as earned income, incapacity benefit became taxable in April 1995. We have already announced that the back-to-work bonus and the child maintenance bonus will not be subject to taxation. Any further plans on taxation are a matter for my right hon. and Learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will specify minimum wage rates for jobs offered to persons who will be in receipt of the jobseeker's allowance after its introduction in 1996 which would allow those persons to refuse a job on the grounds of unacceptably low wages. [39701]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No. We shall be carrying forward established practice.

  Social Security Reforms
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what effect he estimates his social security reforms will have had on public spending by the year 2020 in 1994–95 prices. [39702]

  Mr. Lilley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).

  Poverty and Homelessness (Young People)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action he is taking to tackle poverty and homelessness among 16 to 24-year-olds. [39705]
  646
  Mr. Roger Evans
  We are getting the unemployed back to work. In last year's Budget we announced a £700 million package of benefit and employment measures to do just that.

  Social Security Fraud
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for further action to control social security fraud. [39706]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend to the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people and what percentage have(a) passed and (b) failed the new incapacity benefit all-work test in (i) England and (ii) Wales. [39707]

  Mr. Burt
  Separate figures for England and Wales are not available. By the end of September, in Great Britain as a whole, 116,349 medical examinations had been performed but decisions had not been made on all cases: 18,895 people had been found capable of work. A figure for those found incapable of work following examination is not available.

  These figures are provisional. It is too early to draw conclusions about the long-term effect of the new procedures.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received from organisations representing people with disabilities about the exclusion of claimants from incapacity benefit. [39709]

  Mr. Burt
  None.

  Pensioner Households (Consumer Goods)
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households had(a) a fridge, (b) a car, (c) a freezer, (d) a telephone and (e) a television in 1979; and how many do today. [39708]

  Mr. Heald
  In 1979, 57 per cent. of pensioners were in households with a telephone; by 1992–93 this figure had risen to 93 per cent. There were rises from 88 per cent. to 99 per cent. for ownership of fridges; 32 per cent. to 78 per cent. for freezers or fridge freezers; and 34 per cent. to 50 per cent. for cars or vans. The proportion with televisions rose from 96 per cent. in 1979 to virtually 100 per cent. in the 1990s.

  Pensioner Incomes
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent estimate he has made of the adequacy of the state retirement pension and income support to pensioners. [39710]

  Mr. Heald
  The value of the basic state retirement pension has been maintained in line with prices. Since 1988 pensioners receiving income-related benefits, including income support, have seen a real terms increase in benefit worth around £1.2 billion a year.
  647

  Post Office Payment of Pensions
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if pensioners will continue to be able to choose to have their benefits paid through the Post Office. [39711]

  Mr. Heald
  Pensioners will continue to be able to choose to have their benefits paid directly into their bank or building society accounts by automated credit transfer or to collect them at the post office.

  Plans to automate the system for paying benefit at post offices are well advanced. For customers, this will mean that order books and giros are replaced with a benefit payment card, which they will hand to the post office clerk to obtain details of the benefit due to them. Starting next year, this change is likely to be phased in over a period of two to three years. Pensioners and other benefit recipients will be informed about what is happening, and exactly what they will need to do, nearer the time when cards are to be issued to them. People who choose to be paid by ACT will not be affected by this change and will not need a benefit payment card.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement about the length of time it takes for assessments to be made by the Child Support Agency. [39694]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  In straightforward cases, where both parents co-operate, the agency aims to complete the assessment in six to 12 weeks. In other cases, the process is inevitably more lengthy.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many of the parents with care who withdrew income support claims within four weeks of being contracted by the Child Support Agency had been claiming income support for(a) less than one month, (b) between one month and three months, (c) between three and six months, (d) between six months and one year, (e) between one and two years and (f) over two years; [41039]

  (2) pursuant to his answer of 25 October, Official Report, column 711, how many parents with care withdrew their claims to income support within eight weeks of an investigation under the requirement to co-operate; and if he will provide a month-by-month breakdown for 1994–95 and the current financial year. [41081]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The information is not required for the agency's business and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 484, on the benefit savings achieved by the liable relatives unit in 1991–92, in how many cases the unit took action to arrange, increase or enforce payments of maintenance; and in how many of those cases a claim for income support was withdrawn within four weeks. [41083]
  648
  Mr. Mitchell
  The information requested is not available in the form requested. However, information on legal proceedings taken to obtain maintenance during the calendar year ending 1991 is in the table.

  Number

  New orders applied for

  1,321

  Number granted

  1,316

  Enforcement/variation of existing order applied for

  316

  Number granted

  292

  We have no figures for claims withdrawn, but the number of claims involving liable relatives where income support ceased within four weeks, in the year 1991–92, was 80,261.

  Benefits (Residence Qualification)
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to require all foreign visitors to the United Kingdom to establish residence before qualifying for benefit. [39703]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Residence requirements have always played a significant part in social security benefits. We have also recently announced proposal to extend restrictions on persons from abroad claiming benefits.

  State Pensions
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the current value in real terms of the state retirement pension for(a) single pensioners and (b) married couples if it had been uprated in line with prices or incomes, whichever was the higher; what would be the value in current value in real terms of the Christmas bonus to (a) single pensioners and (b) married couples on the same basis for the same period; what would be the cost of restoring the link between pensions and incomes or prices, whichever was the higher, during the current financial year expressed as a weekly amount of national insurance contributions to an employee on average earnings and his or her employer; what is the amount of weekly average earnings on which this figure is based; what would be the cost of restoring the link based on the whole burden of retirement pensions being transferred to taxation expressed as a percentage increase in general taxation; and if he will make a statement. [39321]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that the weekly rate of category A basic retirement pension would be £79.45 from April 1995 and the combined rate of category A and category B basic retirement pension payable to a couple would be £127.15 if the rates had been increased in line with the higher of earnings of prices since 1980.1

  It is estimated that the Christmas bonus would be £28.80 if it had been increased in line with the higher of earnings or prices since 1980.1

  Expenditure on retirement pension and linked benefits for those over state pension age would, as a result of restoring the link between pensions and the higher of incomes or prices, be increased by an estimated £9.8 billion in the 1995–96 financial year.2
  649
  The increase in national insurance contributions to support this would result in an extra weekly cost of £8.45 to an employee on male average earnings and an extra £7.92 for his employer.

  Male average earnings of £377 at April 1995 have been used.

  The whole burden of retirement pension is estimated as £41.2 billion; this is the current cost of retirement pensions and linked benefits paid to people over state pension age, £31.4 billion, plus the extra cost of restoring the link, £9.8 billion. To raise £41.2 billion would mean increasing the basic rate of income tax from 25 per cent. to 47 per cent. If income-related benefits are taken into account, £38.5 billion would be transferred to taxation and the basic rate of income tax would increase to 45 per cent.

  Notes:

  1Estimates provided by Department of Social Security, Analytical Services Division-in each step of the calculation the benefits have been rounded to the nearest 5 pence.

  The Retail Prices Index (all items) as published by the Central Statistical Office has been used for prices uprating.

  Earnings upratings have been calculated on the basis of the Department for Education and Employment's Average Earnings Index (Whole economy unadjusted) as amalgamated in the Abstract of Statistics published by the Department of Social Security, Analytical Services Division.

  2Estimate provided by the Government Actuary's Department based on benefit rates calculated as per note 1. The estimate includes the extra costs of Retirement Pension and linked benefits paid to people over State pension age in particular Widow's Benefit and Incapacity Benefit.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list by postcode for Doncaster and Mexborough the number of claimants who have been prevented from receiving benefits as a result of the habitual residence test for each month since its inception; of those refused, how many went to appeal; and how many won their appeals. [39559]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available in the format requested. Statistics are not collected by reference to a claimant's postcode and appeal statistics are not collected against different types of decisions.

  Information on the number of people who have failed the habitual residence test is recorded in the Official Report, 23 October 1995, columns 486–89.

  Public Appointments, South Yorkshire
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list the public appointments for which his Department is responsible in the county of South Yorkshire, indicating in each case the duration of the appointment, the date when a new appointment is due, and the salary; [39457]

  (2) if he will list all the non-departmental public bodies to which his Department makes appointments in the county of South Yorkshire, indicating the total annual budget and the number of appointments made or renewed for each body in each of the last four years. [39442]

  Mr. Burt
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is responsible for the appointments to the South Yorkshire and Humberside war pensions committee. The current 650
  committee of 30 members was convened on 1 January 1991 for five years. The committee has no annual budget and no salaries are payable.

  The numbers of new appointments, to replace members who have resigned or died, are shown in the table.

  Year

  Appointments

  1991

  1

  1992

  2

  1993

  2

  1994

  5

  1995

  0

  Statutory Maternity and Sick Pay
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to simplify the administration of statutory maternity pay; [40091]

  (2) what plans he has to simplify the administration of statutory sick pay. [40092]

  Mr. Heald
  We intend to introduce a number of simplifications to the statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay schemes from April 1996. These will include a considerable reduction for employers in the amount of mandatory SSP record-keeping; more flexible time limits for providing SSP information to employees; removing the exclusion from SSP and SMP of employees, including certain mariners, air personnel and continental shelf workers, who are outside the European Economic Area during a period of sickness or maternity; reducing to one month the period for notifying sick absence to an employer where there is good cause for delay, removing the need for employers to issue a form to every leaver who was recently sick and allowing this form, where issued, to be a computer print-out. We will be laying regulations to give effect to these changes in due course.

  These proposals arise out of a consultation paper that was issued in March which sought views from all sides of industry on cutting red tape in the SSP-SMP schemes. The consultation formed part of the Government's on-going deregulation programme of lifting burdens on business. We are grateful to all those organisations and individuals who responded. Their contributions proved very valuable in helping us to decide the way forward. Copies of the responses will be placed in the Library.

  The consultation paper also sought views on whether employers should be allowed to opt out of SSP if they pay at least the equivalent in occupational sick pay. Employers' organisations were generally in favour of opting out as a means of reducing administration costs, but there were concerns that small businesses could not opt out as they did not generally have occupational sick pay schemes. Employees' organisations were concerned that employees' statutory rights would be removed.

  In the light of these concerns, we propose to retain the underlying liability to pay SSP but exempt any employer who pays contractual remuneration, including occupational sick pay, at or above the SSP rate for a day of incapacity for work, from the need to operate the detailed SSP rules. This revised scheme will ensure that employees' rights are fully protected, reduce administrative burdens and also be available to employers

  651
  with or without an occupational sick pay scheme. We aim to introduce the new arrangements from April 1997 by means of an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, following further consultation on the detailed proposals.

  Other changes to the SSP scheme which received support but which require amendment of primary legislation will be considered as soon as a suitable opportunity arises. They include changing the rule on SSP entitlement during a trade dispute; removing the links between separate contracts of service with the same employer and removing the exclusion from SSP of women who have received maternity allowance within eight weeks of the start of a period of sickness.

  These changes build on the simplification of the SSP and SMP schemes which we implemented last year. The lower rate of SSP was abolished so that all employees who qualify now receive the same rate of SSP. For SMP three service qualification tests of 26 weeks, two years and five years were replaced by one test of 26 weeks employment. In addition, all women qualifying for SMP now receive 90 per cent. of their earnings for the first six weeks of maternity leave and a flat rate for the next 12 weeks. Previously, the rate of SMP paid depended on the length of service a woman had with her employer.

  Income Support
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps are being taken to identify those disabled people who were underpaid income support as a result of a failure by the Benefits Agency to include the severe disability premium in their assessments, and who are no longer in receipt of income support; and what steps are being taken to invite fresh claims from those disabled people who were wrongly refused income support in order that the arrears of benefits due to them will be paid. [40144]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  On 19 December 1994, the Secretary of State announced that the Benefits Agency was to examine all live claims for income support with potential entitlement to the severe disability premium, and to establish what action was required to those cases where income support was no longer in payment. The exercise to examine live claims is now nearing completion. An announcement will be made shortly about plans for further action.

  Motability
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what guidelines his Department issues to Motability about the refusal of insurance cover to disabled drivers; and if he will make a statement; [40643]

  (2) how many disabled persons are currently without the use of a car because of the application of rules on insurance introduced by Motability; and if he will make a statement; [40645]

  (3) in what circumstances Motability refuses insurance cover to disabled drivers; [40649]

  (4) what penalties are imposed by Motability on drivers under its charge who have been penalised by the courts for driving with excess alcohol; and if he will make a statement; [40644]
  652
  (5) how many disabled drivers have been refused insurance cover by Motability; for what reasons; and if he will make a statement. [40677]

  Mr. Burt
  Motability is an independent organisation. The rules and administration of the scheme's insurance cover are decided by the governors and are not matters for the Secretary of State. Any questions on these issues should be referred to the director, Noel Muddiman.

  Disability Benefits
  Mr. Clelland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to learn whether his request to the House of Lords for leave to appeal against the Halliday-Fairey decision of 14 October 1994 has been successful. [40895]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The petition for leave to appeal is under consideration by the House of Lords. The respondent has been invited to lodge objections to the petition by 7 November. A decision will be made thereafter.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what amount of housing benefit was paid to or for private landlords in the last year for which figures are available. [40901]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information available is set out in the table and relates to Great Britain only. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is reponsible for the payment of social security benefits in Northern Ireland.

  Rent Allowance Expenditure

  Year

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1993–94

  4,173

  Source:

  Table 3, Social Security Departmental Report 1995.

  Private Pension Provision
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social security what is the total amount of funds in private pension provision in the United Kingdom; and what is the equivalent figure for the two next largest European Union countries. [39683]

  Mr. Heald
  In 1992, the total amount of funds in private pension provision in the United Kingdom was around £500 billion. This is more than three times the amount in either of the two European Union countries with the next largest level of pension funds—£160 billion for Germany and £140 billion for the Netherlands.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what he estimates to be a practical timetable for implementing proposals to eliminate discrimination against disabled people; and if he will make a statement. [39684]
  653
  Mr. Burt
  We will establish the National Disability Council early next year. After consultation and publication of draft regulations we plan to introduce the new rights in the employment field towards the end of 1996. The first of the many rights of access to goods and services—the right not to be refused service—will start at the same time, as will protection for disabled people seeking to rent or buy property. Following a similar process of consultation the remaining rights will be phased in subsequently.

  War Widows
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to end local variation in the treatment of war widows and war disabled pensioners. [39723]

  Mr. Heald
  We have no such plans.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to improve the flexibility of personal pensions in retirement. [40036]

  Mr. Heald
  We have introduced two measures in the Pensions Act 1995 which will improve the flexibility of personal pensions in retirement. The first measure will bring the age-related rebates for personal pension holders who have contracted out of the state earnings-related pension scheme, which will make such pensions attractive across a broader age range. The second measure permits more flexible use of personal pensions savings, by allowing personal pension holders to draw an income from their fund each year and defer buying an annuity until a time of their choosing up to age 75.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security of how many cases he is aware in which an attendance allowance was awarded to a person with limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom in each of the years 1993, 1994 and 1995. [41037]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information requested is not available.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what regulations his Department proposes to repeal by the end of 1995; if he proposes to conduct a cost compliance assessment on each regulation repealed; and what is the estimated cost of undertaking a cost

  May 1993

  November 1993

  May 1994

  November 1994

  England

  104,060

  90,620

  79,140

  70,240

  Scotland

  11,460

  10,360

  8,760

  7,940

  Wales

  9,060

  7,880

  6,860

  6,600

  Great Britain

  124,600

  108,860

  94,760

  84,780

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Residential Care/Nursing Home Quarterly Enquiries.
  654
  compliance assessment to assess the advantages or disadvantages of such a repeal. [41549]

  Mr. Heald
  The following regulations are due to be repealed by the end of 1995:

  Social Security (invalid Care Allowance) Regulations 1976–Regulation 8(2)(b);

  Occupational Pension Schemes (Equal Access to Membership) Regulations 1976;

  Occupational Pension Schemes/Equal Access to

  Membership/Amendment Regulations 1995.

  The requirement to carry out a cost compliance assessment applies to regulations which impose additional burdens on business. As these regulations did not impose a burden on business cost compliance assessments were not required.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the rules and regulations he proposes to repeal or amend by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1995; and if he will make a statement. [41523]

  Mr. Heald
  This Department will not be repealing or amending any rules or regulations by means of a reference to the Deregulation Committee before the end of 1995. However, we aim to introduce from April 1997 an easement to allow employers to substitute contractual remuneration for statutory sick pay for any day of sickness by means of an order under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated saving to the Exchequer by the repeal of each rule and regulation which has so far been the subject of a reference to the Deregulation Committee from his Department; and in how many cases a cost compliance assessment has been carried out. [41524]

  Mr. Heald
  The Department has not yet repealed any rules or regulations by reference to the Deregulation Committee.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) of 27 October,Official Report, column 853, if he will list the number of nursing home residents with preserved rights to higher levels of income support in (a) April 1993, (b) November 1993, (c) April 1994 and (d) the latest figure available (1) nationally, (2) regionally and (3) by area. [41435]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Information is not available in the format requested. Information is available only for residents in nursing homes with preserved rights who are in receipt of income support and is set out in the table:
  655

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimates have been made by his Department on the effects on asylum seekers' children of the loss of social security benefits to their parents. [41827]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have made no such estimate. The Government believe that it cannot be right to pay benefits to asylum seekers who apply for asylum after being admitted to this country as visitors unless there has been an upheaval in their home country. Those people who apply for asylum on entry to the United Kingdom will still have access to benefits while their asylum application is considered.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received concerning the effects of removing social security benefits to asylum seekers. [41826]

  Mr. Evans
  The Government referred proposals affecting the benefit entitlement of asylum seekers and other persons from abroad to the Social Security Advisory Committee on 11 October. The committee has invited representations. I expect to receive its report and recommendations during December. I have also received a number of items of correspondence.

  Earnings Top-up
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will announce his further plans for earnings top-up, the proposed pilot benefit for working people without dependent children.

  Mr. Lilley
  I have today announced my decisions on the eight areas in which the earnings top-up pilot scheme will operate from October 1996. I have also placed in the Vote Office the draft rules of the scheme.

  The rules set out the scheme list by postcode for the eight pilot areas in which earnings top-up will be paid—four at a higher rate, scheme B, and four at a lower rate, scheme A. The two benefit rates are intended to test the relative effectiveness of different levels of assistance in meeting the aim of the scheme: to help lower-paid people to move into work and be better off in it.

  The areas have been selected from an original shortlist using wholly objective criteria related to unemployment rates, vacancy rates, population density and operational feasibility. They are areas from which we expect to be able to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of this approach if extended nationally.

  The eight pilot areas are:
  Scheme A (Lower Rate): These pilot areas will give an estimated average weekly boost to income of £16 for single people under 25, and £24 for couples:

  Newcastle upon Tyne TTWA1, including parts of Stanley, Consett, Newburn, Gateshead, Shields Road, Felling, West Moor, Blaydon on Tyne, Cramlington, Whitley Bay, Wallsend, North Shields, and Prudhoe.

  Castleford and Pontefract TTWA, including parts of Knottingley, and Normanton;

  Wakefield and Dewsbury TTWA, including parts of South Elmsall, Hemsworth, and Batley;

  656

  Barnsley TTWA, including part of Wombwell, and Hoyland.

  Southend TTWA, including parts of Brentwood, Rayleigh, Burnham on Crouch, Basildon, Canvey Island, Stanford le Hope, Grays, and Tilbury.

  Bangor and Caernarfon TTWA, including parts of Penygross and Beaumaris; Conway and Colwyn TTWA, including parts of Colwyn Bay, Llanwrst, and Lundudno;

  Denbigh TTWA;

  Dolgelllau and Barmouth TTWA;

  Holyhead TTWA including parts of Llangefni and Amlwych;

  Shotton; Flint and Rhyl TTWA, including parts of Mold and Holywell;

  Wrexham TTWA, including parts of Cefnmawr and Llangollen.

  Scheme B (Higher Rate): These pilot areas will give an estimated average weekly boost to income of £18 for single people under 25, and £25 for couples:

  Sunderland TTWA, including parts of Birtley, Chester le Street, Houghton Le Spring, Peterlee, East Boldon, and Washington.

  Doncaster TTWA, including parts of Thorne.

  Bournemouth TTWA, including parts of Wimbourne, Christchurch, and Ringwood.

  Perth and Crieff TTWA:

  Dumbarton TTWA, including parts of Alexandria, and Helensburgh;

  Stirling TTWA.

  We expect that about 20,000 people will benefit from the earnings top-up pilot. The four areas which have been selected as controls for the evaluation of the pilot are:

  Middlesbrough TTWA

  Hartlepoole and Stockton on Tees TTWA

  Rotherham and Mexborough TTWA

  Worksop TTWA

  Southampton and Isle of Wight TTWA

  Blaenau Gwent and Abergavenny TTWA

  Brecon TTWA

  Llandeilo TTWA

  Llanelli TTWA

  Monmouth TTWA

  Pontypool and Cwmbran TTWA

  Notes:

  1 TTWA = Travel to Work Area. These are areas in which 75 per cent. of the population working in the area also live there, and vice versa.

  The rules of the scheme will be published in final form once there has been an opportunity for Parliament to consider the proposals.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many cases of benefit fraud have come to light in each year since 1990 as a result of unsolicited information passed to the Benefits Agency by members of the public; [38753]

  (2) if he will list those areas selected to pilot Operation Speakeasy; [38755]

  (3) what is the cost of Operation Speakeasy; [38754]
  657
  Mr. Heald
  The investigation of benefit fraud is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 3 November 1995:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the number of benefit fraud cases which have come to light in each year since 1990 as a result of unsolicited information passed to the Benefits Agency by members of the public, the areas selected to pilot the fraud referral hotline, previously known as Operation Speakeasy and the cost involved.
  Information on the number of benefit fraud cases that have come to light as a result of unsolicited information from members of the public is only available from April 1995.
  During the period 1 April 1995 to 30 August 1995 we have received 127,301 referrals from the public. These have resulted in 72,474 investigations and of the investigations completed so far, 30,687 of these have proved to be cases of benefit fraud.
  The fraud referral hotline was launched in September this year. This is a freephone telephone line which allows members of the public to report allegations of benefit fraud to trained fraud staff. It is to be piloted in four areas Hull, Stockport, Blackburn/Burnley and Tunbridge Wells.
  The pilot has incurred an initial outlay of around £30,000 but the final cost will not be known until the exercise is completed.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.
  658

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what guidance applies to the award of invalidity benefits to people who have undergone laryngectomies and tracheotomies. [39680]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of Social Security benefit is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member with such information as is available.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jim Cunnigham, dated 3 November 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what guidance applies to the award of invalidity benefits to people who have undergone laryngectomies and tracheotomy.

  Invalidity Benefit and Sickness Benefit were replaced by Incapacity Benefit with effect from 13 April 1995. The Adjudication Officers Guide is available to Adjudication Officers to assist them in reaching a decision on benefit entitlement. In addition, they have access to the Medical Advisors Guide and the Background Information to Incapacity for Work Guide which provide background information on certain medical conditions. No specific guidance is given to Adjudication Officers awarding benefits to people who have undergone laryngectomies and tracheotomy.

  Factors such as breathlessness and fatigue are taken into account in deciding on the appropriate level of limitations for every activity if a person is assessed under the functional All Work Test.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

EC Proposals: Prompt Scrutiny
Lord Bruce of Donington Lord Bruce of Donington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take in order that Parliament receives all European Commission proposals for legislation in time for adequate parliamentary scrutiny prior to their consideration for decision by the Council of Ministers.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we are always concerned if Parliament does not receive legislative proposals in good time to scrutinise them before their consideration in the Council. The Commission and the Council secretariat are well aware of the need to reduce delays in making draft legislation available. We are considering a number of proposals to reduce delays, some of which we hope to secure at the IGC.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that that Answer is far from satisfactory? Is she further aware that the Select Committee of the other place recently concluded, in its Report 239-I at pages xxiv to xxxv, that in over 40 instances last year, taken at random, items were passed by the Council without any consideration at all by Parliament? Is the Minister aware that the French Government have already taken action and have declined to consider questions in Council of which the French Parliament has not received more than a fortnight's notice?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, should be so dissatisfied. We receive the vast majority of documents in good time for scrutiny before consideration in the Council. Of nearly 800 documents deposited last year, about 2½ per cent. produced complaints from the scrutiny committees of this House and another place. We know the reasons; we have always taken delays extremely seriously. We raise each individual case with the relevant institution. We have raised the delays not only with the Commission but also with the Council secretariat which has promised to do all it can to minimise the problems. As the noble Lord knows, we are committed to maintaining and enhancing the role of national parliaments in the European Union and, in particular, the scrutinising of Community legislation. In that we have been the leaders in seeking the change which we hope will be brought about fairly shortly.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, following the report from another place, a report of the IGC sub-committee of your Lordships' Select Committee
1570
finished its inquiries last Thursday? The report passed through that committee, assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. We endorse entirely the recommendations made by the committee of another place that there should be a minimum of four weeks. Does the Minister intend to press the matter through the Reflection Group? Is there any truth in the suggestion that the Reflection Group has already taken it on board?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. I was aware that his committee had agreed the report, and we know that it is shortly to be published. I shall not go into any details because I believe that that would be against the wishes of the House. However, I can assure the noble Lord that once the report is published we hope for an early debate. I sincerely hope that it will take place before Christmas, despite the other pressures upon us.
In addition, my honourable friend David Davis has been pressing matters with other member states. I referred to that when I said, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that we wish to consider the matter in the context of the IGC. I sincerely hope that the progress which we are making will lead to a much more satisfactory situation in the coming year than we have experienced in past years.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that those of us who frequently disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, on European Union matters thoroughly agree with him on the Question which he put to the Government?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware of that. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. We must work away at this. The situation has been far too unsatisfactory for far too long. From this Dispatch Box I have often complained. I have never made any secret of my belief that whatever the cause, the delays must be curtailed and prevented. That may mean more translators or doing things in different ways. We are already ensuring that we do our hit to rectify matters, but some of the problem lies in the hands of the Council's secretariat, not the Commission alone.
Lord Richard: My Lords, in order to preserve the extraordinary harmony that has broken out in the House, perhaps I may say that for once I agree with my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington on a Question in respect of the European Union. I also thought that the noble Baroness gave some indication that the Government were taking the matter seriously, for which we are grateful.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard. It is extremely nice when we agree on these occasions. I am absolutely determined that we shall change this situation, and so is my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind.
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, would not part of the answer be to ration the Commission both as to prolixity and numbers of proposals?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, occasionally it is as a result of demands from member

1571
states that the Commission comes forward with proposals. Occasionally, therefore, we might be rationing against our own better interest. But I agree with my noble and learned friend that when something is unnecessary it should not be produced.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, while I welcome everything that my noble friend has said, may I ask: does she think that it would be helpful if the Government were to try to bring Commission regulations under closer parliamentary scrutiny, bearing in mind that the Commission is using more of those instruments but that they are not even deposited in national Parliaments? Is she aware that, for instance, it is a Commission regulation which threatens the survival of the British lettuce growing industry?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is not just a matter of lettuces. The whole question that my noble friend raised is a matter that is under consideration in the Reflection Group which will lead to the IGC.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the coalition for supporting me in this matter. But is the Minister aware that legislation is still going onto the statute book without our Parliament even being informed about it? It does not concern a small number of instances. Is she further aware that during the Recess no fewer than 179 pieces of legislation were issued by the Commission? Does she agree that one would be glad to feel that somebody read them, let alone dissented from them?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot verify the number that the noble Lord has just given. I recall during the long Recess writing on one piece of legislation to both your Lordships and another place because for legal reasons a decision had to be taken through during the Recess. That occasionally happens. I have sympathy with the point. No more than anybody else do I wish to see legislation on our statute book without our having had the opportunity to scrutinise it. That is a subject on which we are all in agreement and on which I am quite certain we can persuade the other 14 members of the European Union to go with us.

Aziza Tribunal
2.47 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the intention of any member state to raise at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Auckland the sentences passed by the Aziza tribunal in Nigeria.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I am aware of no specific intention. However, Commonwealth leaders will discuss ways of taking forward work on the Harare Declaration. I have no doubt that the issue of military governments and the recent events in Nigeria will be discussed fully.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if the Prime Minister's suggestion, as reported in this morning's papers, is taken
1572
up—namely, that states which are not in compliance with the Harare Declaration or the rule of law should have to submit six-monthly reports to the Commonwealth Secretariat and to be on sufferance as members pending their compliance—will one of the conditions in respect of Nigeria be that the proceedings of the Aziza tribunal, which were a gross violation of the rule of law, would have to be quashed before the threat of suspension on Nigeria is lifted?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, as the noble Lord will understand, prior to a meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government which will address the issue of adherence to the Harare principles and the question of human rights in the Commonwealth, there are a number of speculative articles in our newspapers. I cannot tell the noble Lord from where this one came. We deplore the continued use of secret military tribunals such as the Aziza tribunal and the continued suspension of habeas corpus. That is the kind of matter which should come under scrutiny and no doubt by this time in two weeks we shall be a little wiser as to what the Commonwealth has decided.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, did the Minister have the opportunity last Thursday of seeing the documentary on Channel 4 on Delta Force, outlining the plight of the Ogoni people? Is she aware of the 115-page report of the prominent QC Michael Birnbaum, who reported that those tribunals breached both Nigerian and international law? Will she give the House some assurance that Her Majesty's Government will exert continued pressure for some protection for the Ogoni people of Nigeria?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I was not able to see the television documentary last Thursday, nor have I had a chance to see the video since. However, the Government are deeply concerned about Ogoni land and what has happened there. In case there should be any doubt, let me make it clear that the Shell Oil Company, which is frequently blamed for what happened, have had no operations in Ogoni land since 1993, though it still operates within the Delta. In relation to the report on Article 19, issued by Michael Birnbaum QC, we have a great deal of sympathy with what he wrote. We have been making our views firmly known about the way in which the so-called "trial" was conducted. As I said some moments ago, we will follow it up in every way, not only with the Commonwealth, but also with the European Union, the United States and other partners.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, how can we get more teeth into the Harare Commonwealth Declaration?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, by examining the dentures very closely in Auckland next week.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister explain why export licences of CS gas and rubber bullets were issued for the Nigerian police in the summer? Does she not agree that, in the light of the report from the Commonwealth human rights initiative

1573
on the blatant disregard of human rights by the security services in Nigeria, those sales contravene the European Union's criteria on arms exports?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, we have not granted any licences except where we have been satisfied that the use to which the equipment is to be put is for completely normal peacekeeping operations at a time when peace is threatened by civil disturbance. We and our European partners continue to reserve the right to consider new licences for equipment for the Nigerian police and its peacekeeping forces. The noble Baroness will know that it is not our practice to reveal details of individual licences or applications, but I can assure her that we have been absolutely rigorous in every aspect of that work.
The noble Baroness will be aware also that we are deeply concerned about human rights in Nigeria. I cannot say what will come out of the discussions in Auckland next week, but Nigeria must heal the divisions and promote reconciliation if it is to make any progress politically. So long as there is no political progress in Nigeria, there will be no economic progress, and the people of Nigeria badly need economic progress.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, why did the Government agree to see Mr. Shonekan when he was here recently, in contravention of the spirit of the European Union ban on ministerial contacts? Will the Government consider that the Commonwealth might turn up the heat on Nigeria by making it impossible, not only for Ministers, but also for their stooges, to travel abroad and meet their opposite numbers in democratic countries?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that Chief Shonekan is in no way a stooge of the Nigerian Government. That was an unworthy comment for him to make. Chief Shonekan came with a message from General Abacha following the efforts that our Prime Minister had been making to ensure that the sentences were commuted on those accused of coup plotting. That was the reason for the contact. It was arranged with the knowledge of our partners and was not at variance with our agreement with those partners.

Consolidated Fund Bills: Procedure
2.54 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked the Chairman of Committees:
Whether the Select Committee on Procedure of the House has yet considered the question whether the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill should be debatable in this House.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the Procedure Committee has considered this Question twice in recent times: in January 1993 and in March of the same year. On each occasion the committee endorsed the guidance given in the Companion that procedures on Consolidated Fund Bills are, by convention, taken formally. I have given
1574
notice that the committee will be asked to meet early in the new Session of Parliament on 27th November. At that meeting it will consider the matter again on the basis of submissions by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, can he explain why this simple and straightforward issue involved such a long delay on the part of the Procedure Committee, leisurely body though it may be?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I take full responsibility for the delay and would not wish to suggest in any way that it was the fault, if fault there be, of the Procedure Committee. First, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale for the delay. Perhaps I can remind the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that it was in March, some seven months ago, that the noble Lord submitted the memoranda on the matter.
The reason for the delay is that, as your Lordships will be aware, the Procedure Committee has been preoccupied with the report of the sub-committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, on declaration and registration of interests. I was anxious that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, should not come to the committee and have to wait an interminable and perhaps intolerable time before being able to put these matters before it. I therefore take full responsibility for the delay. As it was necessary for the Procedure Committee to decide the matters arising from the sub-committee of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, as quickly as possible, I felt it right that the meetings on 17th July and 16th October should be devoted almost entirely to that issue. That at least enabled declaration and registration—they are not insignificant matters—to be brought before your Lordships at as early a date as possible.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, we are grateful to the Chairman of Committees for his explanation. No deliberative Chamber in the world matches your Lordships' wealth of experience and knowledge on economics, finance, commerce, industry and all budgetary matters. Is it not therefore strange that there is no opportunity for your Lordships to give counsel on such matters between the Finance Bill in the spring and the debate on the Queen's Speech in the late autumn? Is not there a tendency to regard your Lordships' primary role as merely to process through great gobbets of government legislation?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I would not attempt to challenge the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, in relation to the knowledge, expertise and ability in your Lordships' House. That is clearly evident. The question of debates is a matter for the business of the House rather than for the Procedure Committee. If the noble and learned Lord is suggesting, arising from his supplementary question, that he is seeking a more limited opportunity to debate Consolidated Fund Bills—say just in the summer—on

1575
the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill rather than on all the Consolidated Fund Bills, that may well be a matter which the Procedure Committee will wish to take into account when it meets on 27th November. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will wish to ensure that that issue is in the minds of members of the Procedure Committee for that occasion.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while some of us on this side of the House who are interested in these matters wish to express our agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, on his repeated insistence on raising these matters, we thank the noble Lord for his initiative?
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I am conscious that differences of view exist. The Procedure Committee has, on more than two occasions over the years, considered this matter and brought it before your Lordships. In the past your Lordships have wished to adhere to the previous practice.

Breast Cancer Screening
3 p.m.
Lord Gainford Lord Gainford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to extend the breast cancer screening programme to women over the age of 64.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, last month we announced two pilot schemes to extend breast cancer screening to women up to the age of 69.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for that short and concise Answer. Bearing in mind the fear that women have of breast cancer, would it be possible for scanning to be extended both to elderly and to younger women? Has any action been taken by the Government on the double X-ray which has been recommended in the media recently?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords. As I said, we are extending, through pilot schemes, screening for older women. Indeed, we have a research project for younger women—those from 40 to 50 years old. We have also taken on board the recent research on two-view mammography which detects more cancers. It reduces recall rates and we know that it is very cost effective. That is the Government's policy now and every mammography unit of the NHS will have introduced the new scheme by 1st August this year.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that we are all pleased by the Minister's response to the new research, which is very encouraging. As it is so encouraging, does she agree that it would be advantageous if the double-mammography approach was extended to include women of all age groups and
1576
was available at every appointment? It would therefore be offered not only at first appointments but would be available at follow-up visits.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, implementation for all age-groups will depend on research studies that we are conducting. At the moment the facility is offered only on the first appointment. The researchers are looking at the efficacy of offering it for every appointment. However, at the moment our advice is that it would not be effective.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is a problem in terms of the additional radiographic exposure required for the double view, and whether the radiation dosage now required is being reduced by improved techniques or films to offset the need for the double imaging?
Baroness Cumberlege: Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is right. There is a marginal increase in the amount of radiation that women get through this process. However, it is very minimal and it is well below the limits that have been set.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House why pilot schemes are necessary for a measure which is so obviously desirable and necessary?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, it is a very expensive process to introduce nationwide. We do not know at the moment how many women would take up this opportunity. We do not know what the costs would be in terms of the detection of cancers. It is traditional in the health service, before introducing very costly schemes, to run pilot studies so that we can learn from them.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what are the Government doing to improve the treatment of cancer for women?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, an enormous amount is going on in terms of improving the treatment of cancer. In April we published a new policy called A Policy Framework for Commissioning Cancer Services. Its key recommendation is that all patients should have access to the best possible cancer service regardless of where they live. We are also introducing guidelines through our clinical outcomes group. We are increasing the number of consultants and the number of breast care nurses. Over the past three years we have provided £15 million to health authorities and trusts for equipment for diagnostic and treatment services.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, it is clearly early days but the noble Baroness referred to high costs or added costs. Can she give an indication of what would be the added cost for carrying out the scheme that is now being proposed?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we do not have the details of that. To set up the two pilot schemes will cost in the region of £80,000. What we do not know is how many cancers will be detected and what implications that will have for the whole of the service. One of our greatest constraints is not so much the

1577
funding of the services but ensuring that we have trained staff to carry out the procedures once the cancers have been detected.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, the cost is therefore not necessarily a prohibition on introducing the scheme.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, your Lordships will he aware that year on year we spend more money on the National Health Service. Spending has never been higher. On the question of cancer services—I am aware that this is a very sensitive time to be talking about the funding of any service—the greatest constraint is manpower rather than cost.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the pilot studies. In the sums of money that are going into improved breast cancer care, has adequate thought been given to increasing the number of specialist breast cancer nurses? I understand that in this country we need 250 specialist breast cancer units whereas we have only 170 specialist care nurses. There is a great gap and I hope that some of the money will go towards increasing that number.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the introduction of breast care nurses is a new development. The increase in their number over the past three years has been considerable. We share the noble Baroness's view that they are most effective, especially in terms of communicating bad news and, indeed, sometimes good news. But again the question is one of training, and it is up to local health authorities to decide whether to purchase services that include breast care nurses. We believe that many of them are doing that.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being present when the Minister gave her Answer. Does she not think that the time has come for a 10-year overview of the screening programme, as happens in Sweden? Does she not agree that one should he looking at all the problems, such as two-dimensional imaging, the ageing bracket and the interval for screening; and, above all, at what the EU now calls in its third action plan "the women of suspect image"? Those are the EU's words. I think that those issues are important and I hope that my noble friend will pay particular attention to them.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I think that I covered all the points that my noble friend has made. He will be able to read them in Hansard. If there is anything outstanding, I shall write to him.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the Royal Marsden Hospital is now absolutely safe in terms of its future, as the hospital was under threat at one time by the Government?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, we have discussed the Royal Marsden on many occasions in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord will be aware that the Royal Marsden is now part of the general scheme of things. It is a trust; and like every trust, its services are purchased through the health authority.

Tributes to the Late Yitzhak Rabin
3.9 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement.
I am sure the House would not wish to let the day pass without honouring the memory of Yitzhak Rabin, who was cruelly murdered last weekend.
The late Prime Minister of Israel was a soldier. Like all true soldiers, he pursued his profession in order to achieve the ultimate security of his country. Your Lordships, perhaps better than any other assembly, know that peace alone can provide any nation with that security. There was therefore no paradox in the fact that the general became the peacemaker.
I believe that the whole House will acknowledge that the most appropriate memorial that the nations can erect to Mr. Rabin is a lasting peace settlement in his homeland. If his untimely death is to serve any purpose at all, let it accelerate the conclusion of that settlement rather than delay it.
Our deepest sympathy goes to his family, to the Jewish community in this country which contributes so much to our national life, and, of course, to his countrymen.
Lord Richard: My Lords, may I start by thanking the Leader of the House for giving us the opportunity of expressing our sentiments at these dreadful events. May I echo what he has just said about our sympathy going to Mr. Rabin's family, the Jewish community and the whole state of Israel. The killing of Yitzhak Rabin last Saturday evening is one of those, thankfully, rare events which really make us wonder for the future. It is almost a truism to say that Israel and the Middle East will never be quite the same again; but it is so. One gathers that inside Israel itself there is a feeling of shock and revulsion; a sense of bewilderment and perhaps, too, a feeling of self-questioning in the light of the fact that the assassin was himself a young Israeli. As one Minister put it:
"I always stubbornly thought that perhaps we are better than others, but we are not".
It is this threatened loss of national self-confidence and sense of identity and unity in Israel which could now prove to be one of its greatest dangers. Israel is a young country and a young democracy. Its institutions are going to come under severe strain in the coming months. It is important that we should all do what we can to help to nurture that democracy and help preserve those institutions. They will need all the help that we can give them in the aftermath of this terrible blow.
There is almost a classical sense of tragedy about these events—a soldier turned peacemaker killed as the peace process he did so much to promote gradually gathered momentum. The awful fact is that he was shot by one of his own countrymen and not by one of his former enemies. Finally, there is the extraordinary contrast between his last words and the act that almost immediately followed them.
At that final rally last Saturday, Mr. Rabin said:

1579
"I have always believed that the majority of the people want peace and are ready to take a chance for peace. And you"—
addressing the audience—
"by coming to this rally prove that the people truly want peace and oppose violence".
He then said this:
"Violence erodes the basis of Israeli democracy. It should be condemned, expunged and isolated. It is not the way of the State of Israel. There is democracy. There can be disputes, but the outcome will be settled in democratic elections".
I believe that Yitzhak Rabin was one of the great figures of our time. He was one of those very rare people who genuinely shaped and changed events. I found the sight of so many Arab leaders at his funeral this morning profoundly moving, as it was to see the King of Jordan expressing himself to an Israeli crowd in the way that he did and with the emotion that he so clearly felt. It would have been inconceivable a few years ago. As the Leader of the House said, his most fitting memorial would be to take forward the process towards peace and reconciliation in the Middle East. That is a process which in his lifetime he did so much to promote and for which in the end he gave his life.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches also wish to express our horror at the murder which took place on Saturday. We send our very sincere sympathies to Mr. Rabin's family, to the Government and Parliament of Israel and to Jewish people throughout the world for whom Israel and its future are matters of cardinal importance.
Mr. Rabin was here some months ago and he addressed us in the Moses Room. Those of us who had the opportunity to be there were, I believe, enormously impressed by the courage, determination and skill of that very great statesman. To those who were listening to him—to me most certainly—it came over very strongly that he must have been aware of the dangers that he encountered. Of course, he was a soldier and a leading statesman and never let those factors deter him in any way.
I join very much with those who say that the best tribute to him would be the continuation and successful conclusion of the peace process. It has got so far but it is far from concluded. Let us hope and pray that it will be possible for that process to be taken forward swiftly while the horror of what has happened is still with the people of Israel and before any other events intervene in the progress towards peace.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I knew Yitzhak Rabin and I admired him enormously. Certainly, within the Jewish community here he was a figure who had assumed an enormously important role. He will be greatly missed. It is a terrible tragedy borne of dark and irrational forces with a vested interest in fuelling hatred and seeking to take advantage of legitimate anxieties which afflict both sides in this lasting, long-enduring tragedy. But it also provides a strong moral for democratic leaders opposing a government's policy in a democracy. They should distance themselves from that hate and refuse to collude in its dire consequences. I fear
1580
that that has been the story in Israel, with the burning of effigies of the leaders and the pouring of odium and hate on their heads.
Yitzhak Rabin was a man of extraordinary frankness, and indeed bluntness, which could displease a lot of people quite often. But he spoke as he felt. The one thing that he felt so deeply about was the security of Israel and the promotion of peace with the Palestinians and her Arab neighbours.
I remember vividly meeting him just after his election victory in the summer of 1992. He was not in the least triumphalist and neither was he daunted by the immense challenges that he knew that he faced. He was dedicated to the task that he knew was his. Along with Shimon Peres, that task was to bring the opportunity of a peaceful solution to the problems of Israel and her neighbours. As a general he had seen too much blood of young people spilt. He hated that. He played a pivotal role, along with his colleagues—and, it has to be said too, with Yassir Arafat—in stimulating the peace process. He enjoyed a huge confidence in Israel in his strong leadership and in his vision, even though there was also massive criticism—for no one can dispute the divisions that exist in Israel and among the Palestinians about the peace process. One can only hope that Shimon Peres is likely to become the next Prime Minister and that he and Yassir Arafat can translate the vision of that great statesman, Yitzhak Rabin, into a lasting reality.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, who, I believe, would have been the right person to express the feelings of the Cross Benches today, I would like to be associated, on behalf of the Cross Benches, with the tributes which have been paid.
The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, outrage and sorrow about this assassination are deeply felt by Christian churches throughout the world. It was because Yitzhak Rabin was such a tough, battle-hardened warrior, as the Leader of the House has already said, that he was so effective in leading his people towards reconciliation. He pursued peace as boldly and courageously as he had fought in war.
The killing of this brave leader was a violation of the sacred commandment against murder which is at the centre of the Judaeo-Christian religion. It is a reminder of how demonic religion can become when it is perverted by hatred and fundamentalism. In the name of the God of justice and love, I express my abhorrence of this crime, my heartfelt sympathy for the people of Israel in their grief and my profound hope that the momentum towards lasting peace will continue as Yitzhak Rabin would have wished.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
3.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That if a Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill is brought from the House of Commons in the next Session of Parliament the Standing Orders of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with in the next Session.—(Viscount Goschen.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Loch Leven and Lochaber Water Power Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Disability Discrimination Bill
3.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason and amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons reason and amendments be now considered.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS REASON AND AMENDMENTS
[The page and line refer to Bill (54) as first printed by the Lords.]
LORDS AMENDMENT
30 Clause 12, page 9, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this Part, references to a service provider who discriminates against a disabled person shall include references to a service provider who—

(a) treats a person who has a physical or mental impairment that does not have a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities, as having a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities;

(b) treats a person who does not have a physical or mental impairment as having a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities.")

30A The Commons disagreed to this amendment for the following reason—
Because the definition of discrimination in Part III of the Bill should not be widened to include treatment of a person who is not disabled or whose condition does not have a substantial effect.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 30, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 30A.
The amendment seeks to extend the coverage of Part III to people who are not covered by the definition of disability in the Bill, either because they do not have a disability or have only a mild disability, but who are "treated" by service providers as if they were disabled.
The Commons have now considered this amendment and have disagreed with it,
1582
"Because the definition of discrimination in Part III of the Bill should not be widened to include treatment of a person who is not disabled or whose condition does not have a substantial effect".
I urge your Lordships to agree with the Commons.
Over the past year, we have consistently emphasised that the Bill is concerned with discrimination against people who are or have been disabled. It will not provide protection for all those who may be discriminated against. The definition the Bill uses is therefore a clear one: it covers people who are disabled in common sense terms.
Any attempt to widen its scope to include those who are merely thought to be disabled would dramatically reduce the Bill's effectiveness. I am convinced that service providers will respond positively to the legislation, but we will have to carry them with us. Vagueness and uncertainty will not do. They must be clear about what their obligations are, who has rights and who can take them to court. What they would fail to understand, and in many cases refuse to accept, is a Disability Discrimination Bill which sought to protect people who were not and never had been disabled. The success of the legislation rests on its credibility and public acceptance of it. This amendment would raise enormous questions of principle which might fatally undermine that acceptance.
And what about the burden on service providers, upon whom the successful implementation of Part III depends? We must remember that discrimination against disabled people is not like discrimination on the grounds of race or sex. It introduces the concept of reasonable adjustment—taking practical steps to make jobs or services accessible. Covering non-disabled people and those with minor conditions would result in an unacceptable degree of uncertainty on the part of the service provider. He would never know for certain whether a customer was someone for whom some form of adjustment was necessary; for example, a change to a policy or practice which made access unreasonably difficult. This would create a considerable burden for a small business trying to come to terms with its duties under the Act.
I do recognise that there may be concerns over people whose impairments have only a minor effect on their normal day-to-day activities. But it is hardly likely that service providers will treat people with an impairment which has substantial effects fairly but discriminate against those with a milder form of disability without substantial effects. That is not the way in which commercial enterprises operate. When they overhaul an existing policy or practice, they seek to create a consistent new approach which minimises needless distinctions and rules. The Government have pointed out frequently that the Bill will prompt people to reconsider their attitudes. Their duties to disabled people will produce new non-discriminatory business practices from which everybody stands to benefit. However, this change of attitude depends crucially on public acceptance of the basic purpose of the Bill—to deal with the genuine discrimination and disadvantage suffered by people with substantial disability.

1583
Furthermore, let us be sure about the degree of disability covered by the Bill's definitions. "Substantial" disability does not mean severe disability. The word "substantial" is used in the definition to indicate an effect which is more than minor. As a result, I believe that many disabled people, who may think the Bill does not cover them, will find that they enjoy its protection. This will become clearer once we have published guidance on the definitions.
Perhaps I may turn for a moment to some of the consequences of the way in which the amendment has been drafted. First, the amendment removed the subsection which makes victimisation unlawful under Part III. I feel sure that that must have been an error on the Opposition's part. The prohibition of victimisation against those who have, for example, given evidence in court in support of a disabled person who had been discriminated against is an important element in the Bill and corresponds to a similar provision in race and sex legislation. In fact, one could argue that the provision is all the more necessary in disability discrimination legislation because the victims will often be amongst the most vulnerable in society.
That is not the only serious drafting problem. The amendment also has the effect of creating a new definition of the word "discrimination" which applies to non-disabled people. This means that the vital elements in the existing definition do not apply in this context; for example, there is no requirement that the treatment must be "less favourable". It could mean that a service provider who merely offered to help an apparently disabled customer could be committing an unlawful act. In other words, it might operate to outlaw favourable treatment.
Perhaps more importantly, the provisions allow no scope for justification. If the service provider treats a non-disabled person in the way described in the amendment, he has discriminated and—in legal terms—he is strictly liable. There is no scope for him to say there was a perfectly justifiable misunderstanding, for example, or that the treatment would have been fully justified and therefore lawful if the person had been disabled. That is not a protection: it is a ludicrously unreasonable burden which it has never been suggested should apply even in the case of people who are genuinely disabled. Those effects may not have been intended, but they mean the amendment is fundamentally flawed. They are further reasons why we cannot afford to allow the amendment to remain on the face of the Bill.
The amendment is misconceived in intention and would be damaging in effect. I urge the House not to insist on it.
Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 30 to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 30A.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we on this side are doubly sorry that the Government overturned this amendment in the other place. Basically, it is a sound amendment but I am perfectly willing to accept
1584
that, as the Minister explained at some length, it may have been flawed. However, given that the amendment was supported by your Lordships in Committee, the Government had Report stage and Third Reading in this House, as well as the opportunity of amendments in the other place—three occasions—on which they could have amended it had they seen fit. Therefore, that is not a substantive objection.
Why is the amendment sound? Without it, someone may not be discriminated against if they are disabled, but they may be discriminated against if they are thought, wrongly, to be disabled. We believe that that is perverse. Perhaps I may give two simple examples.
First, a publican may not refuse service to someone who has epilepsy, but if he thinks, wrongly, that that person has epilepsy he may discriminate against him and not come within the law. Secondly, a publican, cinema owner, or whatever, may discriminate against someone who is severely deaf. If, however, that person is merely wearing a hearing aid and the publican thinks, nonetheless, that that implies severe deafness when it does not, the publican may discriminate and does not come within the framework of the law.
The difference between us is that the Minister is focusing upon the issue of disability while we on this side are focusing upon the question of discrimination. We believe it perverse that a person may not discriminate against someone with a severe or substantial disability but may discriminate against someone with a minor or a falsely believed disability. That is equally offensive. It is the first reason for being sorry that the Government have seen fit to overturn the amendment. They are left in a perverse position.
The second reason is a more general one. The Bill started on a negative note. It started because the Government resisted and rejected the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. So the opening of this round of debate was on a negative note. To our sorrow, it has closed on a negative note. When the Government vetoed the amendment, the last words the Minister spoke in another place were to ask for the rejection of an amendment that disabled people wished to have. It is churlish and grudging that the Government's last word on this matter in the other place should have been to negative an amendment, something which we, at this stage, can do nothing but acquiesce in.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, if the amendment were accepted, a provider of goods and services would be offending against the new law if he were to discriminate against someone who was thought to be disabled but in fact was not, or against someone with only a slight disability who would not fall within the definition of the Bill. Virtually everyone concerned agrees that there must be a definition of "disability" for the purposes of the Bill. That includes in the Bill people who have had a recognised degree of disability in the past which might recur. It would be going too far to include people who are not disabled but are merely perceived to be so. A whole range of people and cases having little connection with real disablement would come within the terms of the Bill.

1585
My understanding is that the Bill was never intended to deal with discrimination of all kinds. It is directed towards disabilities of significant handicapping kinds. It is indeed the first measure in this field ever to be introduced by a government in this country. It is not a general anti-discrimination Bill. There is another relevant consideration. I have had the privilege of associating with people with disabilities and organisations concerned with disablement for 50 years, ever since I sustained a physical disability in World War Two. Over that long period, I have come to know severely handicapped people who make light of their personal difficulties and manage cheerfully and skilfully to cope with life. They deserve our admiration.
At the other end of the spectrum, however, there is a minority of citizens under the delusion that they are suffering from disabilities when there is in fact little wrong with them. There are hypochondriacs in disability as well as other medical conditions. This addition to the Bill would be an invitation to some of them. It could become a charter for such hypochondriacs.
The amendment would apply only to Part III relating to goods and services. There was debate at the beginning of our Committee stage on 13th June on amendments to introduce perceived disablement into the definition. Those amendments were withdrawn after full debate. Later that day, an amendment worded similarly to this one, but applying to Part II of the Bill on employment, was not moved as a result of the debate. The amendment to Part III was the result of an unusual Division at about 9 p.m. on 15th June when voting was 94 for the Opposition and 50 for the Government. The Government were clearly caught napping on that occasion.
It was a well organised operation on which I congratulate the Opposition Front Bench. It was good clean fun. From a seemingly empty House, numbers of Opposition Peers materialised from nowhere late in the evening. I have taken part in similar episodes when I was in opposition in another place, also with success. So I appreciate and can admire a skilful exercise of that kind.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that some votes are more real than others?
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, not at all. The noble Baroness has been on the Opposition Front Bench for a long time. She must remember many Divisions after 9 o'clock in the evening when figures of 94 were not registered because no one was expecting such a Division. I have the Division List with me. I could read out some of the names, but I do not want to bother the House now. Noble Lords can look them up for themselves. On 17th June they will see the names of people who do not often appear here after 9 o'clock at night. I say, with admiration, that it was a well-organised operation.
The amendment was successful while equivalent amendments to other parts of the Bill were not even pressed to a Division. This left inconsistent definitions for different parts of the Bill. The amendment happened to be the beneficiary of an unusual Division. It applies to part of the Bill only and is inconsistent with the
1586
definition applying to the rest of the Bill which was not put to a vote. The Government were right to advise reversing it in another place and to propose that we should now agree with the Commons in their view.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the fact that the amendment was accepted by a surprise vote late at night, as the noble Lord said, does not matter very much. The fact is that the Opposition won the vote. If every time we disagreed with noble Lords on the Government Benches we were to have a Division, we should not have had a summer break and would still be going through the Division Lobbies. We have to be selective when choosing when to make a stand.
Regardless of technical deficiencies, the amendment's aim was to introduce a wider definition of disability as a whole. The Government said that they did not want that but that they wanted targeting. We have heard a great deal about targeting and resource allocation. We have it again in the Bill.
The amendment's aim was to ensure that discrimination in itself was seen to be something that was wrong. Surely, every opportunity should be taken to achieve that. That is why I have no reservations about opposing the Commons. I understand, however, that it is not the opinion of the Benches to my left that we should do that. Therefore I am reluctantly forced to back down.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I had not intended to speak because we are not pursuing this issue, as the Minister knows. It is a bit rich for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to talk about unknown and unfamiliar faces voting on this side of the House when that happens every day on practically every vote on that side of the House. It is a bit rich for the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, to make that accusation. It is staggering. He was selective in saying that votes we win really do not matter while votes that they win do. That is an odd version of democracy. He is in the wrong country to be putting forward that kind of view.
More seriously, the defeat of this amendment means that even with a Bill about discrimination it will still be legal to discriminate against people who are perceived to be disabled when they are not. That is absurd. Written into the Bill is a provision that no undue burden should be placed upon the providers of goods and services. Given that provision, which we accept, and indeed which we advocated, I do not see why the Government cannot accept the amendment because it would be a reasonable provision. I am sorry that the amendment cannot be accepted.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I am glad that the amendment was not accepted because it widened the Bill far too much. Instead of the Bill having the effect that we all wanted—that is, really helping disabled people—it would have produced a counter-reaction from people who thought that it was unreasonable. I refer in particular to self-perception, not merely to how others perceive one. In our debates we discussed how one might perceive oneself. I know many people who have unfortunate perceptions of themselves and who, under the Bill as it would have been worded

1587
as a result of the amendment, might have been able to bring cases and cause a great deal of hostility towards the Bill. Therefore, I am in favour of the amendment being refused by the Commons.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, in Committee I was not in favour of the amendment because it is impractical. I am glad that the Government have reversed it in another place. If the amendment remained it would not do the Bill any favour. This is the first piece of legislation in this country relating to disability discrimination and we have a great deal to learn about it. I believe that the question of perceived disability is extremely difficult to deal with at this stage and I prefer it to be left out of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I am grateful in particular to my noble friend Lord Swinfen who takes a great interest in these matters. He clearly underlined the distinction that I tried to make on a number of occasions during the various stages of the Bill. It was that the Bill is not a general discrimination Bill, as the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Ashley, would prefer, but it is a disability discrimination Bill. With the backing of many of your Lordships, I and the Government are intent on trying to prevent discrimination against disabled people. We believe that the amendment before us would widen the Bill to such an extent that it would be almost impossible for the ordinary person, the ordinary service provider, to apply the definition. As I said, this is not a general discrimination Bill but a Bill about discriminating against disabled people. For that reason, I hope that your Lordships will not insist on your amendment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
43 Clause 18, page 15, line 5, at end insert—
("(2) For the purposes of this section, treatment is justified only if—

(a) in A's opinion, one or more of the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) are satisfied; and

(b) it is reasonable, in all the circumstances of the case, for him to hold that opinion.

(3) The conditions are that—

(a) in any case, the treatment is necessary in order not to endanger the health or safety of any person (which may include that of the disabled person);

(b) in any case, the disabled person is incapable of entering into an enforceable agreement, or of giving an informed consent, and for that reason the treatment is reasonable in that case;

(c) in a case falling within section 16(3)(a), the treatment is necessary in order for the disabled person or the occupiers of other premises forming part of the building to make use of the benefit or facility;

(d) in a case falling within section 16(3)(b), the treatment is necessary in order for the occupiers of other premises forming part of the building to make use of the benefit or facility.

(4) Regulations may make provision, for purposes of this section, as to circumstances in which the condition mentioned in subsection (2)(a), or that mentioned in subsection (2)(b)—

(a) is to be taken to be satisfied;

(b) is to be taken not to be satisfied.

(5) Regulations may make provision, for purposes of this section, as to circumstances (other than those mentioned in subsection (3)) in which treatment is to be taken to be justified.")

The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
43A Line 22, leave out from 'which' to end of line 25 and insert—

(a) it is reasonable for a person to hold the opinion mentioned in subsection (2)(a);

(b) it is not reasonable for a person to hold that opinion.'.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43A to Lords Amendment No. 43.
This amendment restructures subsection (3) of Clause 18, one of the provisions relating to premises in Part III of the Bill. The key element of a justifiable refusal to sell or let property to a disabled person is not simply that one of the conditions set out in subsection (3) is met but that it is reasonable for the landlord to hold the opinion that one of the conditions is satisfied. An example of this could be if a landlord thought that a prospective tenant with a mental disability was not capable of understanding the terms of the lease. This amendment makes the clause consistent and coherent regarding the concept of reasonableness and the part that this plays in any justifiable refusal to sell or let premises. It makes this section of Part III consistent with the right of access to goods and services. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 43.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
LORDS AMENDMENT
50 After Clause 22, insert the following new clause—
("PART IIIB PUBLIC TRANSPORT Taxis
TAXI ACCESSIBILITY REGULATIONS
.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations ("taxi accessibility regulations") for the purpose of securing that it is possible—

(a) for disabled persons—

(i) to get into and out of taxis in safety;

(ii) to be carried in taxis in safety and in reasonable comfort; and

(b) for disabled persons in wheelchairs—

(i) to be conveyed in safety into and out of taxis while remaining in their wheelchairs; and

(ii) to be carried in taxis in safety and in reasonable comfort while remaining in their wheelchairs.

(2) Taxi accessibility regulations may, in particular—

1589

(a) require any regulated taxi to conform with provisions of the regulations as to—

(i) the size of any door opening which is for the use of passengers;

(ii) the floor area of the passenger compartment;

(iii) the amount of headroom in the passenger compartment;

(iv) the fitting of restraining devices designed to ensure the stability of a wheelchair while the taxi is moving;

(b) require the driver of any regulated taxi which is plying for hire, or which has been hired, to comply with provisions of the regulations as to the carrying of ramps or other devices designed to facilitate the loading and unloading of wheelchairs;

(c) require the driver of any regulated taxi in which a disabled person who is in a wheelchair is being carried (while remaining in his wheelchair) to comply with provisions of the regulations as to the position in which the wheelchair is to be secured.

(3) The driver of a regulated taxi which is plying for hire, or which has been hired, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he fails to comply with any requirement imposed on him by the regulations; or

(b) the taxi fails to conform with any provision of the regulations with which it is required to conform.

(4) A person who is guilty of such an offence is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(5) In this section—

"passenger compartment" has such meaning as may be prescribed;

"regulated taxi" means any taxi to which the regulations are expressed to apply;

"taxi" means a vehicle licensed under—

(a) section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, or

(b) section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869,

but does not include a taxi which is drawn by a horse or other animal.")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
50A Line 49, at end insert the following clause—
'Designated transport facilities.
.—(1) In this section "a franchise agreement" means a contract entered into by the operator of a designated transport facility for the provision by the other party to the contract of hire car services—

(a) for members of the public using any part of the transport facility; and

(b) which involve vehicles entering any part of that facility.

(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for the application of any taxi provision in relation to—

(a) vehicles used for the provision of services under a franchise agreement; or

(b) the drivers of such vehicles.

(3) Any regulations under subsection (2) may apply any taxi provision with such modifications as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) In this section—
"designated" means designated for the purposes of this section by an order made by the Secretary of State;
"hire car" has such meaning as may be prescribed;
1590
"operator", in relation to a transport facility, means any person who is concerned with the management or operation of the facility;
"taxi provision" means any provision of—

(a) this Act, or

(b) regulations made in pursuance of section 20(2A) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982, which applies in relation to taxis or the drivers of taxis; and

"transport facility" means any premises which form part of any port, airport, railway station or bus station.'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50A to Lords Amendment No. 50.
The strength of feeling voiced by some of your Lordships when we debated the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin of Clee, at Third Reading did not go unheeded. I am pleased to see the noble Lord in his place.
As I have explained to the House, that amendment then before us was seriously flawed. I am pleased to recall that enough of your Lordships agreed with me to carry my position in the Division Lobby. It would have undermined the ability of airport operators in particular to protect the interests of their passengers by regulating fares. The purpose behind the amendment—to enable disabled people the same freedom of access to onward transport as other travellers enjoy—was, however, one that we could endorse and the intervening time has allowed us to bring forward amendments which achieve that purpose without the unacceptable difficulties which would have been created by the earlier proposal.
Our amendments do not call into question the principle of a contract between the operator of a transport facility and a taxi or private hire vehicle firm. We believe that there is considerable merit in these contracts. They enable a menu of fixed fares to be agreed for the benefit of all passengers. If we had agreed to let taxis ply for hire at all transport facilities there was a danger that people could be over-charged by unscrupulous drivers once the taxi had left the area in which it was licensed.
To avoid this happening, the amendments before us look primarily at the vehicles used. The effect is that the Secretary of State can, where appropriate, apply the taxi provisions, modified if necessary, to the vehicles used under these contracts.
For this purpose, the Secretary of State is given a regulation-making power. That power could be used to ensure that when accessibility requirements are in force for taxis generally, equivalent requirements can be imposed on vehicles used under a contract to provide hire car services at say, an airport. It is a flexible power—sensibly I suggest—so that the Secretary of State is well able to solve problems as and when they arise.
But the principle is that it will enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the standards of accessibility for vehicles used under contracts can be kept in step with those for taxis generally. It can also ensure that the drivers can be placed under the same obligations as the drivers of wheelchair accessible taxis. I hope your

1591
Lordships will agree that this is both a sensible and a proper response to the concern which has understandably been voiced on this issue in previous debates. I commend the amendment to the House.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 50.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, at Third Reading it was accepted on all sides that my noble friend Lord Gladwin had demonstrated a loophole in the provision of taxis. He demonstrated that, without such an amendment, where there was a monopoly provision of services—for example, at an airport or railway station—a disabled person who was highly dependent on public transport might not be able to find a taxi which was suitable or available to meet his needs.
At Third Reading the Minister vigorously argued that such an amendment was not only unnecessary but highly undesirable. I believe that he will now admit that his reply did not convince the House—and possibly not himself. However, given the votes to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred earlier, the amendment was passed.
We are delighted that as a result of that debate the Minister and his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport have, even at this late stage, been able to close a loophole. A former Member of another place once said that when he realised that he was wrong he changed his mind. That was Aneurin Bevan. I believe that it is in order to congratulate the Minister on following that precedent and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Gladwin. We warmly congratulate the Government on seeing the wisdom of my noble friend's amendment, even at this late stage, and we welcome their climbdown.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister will be good enough to make just one thing clear. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, which has been accepted, referred to taxis when used for disabled people whether or not they are in wheelchairs. However, the new clause which has just been introduced refers to "a franchise agreement" and "a designated transport facility". Can my noble friend simply confirm that those facilities may or may not refer to the carriage of disabled people? They may in fact be just for the transport of the public generally.
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, perhaps I may join in the general welcome for the amendment. Noble Lords who were present when we divided the House on Third Reading will recall that the Minister said that he did not accept that there was an argument at all. I believe that that was the night that we got into "high windage" as regards problems of delay of airliners. It was interesting that during the whole of the debate the Minister for Transport (the Minister's noble friend Lord Goschen) was sitting alongside him. Six days later we received an amendment which seemed to do everything that I had been seeking to achieve from 15th June. Mr. Norris in another place was kind enough to say that as
1592
soon as the matter was drawn to their attention they immediately thought that it had merit. But 15th June to 30th October is not my idea of immediacy, even in this relaxed atmosphere.
However, one must not be churlish. I welcome the amendment. But there is a problem; namely that the way the matter has been handled has meant that there has been no consideration of the amendment that the Government tabled in another place. Questions asked by my honourable friend Tom Clarke from the Opposition Front Bench and indeed by Mr. Vivian Bendall, the Member for Ilford, North, were not answered by the Minister because he did not have time to do so. Therefore, I wonder whether our Minister could respond to some of them.
First, for example, the new clause refers to "taxi provision" with "modifications", but what kind of modifications? The key taxi provision in the Bill states that all taxis are to be wheelchair accessible. Is there to be a movement away from that principle? Secondly, the new clause will apply only to transport facilities that are "designated" by the Secretary of State. Which transport facilities are likely to be so designated and on what basis will the choice be made? Thirdly, why does not the new clause give us a definition of "hire car"? It says that a hire car shall have,
"such meaning as may be prescribed".
But what definition is likely to be prescribed? As I said, I welcome the new clause. I believe that it solves the problem that the Government belatedly recognised. But that late recognition has denied both Houses the opportunity properly to discuss the amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like briefly to express my thanks for the amendment which will, I hope, remove the hitch in what will eventually prove to be a trouble-free journey on wheelchair-accessible transport. It is indeed most welcome.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their welcome of the amendment. Those noble Lords who were present the other day will be happy to hear that my plane was, as I predicted and as usual, on time this morning. That topic formed part of the discussion that we had when we turned to the subject of airports.
I should like to help my noble friend Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, by saying that, of course, the requirements on vehicles will be equivalent to those in the main part of the taxi legislation. There will also be similar requirements on drivers, because it would not be sensible to require vehicles to be wheelchair accessible, or disabled person accessible, and yet not require the drivers to carry disabled people. Noble Lords who have taken an interest in the matter will know that I am merely paralleling here what is in the main body of the taxi part of the legislation.
None of that will happen until the taxi regulations come into force. Those who have listened to the debates on the subject will know that we have not yet reached the position where the kind of vehicles that we think we can reasonably expect taxi operators around the country

1593
to purchase and use are available. However, with the regulations on design, and so on, coming in and with the new methods being used by the builders of cars and taxis to deal with the problems associated with disabled people as regards their ability to get in and out of motor vehicles, we hope that vehicles will come on the market in the foreseeable future which will in fact meet the standards that we all wish to see.
I trust that what I have said has gone some way towards meeting the points raised. I was asked what services would be designated. I am afraid that I must give a fairly vague answer in that respect because that will become obvious when we come to designate them. Clearly it will depend on the circumstances. There may be many transport facilities which have a contract with a local transport firm, but the latter may already be in the taxi business and all its vehicles may well be accessible at that time in the future. It is difficult to give a straightforward answer as to what facilities will be designated. It will rather depend on the circumstances at the time and where such problems arise. I hope that that response is helpful.
I believe that I have now answered most of the questions, except that regarding hire cars. I am not sure that I can give an answer in that respect. However, I guess—and I shall certainly write to the noble Lord if I am wrong—that the definitions will be the same as those currently used in the main part of the Bill (which will ultimately become the Act). We are talking about the "plying for hire" part of what I suppose could be described as the taxi business, but it is wider than that. We are not talking about private hire where you phone for a car and it comes to collect you; we are talking about people who ply for hire whether in the street or in the town square or, indeed, transport facilities.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORDS AMENDMENT
89 After Clause 35, insert the following new clause—
APPLICATION TO PARLIAMENT
("—(1) This Act applies to an act done by or for purposes of the House of Lords or the House of Commons as it applies to an act done by a private person.
(2) For the purposes of the application of Part II in relation to the House of Commons, the Corporate Officer of that House shall be treated as the employer of a person who is (or would be) a relevant member of the House of Commons staff for the purposes of section 188 of the Employment Rights Act 1995.
(3) Except as provided in subsection (4), for the purposes of the application of sections 12 to 15, the provider of services is—

(a) as respects the House of Lords, the Corporate Officer of that House; and

(b) as respects the House of Commons, the Corporate Officer of that House.

(4) Where the service in question is access to and use of any place in the Palace of Westminster which members of the public are permitted to enter, the Corporate Officers of both Houses jointly are the provider of that service.
(5) Nothing in any rule of law or the law or practice of Parliament prevents proceedings being instituted before an industrial tribunal under Part II or before any court under Part III.").
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
89A Line 8, leave out '188 of the Employment Rights Act 1995' and insert '139 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 89A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 89. The amendment ensures that the correct reference to existing legislation covering House of Commons staff is made. Without the amendment the effectiveness of the provisions applying the Disability Discrimination Bill to Parliament would be weakened, and that should clearly be corrected.
I am sure that everyone on all sides of the House would wish to join me in congratulating the House authorities on their decision and also in welcoming the amendments which apply the Bill to this House. They give the clearest signal that we recognise how important it is to provide the fullest possible access to the political process for disabled people. I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 89A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 89. — (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
128 After Schedule 2, insert the following new schedule—
("SCHEDULE 2A
PREMISES OCCUPIED UNDER LEASES
PART I
OCCUPATION BY EMPLOYER OR TRADE ORGANISATION
Failure to obtain consent to alteration
1. If any question arises as to whether the occupier has failed to comply with the section 6 or section (Duty of trade organisation to make adjustments) duty, by failing to make a particular alteration to the premises, any constraint attributable to the fact that he occupies the premises under a lease is to be ignored unless he has applied to the lessor in writing for consent to the making of the alteration.
Joining lessors in proceedings under section 8
2. — (1) In any proceedings under section 8, in a case to which section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) applies, the complainant or the occupier may ask the tribunal hearing the complaint to direct that the lessor be joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings.
(2) The request shall be granted if it is made before the hearing of the complaint begins.
(3) The tribunal may refuse the request if it is made after the hearing of the complaint begins.
(4) The request may not be granted if it is made after the tribunal has determined the complaint.
(5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings and the tribunal finds that—

(a) the lessor has—

(i) refused consent to the alteration, or

(ii) has consented subject to one or more conditions, and

(b) the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable,

it may make such declaration as it considers appropriate or order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.
(6) A declaration or order under sub-paragraph (5) may be made in substitution for, or in addition to, any steps taken by the tribunal under section 8(2).
(7) If the tribunal orders the lessor to pay compensation it may not make an order under section 8(2) ordering the occupier to do so.
Regulations
3. Regulations may make provision as to circumstances in which—

(a) a lessor is to be taken, for the purposes of section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) and this Part of this Schedule to have—

(i) withheld his consent;

(ii) withheld his consent unreasonably;

(iii) acted reasonably in withholding his consent;

(b) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be reasonable;

(c) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be unreasonable.

Sub-leases etc.
4. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision supplementing, or modifying, the provision made by section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) or any provision made by or under this Part of this Schedule in relation to cases where the occupier occupies premises under a sub-lease or sub-tenancy.
PART II
OCCUPATION BY PROVIDERS OF SERVICES
Failure to obtain consent to alteration
5. If any question arises as to whether the occupier has failed to comply with the section 15 duty, by failing to make a particular alteration to premises, any constraint attributable to the fact that he occupies the premises under a lease is to be ignored unless he has applied to the lessor in writing for consent to the making of the alteration.
Reference to court
6.—(1) If the occupier has applied in writing to the lessor for consent to the alteration and—

(a) that consent has been refused, or

(b) the lessor has made his consent subject to one or more conditions,

the occupier or a disabled person who has an interest in the proposed alteration to the premises being made, may refer the matter to a county court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff.
(2) In the following provisions of this Schedule "court" includes "sheriff'.
(3) On such a reference the court shall determine whether the lessor's refusal was unreasonable or (as the case may be) whether the condition is, or any of the conditions are, unreasonable.
(4) If the court determines that the lessor's refusal was unreasonable it may make a declaration to the effect that if the lessor were to give his consent subject to such condition or conditions as may be specified in the declaration he would be acting reasonably.
Joining lessors in proceedings under section 20
7. — (1) In any proceedings on a claim under section 20, in a case to which this Part of this Schedule applies, the plaintiff, the pursuer or the occupier concerned may ask the court to direct that the lessor be joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings.
(2) The request shall be granted if it is made before the hearing of the claim begins.
(3) The court may refuse the request if it is made after the hearing of the claim begins.
(4) The request may not be granted if it is made after the court has determined the claim.
(5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings and the court finds that—

(a) the lessor has—

(i) refused consent to the alteration, or

(ii) has consented subject to one or more conditions, and

(b) the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable,

it may make such declaration as it considers appropriate or order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.
(6) If the court orders the lessor to pay compensation it may not order the occupier to do so.
Regulations
8. Regulations may make provision as to circumstances in which—

(a) a lessor is to be taken, for the purposes of section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) and this Part of this Schedule to have—

(i) withheld his consent;

(ii) withheld his consent unreasonably;

(iii) acted reasonably in withholding his consent;

(b) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be reasonable;

(c) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be unreasonable.

Sub-leases etc.
9. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision supplementing, or modifying, the provision made by section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) or any provision made by or under this Part of this Schedule in relation to cases where the occupier occupies premises under a sub-lease or sub-tenancy.")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendments—
128A Line 24, leave out sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) and insert—
'(5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings, the tribunal may determine—

(a) whether the lessor has—

(i) refused consent to the alteration, or

(ii) consented subject to one or more conditions, and

(b) if so, whether the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable.

(5A) If, under sub-paragraph (5), the tribunal determines that the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable it may take one or more of the following steps—

(a) make such declaration as it considers appropriate;

(b) make an order authorising the occupier to make the alteration specified in the order;

(c) order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.

(5B) An order under sub-paragraph (5A)(b) may require the occupier to comply with conditions specified in the order.'.
(6) Any step taken by the tribunal under sub-paragraph (5A) may be in substitution for, or in addition to, any step taken by the tribunal under section 8(2).'.
128B Line 77, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—

'(4) If the court determines—

(a) that the lessor's refusal was unreasonable; or

(b) that the condition is, or any of the conditions are, unreasonable,

it may make such declaration as it considers appropriate or an order authorising the occupier to make the alteration specified in the order.
(4A) An order under sub-paragraph (4) may require the occupier to comply with conditions specified in the order.'.
128C Line 92, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
'(5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings, the court may determine—

(a) whether the lessor has—

(i) refused consent to the alteration, or

(ii) consented subject to one or more conditions, and

(b) if so, whether the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable.

(5A) If under sub-paragraph (5), the court determines that the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable it may take one or more of the following steps—

(a) make such declaration as it considers appropriate;

(b) make an order authorising the occupier to make the alteration specified in the order;

(c) order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.

(5B) An order under sub-paragraph (5A)(b) may require the occupier to comply with conditions specified in the order.'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 128A, 128B and 128C en bloc as amendments to Lords Amendment No. 128. The amendments seek to clarify certain aspects of legal proceedings relating to leases. Under Amendment No. 128 as it stands, an industrial tribunal can make a declaration that the consent required by an employer, should there he a restriction in a lease which prevents a reasonable adjustment, was unreasonably refused by the landlord.
However, that declaratory remedy is insufficient because a declaration that a consent was unreasonably refused does not amount to permission to the tenant to carry out the alteration. For the provisions to be effective for disabled people and employers the tribunal should be able, after hearing all the evidence including the landlord's evidence and arguments, to make an order that the refusal of consent was unreasonable and the tenant is entitled to carry out the alteration. In order for the landlord's interests to be protected, it is also important that the Bill should make clear that the court or tribunal may impose conditions on the way the alteration is carried out; that is, conditions that the landlord could reasonably have attached to his consent.
In Amendment No. 128A we also believe that the schedule should make expressly clear that the issue of the reasonableness of the landlord's actions can only be considered by the tribunal if the landlord has been made a party to the proceedings and hence has the right to appear and argue his case. At the moment this is implicit but clarifying the remedy makes it important to set out clearly this safeguard for the landlord.
The provisions on leases are broadly the same for the right of access to goods and services as they are for the employment right. That explains Amendment No. 128C. On Amendment No. 128B, however, because of the greater number of disabled people and wider range of disabilities which many service providers will encounter, we want to encourage service providers to comply with their duties in advance of being required to
1598
do so by a disabled person. This will promote a more comprehensive approach to the accessibility of public places. Part II of Schedule 2(A) therefore includes an additional provision which would allow a county court to consider an application made directly by a service provider who feels he has been unreasonably refused permission to make an alteration to his premises required in order to carry out his duty. This means he can have the matter determined even though there has been no specific complaint by a disabled person. Here, too, the purpose of Amendment No. 128B is to make clear that the court has the power in such a situation to make an order authorising the service provider to proceed with the alteration subject to any condition the court might make. The provisions I have mentioned will also apply for trade organisations covered by Part II of the Bill.
These amendments clarify the relationship between the duty of reasonable adjustment on businesses and the implications for landlords. The amendments provide a fair balance between the needs of disabled people and the requirements on businesses and landlords. We will ensure that disabled people, businesses and landlords are among those consulted on the regulations. This is an important area. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 128A to 128C as amendments to Lords Amendment No. 128.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
4 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 128A to 128C amend, obviously, Amendment No. 128. We are content with the substance of the amendment and the subsequent amendments, but Amendment No. 128, the original amendment, states in paragraph 4:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision".
I believe that this is the final time today that the word "regulation" will appear before the House. I wish to discuss that briefly rather than speak to the substance of the amendment.
This Bill contains about 63 regulatory powers. Some three major issues have been fought which I believe define the Opposition parties' thinking on the Bill and that of some opposition-minded people on the Government Benches. The first concerns the definition of disability which we discussed earlier today. That includes perception. The second is the fact that small firms employing fewer than 20 people are exempt from certain provisions. That includes firms in large swathes of our rural countryside. Thirdly, we fought over the issue of the National Disability Council and the powers it would have. As regards regulations on the perception of disability in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, it is clear that where, for example, social prejudice and stigma or perception of disability have the effect of restricting an individual's ability to function the Secretary of State may rule that that prejudice could, if such a regulation were introduced, bring the person affected within the framework of the Bill.

1599
On the issue of small firms, the Secretary of State has the power by regulation to reduce the figure of 20 down to the more acceptable figure of, for example, five. Clause 15 contains abundant powers to require employers and the providers of services to make proper adjustments. Clause 23(3) concerns the powers of the National Disability Council. The Secretary of State may by order add any additional functions—except that of investigating complaints—as he sees fit. He may require the body to advise, to assist, to research, to educate and to review. I have no doubt there are many other additional functions we would wish to see bestowed.
The Bill, as I said, contains some 63 regulatory powers. But the issue of regulation in this Bill, as opposed to the Jobseekers Bill, has not been aired in this House. I am authorised to say that the next Minister with responsibility for disabled people will use all of those powers where they extend, expand and strengthen the rights and opportunities for disabled people.
I have to say—and I can say—that my honourable friend in another place, Mr. Tom Clarke, is delighted at the range, extent and armoury of powers that have been bequeathed to him by this outgoing government which will allow him to address the issues of the perception of disability, the size of small firms and the role and function of the National Disability Council. With such an array of powers we will be able virtually—although not completely and entirely—to construct a civil rights disability Bill by regulation. Never have so many regulatory powers been welcomed by so many disabled people and never will they be put to such good and benign use as by the next government. Then, and only then, will this be a good enough Bill.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I wish to respond to those comments which I believe have some relevance to the amendments I moved. I am always interested to hear what the honourable friend of the noble Baroness in another place has to say. I am particularly interested to hear it this week, given that yet another inquiry—this time by the Labour Party—has been instigated as regards his local authority which he (at the beginning at least) used to say was as pure and white as the driven snow, or words to that effect. He has changed his mind once or twice since then and probably will do so again.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness has cleared her comments with Mr. Brown, who is supposedly the keeper of the public purse for the party opposite and who is telling the taxpayers of this country that there will be no higher taxes or public spending than at present. I hope that he has been consulted. However, above all, I hope that I misheard the noble Baroness. I hope that she meant to say that in the event of the party opposite gaining office some time in the next century, or the century after that, it will undertake the consultations on which I gave assurances from this Dispatch Box before any secondary legislation is passed through the House. I made a point of mentioning the people and organisations we would consult. I am sure the noble Baroness meant to say—although I did not hear her say it—that the party opposite, in the event of gaining office in the future, might produce some
1600
statutory instruments and secondary legislation after consultation with all the people whom governments are obliged to consult.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS
140 Schedule 6, page 36, line 45, at end insert—
(". In section 13(6A)(b) for "Part VII of the Mental Health Act 1983" substitute "Part VIII of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986".")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
140A Line 2, leave out from '(6A)' to end of line 4 and insert for paragraphs (b) and (c) substitute "; or
(b) functions conferred by or under Part VIII of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 are exercisable in relation to a disabled person's property or affairs.".'.
141 Page 37, line 9, at end insert—
("12A. Omit sections (Education of disabled persons), (Further and higher education of disabled persons) and (Further and higher education of disabled persons: Scotland).
12B. —(1) In section (Taxi accessibility regulations)(1) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Taxi accessibility regulations)(5) for the definition of "taxi" substitute—
""taxi" means a vehicle which—

(a) is licensed under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to stand or ply for hire; and

(b) seats not more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver."

12C. For section (New licences conditional on compliance with taxi accessibility regulations) substitute—
"New licences conditional on compliance with accessibility regulations.
.— (1) The Department of the Environment shall not grant a public service vehicle licence under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 for a taxi unless the vehicle conforms with those provisions of the taxi accessibility regulations with which it will be required to conform if licensed.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if such a licence was in force with respect to the vehicle at any time during the period of 28 days immediately before the day on which the licence is granted.
(3) The Department of the Environment may by order provide for subsection (2) to cease to have effect on such date as may be specified in the order.".
12D. Omit section (Exemption from taxi accessibility regulations).
12E. In section (Carrying of passengers in wheelchairs)(7) for "licensing authority" substitute "Department of the Environment".
12F.—(1) In section (Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs)(5) and (6) for "licensing authority" substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs)(9) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
12G. Omit section (Requirements as to disabled passengers in Scotland).
12H. —(1) In section (Appeal against refusal of exemption certificate)(1) for "a licensing authority" substitute "the Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Appeal against refusal of exemption certificate)(2) for "licensing authority concerned" substitute "Department of the Environment".
(3) In section (Appeal against refusal of exemption certificate)(3) for the words from "the magistrates' court" to the end substitute "a court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessions district in which the aggrieved person resides."
12I.—(1) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (PSV accessibility regulations)(5) for the definition of "public service vehicle" substitute—
""public service vehicle" means a vehicle which—

(a) seats more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver; and

(b) is a public service vehicle for the purposes of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981;".

(3) In section (PSV accessibility regulations)(7) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".
12J.—(1) In section (Accessibility certificates)(2) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Accessibility certificates) for subsections (3) and (4) substitute—
"(3) Any person who uses a regulated public service vehicle in contravention of this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.".
12K.—(1) In section (Approval certificates) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Approval certificates)(1) for "he" substitute "it".
(3) In section (Approval certificates)(6) for "his" substitute "its".
12L. In section (Special authorisations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
12M.—(1) In section (Reviews and appeals) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Reviews and appeals)(2) for "him" substitute "it".
(3) In section (Reviews and appeals)(6) for "he" substitute "it" and for "his" substitute "its".
12N. — (1) In section (Fees) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Fees)(2) for "him" substitute "it" and at the end add "of Northern Ireland".
(3) In section (Fees)(4) for "he" substitute "it".
12P. — (1) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(6) in the definition of "rail vehicle" for the words "on any railway, tramway or prescribed system" substitute "by rail".
(3) Omit section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(7).
(4) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(11) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".
12Q. — (1) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
(2) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(3) for the words "the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other persons as he" substitute "such persons as it" and for "he" substitute "it"
12R. Omit section (Offences by bodies corporate etc.)(3).")
The Commons agreed to this amendment with the following amendment—
141A Line 13, at end insert—
'(2A) In section (Designated transport facilities) for "Secretary of State", wherever it occurs, substitute "Department of the Environment".'.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 140A and 141 A.
As I am sure your Lordships know, Northern Ireland has its own separate body of legislation and administrative structure. Modifications to the provisions of the Bill in order that they fit in with existing Northern Ireland legislation and structure are set out in Schedule 6. Amendment No. 140A corrects Schedule 6 and removes a paragraph, which relates specifically to Scottish law, that is unnecessary for the Bill to operate in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 141A corrects Schedule 6 in relation to the new clause introduced about designated transport facilities. These two technical amendments will, of course, bring all the advantages which this important piece of legislation will bring to disabled people in Great Britain to the people of Northern Ireland. I commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 140A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No. 140 and with Amendment No. 141A as an amendment to Lords Amendment No.141. —(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill
4.10 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 2 [Basis on which compensation is to be calculated]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) Provision shall be made for compensation to be paid for mental injury alone in accordance with such provisions of the Scheme as may be relevant, but in particular—

(a) mental injury shall not be considered an accidental injury for the purpose of any exclusions from the Scheme; and

(b) provision shall be made for compensation to be paid for mental injury alone where such injury is sustained by a person who, during the immediate aftermath of a crime of violence or offence of trespass on a railway, was involved in containing, limiting or remedying the consequences of that crime or offence, whether or not that person had a close relationship of love and affection with the person who sustained the injury.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of a small and select body of amendments which we have been able to table following the very welcome publication of the second draft of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and tariff. We express our gratitude to the Government for making it possible for us to see that on Wednesday evening of last week. I am afraid that it has meant that we were not able to table our amendments until Friday, which explains why they are starred on the Marshalled List today. But I hope that, despite that short time, your Lordships will feel that it is desirable and legitimate to raise at this stage of the Bill issues arising from the new draft of the scheme and the tariff.
I emphasise that in all of these amendments which we are putting forward, we are using the text of the Bill to raise issues which we accept will be dealt with in the tariff. That is the way in which we must secure debate in this House on what are still important matters which your Lordships have to consider. &
Amendment No. 1 is concerned with a particular issue of mental injury which is defined in paragraph 9 of the new scheme as a medically recognised psychiatric or psychological illness. Paragraph 9 of the new scheme defines the circumstances in which compensation for mental injury will not be payable by defining the circumstances in which it can be payable by itself; in other words, not accompanied by physical injury or disease.
The four conditions under which compensation for mental injury can be paid are: when the applicant is put in reasonable fear of immediate physical harm; when the applicant has a close relationship of love and affection with the person when that person has sustained a physical injury; thirdly, when the applicant was a non-consenting victim of a sexual offence; and fourthly—I am merely reading out the gist of what the scheme says—when the applicant is employed in the business of a railway and has witnessed an occasion when another person sustained physical injury attributable directly to an offence of trespass. In other words, that is normally a train driver who has had a suicide on the line or somebody in similar circumstances.
So far, so good. Your Lordships may think that those requirements for compensation for mental injury alone might be broadly acceptable. But then, if one looks at paragraph 12 and in particular paragraph 12b, one sees that compensation is not payable for accidental injury by a person who is engaged in any other activity directed to containing, limiting or remedying the consequences of crime unless the person injured was, at the time that he sustained the injury, taking exceptional risk which was justified in all the circumstances.
We debated that provision at some length at earlier stages of the Bill when we were concerned with fire fighters who have protection if they are taking exceptional risks—for example, entering a burning building to rescue somebody—but not in other circumstances. I do not raise that issue again but I should point out that there is a potential conflict between paragraphs 9 and 12.
Many of the people who may need to be compensated for mental injury—what is very often called trauma—as a result of an incident which could be caused by a criminal action will not be taking exceptional risks. They will be doing their job. They may be driving a train or bringing first aid to a victim of a criminal act. It could occur other than on the railways. Therefore, we feel that the second draft of the scheme needs to be thought out much further in order to be sure that the provisions of paragraph 12b do not negate the provisions of paragraph 9. While the Government may not necessarily wish to accept the amendment, we note that the Government will recognise that further drafting is necessary before the scheme is put before Parliament.
4.15 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, as the noble Lord said, this amendment is aimed at the exceptional risk provisions of the draft scheme (the latest draft of which was made available last week). Under those provisions, an award is not payable for injury sustained accidentally unless the person sustaining the injury was, at the time, taking an exceptional risk which was justified in all the circumstances. The first limb of this amendment would seek to exclude mental injury from this prohibition.
We accept that employees in the business of a railway and who are deemed eligible for an award for witnessing or clearing up a suicide on a railway—under paragraph 9d of the draft scheme—may, as the scheme now stands, be excluded from an award by the effects of paragraph 12b. That was not the intention. The noble Lord is right to point that out. We shall therefore make this quite clear by adding to the end of sub-paragraph 9d the following sentence:
"Paragraph 12 below does not apply where mental injury is sustained as described in this sub-paragraph."
I believe that that will meet the concern of the noble Lord. The second limb of this amendment is not dissimilar, and seeks to extend the scheme so that mental injury suffered by anyone involved in helping at the scene of a crime or its immediate aftermath would be eligible for compensation. I am afraid that is not acceptable.
I recognise that this is a contentious and difficult area of the common law, and one which is continuing to develop. And there is of course the work of the Law Commission, which continues to examine the position of what are generally known as "secondary victims", namely, those who have been indirectly affected in one way or another by injury inflicted on others. But, as has been made clear on many occasions during earlier stages of this Bill, we are no longer attempting to provide finely judged compensation on the same basis as before, nor attempting to match each and every head of damage that might conceivably be available under common law damages. We must set some limit on what the taxpayer can reasonably be asked to pay for. Thus, while we feel that "secondary victims" who have a close personal relationship with the victim should be able to qualify for

1605
mental injury under the terms of paragraph 9, we do not think it would be right to include others as suggested here, be they "professional" rescuers or anyone else.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her response to the first part of the amendment which is clearly totally satisfactory. We look forward to seeing the amended text and, indeed, to debating that amended text in Parliament when the orders are laid.
I do not agree with the noble Baroness about the second part of the amendment. I believe that there should be more recognition of the mental as well as the physical risks which rescuers take in the course of their work, which is often unpaid and voluntary. They may be amateur rescuers; for example, from the St. John's Ambulance or the Red Cross. However, this is not an issue on which I wish to divide the House at this stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) Where provision is made under section 2(2)(c) for an additional amount of compensation calculated with respect to special expenses, this provision shall include an amount for unpaid care provided at home by a relative or friend of the person to whom an award is being made, whether or not that friend or relative has suffered any actual loss of earnings or incurred additional personal or living expenses.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 refers to paragraph 35 of the second draft of the scheme. We are grateful for the recognition in the second draft of some of the arguments that we put forward at earlier stages of consideration of the Bill. Those of your Lordships who have taken an interest in these matters will recall that we were particularly concerned that there should be compensation, not just for paid care and associated expenses, but also for unpaid care provided by friends or relatives. Apart from the argument of principle, we put forward the practical argument that if the Bill compensated paid care but not unpaid care, victims would no longer receive unpaid care but would be tempted to go for paid care instead and the taxpayer would have to pay for it. Part of that argument is recognised in the last sub-paragraph of paragraph 35 of the draft scheme which says:
"the expense of unpaid care provided at home by a relative or friend of the victim will be compensated by assessing the carer's loss of earnings and/or additional personal living expenses".
That nearly goes far enough but not quite far enough. I apologise for continuing to press the matter. It must be recognised that often many hours of unpaid care are provided by carers which do not involve loss of earnings. The unpaid carers would not otherwise have been earning, and it would not involve additional personal living expenses. Of course, if they were not to devote themselves to the care of the victim of crime they could be earning. Therefore, I believe that what is needed is a simple additional phrase. There is a requirement for recognition of earning capacity as well as actual loss of earnings. I believe that such an
1606
amendment will be in the spirit of the progress that has already been made in the direction of an improved scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that we can meet the intention of this amendment by making it clearer in the draft scheme that unpaid care can be compensated. The operation of the scheme has to rely, as far as practicable, on demonstrable, quantifiable costs rather than on wholly notional figures. But in this area we believe that the approach should be to take account of the time which the relative or friend is devoting to the care of the victim and make an assumption about how much that may represent in loss of earning capacity, even if the carer has not been in employment. We shall therefore amend the last sentence of paragraph 35 of the draft scheme to include reference both to the carer's loss of earnings and earning capacity.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wish I could have said it so well myself. I am grateful to the Minister, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) Where provision is made under section 2(2)(c) for an additional amount of compensation calculated with respect to special expenses, this provision shall include an amount for unpaid work normally carried out by the person to whom the award is being made but which (in the opinion of the person determining the award) it is now necessary for another person to be paid to carry out.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also relates to paragraph 35. We are pushing a little bit further each time. Amendment No. 3 is concerned with childcare and housework. Victims (or applicants, as they are referred to in the scheme) do a considerable amount of unpaid work such as childcare and housework in addition to that which is already recognised in the scheme, which is the maintenance of the house, garden, vehicles or whatever it may be. It is oddly sexist to recognise tasks that male victims may be prevented from doing—by reason of their disability but not those that female victims may be prevented from doing—not that I believe it right that women should do any more than their due share, or no more than half, of the housework in any house. However, there ought to be a recognition of childcare and housework. I hope that the Government will be as accommodating in this matter as in the previous one. I should have said that women should do no more than their share of childcare or housework.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, this amendment would allow additional compensation to be paid to cover unpaid activities formerly undertaken by the victim. I believe I need to remind the House that, while we have taken forward with the new scheme the main elements of the common law damages scheme, we do not intend that the new scheme should comprehensively enable payment for absolutely anything available under common law in relation to special damages.
Victims incapacited for 28 weeks or more will receive generous compensation for the injury itself, for loss of earnings, for loss of earning capacity, for special

1607
expenses for the adaption of accommodation and for the cost of care. However, we believe that a line has to be drawn somewhere. We do not consider that the taxpayer should be asked to go further and pay what would be notionally calculated extra amounts in respect of home decoration, repairs, gardening or other unpaid activities. This is just one bridge too far in these amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if we had a fourth and fifth reading we might push a little further forward and make more progress, as we have done so far. I am disappointed, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Appeals]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 43, at end insert ("but no such reduction shall be made unless the appeal has been referred by the adjudicator for an oral hearing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may feel that this is a particularly abstruse point, for which I apologise. We turn now to paragraph 71 which is concerned with what happens in appeals that are determined without an oral hearing; in other words, on the basis of the papers alone. Paragraph 71 provides:
"Where an appeal is not referred under paragraphs 69 or 70 for an oral hearing, the adjudicator's dismissal of the appeal will be final and the decision taken on the review will stand".
We are worried about the next part:
"The adjudicator may, however, reduce the amount of compensation to be awarded by such amount as he considers appropriate, where he is of the opinion that the appeal was frivolous or vexatious".
We do not object to action being taken against frivolous or vexatious appeals, but surely an appeal cannot be considered to be frivolous or vexatious when it is only at the screening stage on the basis of papers alone. If somebody pursues it to an oral hearing, patently does not have a case and the matter can be described as frivolous or vexatious, it seems right that there should be penalties. But when it is dealt with purely on the basis of papers and is only at the screening stage, and when no other public money is expended on the costs of an appeal, surely the provision in the second sentence against frivolous or vexatious appeals and the associated power to reduce the award are not appropriate. I cannot believe that that is intended. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I would oppose the amendment. In this type of administration you have to have some safeguard against vexatious and frivolous appeals. There is a similar provision in so many other jurisdictions, indeed including the courts. I think that in this type of administration there is nothing wrong or inherently unfair about it.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. However, I was about to accept that there is a case for saying that if an appeal
1608
is to be rejected on the ground of being vexatious or frivolous, it will be on the basis of an oral hearing. It is our intention to delete the second part of paragraph 71.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again I am entirely satisfied with the Minister's answer. I am grateful to her for giving it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Parliamentary control]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 8, line 24, at end insert—
("(3A) Before making any alteration to a provision of the Scheme which—

(a) gives a right of appeal, or

(b) specifies the circumstances in which an appeal is to be dealt with by a hearing,

the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament a draft of the provision as proposed to be altered.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is, of course, a little unusual to bring forward government amendments at so late a stage in a Bill's proceedings. However, the amendments touch on an aspect of the scheme—namely, the appeals provisions—in which it is clear, from the several debates we have had on the subject at earlier stages of the Bill, that many of your Lordships take a particular interest. Indeed at Report stage I undertook to consider how we might be able to respond to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and his colleague, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer. These amendments fulfil that undertaking and represent our considered response.
As your Lordships will recall, as a result of changes we made to the Bill in Committee, the complete scheme will now have to be approved by Parliament, by the affirmative resolution procedure, before it can come into force. Thereafter, if change is considered necessary or desirable, Parliament will have to approve such change. The more important, or "key" features of the scheme will require parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure, while all other features will require approval by the negative resolution procedure. The Executive will no longer have the power to change any aspect of the scheme, however minor, without securing the appropriate parliamentary approval in this way.
It is of course a matter of judgment as to which features of the scheme should require approval by the affirmative resolution procedure and which by the negative. In our view, Parliament ought not to be overburdened with more minor points of detail. We accordingly made a judgment as to what might reasonably be regarded as the "key" features of the scheme, and those are set out in Clause 11(3). In the main they relate to the tariff itself and to matters bearing on quantum.
However, it became clear in debate that a number of your Lordships take the view that provisions relating to appeals are also of sufficient importance to merit inclusion in that part of the Bill which would require subsequent change to be made by the affirmative resolution procedure.
The first amendment makes it clear that before any changes can he made to a provision of the scheme which gives a right of appeal or which specifies the circumstances in which an appeal is to be dealt with by an oral hearing, parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure will now be necessary. The second amendment is a minor consequential. That effectively means that any provision of the scheme touching on eligibility for appeal or the circumstances in which an oral hearing can be granted et cetera are caught.
I hope the House will agree that this is a sensible and pragmatic solution which achieves the right balance, and affords the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the amendment follows closely Amendment No. 27 which my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and I put before the House at Report stage. I have no doubt that the wording is better than that which we put forward. The amendment recognises the point made. That is confirmed by the Minister's speech.
Of course we are not too grateful because we would have preferred the appeals procedure to be on the face of the Bill. We believe that appeals procedures are by their nature quasi judicial, provisions for which should not be tucked away in a scheme even though alterations to a scheme are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. However, this is the best that we shall gain; and we are grateful for the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I was slightly involved in this matter. One has the feeling again that one has not striven in vain. Although we have not achieved exactly what we sought, we have achieved recognition that the scheme may be so amended subject to circumstances which are never so easy to define. For my part, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend the Minister for going that far.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line 26, after ("(3)") insert ("or (3A)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. The Bill paves the way for a new criminal injuries compensation scheme under which compensation will be paid to blameless victims of violent crimes on a statutory basis. The new scheme to be made under the Bill's powers will concentrate on a straightforward tariff approach for the majority of victims. But it will also ensure that the needs of those most seriously affected by their injuries are generously met. We believe such an approach strikes the right balance between the needs of victims and the interests of taxpayers.
In our view, continuation of the old scheme, based on common law damages, was no longer a sustainable option. Costs were rising rapidly, and the backlog of unresolved cases was increasing steadily, despite the best endeavours of my noble friend, Lord Carlisle, and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board—mainly by
1610
reason of the year by year increase in applications made. And perhaps I may again pay tribute to my noble friend and his colleagues for all the good work that they have done and, indeed, continue to do, achieving notable improvements in productivity in recent years.
Perhaps I may say as an aside that I know that my noble friend would have been in his seat today but for an accident; he is unable to be in the Chamber today. On your behalf, I send him our best wishes.
Nonetheless, they have inevitably been constrained by the parameters of the scheme they have had to operate and which have tended to militate against more speedy resolution of cases.
The new tariff scheme, on the other hand, should be easier for victims to understand and, for the great majority of cases, simpler to operate. Most victims should have a better idea when they apply how much money they are likely to receive, and they should receive that money more quickly. The new scheme should also enable costs to be more readily predicted and controlled. Yet the new scheme will continue to be the most generous anywhere in the world. We expect to pay out some £1 billion in compensation between now and the end of this decade. That is by any standards a significant amount of taxpayers' money and will enable us to run an unparalleled scheme of which we can rightly continue to be proud.
In drawing up the new scheme, we of course paid regard to the criticisms of the earlier, non-statutory tariff scheme which was withdrawn earlier this year, following the ruling of the Judicial Committee of this House. And we have continued to listen to the many helpful comments made in both Houses, and in other quarters, as the Bill has proceeded through its various parliamentary stages. This has enabled us to make a number of improvements, both to the Bill and to the draft scheme itself that will, if the Bill receives Royal Assent, shortly be presented to Parliament for approval.
Perhaps the most far-reaching change effected in this Chamber during the Bill's passage through your Lordships' House was the group of amendments dealing with parliamentary control over the new arrangements. The whole scheme will now require parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure before it can be brought into force. Previously only the "key" features of the scheme—that is, those relating to the tariff itself and matters bearing on quantum—would have required parliamentary approval. But the Bill goes further than that. It now also provides that any subsequent change to the "key" features of the scheme, however minor, will require parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure, while a minor change to any other features will be subject to approval by the negative resolution procedure. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a very significant change indeed, since it gives Parliament rather than the Executive control over all aspects of the scheme. Ministers will no longer be able to make any changes at all to the scheme without the consent of Parliament.
I made reference a moment ago to the helpful debates we have had on the Bill both here, and in another place. Much of that debate was, inevitably, focused on the

1611
provisions of the draft scheme rather than the provisions of the Bill itself. I have to say that your Lordships were not inhibited in letting us know quite firmly where you felt change or improvement was needed. In the light of those debates we have made numerous changes to the draft scheme.
Key changes include greater consistency in the terminology used throughout the draft scheme. We have provided a table of contents and set out the scheme's provisions in a more logical fashion. We have clarified the criteria for waiving time limits. We have clarified the provisions for loss of income, in particular those aspects relating to pension rights and the use of multiplier tables. We have also amended the provisions for special expenses to make it clear that they cover unpaid care by a relative or friend. Fatal provision now covers a former spouse, and we have now made clearer the circumstances in which deductions may be made from awards. We have clarified the provisions relating to oral hearings, the adjournment of hearings and the circumstances in which interim payments will be made. I think the new draft scheme is very much the better for all these changes, and I hope your Lordships will share the feeling of satisfaction that this House has once again made a significant contribution to an important piece of legislation that will directly affect many tens of thousands of people each year.
We have, as a number of your Lordships will know already, just produced a further draft of the new scheme. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House for perusal by those of your Lordships who may not yet have had an opportunity to see it. It will be our intention to lay the scheme before Parliament for formal approval as soon as possible after the next session starts.
Finally, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to deliberations on the Bill, particularly the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. In his inestimable way he pointed out many of the ways in which changes have been effected to the Bill, with help at the Dispatch Box from his noble and learned friend Lord Archer.
I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, for his contribution to the Bill, as I thank my colleagues on these Benches, particularly the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. Even with his busy schedule he found time to lend assistance to me on the Bill. I am enormously grateful for that assistance and for the expertise which he lent during the course of the debate. I thank my Whip, my noble friend Lord Courtown. This is his first Bill and I am grateful for his help. Also my noble friends on the Back Benches have been hugely helpful and constructive, even though we have not met them on absolutely every detail.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Blatch.)
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are three kinds of Bill which come before your Lordships: first, those which are uncontroversial—and I shall not waste time by referring to them; secondly, those where we are sharply divided on political and ideological
1612
grounds, such as the poll tax Bill or large parts of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill and the Police and Magistrates' Courts Bill, to take recent examples. On those, there is nothing to be done except to slug it out, toe-to-toe. Then there is the third kind of Bill where there is a measure of agreement about the principle behind it, yet we feel that inadequate thought and consideration have gone into its preparation. I believe that this Bill is in the third category.
I forgive the inadequate thought and preparation to some extent. Without going into the murky history of the illegal actions of the Home Secretary, it must be recognised that the Home Office had a relatively short time between 5th April, when the existing scheme was found to be illegal, and today, which is almost the last day on which the Bill can pass both Houses in order to take effect by 1st April 1996. Thus many of the defects of the Bill are understandable, but they are still there and need to be dealt with. Many needed to be dealt with by this House rather than another place.
We have made substantial changes. We have not achieved some of the major objectives which we had in considering the Bill. Although we accepted that in practical terms we had to move to an enhanced tariff scheme, nevertheless we felt that the permanent, on-going, long-term features of the scheme should be on the face of the Bill in the form of primary legislation. Our amendments at the Committee stage were devoted to that end.
It is disappointing to find that, despite the movement towards parliamentary involvement in the form of the affirmative resolution procedure to which the Minister referred, nevertheless parliamentary approval is a good deal less effective than it would have been if it had been on the face of the Bill and subject to amendment.
We are disappointed about a number of details of the scheme. We still feel that it is wrong to put entirely on the social services the responsibility regarding loss of earnings in the first 28 weeks, not least because approximately 12 million people in the country do not benefit from statutory sick pay. That is either because they are not employed or because they are not employed by people who are able to recognise the scheme.
We do not believe that the treatment of multiple injuries is right. It is based on a false statistical calculation and when the scheme is in action it will prove to be inadequate. We do not believe that the scheme is adequate in its recognition of the differences in compensation which should be due to people of both sexes or in different age groups. We feel that the scheme is too cursory and does not allow for recognition of real differences, particularly, for example, with facial injuries according to how young one is and of which sex.
Adequate attention has not been paid to the issue of compensation for pregnancy following rape. There is compensation when the pregnancy results in a live birth and the child is kept, but in other cases there are injuries which are still not adequately recognised in the tariff.
We are not happy about many things, but I have quite a long list of provisions which have been changed as a result of amendments proposed by Labour—not that

1613
Labour has won any amendments. We seldom put matters to the vote and this was not the kind of Bill where we sought to win on the Floor of the House. Concessions have been made following the amendments which we put down at different stages of the Bill. For those, we are grateful.
First, regarding time limits, we did not succeed in getting the time period extended from two years to three years. However, what was originally a criterion for out-of-time applications of exceptional cases has now been amended to relate to special circumstances. We understand that it may well be amended further to relate to particular circumstances following the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner. That is one good point.
We have just been debating unpaid care at home by a friend or relative. First, it was conceded that there would be payment for loss of earnings or extra expenses. Now it is conceded that there will be payment for loss of earning capacity. Regarding awards for frivolous or vexatious appeals, it has been agreed in the last few minutes that the provision will apply only where there is an oral hearing and not where a decision is made on the papers alone.
The most recent amendment which the Minister persuaded noble Lords was right, with our agreement, was that major changes to the appeals procedure would have to go through the affirmative resolution procedure. Again, that follows amendments which we put down at earlier stages. There has been clarification as a result of amendments which we put down in Committee about what happens when a person who was fatally injured was temporarily on state benefit. In those circumstances, the calculation of dependency is on the basis of potential loss of earnings, as it should be. We believe that we have got somewhere in paragraph 32 of the tariff on the use of actuarial Ogden tables for the multiplier. The note to the scheme is better than it was and less crude, but we believe that an even better way of calculating compensation could be found. However, the wording is still to be finalised.
On those and probably other matters which I have overlooked, there has been substantial improvement in the Bill. For that I am most grateful to the Minister and to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who agreed to see me, unusually, both before the Committee stage and between Committee and Report stages.
I believe that we have had constructive exchanges which have resulted in a scheme which everybody agrees is better than it would have been if we had not had those opportunities. I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell for his support. He is sorry that he is unable to be here today. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, for his support in the early stages of the Bill. 'Working with the noble Lords, Lord Windlesham and Lord Carlisle, in a spirit of consultation, I suppose, has been a particularly great pleasure.
1614
I wish the Bill well. I hope that further changes which may be necessary will be made without unnecessary contention. As a result, I hope that we shall have a scheme of which we can all be proud.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, I am very happy to associate these Benches with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. Perhaps I may also say how much I appreciated the very constructive and reasonable way in which the Minister approached the Bill. She was sympathetic at all times to the views expressed from all sides of the House. If the face of the Bill has not been much amended, nevertheless commitments have been given which on the whole are very satisfactory. Like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I welcome the fact that a revised draft of the scheme has been available and, as I understand it, will now be available in the Library.
I have also respected the assiduous way in which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, since the Bill was given a Second Reading on 19th July, has pursued the details of the Bill. The House owes much to him for the extent to which the Bill has been improved during its progress through the House.
On Second Reading I mentioned five points which I felt were important. First, I said that, if one had to choose, I reluctantly accepted the idea of a tariff system. Secondly, I declared that I was unhappy about some of the reasons given for restraining costs. Thirdly, I believed that more of the contents of the scheme should be on the face of the Bill. Fourthly, I was concerned, as other noble Lords have been, with parliamentary control in these matters. Fifthly, I referred to the speed in compensating victims. Clearly, it would be inappropriate to cover all that ground now and I shall confine myself to one or two remarks.
The Minister said again today that this is the most generous scheme in the world. Not for a moment do I doubt that. But I still take the view that the proper basis for comparison must be within our own priorities. Although I understand the reasons why both the Government and Her Majesty's Opposition are anxious to restrain costs, we must keep an open mind and be prepared to pay whatever is necessary to compensate the victims of crime in an appropriate way.
With regard to wanting more on the face of the Bill and parliamentary control, as I said, some progress has been made. Even if the outcome is not entirely satisfactory, we are now better placed than we were three months ago.
I return very briefly to the question of the tariff system. On Second Reading I said that in my view there was much virtue in having a tariff system with banding. I have not changed my mind about that. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, suggested what I considered to be a very interesting thought; namely, that it would have been possible to have a hybrid scheme in which—I believe that these are his figures—85 per cent. was fixed tariff and 15 per cent. allowed for discretion, I assume within limits. My own view is still that, given that every victim is different and every injury distinctive, it would have been a much better scheme if there were banding as a simple way of administering the

1615
scheme for most of the cases; but in particularly difficult circumstances, where the injuries themselves might be different and might have a different bearing on the individuals, it would have been better to have an element of discretion and that is lacking.
That having been said, inevitably this is rough justice. But it is justice of a kind. Time alone will show how watertight our scheme is. I join with those who welcome the Bill and hope very much that it will meet the needs of those whom it is designed to help.
Lord Colnbrook: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than two minutes. Before we finally finish with the Bill, I want briefly to commend the Government on two fronts. The first is for producing the Bill at all. We all remember, do we not, the scheme which the Home Secretary sought to introduce without parliamentary approval—and he was not allowed to do that. It was the wrong scheme and everybody said so. He was not allowed to implement it because the courts said that he exceeded his powers. The Government could have sought to introduce that scheme in Parliament in a Bill. I believe that they are to be commended because they listened to what was being said both in this Chamber and in another place about the original scheme. The Bill was very different and very much better. The Government are to be commended for listening.
The second reason why I feel that the Government ought to be commended has already been mentioned; namely, the way in which the Bill has been handled by my noble friend the Minister in this House. As always, she takes infinite pains. She listens most carefully and is most willing and helpful, wishing to co-operate and meet points when she can do so. I dare say that she has battles with the Secretary of State about what she is and is not allowed to give. She seems to win quite a lot of those battles. We are very fortunate to have her.
I still believe that the original scheme which has been in operation for many years is absolutely first class. I accept the reasons why we have to have this one and I am glad that it is a great deal better than was originally conceived. I wish it well.
5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I have taken a very small part in the Bill but I should like to make shortly four points at this stage. I am afraid that only the first two will be generally acceptable.
The first one is to thank the noble Lords on whom has fallen the main burden of discussion of the Bill. They are inevitably the Front Benchers. If a debate goes on after the dinner adjournment, it is almost exclusively the Front Benchers on whom the burden rests. We are greatly in their debt. There has been remarkably rapid progress on the Bill, partly because of the precision of mind of those on the Front Benches who have been principally concerned and partly because of the good humour that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, if I may say so, brings to the Dispatch Box. All that makes the proceedings so much quicker and more pleasant.
1616
My second point has been referred to already; namely, the improvement in parliamentary control. My demur is apprehension lest a government department tries to get away with the least parliamentary control that is possible. There again, we have been greatly indebted, as so often, to the Scrutiny Committee. I agree that in this Bill the parliamentary control, even if not wholly satisfactory in the way that has been described, has been enormously strengthened.
The third—I am conscious of being on my own—is a point to which I referred at an earlier stage; namely, whether we are justified at all in having a scheme of compensation for victims of violence. The noble Baroness said that it is the most generous scheme in the world. That means that the taxpayers are being asked to make an exceptional contribution.
A whole number of anomalies exist, both external and internal. One internal anomaly referred to frequently during the course of the debates was the omission of certain types of injury. Perhaps the most striking omission, if I read the scheme rightly, is the omission of injuries caused by crimes committed with a motor vehicle, except in very limited circumstances. There have been other matters, some of which were referred to this evening.
There is the anomalous fact that we are compensating victims of violence, not victims of crime generally. Crimes against property are not within the scheme any more than they were within the common law scheme or the original tariff scheme. The only justification that I can see for compensating victims of violence is that society owes a duty to protect its citizens from criminal activity. But if that is so, then crimes against property should equally be the subject of compensation. That would make it even more expensive than the original scheme. That was quite exorbitant (far more than we could possibly afford) and was rightly withdrawn.
My last point concerns the conduct of the Secretary of State. I referred to it briefly in an intervention at Second Reading. After the noble Baroness had made her clear introduction of the Bill, I asked humbly whether there was to be any question of contrition on behalf of the Secretary of State; after all, he had acted illegally. Worse still, he had acted illegally in the knowledge that there was a 50 per cent. chance that his actions were illegal. But worst of all, illegal or not, he acted unconstitutionally in thumbing his nose at Parliament by failing to bring into action the scheme which Parliament set out at length in a schedule to the statute, and instead brought in an extrastatutory scheme of his own devising. The noble Baroness merely dealt with that point by saying that the Secretary of State acted throughout in good faith. What does that mean—illegal action, in the knowledge that it is unlawful or may be, in good faith?
Your Lordships may remember Hamlet's "poison in jest". Is that not what the noble Baroness was saying? Or perhaps even closer, the final verdict of the tribunal in the Dreyfus case. In order to spare the reputation of the Army the verdict brought in was treason, but with mitigating circumstances and the whole affair then dissolved in derision. The fact is that your Lordships will not be seeking the humiliation of the Secretary of

1617
State; but your Lordships will be looking for some humility on his part. I am afraid it does not stand alone; It is only one of several actions by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State refused the Carr amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, so taking the discretion away from the justices. One is bound to say that that must also be viewed with the wholesale ouster of the justices' discretion in the Child Support Act and its various measures. More recently, the Secretary of State was implicated in the way the Ackner amendment was treated on the Criminal Appeal Bill. I do not believe the Secretary of State can be regarded as being primarily responsible; the responsibility must lie in this House. But what was done was that an amendment of great importance, supported by the Lord Chief Justice, by his predecessor, Lord Lane, by a former Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and, we were told, by a practically unanimous view of the judiciary, was passed in this House by a large majority—an astonishing majority considering that government supporters were whipped. That decision was reversed on a Monday in the other place by the use of the Government Whip, and the Commons disagreement was brought before your Lordships in the dinner adjournment the following day on the shortest notice.
As I said, I cannot regard the Secretary of State as being primarily responsible for that; but undoubtedly he was implicated and therefore we ought not to depart from this Bill without considering his unconstitutional actions, his illegal actions, under the Bill and its predecessor. We say that in the hope that the Secretary of State will have closer regard in the future to his constitutional duties and in particular be much more cautious in setting himself up against the unanimous views of the judiciary, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham warned when that matter fell for decision.
Having made those two disagreeable points, I hark back to my two originally favourable comments and wish the Bill well.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, as the number one troublemaker in this particular field perhaps I may add one or two brief comments. The tariff scheme started life in an unhappy way, well described in general terms by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon. It was significantly altered, and for that the Government must take some credit, and the Minister considerable credit.
The tariff scheme has the inevitable disadvantage of inflexibility. That was conceded by the noble Baroness who spoke of the rough justice product which will occur. That feature is said to be balanced by the speed with which the new scheme will operate and by the saving of money which will occur as a result of applying the tariff rather than the more difficult concept of common law damages. Whether the one compensates for the other we have yet to see, but I, too, would like lo associate myself with those who have spoken of the great abilities with which the Minister has presented the Bill. An enormous amount of preparation must have gone into it. As one who has listened over many years
1618
to arguments being propounded from the Bar, it was a pleasure to listen to the way in which the noble Baroness dealt with criticism, even though in some respects it was a sadness to have to see her adopting the particular line which she did. I, too, wish the Bill well.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977 (Amendment) Order 1995
5.11 p.m.
Lord Chesham Lord Chesham rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Insurance Brokers Registration Council proposes to introduce compulsory qualification by examination. This would require an amendment to Section 3 of the Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977, which currently allows insurance brokers to be registered on the basis of experience alone. Perhaps I should explain why the Government agree with the council that this change would be in the interests both of the profession and its clients.
As your Lordships will know, compulsory examinations are a common feature of controlling access to professions on which the public rely for important advice and services. The council is committed to raising the professional standards of insurance brokers and believes that the time has come to introduce compulsory examinations in this field as well. But it is important to stress that this is an evolutionary, not a revolutionary, step.
The council has for some time encouraged insurance brokers to obtain voluntarily the Associateship of Chartered Insurance Institute—the ACII. About a third of the profession now hold it. The council has offered guidance to all insurance brokers on what constitutes professional good conduct in relation to continuing professional education. Now the council proposes, if the order is approved, that new entrants to the insurance broking profession be required from 1st January 1997 to have passed four specified subjects of the ACII. The council further proposes, as a second stage from 1st January 2000, that new entrants to the profession be required to obtain the full Associateship of the CII.
I should explain before I go on that alternatives to CII qualifications will also be considered. Indeed the council anticipates that a number of university qualifications will be equivalent and proposes, if the order is made, to begin to look in detail at the syllabuses of other qualifications such as NVQs. However, the Chartered Insurance Institute has long been the traditional provider of qualifications for the insurance sector, and so it is its qualifications that are the model for the council's proposals.
I should also, for the sake of completeness, make a few other points on the detail of the council's proposals. The first is that the order provides for one exception to

1619
the requirement for compulsory exam qualifications from new entrants to the insurance broking profession. The exception derives from the 1976 Insurance Intermediaries Directive, which provides that where one member state admits entry to the profession on the basis of experience alone then, so long as that experience matches the conditions laid down in the directive, other member states must accept the qualification even if they themselves have a requirement for previous training. The effect of this is that we cannot impose our own compulsory examinations on EEA brokers to whom the directive applies. It is worth noting, however, that the council anticipates that only a few EEA applicants will need to be considered under the directive on the basis of experience alone. Increasingly, in Europe insurance intermediaries are being required to obtain examination qualifications.
A second point is that at the second stage of the council's proposals, from 1st January 2000, new entrants will be required to hold a qualification that can be used under the European Community Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive to gain entry to the activity of insurance intermediary in other member states where such qualifications are required. An amendment to the UK regulations implementing this directive will be needed to take account of the IBRC's role as a designated authority.
The order comes into force on 1st January 1997. It needs to be made now, however, in order to give prospective applicants to the profession the time and opportunity to obtain the required examination passes.
I believe that the council's proposals offer significant benefits to consumers. Consumers increasingly expect better standards of knowledge from insurance sellers. They expect these standards to be required by regulators such as the IBRC. The increasing sophistication of insurance products available means that insurance brokers need to be more knowledgeable in order to serve their customers properly. It is worth noting that most sellers of life insurance are already required under the Financial Services Act to demonstrate their knowledge through qualification by examination.
The proposals also reflect developments in the European Community. The Commission issued a recommendation in 1991 that, among other things, suggested that member states should set minimum knowledge entry requirements. The council's proposals clearly demonstrate our compliance with the spirit of this recommendation.
We are, of course, keen to see that legislation strikes the right balance between consumer protection and burdens on business. A detailed cost of compliance assessment has been prepared in consultation with the trade bodies and a number of individual insurance broking companies. It is worth highlighting again that the council's proposals only apply to new entrants to the profession—the proposals are not retrospective. So no one already in the business will face any extra cost at all. In addition, they only apply to those who wish to use the style "insurance broker". Those who act as insurance intermediaries under another style will not be affected by the council's proposals.
The Office of Fair Trading has been consulted. Its conclusion is that the proposals are not anti-competitive. The costs and standards of the examination do not constitute an unreasonable barrier to entry. I am satisfied, on the basis of this work, that the benefits to the consumer far outweigh the burdens they place on business.
To sum up, the council's proposals come at an appropriate stage in the development of the insurance broking profession. More importantly, they also improve consumer protection in a way that reflects market developments, and without imposing unnecessary burdens on business. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th October be approved [29th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Chesham.)
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, from this Front Bench we give a welcome to the proposals. I am glad the Minister indicated that there was a fair element of consumer protection as well as an intention to make more stringent the rules and conditions under which one can use this title. I was intrigued to note that the proposals merely protect the title "insurance broker" and that there could be other people who are doing precisely what insurance brokers do but who call themselves something else. The Minister should take that point on board.
I realise that the matter is very much wrapped up with the industry's professional body. I recall, as a Member of another place when this measure was introduced in the 1970s, that there was resistance from the profession to the need perceived by the then Government and by the people in the country to bring in some form of regulation. The Minister should know that in insurance matters most people are, if not ignorant, then not very knowledgeable, about the terms, the understandings and the nuances. In one's personal life one takes out insurance and one can have the benefits explained. But sometimes, to one's cost, it is not until later that the disadvantages of the arrangements are brought to bear. We on this side of the House certainly view the order as a benevolent measure.
Will the Minister say more about trying to ease the passage of those who may be qualified in some other way and who wish to comply with the new regulations? Before now experience was perfectly valid and fair. The institute should be commended for wanting to tighten membership qualifications. When I was a student at the Open University I remember that under the system it operated exemptions were obtained provided one had qualifications which were acceptable to other bodies. Can the Minister say whether any progress has been made in discussions between the institute and others as to the level at which the qualifications of the outside bodies will be accepted? For instance, there may well be exemption at an intermediate level; at a preliminary level; or even in certain subjects. On this side of the House we recognise that even if it costs more and takes more time, the reputation of the industry is at stake. I believe that the Minister and his colleagues would do

1621
well to look on the matter in that light. Other than that, we on this side of the House give the recommendations and changes our approval.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I have an interest to declare. I am an ACII with three subjects at distinction. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for introducing the order so clearly. I believe that it is something which the insurance industry will welcome. I hope that we shall shortly pass it.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I would say that the activities of the intermediaries other than insurance brokers—I am not sure what the nomenclature is supposed to be because we are actually considering insurance brokers and not anything else—are of those who sell general insurance. They are governed by the Association of British Insurers and its code of practice. I believe that that may partially answer the question. I am not quite sure what kind of animal we are devising on this matter. There is little evidence to suggest that all independent intermediaries should be regulated by the IBRC. It is an issue that was most recently reviewed in the light of the European Commission recommendations on insurance intermediaries. The Government's conclusion, announced in the House on 19th July last year, was that the most cost-effective response to the recommendations was to build on the existing arrangements.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may point out that my honourable friend in the other place, Mr. Stuart Bell, made a fair point. He said that it is still open to practitioners to pursue what is essentially the same
1622
business under another style and without registration. I do not have an interest to declare, but I have an interest in the travel business. Invariably, when there is trouble, it is through companies or businesses which are not members of ABTA or IATA, the two recognised registered bodies. The unaware customer, who should be aware, goes into a shop which appears to be selling holidays at an advantageous price. It is only later that the customer realises that protection is not there.
The point I am making—and it is not a stick with which to beat the Government—is that they should be aware that although we are protecting the term "insurance broker" because that is what this order is about, one also needs to recognise that in the normal consumer protection sphere there will still be people who avoid registration but who could nevertheless very well take the customer for a ride.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that point. We shall certainly take it on board. As to qualifications other than experience, that does not come into effect until 1st January 1997. That gives people some time to consider their role. If they have adequate experience before then, there is nothing to prevent them applying. The council is willing to consider alternatives, as I mentioned. It anticipates that a number of university qualifications, for example, and other TII qualifications, will be partly equivalent. If the order is made the IBRC will begin to look in detail at the syllabuses of other qualifications. I hope that covers the point which the noble Lord raised. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past five o'clock.

  Earnings Top-up Scheme: Proposals
  Earnings Top-up Scheme: Proposals
  Long-term Unemployed: Men
  Long-term Unemployed: Men
  Tax Threshold (P11D Form)
  Tax Threshold (P11D Form)
  Somalia: US Costs
  Somalia: US Costs
  Sri Lanka
  Sri Lanka
  Algeria: Political Unrest
  Algeria: Political Unrest
  Nigeria
  Nigeria
  Peru and Ecuador: Arms Sales
  Peru and Ecuador: Arms Sales
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Organophosphates: Health Effects
  Organophosphates: Health Effects
  Top Clip Gold Shield Sheep Dip: CS Disinfectant
  Top Clip Gold Shield Sheep Dip: CS Disinfectant
  Organophosphates and Phenols (Combination)
  Organophosphates and Phenols (Combination)
  Sheepmeat: Possible Phenol Residues
  Sheepmeat: Possible Phenol Residues
  Criminal Prosecutions: 50-year Time Lapse
  Criminal Prosecutions: 50-year Time Lapse
  Secure Training Centres: Regulation
  Secure Training Centres: Regulation