Sitting of 24 October 1995

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
    Ordered,
    That the following Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business be made:

    STANDING ORDER 39
    Line 4, leave out 'the Department of Health and Social Security and'.
    Line 9, after first 'of insert 'Education and'.
    Line 9, after 'Employment' insert 'the Department of Health'.
    Line 10, after 'Heritage' insert 'the Department of Social Security'.
    Line 21, leave out 'Science' and insert 'Employment'.
    Line 24, leave out 'Science' and insert 'Employment'.

    TABLE OF FEES
    Line 2, leave out '£2,500' and insert '£3,500'.
    Line 3, leave out '£2,500' and insert £2,3,500'.
    Line 23, leave out £2,2,500' and insert £2,3,500'.
    Line 29, leave out '£1,250' and insert £2,1,750'.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

    SAINT PAUL'S CHURCHYARD BILL
    Ordered,
    That the Promoters of the Saint Paul's Churchyard Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
    That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
    That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
    That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
    That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
    That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  DEFENCE

    Defence Establishment
    Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current level of the defence establishment; and what was the equivalent figure immediately before the end of the cold war. [36559]
    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): As at 1 September this year, the strength of our regular armed forces was just under 228,400 and our civilian staff strength was about 130,000. On 1 April 1990, the figures were 305,711 regular service personnel and 172,273 civilian staff.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister recognise that there is now an estimated shortfall of about 10,000 personnel in Her Majesty's forces? Will not that present problems to Britain when meeting its national and international obligations in future? Will he recognise, too, that—by contrast—the British economy is suffering from severe unemployment? Does it not take a Government of some ineptitude to bring about such a contradiction?
    Mr. Soames: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman has not quite got the right end of the stick. It is true that there are manning shortfalls, principally in the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Artillery and the infantry, because of poor recruiting and the inadequate retention of young soldiers. These shortfalls occur from time to time but are being dealt with by a vigorous recruitment campaign; and a special bounty has been introduced to improve retention in some areas.
    The hon. Gentleman should realise that 32 per cent. of the land Army is engaged in commitments and operations—it is still an extremely exciting and thrilling career, one that is well worth people's joining. We must do more to ensure that people continue to be recruited to the service.
    Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend use this opportunity to congratulate all involved in the defence costs study, which will save about £720 million on next year's defence budget? Will he also confirm that those savings will not be plundered by the Treasury but will be ploughed back into defence expenditure? Would he like to earmark some of it to improve on the establishment of our manpower, which is suffering from overstretch?
    Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says about the defence costs study. As he rightly says, the results are extremely impressive: not just because the front line has been preserved but because substantial savings have been made.
    I am also able to announce this afternoon that, in order to alleviate undermanning in the Army, we intend to retain for three years, from 1997, some 400 Gurkhas who would otherwise have been made redundant next year. They will form up to three infantry companies to substitute for British soldiers in infantry battalions, and a small number will also fill unmanned posts in units of the Royal Signals.

    809
    I believe that this imaginative scheme to use available military manpower in this way will be warmly welcomed by the Gurkhas, by the British Army, and above all by the British public, who rightly have huge regard and great affection for the Gurkhas.
    Dr. Reid: I can assure the Minister that, despite the misleading headline in one newspaper this morning, as regards the defence establishment the Labour party has no intention of abolishing the courts martial system. As far as the figures are concerned, does he not have some explaining to do? The Ministry of Defence and the armed forces Minister have spent £500 million on redundancy payments, made 40,000-plus soldiers redundant, and now tell us that because we are short of soldiers we have to spend £100 million on recruiting them. Is that not an indication of mismanagement on the part of the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Soames: No, Madam, it is not. We are grateful for the clarification on the courts martial system. I am disappointed to see that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), its genesis, has been removed to the Whips Office. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—he is merely mischief making—that restructuring could not be achieved by natural wastage alone. A phased redundancy programme had to be used by each of the services. Obviously some recruitment continues during a redundancy programme, to ensure that there is a properly balanced age and rank structure to meet all the skill shortages in certain areas. The hon. Gentleman is making mischief in the way in which he phrased the question. There is a problem on recruiting. He knows that, as do we. We see it coming and are taking the most radical and sensible steps to ensure that we deal with it.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend reflected on the fact that, at the height of the cold war, under the previous Labour Government, members of our armed forces faced decline in their conditions of service, whereas today they have realistic conditions of service that reflect the dangerous and challenging nature of their job. Does not that show that, on many other issues, one cannot trust Labour with defence?
    Mr. Soames: The whole nation knows that one cannot possibly trust the Labour party on defence. My hon. Friend is quite right. Indeed, the services have never been better equipped or motivated than they are today. They are indeed at a lower level than they were, and quite rightly and inevitably so. They continue to be the most formidable armed forces of any nation in the world.

    Financial Waste
    Mr. Cummings: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he maintains a central record of financial waste in his Department. [36560]
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): My Department has identified significant improvements in the way in which we carry out our tasks, leading to large efficiency savings. We are determined to bear down on waste wherever it occurs.
    Mr. Cummings: Given the Secretary of State's tough reputation for controlling public expenditure, can he explain why his Department appears unable to control
    810
    cost overruns at a time when more and more disclosures of incompetence and mismanagement are emerging virtually every week?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I am tempted to ask: where's the beef? The hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings) was one of those who signed the Labour amendment last week calling for huge cuts in defence spending and the scrapping of Trident. He is living proof of the adage that was just stated by my hon. Friend the Minister: one cannot trust Labour on defence. My Department has been at the forefront in cutting out waste. The defence costs study, to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred, rightly called "Front Line First", will yield savings rising to £1,000 million over the next seven years, and that is over and above the efficiency savings that my Department has gone in for.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my hon. Friend aware of the financial waste that would accrue both to his Department and to the British aerospace industry if the Department were to purchase F16s rather than have the mid-life update of Tornados? Is he further aware that such a decision, if it were taken, would be seen as a major blow to British industry and to many of the constituents of his hon. Friends, and as such would be wholly unacceptable?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I congratulate my hon. Friend on managing to get into his question an important point on behalf of his constituents. It is true that we have to consider all options in considering the mid-life update of our Tornados. One of those options is the possible leasing of F16s from the Americans. That is an option that we are obliged to consider, and we would be properly criticised—possibly by my hon. Friend, but certainly by Opposition Members—if we did not consider all the options in deciding on the mid-life update of our Tornados.
    Dr. David Clark: On the subject of waste, will the Minister confirm that the Department spent £24 million on buying 846 Reynolds Boughton light vehicles in preference to Land Rovers; that all those 846 vehicles have been found to be defective and unroadworthy and are in store in Army depots since they are unusable? How does he justify that as a sensible spending of taxpayers' money?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I have already said that, if I or any of my fellow Ministers find waste in our Department, we are determined to come down on it like a ton of bricks. That remains the case. The hon. Gentleman is, as always, picking around tiny little things. He is determined to undermine as much as possible the savings that we are introducing. The efficiency scheme that we have introduced in the Ministry of Defence has over-achieved its target ever since 1988. It has produced savings of around £2.5 billion; that is a dramatic achievement of which we are proud.
    Sir Peter Hordern: When my hon. Friend pursues his study in bearing down on costs, will he tell the House what is happening about the disposal of surplus MOD properties, which has been a subject of complaint for many years now by the Public Accounts Committee? Some progress has been made, but will my hon. Friend tell the House?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right that some progress has been made, but it is not yet sufficient and

    811
    that is why we are conducting a study to improve it and will be able dramatically to improve those sales of land during the next few years.

    Bosnia
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest military situation in Bosnia. [36561]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): The situation is generally much quieter following the ceasefire which came into effect on 12 October. [HON. MEMBERS: "Thanks to the Americans."] Sarajevo, for example, is a changed city with trams running, convoys arriving unhindered and prices falling.
    Mr. Hain: In the new military situation, what guarantees can the Secretary of State give that British troops will still be available for protection and escort duties for British humanitarian and aid missions?
    Mr. Portillo: For as long as the United Nations mission continues, British troops will continue to play their part. I should say that I am aware of a situation which has arisen in central Bosnia where mujaheddin appear to be operating with some sort of vendetta against British troops and, for the time being, the United Nations has withdrawn British troops from certain convoy escort duties in central Bosnia. That is on the recommendation of the United Nations for their own protection. But the general position remains that British troops will play their full part in United Nations operations.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Did not the firm, decisive and well co-ordinated action that took place during the recess, in which British troops played a conspicuous and distinguished part, prove that decisive action does in fact pay?
    Mr. Portillo: Yes, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I was bemused a moment ago to hear Opposition Members calling out that the improvement over the summer had been due to American troop operations, as though British troops had played no part. It is typical of the anti-patriotic ranting that we get from some Opposition Members.
    The fact of the matter is that, as the House knows, British forces firing their artillery on Mount Igman played an extremely distinguished part, as did pilots from the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, who committed themselves to missions with absolute courage and commendable success. Opposition Members would do well to recognise that.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that, if NATO was to be unable to put the full force into the field to support the fragile peace, it would be damaging for the prospects for peace, and also to the credibility of NATO? Is the right hon. Gentleman apprehensive about the extent to which the United States is willing to put troops into a NATO force in order to assist the peace process in the former Yugoslavia?
    Mr. Portillo: No, I am not apprehensive about that. I agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman says about the importance of NATO deploying a full and effective force, but I am confident that the United States
    812
    will wish to play its part in that. I can also assure the House that the United Kingdom will wish to play its full part as well.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current situation in Bosnia was brought about largely because we deployed the right equipment and the right people at the right time? In particular, the top-cover flying of the Royal Air Force with the Tornado F3—especially at night—could not have been done by other aircraft crews available from NATO. The same applies to the important job of delivering the necessary laser bombs, performed by Harriers and Jaguars, and the enormous task undertaken by transport and other aircraft, including helicopters. All that meant that we were doing the right thing at the right time.
    Mr. Portillo: This has been an enormously distinguished period in the history of all three services; but the history of distinguished service in Bosnia goes back further than just the past few weeks. What we have done, patiently, in feeding the hungry and saving human lives has been commendable, but when our forces were called on to adopt a more robust posture, they did not fail.
    Dr. David Clark: Is the Secretary of State yet in a position to advise the House on the command structure for the 50,000 to 60,000 troops that, according to NATO, will need to be deployed in Bosnia following a truce and peace accord? Will British troops serve under the United Nations or NATO, and is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the agreement outlined yesterday in Washington will safeguard those troops?
    Mr. Portillo: I believe that the operation must be undertaken by NATO, operating within the bounds of a United Nations Security Council resolution. I believe that NATO is the appropriate body. As has been proved recently, it is able to operate effectively in military terms. I also agree with the American position, which is that the command and control arrangements for NATO need to be absolutely straightforward and unambiguous.
    That having been said, however, I should like nations outside NATO to participate. I am thinking of Russia, and of Muslim countries. I hope that we can find a way of including those countries in the operation without in any way confusing the command and control aspect.
    Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent events in Bosnia show how successful air power can be if it is properly deployed? Will he contrast NATO's effectiveness in the past few months with the dithering of the UN over the past two years? Will he ensure that, in future, British interests in Europe are pursued through NATO rather than the United Nations?
    Mr. Portillo: I certainly agree that NATO has been very effective, but I do not join my hon. Friend in his attack on the UN. I think that the UN found itself in a difficult position. Many of the problems that it faced were not its fault, but were caused by the inadequate support and resources voted to it by member states. I do, however, join my hon. Friend in again paying tribute to the way in which our troops have performed in the NATO operation.

    National Parks
    Ms Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new proposals he has concerning the extent of military activity in national parks. [36562]
    Mr. Soames: My Department has no new proposals that will alter the current extent of military activity in national parks, which continue to provide essential facilities for our armed forces.
    Ms Quin: Will the Minister support a full public inquiry in relation to the proposed Ministry of Defence development in Northumberland national park—an area that is already being subjected to intensive military activity? Does he realise that, as well as the environmental concerns expressed by the Ramblers Association and others, concern is felt in the urban area of Tyneside about the number of military convoys and the inadequacy of roads to accommodate them?
    Mr. Soames: I do not think that the hon. Lady speaks for many people in that part of the world. There is massive support for the developments at Otterburn among all local people; the Army continues to be an important part of their lives. We hope very much that a sensible decision will he made early in 1996, and I hope that a planning inquiry will not be necessary.
    Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating the defence land agents and land command at Wilton on the sensitive way in which they have improved the management of the defence estate, and the use of the national parks and other countryside sites? Does he agree that the strange coalition who oppose the Army's sensible and sensitive development of the Otterburn ranges are anti-Army, anti-local people, anti-jobs and anti-countryside?
    Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is right. That coalition is also anti-defence and I am extremely grateful to him for his tremendous support for the services in his part of the world. The Ministry of Defence gives the highest possible priority to conservation and maintains close liaison with national parks officials at both national and local level. The MOD has an unparalleled and unrivalled reputation for its conservation programme and it does not need lessons from anyone in that regard. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

    European Security
    Mr. Jack Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to have discussions with his colleagues on the Council of Ministers of the Western European Union about the future of European security. [36563]
    Mr. Portillo: The members of the Ministerial Council of the Western European Union will meet in Madrid on 13 and 14 November.
    Mr. Thompson: When he meets his colleagues on the Council of Ministers, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to seek the support particularly of those in the associate partners organisations, to persuade our French colleague on the council to abandon all nuclear testing in the Pacific?
    Mr. Portillo: No, I will not do that. It is extremely important that the House should understand that, if a nuclear deterrent is to be credible, people must know that it works: the country that owns the deterrent needs to know that and others need to know it too. In the United Kingdom, we are able to have that confidence about our
    814
    weapon system without undertaking tests, but it is not for us to lecture the French on whether they can have that confidence without testing.
    I remind Opposition Members—I remind those many unilateralists among the Opposition—that we have secured a long period of peace thanks to the operation of the nuclear deterrent, which has been paid for by the taxpayers of the United States, of France and of the United Kingdom, and that those countries have borne responsibilities on behalf of the rest of the world.
    Sir Dudley Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the European Union's ambition to absorb the Western European Union defence organisation is deeply resented by those connected with the WEU and by many people outside, particularly in view of next year's intergovernmental conference? Is he also aware that the efforts made by his diplomats and officials in that sphere to achieve a sensible, middle-of-the-road approach are much to be welcomed and are much supported by many people connected with WEU? In those circumstances, will he give every encouragement that he can achieve a worthwhile bridge between WEU and the European Union and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?
    Mr. Portillo: My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. I understand why there should be resentment among members of WEU at the idea that it would be absorbed into the European Union. The two are not susceptible to being merged. After all, the European Union includes a number of countries that are neutrals and it would be absurd to erect a new barrier to entrance to the European Union—a defence qualification that those countries would have to cross. My hon. Friend is right to say, therefore, that we want to build a bridge between the European Union and the WEU and to ensure that, as European nations take on more responsibilities for their defence, the arrangements they make are compatible with NATO and not in competition with it.
    Mr. Murphy: Does the Secretary of State accept that Labour Members disagree both with the concept of the single European army and with majority voting by the Council of Ministers on defence policy? Will he therefore assure the House that his discussions with his European counterparts are both sensible and constructive and are not coloured by an obvious and damaging anti-European bias? Talking about trust, how on earth can we trust a party and a Secretary of State for Defence who, over the past two weeks, have played party politics of a most blatant sort with our nation's defences?
    Mr. Portillo: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position; after hearing his question, that welcome is really heartfelt and sincere.
    The hon. Gentleman rises to denounce his own party, because Pauline Green, leader of the socialists in Europe and a Labour Member of the European Parliament, tabled a motion calling for the abolition of the veto in the European Union virtually everywhere, including the application of qualified majority voting to foreign and security policy, to frontiers and to tax harmonisation. If I might be entirely fair, I should also mention that the European People's party decided that qualified majority voting and participation and monitoring by the European Parliament must be worked out and that intergovernmental co-operation in foreign and security policy must be replaced by qualified majority voting.

    815
    It is perfectly clear that there is a battle to be fought to make sure that the national veto is maintained. There is nothing anti-European in what I say; it is merely anti-federalist. That is because the Conservative party will defend the United Kingdom's vital interests in the European Union.

    Airmobile Brigade
    Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the role and activities of 24 Airmobile Brigade in the former Yugoslavia. [36565]
    Mr. Portillo: Following the taking of British hostages at the end of May, 24 Airmobile Brigade was deployed to the former Yugoslavia to make clear our determination to enhance the effectiveness of UNPROFOR and provide additional protection to British troops. As part of the changes in UN force deployments requested by the UN Secretary-General, most of the troops are relocating to England and will remain on short notice to return to theatre if required.
    Mr. Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. As well as paying tribute to the Highland Gunners who took part in action outside Sarajevo this summer, will he also pay tribute to the other elements of 24 Airmobile who were stationed rather unhappily in Ploce on the Adriatic coast? They were in great discomfort, but nevertheless provided an important deterrent role.
    Mr. Portillo: Yes, I am extremely pleased to do that. While for the majority of 24 Airmobile their mission in Bosnia turned out to be somewhat unglamorous, that does not mean that their role was unimportant. They played an important role in deterring and they lived under difficult conditions with very good cheer and I congratulate them on that.
    Mr. Gapes: When discussing former Yugoslavia and the remaining British forces there, will the Minister make it clear to the United States that we do not intend our forces to take one side in the conflict and that when the implementation of the peace plans begins, firm and, if necessary, tough military action should be take against Croatia if it continues to violate human rights and the rights of civilians throughout the former Yugoslavia?
    Mr. Portillo: It is extremely important that the forces in Yugoslavia—including the implementation forces—should be even-handed. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about human rights violations. We wish to have further details about what has been happening in Krajina following the Croatian advances.
    Sir James Spicer: My right hon. Friend rightly paid tribute to 24 Airmobile Brigade and to all our troops engaged in Yugoslavia. Can he give any indication of the total cost to the British taxpayer of our operations there over the past three or four years? To what extent have they been underwritten by the United Nations, and how much is currently outstanding?
    Mr. Portillo: I speak from memory, but I think that the cost has been £224 million so far. We have recovered about £70 million, but in principle most of that sum is refundable by the United Nations.

    Anti-personnel Land Mines
    Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he is having with other countries' Defence Ministers to reduce the number of anti-personnel land mines currently deployed. [36566]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: The Government are at the forefront of international efforts to restrict the export and use of anti-personnel mines. We are disappointed that the recent conference which was called to tighten such restrictions was unable to reach agreement, but we will continue our efforts.
    Mr. Alton: While I share the Minister's disappointment about the breakdown of the talks in Vienna recently when the United Nations held a conference on inhuman weapons, who does he think was to blame for the breakdown of those talks? Will he clarify the Government's position on self-destruct weapons and whether that played any part in the breakdown of the talks? Does he agree that with more than one million fatalities so far from anti-personnel mines and inhuman weapons and with many countries littered with hundreds of thousands of such devices, it is a major humanitarian and development issue, and that, when the conference meets again in January, our Government should give a moral lead in ensuring that the world is rid of anti-personnel mines?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I have some sympathy with the way in which the hon. Gentleman has put his question. I do not think that it would be appropriate or constructive for me to attempt to point the finger at any particular country, because we want to achieve a successful result when the conference resumes, in December we hope. We and our allies believe that a bad agreement would have been worse than no agreement at all. In order to press for a better outcome, we strove for the resumption rather than the total abandonment of the conference.
    I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of any agreement covering self-destruct and detectable anti-personnel mines, because those mines cause severe damage to civilians throughout the world. We want to restrict their use and their export.
    Mr. Bellingham: What is being done about de-mining measures in countries such as Afghanistan, Laos, Cambodia and Rwanda? Can my hon. Friend confirm that, with expenditure totalling nearly £20 million, Britain is in the lead in spending money on such projects? Would he agree that that pragmatic policy, combined with his policy to impose a moratorium on the export of land mines, is the right one rather than the rubbish spoken by many Opposition Members?
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I can confirm that we have committed nearly £17 million to mine clearance projects around the world. We have funded projects in Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, northern Iraq, Laos, Mozambique, Rwanda, Somalia and the Yemen. We are one of the world's leading contributors to mine clearance programmes. We have also been working with the United States and others on proposals for a land mine control programme, which would regulate the production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel mines.
    We believe that the conference result demonstrated that a total ban on anti-personnel mines—called for from a number of quarters—is not possible at this stage because

    817
    there is simply not enough international support for it. We will work, however, for a successful outcome at the future conference, which we hope will take place in December.

    Local Authority Discussions
    Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with local authorities in the last year to discuss changes to the size of the defence industry. [36575]
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We try to involve local authorities by giving them early warning of changes to defence requirements for land and buildings, and we seek their help in finding alternative uses when those lands and buildings are no longer required.
    Mr. Clarke: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that, since 1979, more than 345,000 highly skilled people have been paid off from the defence industry? Is it not about time that the Government formed a diversification agency to employ those people? The worry in the communities where those redundancies have occurred is that, without some action, those skills will be lost to their future generations.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: We consider that decisions on how to adapt to changes in market circumstances and what products to make are for the commercial judgment of companies. I must say that, if ever there were a Labour Government again, no company would be likely to ask for the advice of Labour Ministers on how to run industry, because they have never run a whelk stall.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In his discussions with local authorities and defence industry leaders, can my hon. Friend reassure them that Her Majesty's Government are using their best efforts to ensure an equitable work share on important collaborative programmes, such as the Eurofighter 2000? That programme has been seriously delayed because the Germans are insisting on a bigger work share than that to which they are entitled according to their production requirements.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I can indeed confirm that the Eurofighter 2000 programme is intended to form the cornerstone of our air defence in the next century. If the cuts in defence spending proposed by many Opposition Members ever came into effect, we would have to have far more discussions with local authorities than we do now; then perhaps even Labour councils might begin to recognise that one cannot trust Labour on defence.
    Mr. Spellar: Why will the Minister not accept that the real problems facing many areas are as a result of the downsizing of the defence industry? Instead of using the cheap political rhetoric that we have just heard, why will he not accept the responsibility of Government to set up a defence diversification agency to work with industry and local authorities to deal with the problem?
    Dr. Reid: At least my hon. Friend served in the cadets.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: So did I. It is not cheap political rhetoric; it is in fact the truth. None the less, I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities. I feel sure that he will carry them out very effectively. I am pleased to be able to say that our recent decision, for example, on the Rosyth naval base, which I announced last Tuesday, had the full support and involvement of Fife regional
    818
    council. That decision has been widely welcomed. We are grateful for the input of local authorities. We do not believe that a defence diversification agency would add anything to the conversations which we have already had.
    Mr. Gamier: Does my hon. Friend accept that, were the policies of the Opposition to come into force, there would not simply be diversification of our defence industries but destruction of them? Not only can we not trust the Labour party on defence but the Labour party itself does not trust Labour on defence, judging from the policies that it advocates and the votes that were not taken at the Labour party conference.
    Mr. Arbuthnot: I could not have put it better myself. In fact, I did put it like that myself.

    Greenham Common
    Mr. Rendel: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to transfer Greenham Common air base to Newbury district council. [36568]
    Mr. Soames: Newbury district council, as one of the former owners, will have the opportunity to acquire part of the open area at Greenham Common under the Crichel Down rules. The area which has been developed is not covered by these rules and is expected to be sold on the open market.
    Mr. Rendel: Does the Minister accept that one of the main causes of delay is the fact that the developed part around the main gate is still common land? Would not a faster way of going forward be to exchange land between the developed land around the main gate and other land adjacent to but not part of the common, so as to avoid the whole issue of deregistering the common?
    Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman is right; it is a fiendishly complicated matter, made the more so because of the element of common land, which, as he knows, has been the subject of a court case which recently found in favour of the Ministry of Defence. He will understand that it is our intention to ensure that the best possible use is made of the whole site and that it benefits the community and taxpayers. I can assure him that we are taking a great deal of trouble in processing it all, and I would be happy to discuss it further with the hon. Gentleman if he wished to do so.
    Mr. Hendry: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best possible use of the land would be to make Greenham Common available to the Millennium Commission so that it may be used as a theme park for the great failures of socialism? There could be monuments to unilateral disarmament and global socialism, and it would serve as an everlasting reminder of the fact that we cannot trust Labour on defence.
    Mr. Soames: That is a fantastically tempting proposition, which I have no doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would find very interesting to push forward. I shall ensure that is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

    Married Quarters
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress made in dealing with surplus married quarters. [36569]
    Mr. Soames: We are making good progress in dealing with surplus married quarters and aim to dispose of 4,000 quarters by the summer of 1996.
    Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree—I suspect that he does—that it has been a scandal that so many houses were empty—[Interruption.] Does he not agree that it has been a scandal that so many houses were left empty in the village of—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman still agree that it was a scandal that so many houses were left empty in the village of Longhoughton for so long when they could have been taken over by the district council or by a housing association? It is not only a scandal at a time of housing shortages but an embarrassment to the Royal Air Force locally, because it has no control over the situation at all.
    Mr. Soames: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that it has taken much longer than we would have wished to resolve the matter. I know that he has been following it keenly and pushing it along. Our aim is always to dispose of surplus property at the earliest opportunity so that it can be brought back into use as soon as possible. The sale of 20 houses to a housing association will be completed in December. I know that this will be welcome news to local people in housing need.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate the Government on their excellent progress in disposing of surplus properties in Portland and around Bovington. May I, however, add to the pleas I have made in the past as a result of talking to local authorities and housing associations? Many people would also like quite a large number of these properties to be sold to private people because we do not want to have a block of just council properties again; private owners tend to bring up the whole quality of an estate for the people living in it.
    Mr. Soames: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's point; what he says is self-evidently true. Whenever possible, quarters that are temporarily surplus are leased to local authorities and housing associations. We are currently looking to identify more properties that can be leased in the short term which would well fulfil some of my hon. Friend's ambitions.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36589]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the commemorations for the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in New York.
    Dr. Goodson-Wickes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming yet another fall in the unemployment figures, which are now below even those of Germany for
    820
    the first time in recent years? Is this not a resounding vindication of the Government's policies and is it not about time that the Labour party explained how a minimum wage would help young people to get jobs?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The latest unemployment figures are quite excellent. He raises an important point in directing the House towards the minimum wage. I noticed that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), the deputy Leader of the Opposition, said:
    "Some Party Colleagues have advocated such a wage without having the courage of their convictions to state an amount that would make the commitment meaningful."
    Will the deputy leader of the Labour party now break the habit of his party and answer the question? What is the figure that would give meaning to the policy?
    Mr. Prescott: This is an historic moment. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his first Prime Minister's questions. It has been a long. time, but he has finally made it.
    Given the Prime Minister's belated but welcome concern with waste and mismanagement abroad, can we now expect him to show the same concern for waste and mismanagement at home? Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how much money was wasted on the poll tax? How much money was wasted on the new bureaucracy in the health service? While he is at it, can he tell us how much it cost to set up and run his own new empire?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to the Dispatch Box today in this position. Of course, I reciprocate in welcoming him to the position he holds. But I cannot help but notice that, while my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has trusted me to come alone, the right hon. Gentleman has had a minder appointed to look after him. The curious point about the minder is that he has not even had the courage to turn up to help with the minding process. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well—[Interruption.] Do I gather that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has crossed the Floor and is now sitting on this side of the House, or is he scouring away in the basement somewhere relaying what is going on in the House to the leader of the Labour party, who, of course, will never be able to get a first-hand account from the deputy leader because they do not talk? It really is ridiculous—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is very time-consuming. I want brief questions and brief answers now.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that we shall get a brief answer, Madam Speaker, because the hon. Member for Hartlepool has now turned up.
    Mr. Prescott: As the right hon. Gentleman cannot give us a proper answer, may I help him? According to the Government's own figures, £14 billion was wasted on the poll tax and £1 billion on the new bureaucracy in the health service. Is not the real truth that the Government's press and publicity machine costs the taxpayer £1 million every working day? Is that not the real cost to the country of the right hon. Gentleman's new title? Is it not clear that something so expensive to sell must be a pretty shabby product?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will know that, when a Government have as

    821
    many good policies as we have, it is our duty to draw them to the attention of the people who will benefit from them. Our first obligation is to point out that, for every £1 spent on the health service in 1978–79, we spent £5 last year.
    Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36590]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister—
    Mr. Skinner rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will resume his seat.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the BBC and Channel 4 on transmitting live the whole of last week's debate on the Prison Service? Does he agree that that provided viewers with the opportunity to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary demolish the Opposition's unworthy and unsuccessful attempt to smear his reputation?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. It was excellent that the House and a wider public had the chance to see the vacuum that lies behind Labour's allegations. They also had the chance to hear the excellent speech by my right hon. and learned Friend. If the BBC continues to show the Opposition in that light, it will not be Alastair Campbell who rings up to complain but the League Against Cruel Sports.
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36591]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Lady to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that, because of financial constraints, Rochdale health authority proposes that elderly, critically ill patients should not be allowed into nursing homes funded by the national health service unless they will die within four weeks? Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that that is ultimately the responsibility of the Government?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: It is the ultimate responsibility of the Government to provide the excellent health service that we do. I would not be prepared to discuss at the Dispatch Box the sort of case that the hon. Lady put to me without a chance to examine it in more detail. However, the health service is attracting increasing funds and the results are increasingly attractive to the public. Public assessment of the quality of the health service is rising consistently.
    Mr. Brooke: After the warm-up bout last week, will my right hon. Friend arrange, after the manner of the Ryder and Walker cups, a series of singles matches between members of the Cabinet and their opposite
    822
    numbers, not least so that we can see whether the captain of the other side, in a manner unusual in international golf, continues to intervene to help his hon. Friends out of bunkers?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is a pastmaster at coming to the heart of a matter. I suspect that the Leader of the Opposition will not want to reveal his shadow Cabinet too conspicuously because it is self-evident that the parliamentary Labour party has elected a shadow Cabinet diametrically opposite to the direction in which the Leader of the Opposition wants to go.
    Mr. Purchase: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36592]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Purchase: Does the Deputy Prime Minister recognise that investment in manufacturing is lower than it was six years ago, despite a recent and welcome improvement? Does he accept that the lack of investment—widely acknowledged as a British problem—is directly responsible for the loss of 520 jobs in my constituency at the British Steel plant which is the only supplier of specialist seamless tubes in the United Kingdom? Will he undertake to intervene—preferably before breakfast—and ask for a rethink on the closure? Does he recognise that, if the plant closes, we shall have an even bigger balance of trade problem than we have at present?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman would help his constituency if he got up earlier in the morning, as he would discover that unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 30 per cent. in the past two and a half years.
    Sir Michael Marshall: On United Nations day, will my right hon. Friend reflect that the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference at the General Assembly in New York a month ago agreed unanimously that the problems of the UN are our problems and that, if we did not have the organisation, we would have to invent it?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has made a valuable contribution to the subject, and particularly to the work of the IPU, and the House is indebted to him for that. Our support of the UN is second to none, but that is no justification for the organisation wasting money and not collecting its proper dues.
    Ms Hodge: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36593]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Ms Hodge: We seem to have some difficulty in eliciting direct answers from the Deputy Prime Minister. Following what my right hon. Friend the deputy Leader of the Opposition said, an article in The Independent yesterday asserted that the Deputy Prime Minister had

    823
    spent £80,000 of public money on a desk diary. Did the Deputy Prime Minister receive permission from the Prime Minister to spend that money in such an extravagant manner?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Lady will find that, if she relies on the national press for the basis of her research, she will be consistently wrong-footed. I spent no money on a desk. The hon. Lady would be better employed praising the Government, who have presided over a 22 per cent. reduction in unemployment in her constituency.
    Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36594]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I want to hear the answers to the questions, whether the House does or not. [Interruption.] Order. Do be quiet.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Gorman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no less a luminary than the director of the Fabian Society has come out in support of grant-maintained schools, much to the relief of the Leader of the Opposition, whose party is opposing him on the matter? With almost cross-party support for the measure, can we count on the Government to proceed with all speed to make all our schools grant maintained, thus bringing a choice of school to every parent?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to this critical matter. The fact is that, in putting forward the proposal, the Fabian Society is once again looking to the Conservatives for the ideas which are taking us forward into the next century. For all the rhetoric of the left, what the Opposition are about is abolishing grant-maintained schools, abolishing grammar schools, abolishing city technology colleges and abolishing simple performance tables and simple tests—everything is for dogma and rhetoric, and nothing is for quality in education.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Deputy Prime Minister not realise that all this knockabout opposite will be taken very
    824
    badly by starving millions in the third world who are already fearful of the proposed cuts—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are laughing, as usual. Now we have the Prime Minister at the United Nations talking about abolishing UNESCO, the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the International Labour Organisation. That will go down extremely badly because everyone knows that, like the cuts in overseas aid, the proposals are to fund the pre-election tax cut bribes of the Tory Government.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Did I hear the hon. Gentleman refer to knockabout Opposition when he first intervened? It cannot be explained in any other language. This country has the fifth largest aid programme in the world. How can the Labour party decry that? When one adds to that our inward investment in other people's countries and the remarkable contribution that we make to peacekeeping, one has just one further example of the way in which, whatever this country does, the Labour party seeks to decry and destroy it.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36595]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bruce: Did my right hon. Friend welcome the protestations that we have heard, particularly from the Opposition parties, that all of us in the House are in favour of increasing investment in our railways? Does he believe that those protestations are consistent with, first, the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that the railways will be renationalised and, secondly, the statement by the new shadow spokesman on transport that she would not pay for it?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House is interested in what my hon. Friend has to say, but it is also interested in what the deputy leader of the Labour party has to say to the union that sponsors him. Is he in favour of it taking strike action and imposing hardship on very large numbers of Londoners trying to get to work, or is he not in support of that?

Constituency Surgeries
3.32 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for another Member of this House to advertise surgeries in my constituency and seek contact with my constituents? In seeking your advice, I should add that my constituents will be excluded from my constituency following boundary changes at the next general election. However, it is my belief that it is my duty to represent my constituents until that time, and that no other Member should intervene.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. Until the next general election, the hon. Gentleman represents his constituents, even if he has boundary changes. I, too, have boundary changes, but I still represent the people who put me here from West Bromwich, West. If the hon. Gentleman would like to let me see the advertisement, I shall be glad to deal with it.

Registration of Fostering Agencies
3.33 pm
Ms Ann Coffey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable voluntary and independent fostering agencies to approve foster carers subject to registration and inspection of the agencies.
I am grateful that the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) is present to listen to my introduction of the Bill. The Department of Health's latest figures show that 60 per cent. of children looked after by local authorities are placed with foster families. That proportion has increased since 1989. Foster care is the community's response to the needs of parents and children in difficulties.
The children who are accommodated in foster care are not blue-eyed angels. They have many needs and problems, which can be displayed in very difficult behaviour. They often come at short notice from traumatic family situations which often take time to resolve, either through rehabilitation of the child at home or through alternative long-term foster or adoptive placement.
Foster parents face increasingly complex tasks—for example, contributing to assessments, dealing with parental visits and giving evidence in court, in addition to nurturing hurt and sometimes aggressive children. The majority of foster carers are volunteers; they are not paid. They volunteer for altruistic motives. It is their way of contributing to the community. It is their choice and their decision.
Without their volunteering, the child care system would collapse. It is remarkable, therefore, that, under the present regulations, foster carers are effectively denied the opportunity to choose for whom they foster.
Voluntary organisations have a long tradition of providing services for children—Barnardo's, Catholic Rescue, The Children's Society, and the National Children's Home, to name but a few. Those organisations have contributed to innovative services and provided diversity and choice in the placement of children as a complement to local authority provision. Many of the organisations are already adoption agencies, and they run registered children's homes.
Under present regulations, however, they cannot approve their own foster carers. They can approve parents for life, but not parents for one night. The Foster Placement Regulations 1991, which are clarified by circular number LAC(94)20, state that voluntary organisations can approve foster carers only when delegated to do so by a local authority in relation to a particular child, that those foster carers are deemed to be on the list of the local authority and that any subsequent placements have to be agreed by the local authority. So voluntary agencies can recruit, train and assess, but those foster carers end up on the list of the local authority that has placed the first child. They are owned by the local authority.
As people may have been attracted to an organisation because of their religious beliefs, it is clearly unacceptable that they find themselves as local authority foster parents. If that is what they had wanted to be, they would have applied to the local authority in the first place. A letter sent to me by Norwood Child Care states:
"Foster parents come to our agency because it is Jewish and because it is small. They do not want to belong to the council because of a legal requirement."

827
The regulations raise other technical issues, which I do not have the time to discuss. The circular also states that, in delegating duties,
"the local authority will need to satisfy itself about the capacity of the organisation to discharge duties on its behalf."
That may not be difficult with adoption agencies, but a number of smaller organisations are coming into the field. One matter of concern is that the study by the social services inspectorate into small, unregisterable children's homes, which was published in August, identified some private organisations running small, unregisterable children's homes in the profit-making sector and parallel voluntary fostering sector.
There is no central point where concerns about agencies can be collated. Termination of approval of foster parents does not constitute termination of approval for an organisation, where problems may have been in the support offered in the placement or in the management of the organisation.
Indeed, the inspectorate's report identified proprietors of children's homes who had had previous convictions for fraud and for sexual and physical abuse. It is worrying that those same proprietors might be running voluntary fostering agencies.
Only registration and inspection similar to that for adoption agencies can ensure that organisations maintain proper standards. That step has the widespread approval of reputable organisations in the voluntary and independent sector, as well as the Association of Directors of Social Services, British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering and the National Foster Care Association.
Clarity of responsibility is one of the prevailing issues in child protection. That clarity of responsibility in foster placements will be met by registration and inspection. I am conscious that the Department of Health consultative document, "Moving Forward" asked the question, "Should voluntary and private sector agencies be subject to statutory regulation?" Before one asks that, one should deal with the question whether voluntary agencies can approve their own foster carers.
828
Earlier this year, the Minister proposed to extend the fostering regulations to include private agencies, to encourage diversity and choice. I find it surprising that he was unaware that the existing regulations were denying voluntary organisations the opportunity to provide that choice and diversity, and denying foster parents the opportunity to make their voluntary contribution to the agency of their choice.
The Government have not provided an opportunity for a debate on the Floor of the House on fostering. Indeed, the statement by the Minister on the result of his initial consultation was issued during the recess, as was the report on small unregisterable children's homes. The House can draw its own conclusions about that timing.
I am aware that this Bill will not make any parliamentary progress, but I am bringing it before the House because the issues it raises are important enough to be a matter of public record. I urge the House to support the Bill, as a clear message to the Minister that we want voluntary agencies to be able to approve their own foster carers, subject to registration and inspection. In doing so, we would recognise the contribution that the voluntary sector makes to children's services, as well as the contribution of the thousands of volunteers who, as foster carers, are the unseen and often undervalued carers of society's most difficult and disturbed children.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Ann Coffey, Mr. Alun Michael, Mr. Keith Hill, Mr. David Hinchliffe, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. George Howarth, Mrs. Jane Kennedy, Mr. Kevin Hughes, Mr. Dennis Turner, Mrs. Bridget Prentice and Ms Janet Anderson.

REGISTRATION OF FOSTERING AGENCIES
Ms Ann Coffey accordingly presented a Bill to enable voluntary and independent fostering agencies to approve foster carers subject to registration and inspection of the agencies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 27 October, and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

Questions (Transfer)
3.41 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I refer you to some correspondence that causes me great concern. I tabled an oral question the other day to the Deputy Prime Minister—and if I recall correctly, there was a point of order on this matter only two or three days ago—asking
"What plans he has to meet representatives of Campbell's Soups to discuss competition in the production of soups."
To me, that is an important question, because Campbell's Soups, an American company, last August purchased Home Pride in my constituency, and last week announced that 120 jobs are going to be lost in Maryport.
I tabled the question after taking advice from the Clerks in the Table Office, and now, because of some civil servant's view that that question is not relevant to the Deputy Prime Minister, it has been transferred. I object very strongly, because I made a point of ensuring that it was in order so that, in two weeks' time, I could ask the Deputy Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box—it came up as No. 4 on the ballot—a question on this issue of great importance in my constituency.
I wonder whether you would ask the Parliamentary Clerk in the Cabinet Office to withdraw the letter that I have received, and to advise me that I can table this question. I do not do this only on my own behalf; other hon. Members are being affected by such decisions. We believe that we are being most unreasonably treated. It is very damaging to me in my constituency.
Madam Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. I have heard similar complaints from other
830
hon. Members. As the House knows, I have no influence on or responsibility for the transfer of questions. It is not the Parliamentary Clerks who make transfers, but Ministers themselves who are finally responsible for transferring questions to other Departments.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter with the Deputy Prime Minister? I would encourage him to do so, because the matter can be dealt with if the hon. Gentleman would write to the Deputy Prime Minister raising the matter and asking him why the question has been transferred.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: I understand that you would wish us to proceed in that way, Madam Speaker, but the reality is that the Deputy Prime Minister will say that he does not believe that it is his departmental responsibility, but a matter for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food But the issues that I am driving at are competitiveness and competition, which fall directly within the right hon. Gentleman's brief—it was on that basis that the Table Office accepted the question.
I believe that we have now got to the position where the Speaker of the House of Commons should intervene, with a view to protecting the rights of Back Benchers.
Madam Speaker: This is not a matter for the Speaker of the House of Commons; it is a question for the Minister concerned. It is the responsibility of Ministers to transfer questions. This is not the first time that it has occurred, and I take it seriously. I shall see what I can do, but I have no powers in these matters.
I do understand the frustrations felt by Back Benchers, who seek out the Minister who they feel is responsible for a particular matter, only to find that it is sent elsewhere. I have every sympathy; I understand the frustrations; I would ask the hon. Gentleman to write and ask for an explanation, and I shall do what I can.

Opposition Day
[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Environment (Scotland)
Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.45 pm
Ms Roseanna Cunningham: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the depth of public concern in Scotland and beyond at HM Government's failure to provide proper stewardship of Scotland's environment; notes the triple threat posed by plans to increase the number of reprocessing contracts at Dounreay, the disclosure of the munitions dump at Beaufort Dyke and continuing uncertainty over Shell's plans to decommission the Brent Spar; views with alarm reports that between five and fifteen thousand fuel rods of US origin may be destined for Dounreay, pending the decision by the USA Department of Energy; further notes that over a thousand phosphorus devices have been found along the shores of south west Scotland; is dismayed that crucial decisions affecting the Scottish people are taken without any semblance of public consultation; calls on Her Majesty's Pollution Inspectorate to refuse to grant any further applications for discharge authorisations at Dounreay; demands an urgent investigation into the munitions dump at Beaufort Dyke so that the dangers posed to the public and the marine environment can be properly assessed; urges the Government to refuse any application for a licence for the offshore disposal of the Brent Spar or any other North Sea installation until such disposal can be assessed by an independent authority; and rejects the contemptuous treatment which fleeces Scotland of its natural resources while imposing unacceptable environmental dangers upon the Scottish population, threatening industries such as fishing, farming, food processing, whisky and tourism which depend crucially on Scotland's perception as a country with a clean environment.
In choosing this topic for today's debate, my colleagues and I in the Scottish National party seek to highlight what we consider to be the real concerns that are uppermost in the minds of Scottish people. We have chosen to focus on three specific issues.
First, I refer to the disclosure by the Ministry of Defence in June of this year that more than 1 million tonnes of conventional munitions had been dumped at Beaufort dyke off the south-west coast of Scotland over 50 years, between the 1920s and the 1970s. Secondly, there is the prospect of up to 15,000 spent nuclear fuel rods of United States origin making their way to Dounreay for reprocessing, with all the risks that that will inevitably entail, both at Dounreay and in the course of transportation. Thirdly, I want to mention the continuing uncertainty over the disposal of Brent Spar, with the Government refusing to rule out the idea that it could yet be dumped at sea.
Each of these issues is of vital importance to every man, woman and child in Scotland, because of their impact on the perception of Scotland as a clean country on which so many of our vital industries depend—farming, fishing, food processing, whisky and tourism. Each issue is different, but they all have one thing in common: they raise questions about the safety of people's lives, the security of their jobs and the sustainability of their communities.
They also have something else in common—an apparent view of Scotland as some kind of convenient waste disposal unit. That certainly makes a change from
832
the Thatcher years, when Scotland appeared to be regarded as a testing ground, but I do not think that the people of Scotland will regard it as a change for the better.
Mr. Bill Walker: How many Scots have lost their lives as a result of the transport of nuclear equipment of any kind through Scotland?
Ms Cunningham: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not the point. We are discussing an enormous increase in the likelihood of risk. We are talking about risk in this debate. I shall return to that issue, but I want first to deal with Beaufort dyke, an issue of current concern up and down the west coast of Scotland.
If this debate had been held two years ago and an Opposition Member had stood up and said that more than 1 million tonnes of bombs, incendiary devices and other high explosives had been dumped in Scotland as a deliberate act of Government policy, he or she would no doubt have been accused of scaremongering and irresponsibility. Yet, on 29 June this year, that is exactly what the Ministry of Defence admitted, in a letter to the Irish Sea Forum:
"In total, we estimate that the Ministry of Defence may have disposed of over 1 million tons of conventional munitions within Beauforts Dyke … between the end of the war and December 1948 some 135,000 tons of conventional munitions were disposed of at this location. Subsequently other dumpings took place during the 1950s, particularly of aircraft bombs and disposals continued at a rate of about 20,000 tons per annum into the late 1950s".
The letter goes on to state that, by the early 1970s, the annual tonnage had reduced to about 3,000 tonnes, and that Beaufort dyke was last used by the Ministry of Defence for general munitions dumping in 1973—although I understand that there was a further emergency dump in 1976. We are also told that, between July and October 1945, some 14,000 tonnes of 8-in artillery rockets filled with phosgene were similarly disposed of.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but is she aware that, in the period 1945 to 1955, many thousands of chemical warfare bombs were transported from Wales for dumping off the Scottish coast at Beaufort dyke, and that the safety of those bombs has been a matter of considerable concern?
Ms Cunningham: I was not aware of that, and I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention, because it shows the extent of what has been going on in Beaufort dyke. Off the west coast of Scotland, we have the largest single underwater munitions weapons repository in western Europe. The Government have admitted that there was a 50-year programme of dumping between one of the UK's busiest shipping lanes, only six miles from the Scottish coast.
Neither Parliament nor the Scottish people have ever been told what was going on, let alone consulted. The Scottish people, their elected representatives and their environment have been treated with utter contempt by successive UK Goverments, as though they were physically and politically expendable.
I should point out that Stena Sealink carried 1.3 million passengers between Stranraer and Larne in the past year. Those waters are also home to deep-water trawlers and Royal Navy submarines. It is a busy channel. An undersea gas pipeline is being planned across the channel, with construction later this year. The company involved, Premier Transco, has already announced that it has

833
changed the planned route to take account of Beaufort dyke. When the Ministry of Defence concedes, however, that it does not have complete records, the situation is clearly fraught with difficulty.
The concern of the local population was summed up very well by the chief executive of Wigtownshire district council, Mr. Alastair Geddes, when he said:
"Nothing is more damaging than uncertainty. An inquiry should look at where the dumping took place, what was dumped and whether or not it remains in a stable condition and also if there is to be any danger in the future."
There is understandable local concern about the impact that that uncertainty will have on the economy of the area. Wigtown had the lowest rate of economic growth in Scotland this year, and Upper Nithsdale had the highest level of unemployment in Scotland. Already, two shore front developers in Stranraer have threatened to withdraw their development plans, and uncertainty can only harm the economic prospects of those who have invested heavily in the area.
I now turn to the nature of the materials dumped in Beaufort dyke. Responding in 1985 to a question from the late right hon. Donald Stewart MP, the then Scottish Secretary, Mr. George Younger, said:
"Because of the non-toxic nature of the materials that have been dumped at Beaufort dyke it has not been considered necessary to check for leakage or environmental pollution."—[Official Report, 1985: Vol. 71, c. 518]
Yet that statement is in direct contradiction of the letter of 29 June from the Ministry of Defence, which refers to the toxic potential of munitions materials. It is worth recalling the Department of the Environment's definition of toxic material, in May 1995:
"a substance which inhaled or ingested or penetrates the skin may involve serious, acute, or chronic health risks or even death."
Yet, by their own admission, that is what has been dumped off the coast of Scotland.
Will the Minister confirm that, although the toxic potential of munitions material may be reduced by the combined effects of dilution, dispersion, hydrolysis and low temperatures, it is not eliminated? If, as the Government admitted in 1985, it was not their practice to check for leakage or environment pollution, on what scientific evidence do they base their assertion that the toxic potential of the munitions material has been reduced? Further inconsistencies demand clarification.
There is the whole question of the failure to mention any dumping of chemical weapons in the previous claim by the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Viscount Cranbourne, in a letter dated 13 October 1992 to the, hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), that small quantities of chemical weapons were dumped at Beaufort dyke. The letter stated:
"small quantities of chemical weapons were sea dumped in 1945 in Beaufort's dyke a deep water … trench in the Irish Sea."
Dr. Paul Johnston, a munitions expert at Exeter university, has said:
"The conventional weapons are still active and potentially explosive. The chemical drums are corroding and some may have been punctured."
He has warned of what he says is
"a mind-blowing potential for an environmental disaster."
834
The Ministry of Defence says that it is prepared to carry out a detailed survey of the dyke, but that, as long as the material remains undisturbed 263 fathoms below the waves, there is no cause for concern. The Government must be made to realise that only a full and urgent investigation will suffice.
Mr. George Foulkes: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this matter on the Floor of the House of Commons. Incidentally, I hope that she will bring the Scottish National party councillor for Newton Stewart on side with what she says and what I have been saying as well.
Does she agree that, although what is dumped in Beaufort dyke is bad, even worse is what has been dumped outside the permitted area of Beaufort dyke? Does she further agree that it is outrageous that, when we met the Secretary of State for Defence last week, he did not admit that the laying of the gas pipeline had been stopped for six days because of the dangers to which those laying it had been subjected?
Does she also agree that it is imperative that the Secretary of State for Scotland considers that when he is considering the report of the reporter into the proposed electricity interconnector with Northern Ireland, because that could also cause great disturbance of the munitions and chemicals that have been dumped outside Beaufort dyke? That is an extra reason why the proposal should be rejected.
Ms Cunningham: Some of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman will be brought out in the course of the debate. The matter is of great concern, because, while what has been dumped in Beaufort dyke is a matter of some uncertainty, what has been dumped in the surrounding area is a matter of even greater uncertainty. We shall be talking about that in a little more detail, because it highlights people's concern. If the Government themselves do not take any notice of what is going on, how can we possibly have any control over our environment?
I recognise that the Government have travelled some distance since expressing the view in 1985 that it was not necessary to check for leakage or environmental pollution, but they will have to go much further if they are to allay public anxieties.
Why, having written to the Secretary of State for Scotland more than a month ago calling for a public inquiry, has Wigtown district council still to receive a reply? Will the Minister confirm that the gathering of water samples at the north channel dump site by the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food were concluded in August? If that is the case, will details be published? The Ministry of Defence letter of 29 June said that results would be released on completion of the tests. If those tests were completed in August, we would all be interested to know what immediate publication meant.
Finally, it is a matter currently causing great concern that more than 1,000 phosphorus devices have been scattered along the shore of south-west Scotland. Can the Government give us any information about that? On Saturday, we learned from the national press that a four-year-old boy had come across a phosphorus flare and been burned. In March 1994, the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, now the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), said that

835
investigations had been unable to identify the origins or purpose of those objects, except that records showed that no phosphorus objects were ever stored at Beaufort dyke.
I dare say that people on the west coast of Scotland would be obliged if the Government could do something fairly soon about finding out, if they do not already know, precisely what these things are and from where they come. It seems quite extraordinary that they are washing up in such vast numbers, yet the Government appear thus far not to wish to take any view on them. That cannot be enough when it is clear that the devices have been washed ashore from somewhere, and continue to be.
I am sorry to say that the overwhelming impression currently being given is of near indifference to the public's real and understandable concern. In the face of that, it is little wonder that public confidence has been so undermined. We are suffering now for decisions made decades ago. We must have action now, so that we do not suffer in future decades for the current lack of decisions.
Environmental decisions cannot be made on an ad hoc basis, having regard only to the short term. All the matters raised today have serious long-term implications, and none more so than another matter raised in the motion—the possibility that the United States Government will decide to send between 5,000 and 15,000 US-origin spent fuel rods to Dounreay for reprocessing.
The volume of such a transportation affects most of Scotland—and, indeed, may well affect large parts of England as well. The port of entry may be Scrabster, Aberdeen or Leith; the route will go right through the centre of Scotland, up through its most populated areas. Indeed, if the items are brought ashore at English ports, they will go right through the most heavily populated parts of England as well. Once the fuel rods have arrived at Dounreay and been reprocessed, waste is likely to be retained for up to 25 years.
The irony of all this is that the United States Government have been carrying out an on-going consultation exercise among the US population, and we are told that a decision is imminent. The United States Government appear to have regarded the issue as serious enough for detailed consideration; whatever we may think of the range of possible options, the contrast with what is happening in Scotland could not be more acute. The United States Government have engaged in no consultation there—unless my questionnaire has been lost in the post. Their openness does not appear to extend to us who are likely to be most affected. Nor have our own Government engaged in any consultation.
The whole issue of Dounreay is very controversial. In view of that, should there not be consultation before we proceed? There has been an appalling loss of confidence in Dounreay over the years. I shall refer to only a few of the more recent developments that have led to that loss of confidence, but I could mention many others.
A report published in May this year by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, does nothing to allway public concern about Dounreay. The then chair of the advisory committee said:
"The contamination on the beach and within the site has proved to be higher than I had previously been told. I received the highest radiation dose I have ever recorded during my time with the RWMAC while standing at the top of the waste disposal shaft. To say they"—
he was referring to the Dounreay management—
836
"were lying is not an unreasonable conclusion to reach."
That sentiment is echoed by the chair of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. A further eight hot spots have been found since the sweep began in July; moreover, particles found on the foreshore are apparently likely to cause death if ingested. For that, we can thank Dr. Wheldon of the committee.
Those are only the most recent examples in a catalogue of contamination reaching many years back. The lack of public confidence in Dounreay is well founded; yet we may face a considerable increase in activity if the United States opts for sending some or all those elements to Dounreay.
Mr. Alex Salmond: If, following widespread public consultation in the United States, it is concluded that it would be a good idea to send all this material for reprocessing in Scotland, is it not reasonable to suppose that the outcome of widespread public consultation in Scotland might be the conclusion that it would not be a good idea? No country wants to be the world's nuclear laundry.
Ms Cunningham: Many people would agree with my hon. Friend—
Mr. Salmond: Including my hon. Friend.
Ms Cunningham: Indeed, although I was not planning to use the words "nuclear laundry" in the context of my speech—"nuclear dustbin" is used more often than "laundry", but if that United States decision is taken, it will lead to a massive increase in activity at Dounreay.
Mr. John Maxton: I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady's speech, and I share many of her concerns about the transport and reprocessing of nuclear materials, but I notice that there is no mention of Sellafield in her motion. Is that because it is not in Scotland? Is she happy that the reprocessing should be done in Sellafield because it is not in Scotland? If so, is she aware that my constituents live nearer to Sellafield than to Dounreay?
Ms Cunningham: No. The decision was to highlight current environmental concerns in Scotland. We are, of course, concerned with environmental questions throughout the rest of the United Kingdom, and, indeed, in the rest of the world. When I come to the question of transportation, I will be talking about transport through England as well as across international waters, so it is not right for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we are not interested in what is happening outside Scotland.
It is a question not just of on-site dangers, but of transportation dangers. The routes may be many and various, as I have already said. The road route passes through many of Scotland's most densely populated regions. As I said earlier, the spent fuel rods are brought ashore at ports in Aberdeen and Leith. All the regions on the east coast would be included, as well as the places that the A9 goes through. If the things are brought ashore in England, they will be transported through the heart of England. It may have been more interesting to hear some of the speeches of English Members who might be concerned if their constituencies were on those routes. Many people will have those concerns.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I speak as an English Member of Parliament very near to a nuclear

837
power station, and I welcome its contribution to a clean electricity supply. Will the hon. Lady make it clear that her party is still opposed to the principle of nuclear power, and explain how Scotland would possibly survive economically without 50 per cent. of its existing power generation?
Ms Cunningham: In Scotland, we currently export more power than we use. We are an energy-rich country, and there is no difficulty with making a conversion from nuclear energy to alternative sources of energy. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have more details on that, he may see me later. I was discussing the dangers—
Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Cunningham: No. I have given way frequently in the past 15 minutes. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will continue, and make the point about the safety of transportation on land.
Undoubtedly, test accident standards are set down for specially designed flasks that carry this waste, but those standards cannot begin to accord with the standards necessary for what is likely to happen in a real accident.
For example, the test standards for transportation in the marine environment work on the basis of testing flasks for 30 minutes in fires of 800 deg C. I understand, however—we have the International Maritime Organisation to thank for these figures—that the average length of a shipboard fire at sea is 23 hours, and that the fire is likely to reach 1,100 deg C, so the test standards that are being applied are not the standards that are required if flasks are to cope with any such accident at sea.
If hon. Members doubt that, I refer them to a specific incident in 1991, when a ferry and a petroleum tanker collided off Livorno on the coast of Italy. The fire on the ferry burned for 45 hours and reached more than 1,000 deg C. That would suggest that test standards of anything less than those temperatures and those times are wholly unsatisfactory. Any such accident has serious—if not catastrophic—implications for the Scottish economy and its environment.
I understand that marine insurers refuse cover for radioactive contamination because of the scale of the likely effects of such an accident. The position on land is little better. Local authority emergency planning units get no warning whatsoever. The Highland and Islands fire brigade has no resources to deal with such an accident and has therefore called to an end to reprocessing at Dounreay.
Furthermore, Dounreay is touting for contracts in the United States, although Her Majesty's pollution inspectorate has not yet approved discharge reauthorisations, which have already been delayed for two years. When do the Government intend to publish the review currently being carried out? Will the Minister confirm that no contracts can be signed until those reauthorisations are approved? Ultimately, the decisions currently being taken will affect Scotland for the next 35 years, yet they are being taken by a management distrusted by the public and, in effect, by a foreign Government. That highlights the ultimate powerlessness of Scotland under the present regime.
838
The final part of our motion deals with Brent Spar, but expresses the same concerns that we raised about Beaufort dyke and reprocessing at Dounreay, and highlights our powerlessness under the present regime.
On 19 June, in his statement to the House after the G7 summit in Halifax, the Prime Minister told the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) that the proposition that Brent Spar
"could have been taken inshore to be disposed of is incredible."—[Official Report, 19 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 28.]
However, since 1987, 914 platforms have been removed from the Gulf of Mexico and 13 from the North sea—including nine in the same depth range as the Brent Spar—to the shoreline. The same group of companies involved in the Gulf of Mexico removal own 140 of the 205 platforms in the North sea.
The industry has a wide range of experience in removal techniques and could help to revitalise the United Kingdom construction industry by utilising available skills and plant for the deconstruction of decommissioned platforms. At the heart of the Brent Spar controversy, I received phone calls from businesses in my constituency advising that they would be only too keen to be involved in such decommissioning.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is the hon. Lady aware that one of the companies that she has just mentioned is currently seeking to persuade the Government of the sensibility of toppling the North-West Hutton platform on its side, in order to create a reef which will become rich with fish? Does she agree that that is a rationalisation and that toppling a structure is cheaper than bringing it ashore for dismantling?
Ms Cunningham: I was not aware of the specific instance to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I was aware that reef forming with such structures has been carried out in other parts of the globe and is one of the many things that can be done with such installations.
My party endorses the ministerial declaration of the fourth international conference on the protection of the North sea which states:
"Even if the offshore installations are emptied of noxious and hazardous materials, they might still be, if dumped or left at sea, pose a threat to the marine environment. Disposal of such installations on land by recycling recyclable materials and by ensuring safe and controlled disposal of unavoidable residues would be in accordance with generally agreed principles of waste management policy.".
In contrast to the sensible approach outlined in that document, which the United Kingdom refused to sign, the Minister for Industry and Energy, the right hon. Member for Enfield, North (Mr. Eggar) refused to rule out the disposal of the Brent Spar on 12 July, when he stated:
"I would not rule out the option of deep sea dumping for the Brent Spar in future."—[Official Report, 12 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 935]
That has created a great deal of uncertainty, and the Government's position should be clarified.
It would be far better if the Government did as suggested in today's edition of the Financial Times and adopted a co-ordinated international approach to the removal of North sea installations rather than simply adopting a case-by-case one. According to the Financial Times, such a proposal would mean that £630 million could be saved by the Government and the oil industry.

839
It is that case-by-case, ad hoc, short-term approach which causes the greatest concern about all environmental issues. As a result, the SNP is demanding three courses of action in the motion before the House. First, we demand an urgent investigation into Beaufort dyke and the surrounding sea area, so that the dangers posed to the public and the marine environment can be properly assessed.
Secondly, we call on Her Majesty's pollution inspectorate to refuse to grant any further applications for discharge authorisations at the Dounreay plant. Thirdly, we urge the Government
"to refuse any application for a licence for the offshore disposal of the Brent Spar or any other North Sea installation until such disposal can be assessed by an independent decommissioning authority".
Westminster has turned Scotland into the largest single underwater munitions dump in western Europe, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has said, Dounreay into the world's nuclear laundry. They would quite happily see 150 Brent Spar installations dumped in the North sea. The Scottish National party is today signalling that the days when Scotland gets every dangerous substance dumped on its doorstep while it is fleeced of its natural resources are coming to an end.
4.16 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"congratulates Her Majesty's Government on their environmental achievements in Scotland and applauds their continued commitment to the further protection and enhancement of the environment, notably through the creation of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; supports the Government's view that United Kingdom's Atomic Energy Authority should be allowed to continue to undertake reprocessing of spent fuel, subject to the appropriate regulatory requirements being met, and that sound science and careful cost benefit analysis should continue to guide the Government in their consideration of issues affecting the marine environment, the matters of safety always to the fore."
I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on her lively and vigorous speech. It is only a pity that it bears little resemblance to reality. Her description of Scotland's environment is a travesty of the reality, and she should not let her enthusiasm for debate triumph over her respect for the truth.
It is pleasure to see that some members of the shadow Scottish affairs Front-Bench team are present, considering that none of them bothered to turn up last night for a debate of vital importance to Scotland's fishing industry. Their absence has been noted by the fishing communities and fishermen's organisations.
A visitor to north-west Europe would soon see Scotland as something of an environmental beacon.
Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As someone who was here last night, I can say that the Minister's comment about that debate has the modest disadvantage of being completely untrue.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That is not a matter for me, but no doubt the Minister has taken note of it.
Mr. Robertson: I did not realise that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is a member of the shadow Scottish Front-Bench team.
Mr. Wilson: I am not.
Mr. Bill Walker: Is it not true that the Labour party's embarrassment is further deepened by the fact that, although it wants a Parliament in Edinburgh, its own Front Bench is comprised mostly of Scottish-based Scots, including its Chief Whip?
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend has made a valuable point. I said that no member of the shadow Scottish Front-Bench team was present last night. The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North has admitted that he is not a member of it, so I hope that he will withdraw his remark at some appropriate moment.
Mr. Wilson: It is a simple matter. The Minister should learn that it is a waste of a speech to make such stupid, false points. It is a matter of fact that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. We should get on with the debate.
Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope it is not the same point of order.
Mr. Wilson: The Minister gave way to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was making a point of order; I did not realise that the Minister had given way.
Mr. Wilson: There is no need to apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to take up time in the debate, but I do not want a straightforward, factual inaccuracy to remain on the record. For part of the time when I was present for the fisheries debate, the shadow Secretary of State was also present. The Minister made the same cheap point last night. It was not true then, it is not true now, and he should withdraw it.
Mr. Robertson: I will not withdraw my remark, and let us continue with the debate.
Scotland has an international reputation as an environmental beacon. I fear that the only problem is that the perennial parochialism of the SNP and its desire for cheap, quick soundbites create an extreme distortion of the current healthy situation.
I shall begin to respond to the remarks of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross by trying to put matters into context. There is no denying that the era of heavy industry, which was the foundation of Scotland's wealth for more than 100 years, has left a legacy of environmental problems. But the new, high-tech industries, which are fuelling Scotland's economic resurgence, are not major polluters.
Regulatory standards are tighter as a result of European Union and United Kingdom controls. Industry itself increasingly acknowledges the force of the green imperative and is now moving quite independently to give a higher priority to environmental management.
Dr. Godman: What stage have the negotiations with Ameco reached concerning the disposal of the Northwest Hutton platform? Is Ameco to be allowed to dump it at sea to form a reef as it claims, which is absolute nonsense, or will the Government, in accordance with part I of the

841
Petroleum Act 1987, insist that that installation be brought ashore or at least into sheltered waters where it can be dismantled?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman raises matters of commercial sensitivity between the company and the Department of Trade and Industry, but I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is made aware of them. The hon. Gentleman's points are primarily a matter for the DTI.
Industry increasingly acknowledges the force of the green imperative and is now moving quite independently to give a higher priority to environmental management. While we must still tackle problems from the past, we can at least look forward with real satisfaction to a much less polluted future.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross made great play of the prospect that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority may be in a position to secure further contracts to reprocess spent nuclear fuel. It is unfortunate, if not surprising, that she did not praise the highly skilled staff of the facility, without whom such contracts would not be possible. She chooses instead to scaremonger; putting local employment at risk. Is she unaware that there are after all about 1,200 staff directly employed at the Dounreay site, plus 400 or so contractors? A further 250 jobs in the local economy can also be attributed to the plant.
The UKAEA has carried out reprocessing work for decades, and so long as it makes commercial sense for it to continue to do so, and the appropriate regulatory and safety requirements are being met, I see no reason why the Caithness area should be deprived of the benefit that such contracts would bring simply to satisfy the dogma and the narrow-mindedness of the SNP.
Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate will scrutinise fully and in great deal the application for authorisation made by the authority in respect of discharges of radioactive material from Dounreay. That scrutiny includes taking account of comments received from public bodies and local authorities consulted by HMIPI. A considerable amount of environmental monitoring has been and continues to be carried out around Dounreay, and that shows clearly that levels of radioactivity in the environment are well within internationally accepted limits for the public.
I am confident that the new Dounreay site management is dealing with that latter aspect with vigour and determination under the guidance of regulatory bodies. Indeed, the determination of the present management to ensure that all such localised contamination is fully identified and dealt with openly has brought about a great deal of the recent criticism made of operations on the nuclear site.
Similarly, we should not forget that the recent comments about Dounreay's operations made by the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment are made by Committees set up by the Government to provide such independent advice and criticism, precisely in order that the operation of the nuclear industry in this country may be to the very highest of standards and so that the public may be reassured of that.
842
As for the transport of spent materials testing reactor fuel to Dounreay, were the United States contracts to come about, there is a history of safe operation and transportation to build on. I am amazed by the short memories of Opposition Members. Dounreay has been receiving such spent fuel elements for more than 35 years since the reprocessing plant opened in the 1950s. Why can the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross not come to this debate and congratulate the work force on their skills, expertise and safety record over decades, rather than seeking to destroy their livelihoods in search of a quick headline in tomorrow's paper?
I am deeply conscious of the concern about the phosphorous containers washed ashore in south-west Scotland and about the safety aspects to which the incident gives rise. The injury that at least one child sustained is most regrettable, and I convey my sympathies to him.
Unfortunate as the incident is, I record my high regard for the way in which the emergency services have handled the incident. Efforts are continuing to try to find the origin of the containers and where in the sea bed they came from. The video of the trench-laying operation will be studied carefully to establish whether it reveals any connection with munitions, if that is what the phosphorous objects turn out to be. Through the Scottish Office's initiative, all the appropriate Government Departments are working together, not only to try to get to the bottom of the incident, but to establish as much as possible about what munitions were dumped.
Mr. Foulkes: I endorse what the Minister has said about the emergency services; they worked extremely well. I cannot, however, say the same about Government Departments because over the past two weeks, there seems to have been a concerted attempt to cover up exactly what is going on. We were not told by the Secretary of State for Defence that there was a prohibition order, and British Gas did not tell us. The Ministry is still not answering questions about why the order was imposed and why it was lifted.
On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, I have written seeking an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, because all fingers point in his direction. The Health and Safety Executive is clearly responsible and is under his control. I hope that the Minister will use his good offices and that the Secretary of State for Scotland will use his good offices to get us an urgent meeting with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to try to solve the mystery of what exactly is going on in and around Beaufort dyke.
Mr. Robertson: I know of no cover-up. What I do know is that the hon. Gentleman had what he called a constructive meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Following from that meeting, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is seeking to move matters forward. As I said, through the Scottish Office's own initiative, all the appropriate Government Departments are working together to try to get to the bottom of the incident. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's request for a further meeting with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friends and myself said that we had a successful meeting because we thought that we were

843
being told the truth. It emerged afterwards that it was being withheld from us that the Secretary of State for Defence knew that there was a prohibition order and that there was trouble at Beaufort dyke. He did not tell us about that and neither did Cedric Brown.
That was an appalling cover-up of what was going on; that is why a lot of us are now suspicious that a cover-up is still going on and that there are dangers at Beaufort dyke to which the Government are not prepared to admit. That is why we need a meeting urgently.
Mr. Robertson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman has said. He is, by his own intervention, admitting that this is a matter that crosses many Government Departments. I have said that, following the hon. Gentleman's meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is seeking to move things forward. I will ensure that he sees this exchange of views.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Many of us were present at the meetings and we were an all-party delegation. I confirm everything that has been said by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). Why is it only now, some several weeks on from the first indication, that the Scottish Office is talking about co-ordination? Can the Minister tell us who will be working on the group, exactly what its role will be, to whom it will report, how we shall find out the information, how we shall report back to our constituents and what the time scale is?
Mr. Robertson: As I have said to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), the local Member of Parliament, this is a matter that crosses Government Departments. Following the meetings that he and others, including the hon. Lady, have had, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is seeking to take matters forward. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland winds up, he will address the hon. Lady's question in greater detail. I now want to make some progress.
I now turn to the Government's achievements, as spelled out in our amendment, and our ambitions for Scotland's special and unique environment. So far, the 1990s have been an outstanding decade for our leading-edge policies to protect and to enhance the environment. The decade began with the Environmental Protection Act 1990 which, by any standards, represents a post-war landmark in pollution control legislation.
The Act's centrepiece has been the introduction of integrated pollution control—IPC—for the most potentially polluting industrial processes. This has undoubtedly set a benchmark for the rest of Europe. As a pollution control concept it was world class and the regime that we established in Britain had the immediate effect of persuading the European Commission that it should follow suit. Accordingly, an integrated prevention and pollution control directive—the IPPC—was agreed by the Council of Ministers earlier this year, and will follow very much the same trail as that blazed by the 1990 Act.
IPC finally brought to an end the separate regimes of pollution control that had applied to each of the environmental media—land, air and water. It has therefore heralded an era of greater coherence and more thoughtful analysis of the possible harmful discharges from industrial processes, compared with what was previously a rather fragmented area of operations.
844
Nor was IPC the only feather in the cap of the 1990 Act. For the first time, air emissions from less polluting industrial processes were brought within a tight regime of codified guidance notes in place of the ad hoc controls that had previously applied.
Waste management controls have also been greatly strengthened. Indeed, because of the extent of the reforms embodied, implementation has been phased over two or more years, and the final tranche of the new waste licensing controls did not come into force until May last year. The 1990 Act also strengthened litter laws, with clear output targets for local authorities.
The emphasis in that legislation was on the substance of pollution control, but the focus has shifted in subsequent years to the organisational aspects of securing on the ground the objectives set out in the Act.
The first fruit of that determination was the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991, which brought together the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland and the Countryside Commission for Scotland in the shape of a new and powerful body—Scottish Natural Heritage. That body has now settled down to the twin task of reconciling conservation with recreation, and is proving its worth across the entire spectrum of countryside policies. In particular, it has been able to secure a shift in the general climate of opinion towards achieving a much more constructive dialogue between landowners and conservation interests, putting aside the divisive debates of earlier years.
The current Session of Parliament has seen the passage of another major Act with far-reaching provisions. I have no doubt that the effect of the Environment Act 1995 will be felt well into the next century, and I understand that its 394 pages make it the longest piece of legislation passed by Parliament this decade.
The most striking impact for Scotland will probably arise from the creation of a Scottish Environment Protection Agency—SEPA. It is fitting that we should discuss the environment today, because 24 October is the day on which the board of the new agency meets formally for the first time.
The effective protection of the environment requires an integrated, holistic approach. The introduction of IPC—and IPPC in Europe—is an acknowledgement of that fact. SEPA will take that integration a stage further. The agency will concentrate on the key forms of industrial pollution of air, water and land where the benefits of a one-door approach to the prevention and control of pollution will deliver more effective environmental protection.
Mr. Michael Connarty: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene; my question will allow him to catch his breath, because he is speaking at such a speed. Following the correspondence that I have had with the Scottish Office, does what the Minister now says mean that the operation to deal with the mercury from the former Nobel works in Redding, Falkirk, which is washing into the Forth and Clyde canal, where people still fish, will be funded by the agency? Or will the people of my constituency still have to pay through their taxes to the local council for cleaning up Government pollution?
Mr. Robertson: If the hon. Gentleman had waited a little more patiently, I would have reached the funding of the body.

845
From 1 April next year, SEPA will bring together the work of Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate, the various river purification authorities and the district and islands councils in respect of waste regulation and some air pollution control. It will be a formidable organisation with about 600 staff and an annual budget of more than £22 million. Its functions will encompass the control of radioactive substances, discharges to controlled waters, air pollution, flood warnings and waste management, to mention but a few.
The Environment Act also tackles one of the legacies of Scotland's industrial past that I mentioned earlier. It provides a new framework for the remediation of contaminated land sites based on the "suitable for use" approach. That resists the temptation to throw money at every conceivable area of contamination regardless of the benefit that it would bring. Instead, it proposes a selective approach concentrating on remediation programmes on sites posing the greatest environmental risks or the greatest potential for reuse.
Mr. Salmond: The Minister has described the environmental agency as being under Scottish Office control. However, does he have any real power in connection with the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)? The munitions dump off the south-west of Scotland was put there by the Ministry of Defence. Nuclear waste transportation is under the control of the Department of Transport. Dounreay and its regulatory bodies are under the control of the Department of Trade and Industry, as is the disposal of offshore platforms. The simple question is: does the Scottish Office really have effective power to deal with the concerns that my hon. Friend raised, even if the Minister wanted to tackle them?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman well knows that the Scottish Office has a powerful voice on every issue that he has just mentioned as an integral part of the Government of the United Kingdom. He should know better.
The Environment Act also has important enabling powers to combat air pollution. Even though we have made great strides in the decades since the Clean Air Acts of the 1950s and 1960s, first to reduce air pollution from domestic fires and then from industry, we now find that a third threat to our air quality has emerged in the form of exhaust fumes from road transport.
The Act addresses this development by enabling air quality management areas to be set up in localities where air quality is particularly poor. As a backcloth to such local initiatives, the Government will publish an air quality strategy to outline the national policies which apply in this important area. The Government will also be discussing with local authorities the range of measures which they might apply to make the AQMAs really effective in improving air quality. We will give them new powers where they are shown to be necessary.
There is not enough time to go through the other provisions of the 1995 Act, but I believe that the Government have demonstrated their commitment to environmental improvement and have proved their ability to come up with appropriate policies to meet the changing challenges of our time.
846
I should like to turn to the wider environmental debate in the country. I detect behind the hon Lady's remarks a kind of moral absolutism, which I believe we must resist if the cause of environmental improvement is not to lose credibility in the minds of the community at large. The clamour from the green corner is all too often for the environment to be returned to its natural condition of pristine purity, regardless of the actual benefits of doing so and regardless of the costs involved.
Mrs. Ewing: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Robertson: I have already given way to the hon. Lady. I sometimes feel that these calls are part of a flight from reality to a never-never land of simple truths and instant values, and we must all resist that pressure. The first fallacy is that nature is always a benign and beneficial force. As any scientist knows, harmful chemicals abound in the natural environment and naturally occurring radiation almost certainly poses a greater threat to health than radioactivity from nuclear operations.
Undoubtedly we must be careful and considerate in our treatment of the environment, but we must also be alive to the law of diminishing returns. The expenditure to clean up that last trace of pollution in the remaining residue of waste material is likely to be much better spent for the benefit of humanity in many other ways. Yet one hesitates to say anything that obvious in polite society, lest it offends the gospel according to the greens which we are all increasingly expected to acknowledge.
That inevitably brings me to the saga of Brent Spar. Shell undertook a very full assessment of the disposal options, and deep-sea abandonment was the conclusive outcome. The Government's licence to dispose of Brent Spar in this way was granted only after the most careful scientific evaluation by Scotland's foremost marine laboratory in Aberdeen.
The wisdom of those decisions has, of course, been totally vindicated now with the publication of the Det Norske Veritas study. The study demonstrates that Shell had been right all along and that Greenpeace's discreditable manoeuvring has served both to mislead the general public and to leave Brent Spar as a potential threat to the marine environment until it is finally disposed of. It is as regrettable as it is pathetic that the hon. Lady and her party fell in with the Greenpeace line in such an unquestioning and uncritical fashion. I had hoped that she would come to the debate today with her lesson learned—unfortunately, that has not proved to be the case.
That brings me to a matter which I ought perhaps to have mentioned earlier and which certainly looms alongside domestic reforms to improve environmental protection, and indeed overshadows and dwarfs them in many respects—the concept of sustainable development. This was endorsed at the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. To my mind, the concept adds the vital ballast of economic realism to counter what can be the sentimentality of those who constantly see the world through green-tinted spectacles. The importance of development in the concept is crucial because as a society and as a planet we need to grow and innovate if we are to progress. Over-caution will lead to stagnation, and that can cast a blight over millions where growth and innovation can give them hope.
The Rio document which set out the many aspirations for sustainable development is called Agenda 21, and it carries the salutary lesson for us all that top-down

847
solutions—so beloved of Opposition parties—are not the answer. The seedcorn of change lies in our local communities, in our schools and at the workplace. Exhortation from on high, whether from Governments or the moral crusaders in the green movement, cannot actually achieve the shifts in life style and patterns of behaviour which sustainable development asks of us. Agenda 21 recognises this by calling for the full participation of all segments of society. This will not be an easy process, nor a swift one.
However, the Government are determined to play their part. The Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 was the first piece of UK legislation to make specific reference to the concept of sustainability. The Environment Act provides for the Secretary of State to provide guidance on sustainable development to SEPA so that the general aims of Agenda 21 can be reflected in the day-to-day work of that agency. In reality, of course, the very practice of pollution control is at the heart of sustainable development.
We have established a separate Scottish advisory group on sustainable development which has already issued a thoughtful report on transport and the environment. We have commissioned a survey of Scottish attitudes to sustainable development, which was published last year. We have supported the Association of Scottish Community Councils to give local Agenda 21 a higher profile. On the environment, as on so much more, the Government are leading the way. Our record is second to none. I invite the House to reject the scaremongering and political posturing of the SNP. I commend the amendment to the House.
4.40 pm
Mr. John McAllion: I do not know about green-tinted spectacles, but no Opposition Member will be green with envy of the quality of the speech that we have just heard from the Minister.
I rise in my place as a Scottish-born and Scottish-based member of the Scottish Labour party to speak from the Scottish Labour party's Front Bench. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) seemed to believe that those qualities were something of a disadvantage, but I am proud of them. I am also proud of the role that my party is playing in securing a Scottish parliament, which will be created after Labour's victory at the next general election. We shall make debates such as this in this House unnecessary. In future, such matters will be debated in Scotland, where they should be debated, by elected Members of a Scottish parliament.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on introducing this important debate. Labour Members agree that there is genuine concern across Scotland about what the motion describes as the
"Government's failure to provide proper stewardship of Scotland's environment."
We disagree with the SNP that concern about the Government's poor record on environmental issues is a matter simply for the Scottish electorate. That concern is shared by the vast majority of people who inhabit this small offshore island.
Indeed, the concern is shared beyond the shores of this island in the wider world. The Government's repeated refusal to condemn the French nuclear tests in the south Pacific have made them moral outcasts among civilised opinion in the world—and deservedly so.
848
Today's debate is about Scotland and what the motion describes as the triple threat posed by reprocessing at Dounreay, leaking munitions from Beaufort dyke dump and decommissioning of oil rigs in the North sea. I shall deal with each issue in turn and in the order in which the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross did so.
The motion refers to 1,000 phosphorous devices that have been washed up on the south-west coast of Scotland. They are sometimes referred to as flares, but experts now believe them to be incendiary bombs. The Royal Navy's description of the devices is chilling. Any hon. Member who has not read it would be well advised to do so. It refers to the devices exuding a distinctive pungent smell, their being seen smoking on the shores of Scotland and their ability spontaneously to combust when they are dry. The Clyde coastguard has gone further and said that the devices have the potential to kill. So all hon. Members should be worried about the extent of the munitions being washed up on our beaches.
Youngsters are already picking up the devices—one did so and his clothes started to smoke. He sustained injuries to his arms and legs that required him to be taken to hospital. The devices are very dangerous indeed. The Government's slow reaction to the danger presented to the Scottish people by such devices is amazing.
If the Government do not care about today's children—they cannot vote in the coming general election and save the Government's necks—or about tomorrow's environment, perhaps they should at least be worried about the threat that the devices pose to Scotland's economy. A threat arises from the impact of publicity about the devices on the tourist trade in Scotland.
Mr. Phil Gallie: I go along with all that the hon. Gentleman has said about the hazards associated with the phosphorous sticks, but what evidence does he have to substantiate his comment that the Government have not taken a keen interest ever since the first sticks were washed ashore? I have evidence that the Scottish Minister with responsibility for the environment was aware and involved right from that time.
Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Gentleman waits, he will hear what evidence I have to substantiate my claim. For the moment, I am talking about the impact that the bad publicity is having on potential tourism to our coasts, which are famous for their marine environment and which attract visitors.
I am grateful for a briefing that was provided to Scottish Members by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It revealed that millions of pounds were pumped into coastal local economies by visitors. A Countryside Commission for Scotland survey of users of the south-west coast path revealed that in the past year almost £16 million was spent in the local economy by people attracted to the area by the environmental qualities of the south-west of Scotland.
Whether one looks at the problem on safety, environmental or economic grounds, one thing is clear: the Government should make it a priority to preserve the quality of our coastal and marine environment. Yet what did we find when the story first broke and the issue became a crisis in Scotland? One of the headlines in the Scottish press at the time simply read:
"Offices pass buck as munitions wash up on Scottish coastline."

849
The Ministry of Defence said that the matter was not its responsibility but that of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. MAFF said that the matter was not its responsibility but that of the Ministry of Defence and the Scottish Office. No less than a spokesperson for the dynamic new Secretary of State for Scotland was quoted as saying that the Secretary of State did not feel it appropriate to comment on the devices. They all washed their hands of any responsibility for what was happening on the south-west coast of Scotland. They were all utterly clueless about what they could do about it.
We hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that the Department of Trade and Industry hid from its responsibility in the matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): Would the hon. Gentleman have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland comment on something before he was fully aware of exactly what he was talking about? This is a complex issue. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware of that and that significant effort has been made by many people to determine where the items have come from and to ascertain how to stop them.
Mr. McAllion: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for trying to come to the assistance of the Minister who is leading for the Government in the debate. The spokesperson for the Secretary of State for Scotland said that it was not appropriate for him to comment, not that he did not want to comment because he had not checked out the matter. The spokesperson said that it was nothing to do with the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is why the Secretary of State will rightly be condemned by people.
Were it not for the successful campaigning by my hon. Friends the Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley and for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who demanded Government action, an immediate investigation into the source of the munitions and the extent and nature of the munitions held at the Beaufort dyke dump and a halt to all undersea operations in the area, I suspect that Ministers would still be dithering and doing nothing. Only after my hon. Friends' intervention did the Ministry of Defence agree at last to meet them, and only then did the Secretary of State for Scotland decide to intervene in the affair and try to rescue something from it.
It was not just here in Westminster that the Labour party forced the Government into action. A Labour Member of the European Parliament, Alex Smith, took emergency action in the European Parliament and succeeded in persuading the European Commission to investigate the munitions dump at Beaufort dyke and the claims that radioactive waste was dumped secretly in the area.
That is the story of what happened at Beaufort dyke—Labour action to protect the public and the environment, but Government inaction and failure to defend the public interest until they were forced into action by Opposition spokesmen.
Mr. Bill Walker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, because everyone who has taken an interest in the matter is concerned. He must acknowledge, however,
850
that Beaufort dyke has been used extensively for the dumping of wartime munitions under Governments of different colours. Accountability, therefore, lies with the people who decided to dump.
Mr. McAllion: Accountability for action today lies with this Government and the Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench. Clearly, they have failed to take action, for which they will be condemned not merely by the Opposition but by people who are interested in the subject throughout Scotland.
The second part of the motion refers to Scotland's nuclear industry. I must begin with a confession. I am not in the habit of reading Scottish National party election manifestos—a failure that I think I share with the vast majority of the Scottish people. Indeed, if we are honest, it is probably a failure that I share with the majority of members of the SNP, as you would realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you had ever taken part in a debate with them.
In preparation for this debate, however, I took the trouble to look up the SNP manifesto for the last election to find out what it said about the Scottish nuclear industry. Page 10 makes it very clear that the SNP would pledge itself to creating
"A Scotland without the nuclear menace."
That phrase is obviously similar to one used last weekend by Mr. Kenny McAskill, a senior member of the SNP, who said that only the SNP could deliver a nuclear-free Scotland.
A nuclear-free Scotland and a Scotland without nuclear menace are good slogans, with a certain ring to them. They may even be attractive to certain people, but they are entirely bogus, as I hope to show. They provide the background, however, against which the references to Dounreay in the motion should be judged. It is important for the House to understand that the references stem from the wider SNP attitude to the nuclear industry and nuclear power in Scotland.
The facts about Scotland's nuclear industry must be revealed before we can judge the references to Dounreay. For example, Scottish Nuclear has signed contracts with British Nuclear Fuels this year for the handling of Scotland's nuclear waste, which will cover the period between now and 2068 and are worth about £4,000 million in total. Of course, we do not have the details of the contracts because BNFL and Scottish Nuclear keep them well hidden, but we can be fairly certain that severe penalty clauses will be included if anyone should decide to tear up the contracts and break the agreements entered into by the two parties.
Under the contracts, Scotland's nuclear waste is to be transported not to Dounreay but to Sellafield in England, where some of it will be reprocessed, but most will be stored, either in wet storage or long-term surface storage. The SNP objects to the possibility of Dounreay being used as a dumping site for nuclear waste from other countries.
We heard from the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Perth and Kinross that they are equally concerned about England's nuclear future and would object to Sellafield being used as a nuclear dustbin for Scotland's waste. We must assume, therefore, that, if they were ever in a position to do anything about it, they would tear up the contracts and be obliged to compensate BNFL for its loss in full—an enormous cost to the Scottish taxpayer—and that they would agree to the repatriation of Scotland's nuclear waste to Scotland,

851
where it would be stored in sites throughout the country. A Scotland littered with nuclear sites of that type could hardly be described as nuclear-free, but no one has ever accused the SNP of being honest.
The SNP plan goes further, however, as it proposes to close down all Scotland's nuclear industry—not merely Hunterston A, which is being decommissioned by Scottish Nuclear, but Hunterston B, Torness, Chapelcross and Dounreay, which will all need to be decommissioned at huge cost to the Scottish taxpayer and will require huge amounts of radioactive material to be stored and disposed of.
Mr. Salmond: On the subject of honesty, will the hon. Gentleman give the House the precise date on which he came to believe that the Trident nuclear system should be supported?
Mr. McAllion: That shows the hon. Gentleman's desperation. Rather than answering questions on civil nuclear power, he mentions defence, which is not part of this debate. He will have to suffer in silence a wee while longer because I intend to continue exposing the bogus nature of the SNP's policy on the civil nuclear industry.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross said that there would be no difficulties in closing down Scotland's nuclear industry and switching to non-nuclear power systems. Perhaps I might refer her to the problems associated with Hunterston A and Chapelcross, which both have Magnox reactors. The hon. Lady quoted, with great approval, the words of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, but it pointed out that spent Magnox fuel is potentially unstable and, on safety grounds, should be reprocessed before being disposed of.
Yet the hon. Lady and the SNP are promising to ban reprocessing at Dounreay and have made it clear that they will not have anything to do with reprocessing at Sellafield, which will make it impossible to deal safely with the spent fuel rods from existing Magnox reactors in Scotland. It seems strange for a party that talks about creating a safe Scotland to take decisions that make it impossible for us to dispose safely of Magnox fuel rods from reactors in Scotland.
At its most recent conference in Perth, the SNP decided that Scotland's nuclear industry would be retained only until it could be decommissioned safely. I am not entirely certain what that means and at what point all the nuclear stations would be decommissioned. We know that Hunterston A is already well down the road. The reactors have been defuelled, the ancillary reactor plant has been dismantled, the fuel storage ponds have been cleaned up and all that remains is to remove the reactor core, once radiation levels decrease significantly and it is safe to do so. British Nuclear Fuels estimates that that might be in about 100 years' time, so the SNP has a wide time span in which to decide when it will decommission Scotland's nuclear plant. Perhaps it should invent a new slogan, "Scotland nuclear-free by 2093", but that suggestion might not appeal to some SNP members.
It is incumbent on SNP Members to let the House and the people of Scotland know exactly when they will decommission and write off Scotland's nuclear stations. We must recognise one thing, however: that it is simply no longer credible for us to deal with complex nuclear issues on the basis of simplistic sloganising. The 4,500 workers in the Scottish nuclear industry and the many thousands more in the spin-off industries deserve a little
852
more respect and consideration from that party. Indeed, the SNP did not touch on the most immediate threat to the Scottish nuclear industry—privatisation, which will definitely threaten safety standards in the industry. It is not merely the official Opposition who are saying so. Even the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is about to say so.
Mr. Gallie: Has the hon. Gentleman not read recent reports from Scottish Power, stating that its safety performance has increased beyond all recognition from the days when it was in the public sector? On that basis, will he take back his words about the privatisation of the nuclear industry?
Mr. McAllion: Has the hon. Gentleman not read the comments of Mr. Richard Killick, who is saying what I said? He may not know who he is. Mr. Killick admits that he is not a political animal because he admits to voting Tory more than anything else, but he served for 25 years in the Royal Navy and held all the top safety posts on nuclear submarines. On retiring, he joined Scottish Nuclear and, in 1992, was appointed safety and quality director, so I think that we can take it that he knows something about the nuclear industry and about safety standards within it. Yet, following the merger of Scottish Nuclear and Nuclear Electric into British Energy, he was invited to leave the company. Within a week, he was obliged to clear his desk and to pass on his safety responsibilities to a fellow director from Scottish Nuclear.
Mr. Killick said that the speed with which he was asked to pass on his safety responsibilities alarmed him and was symptomatic of "the fundamental flaw" in the privatisation of the nuclear industry. He claimed:
"There will be increasing pressures on people and safety as output and profit become ever more important".
That will not happen immediately—not in the first two or three years following privatisation—but in the longer term. As Mr. Killick puts it so chillingly, the Government
"are building in latent instability".
Given the threat posed by a nuclear industry that is inherently unstable, the charge against the Government could not be more damning or serious. For the sake of a privatisation receipt, which they hope will allow them to introduce tax cuts and increase their electability at the next general election, they are prepared to put at risk the safety of the entire nuclear industry and, indeed, of the people of Scotland, whose interests they claim to be looking after.
Finally, there is the dumping of North sea oil rigs. The Scottish National party has never been able to allow a bandwagon to pass without trying to jump on it. It has done so again by trying to hijack Brent Spar for its own political ends. There has been a deluge of press releases from the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan, for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Perth and Kinross opposing deep-sea dumping of any sort in the North sea. We hear that the Government and oil companies cannot be allowed to dump rigs in the North sea. We are told that Scotland gets all the dangers and few of the rewards. Today, the SNP has again highlighted the benefits that the total removal of rigs from the North sea and recycling them on land would bring through the jobs that the process would create.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross went so far as to condemn the Government for adopting a case-by-case approach. That is all very well, but it is a different line

853
from that taken by the Energy Select Committee in its 1991 report, "Decommissioning of Oil and Gas Fields in the North Sea".
It is nothing strange for the SNP to be at odds with the Energy Select Committee; it is strange that a member of that Select Committee was the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, who as part of the Committee, agreed to commend the Government for their case-by-case approach to the North sea. He also agreed that, on balance, environmental interests favoured the partial abandonment of at least some rigs, that environmental issues could not be used as an argument against deep-sea dumping of rigs and called on the Government to examine the claim that total removal was more dangerous than partial removal because of the dangers that it posed to the divers who would carry out the process. He even agreed that the Government would have to consider the possibility of using abandoned platforms as artificial reefs to encourage fish stocks. Finally, he agreed that the Government should preserve the options of toppling and deep-water dumping while permitted to do so by International Maritime Organisation guidelines.
I have no complaint with the hon. Gentleman agreeing to all that, because I was a member of the same Committee and agreed to it myself, but when the SNP starts to deal with such matters, it should do so responsibly, seriously and with due consideration of the scientific and environmental facts and not treat the debate as if it was something to read about in a tabloid such as The Sun. The issue deserves better than that.
Reference was made to the gulf of Mexico, where 945 rigs were moved on shore for recycling. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross said, however, that 100 platforms in the gulf of Mexico, belonging to 36 companies, have already been dumped at sea as part of the rigs-to-reefs programme, which has been running for the past 10 years. It is a good programme which has many qualities so far lacking in what has been suggested by the Government. For example, all pollutants and hydrocarbons must be removed before a platform can be considered for disposal. Half the cost savings that arise from not having to dump rigs on land must be handed over to state Governments for long-term monitoring and research into the effects of dumping on marine life.
The programme is supported by local fishermen and environmentalists in America, and even Greenpeace in America does not oppose it. It is at least worth considering.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman has been busy reading the Scottish National party manifesto; it is a pity that he did not read the motion on the Order Paper. Does he not agree that the key issue is that the oil companies and the Government, because of taxation laws, have a vested interest in the cheapest form of disposal, which is often offshore disposal? Can he not bring himself to agree that we need an independent authority with no financial vested interests properly to supervise disposal?
Mr. McAllion: I have no problem agreeing with that, but I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman giving only one side of the argument and trying to disguise from the House the positions that he took some years ago. With complete inconsistency, he is about-facing on those positions and not owning up to it.
854
I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to deal with such important matters seriously and not use them as part of the usual knockabout stuff of party politics. We are talking about future generations. The document that Labour commissioned on environment policy states:
"We cannot go on living as if there were no tomorrow."
I would advise every political party to take that phrase to heart, because the tomorrow that we are discussing does not belong to the generation sitting here at the moment but to the generations that will come after us. We are not debating our future and environment but those of generations to come. They deserve a debate worthy of them, and they have not heard that from the SNP today.
5.3 pm
Sir Hector Monro: I wish to bring some realism to the debate instead of the rhetoric that we have heard so far.
We are, of course, concerned about what has happened in the Irish sea and the firth of Clyde. That needs to be—and is being—investigated. Until we get the results of the investigation, it is pointless to raise alarm and despondency before we find out what the true picture is.
We have to be practical. If there are problems in the Beaufort dyke hundreds of fathoms down, we have to find out whether the munitions are inert and whether there is any cause for concern. If there is, we must consider what on earth could be done about it, bearing in mind that nothing has happened for about 40 years. I suspect too, that the incendiaries and the possible flares in the firth of Clyde are from a different source altogether. It just happens that they have come together in public concern.
We should say to the Government that, yes, we want to know the results of investigation as soon as possible, but it is no use shouting from the rooftops until the experts have found what the position is. The sooner that that can be done, the better.
It is quite wrong of the Scottish National party to keep thumping away about toppling the Brent Spar in the North sea. We have never intended that any oil wells should be toppled in the North sea because it is far shallower than the Atlantic, where the Brent Spar might have been toppled. That is a different issue altogether.
Without in any way underestimating the Beaufort dyke question, I wish to deal with some more important long-term issues. We can say straight away that the Scottish National party is dead against nuclear power. Its candidates and members have been dead against it ever since the power stations appeared in Scotland after the war.
I live alongside Chapelcross; I brought up a family alongside it. I have no fears at all about the safety of living near a nuclear power station. The standards of the work force, the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Health and Safety Executive are extremely high. There is never any concern about safety in the area. Chapelcross provides 500 jobs. Think of the input that that makes to the local economy through the 500 families.
I cannot understand the concern of the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), who is not in her place—I appreciate that she cannot be there all the time—about transport. Nuclear flasks have been transported between Sellafield and Chapelcross for

855
40 years. I cannot understand the worry about transporting nuclear equipment under the closest security and scrutiny. It is absolutely safe.
The thought that these flasks are going to catch fire on the road in central Scotland is unjustified. Again, the SNP and, indeed, others are raising alarms about an issue that is a non-runner. Perhaps hon. Members saw the television programme that showed a train crashing at high speed into a nuclear flask. The nuclear flask came off best. It is a safe form of transportation. Nobody could want it to be safer more than the nuclear industry.
It is wrong to say tat we cannot effectively generate electricity from nuclear power or carry out reprocessing at Dounreay or elsewhere; our country has taken safety as its No. 1 priority. I believe that not only the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority but British Nuclear Fuels, which runs Chapelcross, and Scottish Nuclear, which runs its own stations, will keep their high standards as their top priority.
I am concerned about the long-term future of Chapelcross. I want it to continue. I am glad that, subject to safety checks, its future looks guaranteed for at least another 10 years. That is not on account of any support that we have had nationally from the Labour party, the SNP or the Liberal Democrats. I know that local candidates sometimes put a smudge on it, but, by and large, listening to the party conferences, I believe that there is no doubt that the other parties would support the future development of nuclear power.
I should like to be positive in this debate. The motion on the Order Paper must be one of the longest sentences ever composed. It contains the phrase:
"Government's failure to provide proper stewardship of Scotland's environment."
The Scottish National party must be completely out of touch with what is actually happening in Scotland. A great deal of progress has been made. The Minister made the case for Scottish Natural Heritage; the Government combined the Nature Conservancy Council for Scotland, of which I was a member for nine years, and the Countryside Commission for Scotland into Scottish Natural Heritage—precisely to develop the environment and heritage of Scotland. It has been extremely successful, and we should congratulate Magnus Magnusson on his good work.
We have also enhanced the value of Scotland's sites of special scientific interest. It is rubbish to claim, as some organisations do, that we are destroying SSSIs. Only a tiny percentage—one or two out of 3,000—get damaged from time to time, and that is only inevitable. By and large, the standards set by SNH in promoting and improving the environment, habitats, wildlife and heritage of Scotland are first class. We have also set up the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as an additional safeguard, to be up and running by next April, to deal with river pollution and sewage—an outstandingly serious issue in Scotland about which local authorities have done too little for too long.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall his meeting with me in Glasgow about chromium toxic waste sites in Rutherglen, when he committed the Government in principle to doing something about those sites and expressed great and genuine concern about them? Does he further agree that
856
that commitment has not been honoured by his successors, who have repeatedly said that they will not provide the resources to make the sites safe?
Sir Hector Monro: I cannot say what has happened, but I well remember the hon. Gentleman coming to see me and the wish that I expressed that we could resolve the matter, which involved the regional and district councils and the enterprise company, all of which have a part to play in developing the site and removing the contamination about which he and I were rightly worried. I am sure that when he speaks in the debate he will express the strength of his feelings and try to encourage a more rapid solution.
It is most important to support the Government's policies in respect of agriculture, because, if we are to have a beautiful Scotland, with high standards of husbandry and great scenic beauty, we need profitable agriculture. That requires, in turn, support for our policies from Europe, and support for the farming community. That is essential if we are to raise environmental standards in Scotland. I believe that it is already happening; we are putting money where it matters.
We have developed the environmentally sensitive areas and management agreements, and we have helped farmers to farm more sensitively. We have put additional money into the less-favoured areas, particularly hill farming. All these factors contribute to improving the environment. We have introduced special conservation areas, under the habitats directive. Environmental grants are channelled through the wildlife advisory groups. We have promoted forestry and brought in woodland grants. Now that the forestry review is over, I hope that things will settle down, with the forestry authority and Forestry Enterprise in place, providing greater opportunities for access to the woodlands of Scotland.
We set up the Cairngorm partnership, after extensive consultation. David Laird is the chairman presiding over positive co-operation in the Cairngorm area. I hope that it will help to develop the ski areas of Aviemore, as well as the wilder areas in that part of Scotland.
We were also keen to develop the same sort of partnership for the Loch Lomond area. The investigation has been conducted and the report drawn up. The new councils that will come into existence next April will, I hope, get together on this matter. They have the additional powers that they need, but they must also see it as their duty and responsibility to develop opportunities around Loch Lomond, and not just leave it to the Government to bring in new legislation. They can do the task themselves.
The SNP motion also contains the phrase:
"without any semblance of public consultation".
What on earth was the SNP doing this summer? Did it not play its part in responding to the consultation document preceding the White Paper? Everyone in Scotland has been asked to submit ideas. When the White Paper is issued shortly, I hope to see that the SNP has fed in positive ideas. Its members cannot say that they were not consulted; probably no White Paper has ever been prepared more thoroughly than the one in the pipeline for Scotland. Claiming a lack of public consultation just shows how out of touch the SNP is with Scottish thinking—
Mrs. Ewing: We keep winning elections.
Sir Hector Monro: The hon. Lady looks very lonely sitting there on the Bench all by herself.

857
The forthcoming White Paper will highlight the development of rural communities, and that means everything in the countryside, including village shops and post offices.
We are therefore guided by good policies and by the principles of sustainable development and shared development, working with local people, who know better how to identify their own needs and find the best way forward. Local planning requires flexibility—if we are to develop farm buildings for alternative uses, for instance. We need imaginative planning, too.
At this point, I again put down a marker, well known in the Scottish Office and to many other people as well: I refer to my outright disagreement with wind farms. We cannot improve Scotland's scenic beauty at the same time as building wind farms. I know that we have a duty to find renewable energy sources, but it is difficult to justify erecting up to 20 wind farm propellers, given the desecration of the countryside that ensues and the small generating capacity of the plant. I hope that the planning authorities will be very strict when it comes to locating wind farms in Scotland.
There are too many other objective to mention today—housing, crime, rural transport and unleaded petrol, on which we have taken a lead. Our environmental policies are prominent in Europe and the world. We intend to conserve our natural assets. We will reverse any decline in wildlife. I do not have the time today to give the Red Deer Commission a pat on the back for its work to contain the deer herd in Scotland. We must maintain the diversity of our rural landscapes and remain determined to prevent environmental damage, especially to our green belt. We must not ease up in our commitment to retain it around our cities.
We must also provide people with opportunities to enjoy the countryside for recreational pursuits, offering them reasonable and responsible access. Everyone must have the right to enjoy Scotland without overstepping the mark, as a few foolish people tend to do. We can thus proceed, with good stewardship and a practical knowledge of Scotland, to make it even more attractive for the future.
5.18 pm
Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I congratulate the Scottish National party on initiating the debate, and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on her speech. I have no hesitation about doing that; as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said, we should approach this subject on a non-party basis.
I should like to pursue a point made by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), who mentioned the industrial legacy that has been left in the west of Scotland, particularly in the central belt, as a result of the industrial revolution. The position in my constituency is similar to that in Dumfries. A chemical-producing company, Whites, operated in the Rutherglen area for around 150 years. During that time, the factory dumped its chromium waste not only all over Cambuslang and Rutherglen but over a wide area of south and south-east Glasgow.
858
Folk did not realise at the time the damage that can be done by such waste. I was born and brought up just a couple of hundred yards from that factory and used to play in the streams and the burns adjacent to it, despite the fact that the burn ran all sorts of colours as a result of the chemicals dumped in it. One did not realise the dangers at the time; it was only in later years that one realised the environmental mess that the place was in.
That company was castigated by no less than Keir Hardie around the turn of the century for its working practices and cavalier attitude towards the safety and environmental conditions in which the workers did their trade. My own knowledge of that company is further enhanced by the fact that my grandfather, four uncles, numerous cousins and my own brother worked there. It got to the stage in that factory where workers had chromium holes burnt into their skin through working with the chromium waste, which eventually was dumped all over Cambuslang and Rutherglen.
Eventually, the company moved away from Rutherglen and ended up out of business. I have tried to pursue its legal responsibilities and liabilities but am advised by legal opinion that there is no way in which I can do so. It has left a legacy in my constituency, and in adjacent constituencies, of chromium waste sites, which are now fenced off and barred to the public, with signs on them, saying, "Danger. Keep Out." These are not small, isolated sites; they are sites on which houses are built, and community halls and large secondary schools are built adjacent to them. There is a host of such sites throughout the area.
We came to realise that hexavelant chromium was lying in the sites, but, to its credit, Glasgow district council—with which I am not always in tune—commissioned a survey by Dames and Moore, which cost upwards of £150,000, so that it could get the facts and figures, not hearsay and ad hoc comments.
The survey outlined in specific detail what was wrong with each of the sites, and each category of chromium waste contamination of the sites. That has caused great worry and concern in the area about health. Four or five years ago, it was proven that there was an abnormal rise in the number of leukaemia cases in the Cambuslang area. The health board, at my instigation, carried out an investigation and confirmed that there was an abnormal blip in the number of leukaemia cases, but it could not link it to the chromium waste sites. In similar circumstances, it had found no explanation for the rise in leukaemia cases in different areas in Scotland.
Although I accept that it has not been proven, and I use that phrase advisedly, that cancer can be caused by these chromium waste sites, the fact that they exist and have been categorised by Greater Glasgow health board as causing health risks—that has been proven—heightens apprehension in the area.
Although one or two individuals in organisations have been over the top in scaremongering on this issue, I do not blame any family who is concerned about the health risk for children. I stay only five minutes walk from one of these sites. Families are quite right to be concerned and to pressurise and harass me to try to get something done. I, in turn, am passing the matter on to the Scottish Office. I do not blame folk for being concerned about the health risks. Greater Glasgow health board concedes that these sites are health risks if the chromium waste is disturbed; the dust can be breathed in, which can cause health problems. Problems can be caused if the chromium is

859
touched. If young children play on the sites and then put their hands in their mouth, swallowing the chromium can also cause them health risks.
I have pursued this environmental disaster with the Glasgow development agency and Scottish Enterprise, to which I had been referred by Scottish Office Ministers. The local enterprise councils made the point that they had no funding to take care of the sites. I then went to the paymasters—the Scottish Office Ministers—who said that there was an allocation for Scottish Enterprise and the Glasgow development agency to take care of the sites, at least to make a start. But then I came up against a policy that said that remedial work should be carried out on such sites only if there was an economic end use. It is quite wrong that people's health should be put at risk purely and simply because some bureaucrat in the Scottish Office says that, because there is no economic end use to remedial work sites, no work should be carried out.
I would like to record without hesitation the valuable support and encouragement that were given to me by the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) when he was a Scottish Office Minister, and the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), who was extremely helpful in trying to process grants.
Perhaps the Under-Secretary revealed a change of policy on the Scottish Environment Protection Agency when he said that it would have the ability and powers to tackle these contaminated waste sites. I hope that I can get some clarification from Ministers that the criteria of economic end use will no longer be applied to any work to remedy sites that have been contaminated in this way.
It was quite right that I paid tribute to the right hon. Member for Dumfries and to the hon. Member for Eastwood, but my meeting in Dover house, Whitehall with the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Lang), was like bashing my head against a brick wall. That is the only description that I can apply to it. With me was Mr. Brian Kelly, Glasgow district council's director of environmental health. He was a totally neutral public servant. He was so exasperated that he asked the then Secretary of State whether someone would have to die or be proven to be seriously ill before he would act and give us some resources to try to get something done about the sites.
There are, unfortunately, swathes of land in the west of Scotland that are contaminated, but my constituency and surrounding areas are the only areas of Scotland that are contaminated by chromium waste. No precedent would be set by the Scottish Office in ensuring that resources were given for tackling this drastic problem in my area.
Recently, Scottish Enterprise allocated around £150,000 to Glasgow district council for experimental work in each of the sites to find the best solution for each site. That is certainly useful, but there was no commitment—I fully understand that—from Scottish Enterprise to make a start and to allocate the millions of pounds that will be required to make all the sites safe. I am a realist and am not looking for £20 million immediately, but I think that it is right that the Scottish Office, in conjunction with the unitary authority of South Lanarkshire and with Europe should combine different pots of money to tackle the problem. I know that not one pot of money is available to tackle it, but if there is good will and co-operation, the Government should co-operate and contribute other pots of money to tackle it.
860
There is hope that some of the sites will be tackled fairly soon because of the planned extension of the M74, which will run from Fullerton to the Kingston bridge. I emphasise that that is an extension, not a new motorway, and it is crazy that one small section should not be completed. I make no apology for supporting the M74 extension. It is right to do so.
There are potential benefits in that the motorway route runs through or adjacent to a number of chromium-contaminated sites. Those sites will be tackled as part of the motorway extension. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Dumfries, who initially suggested that, although the motorway extension might not be planned to go ahead for another couple of years, the associated works which will remedy the sites should be brought forward and the money spent now. That would considerably reduce the number of contaminated sites and reduce the amount of money required. That is a reasonable point of view, and I hope to obtain the co-operation of the Scottish Office on that issue.
I shall await a reply from the Minister and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency on whether the requirement of an economic end use before contaminated sites are treated has now been removed and whether the sites to which I have referred, which have "only" environmental and health risk factors to be taken into account, can be included.
I make no party political point, but the Under-Secretary said that the Government were leading the way in treating Scotland's environment properly. I extend an open invitation to all Scottish Office Ministers to come to my constituency to see the sites and the scale of the problem there and to say whether they would like to have such areas in their constituencies, fenced off as a health risk to the public. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, who has already come to my constituency at short notice. I invite Ministers then to look me and my constituents in the face and say that there is no way in which they can help. I look forward to receiving assistance.
5.32 pm
Mr. Phil Gallie: First, I apologise for missing the opening speech. I was involved in a meeting with a Minister from the Department of Transport on an issue of great environmental and economic importance to my constituents—the opening of a new air route between Prestwick and Stansted in the not-too-distant future.
That route will have great environmental benefits, easing pressures on the roads, around other airports and particularly on Heathrow, which is undoubtedly overcrowded and where passengers have problems getting to the city centre.
I was surprised at the omission of roads from this environmental debate, particularly since at the end of yesterday's Scottish Grand Committee the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) had a debate on the Fochabers bypass, an environmental issue worthy of discussion. I understand that some progress was announced on the provision of bypasses yesterday.
The provision of roads throughout Scotland, particularly since 1979, has done much to remove the congestion and pollution resulting from the use of the motor car on roads that cannot cope with them. The progress on roads is one aspect of environmental improvement for which the Government can take credit.

861
I make no apology for referring to local road issues. I draw attention to the stushie about the M77 between Malletsheugh at the top of the A77 and the M8 in Glasgow. A great environmental row broke out over that road, which was destined to improve the environment for many people in Glasgow and certainly for my constituents in Ayrshire and those to the south of Glasgow who want to travel into the city or to the north.
We listened to the so-called environmentalists. For a period, there was trouble and strife, but now all that has gone quiet and I am pleased to say that the M77 is being built to what I hope will be time.
But another threat comes from the so-called environmentalists, and that is a block on the upgrading of the top end of the A77, where motorway standards are desired by the Government, by all in local government in Strathclyde and certainly by all Members of Parliament in Ayrshire.
Here again, we have objections from the mindless environmentalists—people who do not really look at the issues, but simply make a lot of noise. Again, they put in jeopardy the safety of my constituents and the constituents of others. I should like to think that Ministers could ignore their siren cry, but I understand that a public inquiry on the upgrading of that road to motorway standard will almost certainly be required in order to quell their arguments. Every so-called environmentalist who has objected to that road should have on their conscience any deaths or accidents that occur on that stretch in the immediate future. Great shame should be felt by such individuals.
Talking of shame, I come to some of the points that have already been made, in particular with regard to Brent Spar and the shame that should be felt by Greenpeace. It put up scare stories completely in line with those that we hear so often from Opposition spokesmen. We have heard inconsistencies and the distortion of facts—all the rubbish that comes from Opposition spokesmen on occasions which tends towards scaremongering rather than analysing the facts.
Shell considered the position, as did the Government over the years, and it came up with an acceptable proposal for dumping the Brent Spar. Yet that was stopped at the last minute by inaccurate and prejudiced comments.
The problem now is that Brent Spar is stuck in Norway and something has to be done with it. The safest solution was that previously proposed. That seems to be the view of experts across the board. But now other factors must be taken into account. Other risks are associated with the moving of the rig in the coming autumn or winter. If it ends up dumped in the North sea, it will be because of those who listen to Greenpeace and, perhaps, those in the SNP who give them such support.
While we are talking about dumping at sea, it is worth noting a matter of concern to all in the Clyde estuary—phosphorus sticks. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred to most of the dangers caused by those sticks, which I accept and endorse. However, I take exception to his comment that the Government seem not to be responding. Why does he believe that those particular sticks come from the Beaufort dyke? I shall give him the opportunity to reply to that. I understand that no one can identify their source, or establish whether they
862
were used by the Ministry of Defence. It is not known whether their source is private—or even whether they were dumped over the side of a ship by some foreign merchant years ago. To say that they definitely came from Beaufort dyke is to make an unwarranted assumption.
Mr. McAllion: Will the hon. Gentleman reassure the House that he is certain that the sticks do not come from the Beaufort dyke arms dump? If he had listened to my speech, he would know that I called for a Government investigation of the source of the munitions.
Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman is rather late in calling for such an investigation. The Government have been examining the position for three or four weeks. I give credit to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) for raising the issue—and to the hon. Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) and for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). I even give credit to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), who, along with others, accompanied me to meet representatives of British Gas.
We have all taken an interest in the matter; we are all concerned. But to suggest that the Scottish Office, the MOD and the Department of Trade and Industry have not registered the anxieties that have been expressed is a travesty of justice and a distortion of the truth.
It did surprise me that, at the time when we met representatives of British Gas, there had been no troughing along the pipeline that British Gas was running. While I was not prepared to point the finger at British Gas and identify it as one of the sources of the problem that had arisen in the short term, I am sure that my hon. Friends the Ministers will take account of that point and will stringently examine possible steps to end the threat to the entire Clyde estuary.
I am surprised that, in a debate on the environment, no one has mentioned the touchy subject of floods. That is particularly surprising in view of last year's events in Paisley. Recent correspondence from people in the area stresses that responsibility lies with local authorities: it is up to them to identify the remedies. They can now refer to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency for expert advice, and SEPA is obliged to provide that advice. I am sure that, if reasonable requests are made for capital allocations, the Government will use their limited resources to try to deal with this important issue.
Needless to say, the nationalists referred to nuclear matters. I do not understand why hon. Members who have every opportunity to examine the facts and consider the issues relating to environmental protection cannot be a bit friendlier to the nuclear industry. Nearly every aspect of the nuclear industry—for instance, air pollution and safety—make it to the top of the poll; it is certainly an environmentally friendly industry. As for alternative forms of generation—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Chernobyl?") It is good that we have a capable nuclear industry that can deal safely with such matters, and can offer advice to those who operate plants such as Chernobyl to ensure that such accidents never happen again.
If we, like the nationalists, had buried our heads in the sand and refused to examine nuclear issues, we would not have been able to offer the rest of the world the expertise that can create the safe environment that these islands require. With nuclear power and other forms of

863
environmental pollution, these islands do not stand alone: we depend on the co-operation of other nations and industries to improve the environment.
Fears are expressed about safety in the nuclear industry. Whether it is in the private or the public sector, the responsibilities of the nuclear inspectorate do not change; nor do the safety factors. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me, but I am not aware of any Government plans to privatise the inspectorate. It will remain a Government body, charged with looking after nuclear safety. The hon. Member for Dundee, East confused the House by suggesting that safety would be a problem.
In his speech, the hon. Gentleman questioned the standing of others with respect to truthfulness. I noted the question put to him by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) about Trident. It would have been interesting and honest if he had told us precisely when he was converted to the Trident programme—a conversion that strikes me as being in line with many of the recent conversions of his leaders, and many of the about-turns that he himself has made.
Let me now deal with another form of beach contamination. I am concerned about sea water standards, and about the lack of effort exerted by Strathclyde regional council to keep beaches clean in my constituency and to enforce sewage control in the Clyde estuary. Its handling of the issue has been disgraceful for some years. Thank heavens, at long last we are to have a water and sewerage authority that will stand aside from political doctrine and intrigue and provide decent facilities for my constituents. I warmly welcome the interest already shown by the new West of Scotland board in future provision and sewage treatment.
Let us look back at the Government's handling of environmental issues in recent years. The condition of our rivers is better than it has been for centuries; fish are reaching the upper levels of rivers where they have not been for many years. Air standards have also improved, and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) pointed out—the Government's environmental legislation has undoubtedly improved the environmental well-being of the countryside.
The term "the environment" does not refer only to what happens in the countryside, or in towns and villages; it refers to what happens in our homes. Another of the Government's major achievements concerns energy provision. Energy prices have fallen, particularly following the privatisation programmes. That is important to elderly people who need warm, comfortable homes. I commend the Government on policies that allow elderly people to use various facilities, and to ensure that their homes are draught-proofed and warm during the colder months.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East registered another conversion when he spoke of the need for people today to consider the requirements of those who will inhabit our land tomorrow. Given Labour's past policy in government, in local authorities and in opposition, especially their economic policy—their "spend today, pay tomorrow" attitude—that is a conversion indeed.
5.49 pm
Mrs. Ray Michie: I too would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) and her party on bringing the debate to the House today. I notice that the Order Paper says:
864
"The Opposition Day is at the disposal of the Leader of the Liberal Democrat Party",
so I hope that she appreciates that the leader of that party is such a nice person.
Mr. Gallie: Which one?
Mrs. Michie: The only one—well, the only one for a federal party.
I was concerned about the rather dismissive way in which the two Front-Bench spokesmen talked about Dounreay. It made me feel that they did not realise what widespread anxiety exists. I understand that is possible—neither of them lives in the highlands region—but there is a great deal of concern and I would like to articulate it.
We have already heard about the unexplained discovery of radioactive particles on the foreshore at Dounreay, about the explosion in 1977 in an intermediate level waste disposal shaft, and about the proposals for reprocessing work to be undertaken at Dounreay to a far greater extent than has happened in the past. People in the highlands are asking: why should Dounreay and Scotland be the recipient of highly enriched fuel rods which other countries refuse to accept?
Mr. McAllion: If the hon. Lady thinks that the people of the highlands have such a strong view on that respect, will she explain why they continue to support her hon. Friend the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who takes a very different line from the one that she is putting forward?
Mrs. Michie: I will come to the reason why those people and indeed many of us support the work of Dounreay, but—
Mr. Bill Walker: On the one hand or the other hand.
Mrs. Michie: No, not on the one hand or the other hand. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is seriously worried about what is going on at Dounreay. All these problems raise questions about radiological hazards and there is further anxiety about the transport of nuclear materials to and from Dounreay, despite what people say. Those concerns have not been adequately dealt with by the Government, by the regulators or by the site operators.
From time to time, public anxieties about specific activities have been voiced. There was strong opposition to the location at Dounreay of a waste depository to be managed by Nirex, and we successfully saw that off. I and my party believe that nuclear waste should go nowhere. It should not be deposited underground, but stored on site above ground, where it can be monitored until the time comes—surely some time—when it can be neutralised.
The position today, however, is even more serious up north. There is now a more widespread questioning of the adequacy of the regime to protect the public and the environment from unacceptable levels of contamination and hazard. In particular—we have heard about it already—the report of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment and the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee on the particles in the vicinity of Dounreay, which was published in May this year, expressed concern that relevant information had not been communicated to COMARE by Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate.

865
Dounreay operates under a licence from the nuclear installations inspectorate. Both the NII and Euratom frequently have inspectors on site, as has the industrial pollution inspectorate, supposedly applying internationally agreed safety standards. We must therefore ask why deficiencies were not picked up by those regulators before the COMARE report and properly dealt with. If the public cannot trust the mainstream regulators both to do a proper policing job and to communicate their findings, it is little wonder that widespread anxieties are aroused.
There has been a failure in communication and a loss of confidence about what is going on there and I ask the Government and relevant bodies to deal with that. They should not just dismiss it, but perhaps take it from me that there might just be a little problem.
We all appreciate of course that Dounreay employs many people and plays an important part in the economy of Caithness, but the Government should heed the concern of the people of the highlands, of the highlands and islands councils and of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, all of which are working to promote and project the highlands and islands as a clean, clear, pollution-free and beautiful region.
I would like to think that the Government could be considering Dounreay, which is already 40 years old, as a valuable resource for future research into matters such as alternative sources of energy. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has left the Chamber, because one of the things that they could be considering is how to develop tiny wind farms, which would not offend him when he looked out on the beautiful scenery.
I should like to give one other demonstration of the extent of the concern. The other day, I was faxed from the Isle of Mull a message drawing my attention to the fact that
"a ship containing flasks of plutonium nitrate being taken from Dounreay to Sellafield travelled through the Minches on the night of Sunday the eighth of October in estimated weather conditions of gale force six to seven.
The small vessel—the … Shearwater—is believed to have sheltered from force nine winds in Loch Eriboll"—
which is in Sutherland—
"the night before, then proceeded down the Sound of Mull where she was sighted at 0800 off Tobermory … She then proceeded over the Beaufort Dyke at a time when the Adrossan Ferry was cancelled due to the atrocious weather."
My constituents are trying to draw my attention to the fact that perhaps it was dangerous to set off from Dounreay to Sellafield with those rods in such bad weather.
I do not have much time to say other than a brief word about the offshore disposal of the Brent Spar and other North sea installations. In itself, the Brent Spar platform would have represented only a minor addition to the vast quantities of toxic sludge added to the waters every day, but a clear message was sent to the giant multinationals that have thrived for so long off the liquid gold buried beneath the seas, and to other Governments and our Government: abandoning waste at sea is simply no longer acceptable.
We are not talking about scare stories. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) spoke about our children and their future. He said that we were
866
stewards of their future. There comes a time when the accumulated abuse of our common heritage comes home to roost and society then says no and decides to tolerate such abuse no longer.
When I see platforms such as Brent Spar or the rigs that are sitting in Invergordon waiting to be disposed of, I wish that we could introduce a second economy into the highlands. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) asked the companies at Ardersier and Nigg and Highlands and Islands Enterprise to examine the possibility of recycling and disposing of the rigs.
That brings me to Beaufort dyke and the serious events on the west coast of Scotland, in particular round the shores of Argyll and Bute during the past few weeks. Hundreds of incendiary devices have been washed up on our beaches, posing a real danger to public and polluting the environment.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) protests that the Government have done a lot, but to date there has been a lack of urgency in dealing with the matter and many questions remain unanswered. We went to meet the Secretary of State for Defence and he was very helpful in so far as he could be. He said that he would investigate that part of the problem which came under the remit of his Department. I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland and asked him to make a statement in the House of Commons to let me, my constituents and others know exactly what is going on.
We still do not know where these devices come from. I am not sure whether they come from Beaufort dyke or further north, whether they were disturbed by the 40-tonne plough that was pulled along by three vessels trenching for cables or whether they came from the munitions dump at Beaufort dyke. We do not know whether the dump is being investigated and monitored—if not, why not? They started coming up some weeks ago and I do not know who is responsible for searching for the devices and clearing the beaches. Is it the police? Is it the coastguard? Who is it?
Mr. Kynoch: Will the hon. Lady join other hon. Members in recognising that the emergency services have been incredibly good and efficient at clearing up the beaches in such unfortunate circumstances? It is the least that she can do for the services in her area.
Mrs. Michie: I am happy to do that. I do not understand why the Minister mentioned it in such a disparaging way. I shall tell the Minister who in my constituency is dealing with the matter. It is mainly the police and they are doing it very well. If the Minister had been patient, he would have heard me commend what they did the other day with regard to the little boy who was injured. The coastguards have also been involved, but the Minister will be aware that there are not many police around the Mull of Kintyre. There are not many coastguards and there are miles of shoreline, including that round the coast of the islands of Bute, Islay and Jura.
It is my impression that the buck is being passed from one Department to another. The Scottish Office says that it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and the MOD says that it is the responsibility of the Scottish Office, so we seem to be going round in circles.
In response to my warning that something serious could and indeed might happen, the Secretary of State for Defence told me—and he was right, of course—that his

867
first priority was the safety of the public. Something did happen. My small constituent, four-year-old Gordon Baillie, picked up what he thought was a stick and he was about to throw it away when it ignited. Three fingers of his right hand and the bottom part of his arm were burnt. His clothes were on fire, but his family managed to remove them quickly before even more damage was done.
The following day, the Ministry of Defence arrived at his relatives' house and, without his parents' knowledge or permission, removed the clothes and the container in which they had been placed and burned them on the beach, destroying the evidence. I do not know how significant that evidence was. I know only that the police, whom I commend for their work—I hope that the Minister is listening—took photographs of what happened.
Gordon's mother is obviously very upset and worried. Nobody has really told her what is happening. She asks whether the Government are prepared to take responsibility for the devices, but nobody will tell her what is going on and when they will be cleared up.
Finally, having made that particular point about the incendiary devices, I would like to say again that we must get them removed. It is really important. I hope that the Government will understand that many of the issues raised in the debate cannot be ignored because the people of Scotland will not tolerate it.
6.6 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak in what I think is an important debate, because I live in Scotland, which is an environmentally friendly place. The quality of life in Scotland is so good that we try not to tell other people about it in case too many of them come and join us. We have a splendid quality of life.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) was probably as interested as I was to learn that, along with the view of the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that it will probably be 100 years before Scotland can achieve independence, it will probably be 100 years before Scotland can be a nuclear-free country.
We have heard a great deal of humbug and nonsense about transportation of nuclear materials on Scottish roads. I have to declare an interest, as a large part of it goes through my constituency. Nuclear materials have been trundling around on our roads and railways very safely for 40-odd years.
Opposition Members are trying to scare the people of Scotland by overstating the problem that could or might arise. When I asked how many people had died as a result of nuclear accidents on our roads and railways, the answer was none. However, under normal driving conditions, someone dies on the A9 every weekend. It is much more dangerous for reasons other than the movement of nuclear materials, because of the splendid controls. It ought not to surprise us.
In 1993, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) was advocating civil disobedience against any laws that might be made in Scotland. How can we take seriously any debate introduced by someone who is trying to occupy the moral high ground when we know that she has publicly advocated civil disobedience? That is the type of nonsense that we must expose in the debate.
868
The hon. Member for Dundee, East skilfully revealed the double standards of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who supports one thing in Committee and then adopts an entirely different position simply because of his political opportunism.
The plain truth is that the nuclear industry in Scotland employs many people, and is a good and safe employer. I accept that people should question how things are done in that industry from time to time. Such questioning is part of the monitoring process carried out by the House.
I have no criticism of the way in which the hon. Member for Dundee, East addressed the issue. He is right to say that we are talking about our grandchildren's inheritance. We should address the issue logically, sensibly and objectively. Frankly, I do not care when the hon. Member for Dundee, East changed his mind, if he did, on Trident.
We are talking not about that but about the motion on the Order Paper and the humbug that we have had to take from members of the Scottish National party. We must expose it for what it is. The SNP is not interested in environmental issues; rather, it is interested in trying to scare the Scottish people by presenting them with untruths and scare stories. It manufactures facts to suit its own ends.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross has criticised the Government for their ad hoc approach, but let us consider how they have dealt with the incendiary devices that have unfortunately been washed up on beaches in south-west Scotland. No one knows where those devices have come from, but we all know that the problem must be addressed.
For the hon. Lady to suggest that no inquiry has been launched, and no one has done anything about the devices, is absolute nonsense. The truth is that Labour and Conservative Members have seen Ministers to express their concern. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) has quite properly seen Ministers to express her concern about the injury to one of her constituents' children. That is what Parliament is for, and we have done our job effectively. We must not, however, make definitive comments that cannot be substantiated. None of us knows for certain where those devices have come from.
We are aware that certain recent activities in the sea may be related to the appearance of the devices. That is not an unreasonable suggestion, so it is right and proper to consider all the relevant facts. After all, dumping in Beaufort dyke has been going on since the end of the second world war, so it has been agreed by successive Governments. There is no question about the Government, whoever they were at the time of the dumping, being held accountable for the munitions dumped in Beaufort dyke. Should those devices belong to the Ministry of Defence, or the Air Ministry, or whatever it was known as at the time of the dumping, it should be possible to work out exactly when they were dumped.
Because of my background, I happen to have some slight knowledge of the type of incendiary devices carried on aircraft. I do not know whether such devices have been washed up on beaches recently, but once the identity of those devices has been pinpointed, it should be possible to find out how they ended up in the water. Until that happens, it is all down to guesswork. I commend the Government for what they have already done to solve the problem, and I believe that they will find the answer and

869
deal with those devices effectively. I expect them to do just that, not least because that that is what we are required to do by numerous statutes.
I commend the Government for the various statutes they have introduced—for example, the Environmental Protection Act 1990—and for those that have led to the introduction of Scottish Natural Heritage, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, as well as the agency to monitor air pollution. They represent a deliberate attempt to address current problems, some of which were created by our forbearers.
We must accept that certain problems must be addressed, but we must not overstate them. Scotland is a superb place in which to live. We do not live under the threat of a nuclear holocaust, as has been suggested. We do not live with the threat of former drilling rigs, research rigs or loading rigs being dumped in the North sea—that has never been proposed. To suggest that they might be dumped somewhere near Scotland was equally inaccurate.
It is right that we should debate the environment and find answers to the problems that face it. I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee, East—I hope that that does not make him feel uncomfortable—who made a telling speech, which deserves credit. His speech showed the way in which we should tackle the matter. He is right to say that we must find the right answers to certain problems, because we have a duty and a responsibility to do so. That does not mean we cannot display the normal party divisions and differences, but there is common ground between us on environmental matters. We should all recognise that.
What I am attacking is the humbug displayed today by members of the SNP. Their motion does nothing for Scotland's interests or the confidence of the people who work in the nuclear and oil industries. It does nothing to allay the concerns expressed about devices found on west coast beaches. Their motion is all about fear. The SNP may argue that it will give people a nuclear-free Scotland, but the hon. Member for Dundee, East extracted the truth—live long enough, say 100 years, and one may see that happen.
The truth is that the SNP is interested in scoring narrow political points. It has no interest in benefiting the Scottish people or the environment of Scotland.
6.16 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I compliment the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on her introduction to the debate.
We were all concerned to hear about the injuries suffered by the young constituent of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). As for the passage of certain vessels through the Minches, I have long argued that vessels ploughing the sea bed, along with heavy tankers, should stand to the west of the Western Isles, especially in heavy weather. I said that to the former Secretary of State for Transport, who is now masquerading as the chairman of the Conservative party. He promised me across the Floor of the House that he would examine my request, and that he would seriously consider instructing such vessels to stand clear of the Minches and the Western Isles.
870
The right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) criticised the Opposition parties for presenting a distorted picture of the Government's environmental record—for example, in relation to sites of special scientific interest. For his part, he failed to remind the House of the appalling carelessness of Scottish Office Ministers and officials—I believe he was a Minister at the time—when they designated a development site on a SSSI within the Inverclyde enterprise zone.
I refer to the Parklea site. I warned at the time that such designation would fall foul of the European Union's flora and fauna directive. That site will never be developed because of that. They were equally careless in selecting as another site for potential development the Gourock rope works, a listed industrial building. Six years later, that site is still derelict, but those Ministers and their complacent officials have walked away from their mistakes.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister about the Beaufort dyke scandal. The right hon. Member for Dumfries said that we should not cause alarm and despondency among the people who live on the firth of Clyde and surrounding areas. He is absolutely right. Yet those events have caused deep concern among our constituents, so it is right and proper that we hold the Government to account over the rigour of their investigation and the efficacy of the prescriptions that they offer to solve that dangerous problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and others have made serious allegations about the presence of highly dangerous substances in shallow waters outwith the Beaufort dyke. That is a very serious complaint, especially to our fishermen who fish those shallow waters with their demersal gear.
I know that the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch), is not responsible for fisheries, but all Ministers bear a responsibility, not only to our youngsters and others who walk along our beaches, but to our fishermen who fish those shallow waters. My hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and I are honorary presidents—
Mr. Foulkes: And the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie).
Dr. Godman: I am sorry, and the hon. Lady. I do not know how I missed her. My sincere apologies to the delightful hon. Lady. We are honorary presidents of the Clyde Fishermen's Association and our members fish close to that area outwith the Beaufort dyke. I was pleased to hear the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), say that he would study the video and other evidence exhaustively.
I want to ask the hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside a couple of questions. If such substances are scattered about in shallow water—wherever there is shallow water around our coastline, there are traditional fishing grounds: no one can dispute that—would he give serious consideration to their recovery? Could not the squadron of mine-laying vessels which are to be based not so far from my constituency be used in such an operation? Or would it be possible to adapt the gear of a big freezer trawler so that it could trawl those seas and make the seas clean for our fishermen?
I remind the Under-Secretary—I do not need to remind the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, because he is a fisheries expert—that a big-sterned trawler can shoot its

871
gear and drag its trawl upwards of a mile astern. It seems that the Under-Secretary should consider such matters in thinking about cleaning the seas. Our fishermen deserve that consideration. A big freezer trawler could be used.
Incidentally, I am not looking for a job for my brother, who just happens to be the mate of such a vessel. If a freezer trawler cannot be adapted, minesweeping vessels could be used so that, outwith the Beaufort dyke, our fishermen can safely go about their lawful business.
While talking about clean seas, I wish to say a word about the disposal of redundant offshore installations and pipeline networks. I maintain—here I disagree fundamentally with the hon. Member for Ayr—that those seas where and whenever possible should be swept clean in the interests of our fishermen who have played the game by their agreements with the oil and gas companies.
Part I of the Petroleum Act 1987—
Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Dr. Godman: In one second.
Part I of the Petroleum Act allows the Government—not these Under-Secretaries, unfortunately—to reject the disposal proposals made by an offshore oil or gas company in relation to a redundant platform or redundant pipeline networks.
I listened closely to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) when he talked about the recommendations and the findings of the Select Committee on Energy. That report makes a lot of sense about some installations. I do not believe that we will be able to shift the big concrete structures—we might have to put Christmas tree fairy lights on them as navigational aids—but many other structures can and should be removed.
Mr. Gallie rose—
Dr. Godman: Sorry, I have run out of time.
I remind the House that, during the passage of the Petroleum Bill in 1986, the late and much-lamented Alick Buchanan-Smith claimed that the disposal of redundant rigs could lead to much employment in the highlands and islands and elsewhere. I would like to think that the law applied. His successor, Mr. Peter Morrison, when Minister at the Department of Energy, said in a speech in Aberdeen that perhaps upwards of 3,000 jobs could be created in dealing with the safe and efficient disposal of those redundant platforms and pipeline networks.
Mr. Gallie: The hon. Gentleman referred to the disposal of rigs at sea and the threat to fishermen. The Government have made it quite clear that the Brent Spar was a one-off situation. It was to be buried in deep water where there was no fishing interest, and there were no protests from the fishermen—they accepted the situation. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that?
Dr. Godman: I am not so sure that all the fishermen to whom I spoke accepted the sense of dumping that structure west of the Hebrides. There was no question of it being dumped in the North sea—we all know that—but, nevertheless, reservations were voiced about it. What will happen to this North-west Hutton platform and other installations which need to be disposed of other then by toppling them? I am on the side of the fishermen. The sea
872
should be swept clean, because the fishermen have played the game by the multinationals. The multinationals should play the game by our fishermen.
6.26 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for leaving me a few minutes in which to speak mainly on a constituency point concerning phosphorous flares. I shall first make a couple of references to the debate.
I am grateful for the opportunity of this debate. Unfortunately, it seems to have been narrowly focused. There are many environmental issues that are much more pressing than those the debate addresses. I speak in support of the Scottish nuclear industry—nuclear with a small "n". The hysteria about Dounreay does no credit and pays no respect to an industry that has given good-quality employment to thousands of people in the highlands over the past 40 years or so.
There is not the remotest evidence of anyone being killed or injured by the activities at Dounreay. When we have a first-class Scottish industry, why it should be in anyone's interest to run it down I honestly do not know. The heads on the Conservative Front Bench will stop nodding at this point.
The threat to this nuclear industry of ours, which has a fantastically safe reputation, comes not from Dounreay but from privatisation. That is what will run down the skills. [Interruption.] I assure the House that I would be worried if Conservative Members spent the next five minutes nodding, but I am not worried about the fact that they are now disagreeing. The core of expertise in the nuclear industry is going to be run down as the new company—if it ever happens, and it is a very big "if'— moves away from nuclear to other sources of generation.
The second brief point that I want to make is about land. Again, it disappoints me and I find it extraordinary that a debate on the Scottish environment does not encompass the issue of land, particularly in the week after the Secretary of State for Scotland set one of his frequent hares running in an initiative that seems to contain no substance at all.
By raising the issue of the Scottish Office crofting estates, the Secretary of State will have caused a great deal of apprehension on those estates, for this is the third time that the possibility of the estates being sold off has been raised since 1979. It would be helpful if, in one sentence, the Under-Secretary gave an assurance that there is to be no compulsion attached to the proposed sale of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland crofting estates. I should also like the Minister to tell us whether it was just wind when the Secretary of State for Scotland talked about the proposals applying to private landlords. Everyone in the House knows—whether they admit it or not is a different matter—and certainly all Opposition Members know that the problem with crofting estates in Scotland is not with the publicly owned estates but with the privately owned ones. To talk about an initiative or a reform that does not touch the privately owned estates is a fraud, as the Minister will perhaps acknowledge as well.
I now turn to the phosphorus flares which have cropped up regularly in my constituency and which have caused a great deal of apprehension. I agree entirely here with the

873
hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I do not know where the flares are coming from and my hon. Friends the Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) do not claim to know, either. What we do know is that there is a problem. It is common sense that, if there is a problem, one does not risk exacerbating it.
I also acknowledge that it is very likely that the stuff that is being thrown up and a great deal of what is in the Clyde and the northern approaches comes from a period either during or after the second world war. I should have thought that everyone in the House would thank God for the fact that we were at that time a United Kingdom. To turn around now and to complain that the Clyde was used as a dumping ground on some sort of ethnic basis seems to be carrying nationalism to its logical absurdity.
We know that as well as phosphorus flares there is a lot of other material in the Clyde and in the northern approaches. The point that we made to Cedric Brown when my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing)—I know that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) would have been there—
Mr. Gallie: I was there.
Mr. Wilson: I apologise. We always take the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) along.
Nobody is interested in which Government Department is passing which buck to whom. However, if British Gas goes ahead with the operation in the full knowledge that there is potential for further disruption and for far more serious substances and materials to come ashore, responsibility will lie exclusively with British Gas and with nobody else. That point was made forcefully. What happened at the weekend near Campbeltown only reinforces that point.
We must have better information about what is in the Clyde and in the northern approaches. In the meantime, we must have a freeze on activities that common sense suggests are likely to disturb the area and to cause substances to be cast up. Nobody is making accusations, but we are all entitled to make reasonable assumptions about what is possible and what is not possible. My plea is that there should be no further activity to disrupt these materials until we have a far more comprehensive survey of what is there and what the potential is for disturbance of the materials and, therefore—heaven forbid—for much more serious injuries or worse to our constituents.
6.32 pm
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In concluding this debate on behalf of the Scottish National party, I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in it. It is clear from the attendance this afternoon and from the vehemence of some of the arguments that there is a great need to debate environmental issues pertaining to Scotland. The motion was, of course, constricted in certain ways, so I hope that there will be other opportunities to open up some of the points that have been touched on in this debate. None the less, the debate has been extremely worth while.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) on the way in which she moved the motion. All of us recognise that she has been
874
in the House for only a short time—indeed, it was only her second speech in the House. She put forward with great authority a strong, coherent and well-researched case and she dealt effectively with interventions from both sides of the House. She deserves our congratulations.
I want to comment on one or two points raised by hon. Members during the debate. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), went at one stage into what can only be described if not as a purple passage, certainly as a green passage during which it was quite difficult even for him to keep his face straight. He referred to the Scottish National party trying to claim moral absolutism. The SNP is not trying to do that in this debate. We are raising issues that are of genuine concern to people the length and breadth of our country and beyond. We are also talking about the economic realities of what faces the people of Scotland if environmental issues are not addressed effectively and thoroughly.
The Minister should, perhaps, look at the report from the conference in 1990 which resulted from a meeting held in Inverness, sponsored by Highland regional council, at which members of various of the political parties and local representatives participated. They talked then about the problems of looking at Dounreay as being the Nirex centre for the disposal of nuclear waste. We had people there from the National Farmers Union, from the Scottish shellfish growers, from Highland Fine Cheeses, from distilleries and from all sorts of businesses the length and breadth of the area. They all made strongly the case that we needed to protect our environment because our industries and our employment were dependent upon the perception of a clean environment. Those arguments hold true today and I suggest that the Minister acquires a copy of the report. We are talking not about moral absolutism, but about economic realities.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) said that the SNP did not seem to be prepared to accept responsibility for the disposal of nuclear waste in Scotland. We have always argued that the disposal of nuclear waste by any organisation in our country should be on site and above ground where careful monitoring should take place. If the hon. Gentleman read the Official Report more carefully, he would see that I said exactly that on 25 April 1991 in a debate on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill. I said:
"The burying of nuclear waste is the greatest danger we face, because no one can predict seismic or underwater movements. The waste will need to be monitored for centuries, and that is why it must be stored on site and above ground."—[Official Report, 25 April 1991; Vol. 189, c. 1234.]
It would not be a victory for us if nuclear waste were to be buried at Sellafield. The point was made clearly. We accept the responsibility for what is happening in our country, but we tell the Minister that because contracts have been made in the past that may involve the transportation of nuclear waste and so on, we should ensure that any contracts made in future do not create any further difficulties.
It also seemed that the Minister was backing off from the issues that have been raised in the context of the Brent Spar. He said that he thought that what my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) had said in the Select Committee on Energy was wrong. We spoke then about a case-by-case attitude, but when such an attitude is discussed, the discussions should obviously

875
not include people who have vested interests with financial advantages. That is the case in the disposal of many of the platforms. Both the companies and the Government have financial interests at stake.
I now turn to my main remarks. I shall concentrate essentially on the Beaufort dyke because hon. Members here this afternoon have stressed the issue and it is concentrating the minds of the people of Scotland. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) had the unfortunate experience of the youngster in her constituency this weekend and various other incidents have caused a great deal of concern.
At our meeting with the Ministry of Defence, it was made clear that there was no identification of the phosphorus objects that were being washed up along our coastline. I find that rather hard to believe, because, with the scientific back-up that is available to any Government Department, there should surely be some ease of identification. It was, however, made clear to all of us in the all-party delegation who met the Secretary of State for Defence that under any agreements, mainly coming from Oslo and Helsinki, the dumping of unused munitions at sea should be safe and that such dumping was probably the safest method. However, it was also said that such munitions should not be disturbed and should remain as much as 263 fathoms under the sea.
When we had the all-party meeting, the pipeline that is being laid across the sea bed was still on the surface of the sea bed and we were told that it would remain so for some time because of the concerns that had been raised. Yet the same group who met less than 24 hours later with British Gas was told that approval had been given by the Ministry of Defence and by the Department of Trade and Industry to commence troughing on the sea bed.
Apparently that permission was given less than one hour after we left the Ministry of Defence building in Whitehall. British Gas received a fax via Vauxhall barracks at Didcot timed at 11.39 am on 18 October, although the letter was dated 17 October, which was the day of our meeting at the Ministry of Defence. The letter giving permission and raising the prohibition order was written an hour after we left.
That was a despicable way in which to treat concerned Members of Parliament. It shows a complete lack of co-ordination and gives contradictory signals to people who are paying attention to the issue. Now we hear that alternative attitudes may be taken, and I shall talk about those in due course.
I have other questions to raise in the context of what is happening at Beaufort dyke and what has been dumped there. Many of us are not clear exactly what was dumped not only in the dyke but in the areas immediately surrounding it.
I have been given information about a farm at Smarden, in Kent, where in January 1963 two acres of ground were sprayed with the pesticide fluoroaceteamid. The cows on the land died in convulsions, because it was highly toxic, and 2,000 tonnes of contaminated soil from the farm were removed and loaded into a boat called the Halcince, which sailed from Rochester in March 1964 with the aim of dumping the contaminated soil at an unidentified Atlantic site.
If Ministers cannot confirm that tonight, will they at least have the courtesy to write to me and to the other members of the all-party group who have been raising the issue of dumping contaminated substances at sea?
876
At our meeting, the Secretary of State for Defence promised that he would place as soon as possible in the Library all records and information held by the Ministry of Defence on the disposal of munitions. Of course, the choice of such records will depend on classification, and they will relate only to conventional munitions and explosives. Who will have access to information about chemicals, and perhaps civilian nuclear waste? I understand that the Atomic Energy Authority may have disposed of civilian nuclear waste, and possibly nerve gas, in the area. All that information must be made available.
In his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross the Minister said that there would be co-ordination, spearheaded by the Scottish Office, of the investigation into what is happening to the Beaufort dyke. Presumably that would mean co-ordination between the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as well as the Scottish Office.
Which Department will have the final say? Who will take the final decision? I should have thought that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would have a particular interest, because his constituency is affected.
I should also like to know whether close links are being maintained with the local authorities with responsibilities for planning and economic development in the area. It is most important that they be involved. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross has already referred to the remarks made by Alastair Geddes of Dumfries and Galloway.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Ewing: Before I do, I should emphasise that Dumfries and Galloway will be especially interested, because there is the possibility of drilling and exploration for gas off its coast, which could have a huge economic impact, especially in an area of high unemployment.
Since the Minister spoke earlier in the debate, it has come to my attention that information has been released by Lord Lindsay to the Scottish press, making a concession on the issue. Hon. Members taking part in the debate have attempted to get hold of the exact information, and I now understand that the main part of the speech for the Minister who is to reply to the overall debate will say that a fully independent environmental inquiry will be made by the marine laboratory in Aberdeen, to be completed before Christmas.
I find it amazing that, since we arranged for the debate—it was well known what it was about and it appeared clearly on the Order Paper; Ministers knew what it was about—even though I had telephone calls from the Scottish Office this morning, no information has been given to hon. Members on the subject.
Mr. Foulkes: I have been trying to get a copy of the announcement all afternoon. It was made by the Earl of Lindsay, and it is improper that it was not made to the House of Commons by the Minister earlier. We do not know exactly what the announcement says, but assuming that there will be an independent marine survey, that is to be welcomed. It is a victory for those of us who have been campaigning on the issue. Does the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) agree that, until that independent survey is completed, all commercial operations in the area

877
must stop? It would be outrageous if British Gas were to continue its operations while the survey was being undertaken.
Mrs. Ewing: I agree. It was extremely discourteous of the Government not to advise us of the announcement. Of course we welcome it, if the news is true. We await confirmation from the Minister, and I know that Lord Lindsay has listened to most of our debate. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that troughing and all other activities in the area should stop until the full results of the inquiry are placed before us.
I trust that the inquiry will cover representations from the local communities, so that they are well aware of what is happening, and from the Members of Parliament who have pursued the matter ruthlessly for some time. The subject was first raised in 1985 by my predecessor, the right hon. Donald Stewart—a greatly respected man in the House—and it is a matter for great concern. Why has it taken the Government so long to concede eventually that a real inquiry is needed? I regard the concession as a victory for those of us who tabled the motion, and those who have worked together in the all-party group to place the issue before the Government.
6.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): This has been an interesting debate, which has largely concentrated on three main issues—Dounreay, Brent Spar and the phosphorous flares that have appeared off the south-west of Scotland.
I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) hit the nail firmly on the head when he said that although several Opposition Members had made responsible speeches—I commend them for the fact they have often kept party politics out of things, and there has been rational discussion of the issues—the Scottish National party, typically, has tried to go for the cheap headline rather trying to address the environmental issues in Scotland. Scottish National party Members seem intent on looking at the negative rather than at the positive.
I shall start by dealing with some of the questions asked by Opposition Members. I noticed that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) press-released her speech on Monday, obviously fearful that the representatives of the media would not be interested enough to attend the debate. Looking up at the Press Gallery, I conclude that she was right—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I apologise; Opposition Members tell me that the Aberdeen Press and Journal, ever attentive to issues involving Scotland, is here in strength.
Mr. Wilson rose—
Mr. Kynoch: No, I shall not give way now. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will claim to be a member of the press, and I trust that, if so, it is firmly declared in the Register of Members' Interests.
Clearly it is for the chief inspector of Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate to decide whether the application from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy
878
Authority for authorisation of radioactive discharges at Dounreay is to be granted. The chief inspector has not yet determined UKAEA's application, but in doing so he will take full account of any comments received in consultations with local authorities and other public bodies yet to be undertaken.
Such consultation will include Government-funded committees, the radioactive waste management advisory committee and the committee on the medical aspects of radioactivity in the environment. The committees have not hesitated in the past to provide constructive criticism where necessary, and I have every confidence that their input will continue to be valuable in the future.
The hon. Lady said that there had been a significant delay in the issuing of discharge authorisations, but I can assure her that consideration of the applications is being carried out with great care by HMIPI. Account has had to be taken of a ruling by Lord Justice Potts about the factors which should be considered in such processes, and HMIPI has obtained further information from the Atomic Energy Authority to ensure that all the relevant factors are considered. Inevitably, this has resulted in some delay. I trust that the hon. Lady wishes to ensure that the case is looked at properly, and I hope that she does not want a conclusion to be reached before the case is judged.
In the motion tabled by her party, the hon. Lady states that she wishes no further discharge authorisations to be given. That would be counter-productive to the interests of Dounreay, but much of what she said was counter-productive to Dounreay. I noted the remarks of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for fisheries in his opening speech about the significant employment prospects for people in the Dounreay area. At present, some 1,200 staff are directly employed at the Dounreay site, while 400 contractors and a further 250 people in the local economy are employed in jobs associated with the site.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) is not in his place, because I am sure that he would have introduced on behalf of his constituents a note of balance to the comments made by his hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). I suspect that the hon. Lady's comments would be out of line with what the hon. Gentleman would have to say on behalf of his constituents.
Much of what was said by Opposition Members was put in perspective by the positive speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). The latter has been a significant force in the Scottish Office for many years, particularly on the environmental front, and he made a constructive and balanced speech. My right hon. Friend deserves all our commendations, and I expected nothing less than a constructive contribution from him.
Much has been made of the concerns about the transportation of radioactive materials. We must look at the situation with regard to research reactors in Britain and the history of MTR fuel reprocessing here to put the possible US contracts which have been talked about in their proper perspective. MTR fuel reactors exist primarily for research purposes and to produce radio isotopes for medical use. The Atomic Energy Authority has provided a fuel manufacture and reprocessing service to its materials testing reactor customers since the 1950s.

879
Spent fuel from such reactors has therefore travelled northwards to the reprocessing facility at Dounreay for about 35 years.
During that period, some 12,500 spent fuel elements have been reprocessed. Most came from the UK, but some 25 per cent. were reprocessed on behalf of overseas customers. Because of the steady volume of business, the MTR reprocessing plant has been regularly updated to ensure that it fully complies with the latest technical standards. A new programme of work will ensure that it can operate safely for the next 10 years.
The transport of radioactive material, such as spent fuel, is carried out only in containers which meet the most stringent requirements of the International Atomic Energy Authority, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries clearly pointed out. I wish that the Scottish National party—and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) in particular—would be more constructive and positive about the successes achieved by the workers at Dounreay, rather than doing its usual job of running Scotland down, selling it short and ensuring that the task of those who are trying to make a constructive contribution to the economy is made all the more difficult.
Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the debate, we have heard that an announcement has been made to the press outside the House which concerns this debate. There are six minutes left in the debate. After the earlier abuse of procedure, are we not at least entitled to hear the Minister's comments on that announcement so that he can be questioned by hon. Members?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): That may be a point of debate, but it is not a point of order for the Chair.
Mr. Kynoch: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has again tried to get a sound bite and a headline by wasting the time of the House. I am trying to answer the points which have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House during the debate.
Moving from Dounreay to the subject of the Brent Spar, much nonsense has been—
Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman may wish to ask about the phosphorous and Beaufort dyke. I shall come to that last. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, while there is no definite time limit of 7 pm, I shall be seeking to wind up as close as I can to that time.
Much nonsense has been talked about the content of the Brent Spar and the effect of deep sea disposal on the marine environment. That is indefensible when Shell was put to the trouble and expense of producing a thorough best practical environmental option. Account must also be taken of the fact that the marine laboratory in Aberdeen carried out a detailed scientific investigation to assess the site selection, as well as evaluating any likely impact of deep sea disposal on the surrounding environment. In other words, the facts and the science have been conveniently ignored by those seeking merely to sensationalise the situation with regard to the Brent Spar.
880
I was surprised to find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), who made one of his more rational speeches, when he referred to the fact that the Select Committee advocated that each individual case should be looked at on a case by case basis. I believe that it will be in the best interests of Scotland and of future generations if we get rid of the Brent Spar in the most environmentally friendly and cost-effective way. We should not be forming preconceived opinions, as the SNP is doing, and Opposition Members should think about the matter carefully and ensure that they are making rational arguments.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) referred to the chromium waste sites in his constituency. I heard everything he said, and I am enthused by the prospect that the situation may be alleviated by the extension of the M74. I understand that the district council's investigations have found that a significant public health risk is not present at any of the sites. However, I take on board the comments of the hon. Gentleman and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, and I shall make sure that my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the environment in Scotland hears everything that has been said.
I come now to the situation with regard to phosphorous canisters, and particularly to the comments made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister in his opening speech. There is no doubt that this was a very unfortunate incident involving public safety about which we all share concerns. I should be disappointed if hon. Members from either side of the House sought to belittle the efforts of the voluntary forces and of the Government in trying to get to the bottom of the problem.
I was sad to hear of the incident involving Gordon Baillie, the young constituent of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute. Obviously, we shall try to prevent similar incidents arising in future, and the emergency services are trying to clean up the beaches to ensure that the risk of such an incident occurring again is minimised. With regard to the incident relating to clothing, that is the first that I have heard of that incident and I was alarmed to hear the hon. Lady's account of it. I will ensure that the Ministry of Defence is made aware of her interpretation of events and that my colleagues there write to the hon. Lady on that point.
We are all trying hard to ensure that the origin of the phosphorous canisters is discovered. I understand that the Ministry of Defence has undertaken to provide local Members of Parliament with as much information as possible about the disposal of munitions in the Beaufort dyke area. Much has been made in the past few minutes about an announcement. It has been blown out of all proportion. My colleagues and I in the Scottish Office have sought to ensure that we play our part in getting to the bottom of the problem. There was to have been a scheduled survey of the Beaufort dyke area next spring. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for the environment in Scotland has announced this afternoon that he is bringing the survey forward to commence before Christmas.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman has already intervened twice on the subject. I am trying to be fair to

881
the House and finish my speech, so I will not take his intervention. The survey will now take place before Christmas. That will give us a better understanding of this complex issue.
Mrs. Ewing: When will it he completed?
Mr. Kynoch: How long is a piece of string? I hope—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Kynoch: Hon. Members must simply be patient. I hope that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) wants the exercise to be carried out thoroughly and efficiently to ensure that we get the best possible information.
In general terms, this afternoon's debate—
Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister must tell us whether the British Gas work will be suspended.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows it.
Mr. Kynoch: In conclusion, I hope that the House wishes to ensure that issues such as Brent Spar, the dumping of munitions and the problems arising therefrom are viewed objectively rather than emotionally. The nationalists unfortunately put an emotional slant on everything, ignoring the facts and the anxieties of the Scottish people. Most important, there should be respect for the scientific evidence and expertise, of which Scotland has a right to feel proud. By adopting that approach, Scotland's excellent environmental image and reputation will not be unfairly tarnished.
I ask hon. Members to reject the nationalist motion, and I commend the Government amendment to the House.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:
The House divided: Ayes 26, Noes 159.

Division No. 222]

[7.02 pm

AYES

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Lynne, Ms Liz

Beith, RtHon A J

Maddock, Diana

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Marek, Dr John

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Rendel, David

Cunningham, Roseanna

Skinner, Dennis

Dafis, Cynog

Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

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

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Tyler, Paul

Foster, Don (Bath)

Wallace, James

Harvey, Nick

Wigley, Dafydd

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and Mr. Alex Salmond.

Kirkwood, Archy

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Alexander, Richard

Baldry, Tony

Amess, David

Bellingham, Henry

Ancram, Michael

Booth, Hartley

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Boswell, Tim

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Bowis, John

882

Brandreth, Gyles

Lightbown, Sir David

Brazier, Julian

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Bright Sir Graham

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Browning, Mrs Angela

MacKay, Andrew

Burns, Simon

McLoughlin, Patrick

Burt, Alistair

Maitland, Lady Olga

Butler, Peter

Malone, Gerald

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Mans, Keith

Carrington, Matthew

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Merchant, Piers

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Conway, Derek

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Cran, James

Nicholls, Patrick

Day, Stephen

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Devlin, Tim

Oppenheim, Phillip

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Ottaway, Richard

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Dover, Den

Pickles, Eric

Duncan, Alan

Porter, David (Waveney)

Duncan-Smith, Iain

Powell, William (Corby)

Dunn, Bob

Rathbone, Tim

Elletson, Harold

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Richards, Rod

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Riddick, Graham

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Fabricant, Michael

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Sackville, Tom

Fishburn, Dudley

Shaw, David (Dover)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Sims, Roger

French, Douglas

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Fry, Sir Peter

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Gallie, Phil

Gardiner, Sir George

Speed, Sir Keith

Gillan, Cheryl

Spink, Dr Robert

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Sproat, Iain

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hague, Rt Hon William

Stern, Michael

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Streeter, Gary

Hampson, Dr Keith

Sweeney, Walter

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hawksley, Warren

Thomason, Roy

Heald, Oliver

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Hendry, Charles

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Hicks, Robert

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Trimble, David

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Waller, Gary

Hunt, Sr John (Ravensbourne)

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Hunter, Andrew

Waterson, Nigel

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Wells, Bowen

Jenkin, Bernard

Whitney, Ray

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Whittingdale, John

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Widdecombe, Ann

Kellett-Bowrman, Dame Elaine

Wilkinson, John

King, Rt Hon Tom

Willetts, David

Kirkhope, Timothy

Wilshire, David

Knapman, Roger

Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Wood, Timothy

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Tellers for the Noes:

Legg, Barry

Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Michael Bates.

Lidington, David

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.
MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House 'congratulates Her Majesty's Government on their environmental achievements in Scotland and applauds their continued commitment to the further protection and enhancement of the environment, notably through the creation of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency; supports the Government's view that United Kingdom's Atomic Energy Authority should be allowed to continue to undertake reprocessing of spent fuel, subject to the appropriate regulatory requirements being met, and that sound science and careful cost benefit analysis should continue to guide the Government in their consideration of issues affecting the marine environment, the matters of safety always to the fore.'.

Pensioners (Wales)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.13 pm
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the rapidly falling standard of living of people of pensionable age in Wales; calls upon the Government to uprate the state pension to one-third of average earnings for each pensioner immediately and, over a reasonable period, to link them to average earnings as opposed to price inflation figures; and further calls upon the Government to introduce a statutory disregard of capital resources for those in need of long-term social and nursing care, to make the well-being of this section of society a priority, and to cease to marginalise their interests and concerns in such a deplorable way.
I am pleased to be opening this important debate. Some weeks ago, I had the privilege of addressing several hundred pensioners at an all-Wales rally at Llandrindod Wells in Powys. It has since become known as the "Pensioners' Parliament for Wales". I must say that the standard of debate and discussion in that parliament is far higher than that in this Chamber.
The overwhelming impression that remained with me was of respect for that large percentage of the population—a body of people who, for so long, have felt marginalised by Government, presumably because the Government believe that they cannot fight back. That conference showed me that they most certainly have the ability, integrity and will to fight back. In opening this debate, I respectfully remind the Government that 20 per cent. of the population of Wales, numbering some 581,000 people, are of pensionable age. They are therefore a powerful constituency, and their case obviously deserves a full and fair hearing.
I must repeat something that I said in my address to the rally, which is that there are two widely held popular myths about people of pensionable age. The first is that they are powerless to fight back, and I have already dealt with that. The second is that, when people reach pensionable age, in some strange and inexplicable way their potential contribution to society suddenly diminishes. There is a saying in Welsh, "Yr hen a yr, yr ifanc a dybia." I shall write it down for Hansard, as I usually do. Translated, it means, the elderly know, but the young think that they know.
On a personal note, by profession I am a solicitor.
Mr. Alex Carlile: And a very good one.
Mr. Llwyd: I am much obliged.
I am one of those at Westminster who has moved comfortably from one profession that is not held in unqualified esteem to another. When I served my articles of clerkship, effectively training to become a lawyer, I was articled to a highly respected solicitor who, even then, was of pensionable age. I should never have qualified as a solicitor without his expert guidance. That fact will remain with me for the rest of my working life. It is something for which I owe a debt of gratitude.
There is no doubt that matters affecting pensioners have not had due priority in the past 20 years. It is a disgrace that the Government appear to be so dismissive of the genuine and heartfelt concerns of such a large proportion

885
of modern society, and it is more so when one considers the contribution that that section of society has made to our well-being. I am reminded of the bravery and valour of those who gave everything to defeat fascism and tyranny 50 years ago. They deserve better; Plaid Cymru and I are determined that they shall have better.
It is often said that one of the marks of a truly civilised society is the way in which it treats its elderly. On that basis, the situation in the British isles leaves a great deal to be desired.
From those general remarks, I shall move to the particular. Given the time allotted, I cannot hope to refer to all policy matters affecting pensioners. I am sure that one of the main areas of concern is the level of pensions and how they have lagged dramatically in real terms in the past few years.
Mr. Walter Sweeney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Llwyd: No.
The average weekly income figures are £71.51 for a single pensioner and £114.21 for a couple where the main source of income is state pension, and £185.49 and £224.41 respectively where it is not. I remind the House that the average income of pensioners in Wales is 12 per cent. lower than that for the whole of the United Kingdom. I will now give way to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan, if he wishes to intervene—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is asleep."] Oh, he is asleep. Okay.
Under the present regime, benefit to pensioners increases with price rises, not earnings. As a consequence, pensioners who rely solely on state benefits will not share in any economic growth. Tens of thousands of pensioners in Wales are therefore set increasingly to fall behind and the gap, I am afraid, is set to widen.
Retirement pensions are inadequate. Although pensions have risen in line with price inflation, since 1980 they have fallen drastically behind average earnings.
Mr. Douglas French: I am listening with some care to the hon. Gentleman's argument and trying to follow it. What does he understand to be the definition of average earnings?
Mr. Llwyd: In Wales, the average figure is £97.13.
Mr. French: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Llwyd: I have answered the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. French rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) is giving way again.
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman asked a question; I gave him the answer.
Pensioners are increasingly dependent on means-tested benefits in the form of housing benefit and income support. In 1993, 15 per cent. of retirement pensioners in Wales were in receipt of income support. While pensions
886
in Britain have failed to keep up with earnings, there are far more generous benefits for pensioners in other EC countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Roderick Richards): I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that average earnings in Wales were £97. Perhaps he could check his figures.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) was referring to the definition of average earnings, which is a key factor in the hon. Gentleman's motion.
Mr. Llwyd: It is not my fault if the hon. Member for Gloucester is unable to ask a question. It is not for the Minister to cover up for people who cannot ask planted questions properly.
In July, Age Concern published a report as part of its "Short change" campaign entitled "Modest But Adequate". This showed that a single pensioner would need a minimum weekly net budget of £121.08 to ensure what it describes as a modest but adequate income. Using the same formula, a pensioner couple would need a minimum of £204.49. In contrast, the most recent Government figures show that single pensioners have a net median income of £86.30 while pensioner couples have a net median income of £162.90.
The statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to review the value of pensions annually was first incorporated in the Social Security Act 1973. Under that Act, he was given scope to consider a number of factors in setting new benefit rates, including the general standard of living and other matters thought to be relevant. That was amended by section 5 of the National Insurance Act 1974 under which he is required to estimate the general level of earnings and prices in such a manner as he thinks fit and to have regard either to earnings or prices depending on which he considers more advantageous to beneficiaries.
Since 1980, earnings have tended to rise considerably faster than prices. The breaking of the all-important link between uprating and earnings in 1980 is cause for major concern. If the link had been maintained, the basic pension would be significantly higher than it is. We want an end to the tinkering; we want a basic retirement pension of not less than one third of average earnings for each pensioner so that we can uprate at a glance and not leave pensioners lagging behind.
The Government's response will inevitably be that the cost would be astronomical: restoring the link with earnings could mean that employer and employee contributions would have to rise gradually from around 18 per cent. of gross wages to around 26 per cent. We do not say that that could happen overnight, but serious thought should be given to introducing it gradually. That is a sensible approach, which I hope that the Government might be able to follow.
Mr. Sweeney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that increasing the basic pension as he wishes would reduce the scope for the Government to give special help to those who need it and act as a deterrent to people taking out private pensions? Does he accept that the average pension has increased by 50 per cent. since the Conservative Government came to office in 1979?
Mr. Llwyd: My point is that there are those who rely utterly on the state pension. I agree that they should be

887
targeted, but currently they are not being targeted; they are being left behind. The point is simple. I do not disagree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman said, but those people are not being helped.
The rise needed to bring people up to the level to which I referred would not be greater than about 5 per cent. of GDP over the next 40 years. It is interesting that that rise would be no higher than the increase in Government expenditure over the three years from 1990 during the depths of the recession, when they increased public spending ahead of the general election. It is clearly not unaffordable. What is required is the political will to make it a reality.
Even so, were it to happen tomorrow it would be considerably less than the percentage of GDP spent in Italy, Scandinavia and France, to name but three countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons that those countries are coming to Britain to see what we are doing is because their GDP-debt ratios will be disastrous in the year 2030?
Mr. Llwyd: I am not sure about that. I am trying to concentrate on the plight of pensioners in Wales. [Interruption.] Ministers may well laugh. To them, it is probably a laughing matter.
The jewel in the state crown was always the national health service. It was, at one time, the envy of the civilised world and it had its roots in Wales. The imposition of the internal market mechanisms has all but destroyed it.
Mr. Paul Flynn: In respect of the Minister's question, has the hon. Gentleman read the chapter headed "The Demographic Myth" in the book "The Age of Entitlement", in which it is made clear and argued with great precision and knowledge that the Government have used the myth of the demographic time bomb to cut pensions and exaggerated what will happen in the next century? It is interesting that the author of that book is the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), a Government Whip.
Mr. Llwyd: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that that was a valuable contribution to the debate.
The imposition of internal market mechanisms has destroyed the national health service. Purchasers and providers may well be reasonable in business generally, but the national health service is—and always has been—a service, not a business. Other people and I believe that the system is top-heavy with administrators on large salaries, often people who have no connection with medicine and health care. Those bureaucrats have been funded at the expense of nurses, junior doctors, technicians, auxiliaries and the like. All these men and women are at the sharp end of service delivery and health care. Their loyalty is beyond doubt, but even they are now under strain.
I am often angered when constituents attending my surgeries say that they have waited three or four years for hip replacement surgery, suffering bouts of extreme pain-and suffering in dignified silence, in the disgraceful knowledge that, if they had paid privately, it would all have been over in a matter of months.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: All colleagues in the House will have had experience of the fact that people
888
who can afford to buy private health care get treated while those who cannot stay on waiting lists for long periods. Will my hon. Friend, however, also apply himself to the difficulty facing pensioners and those with no private resources at the end of their treatment in NHS hospitals? They are immediately moved out, even though they are not fit to return home, and transferred to private nursing homes or private residential homes, sometimes against their will. They have no choice in the matter.
The responsibility that used to lie with the state to provide all health care for those in need is being eroded, while the requirement to pay for private nursing homes is taking over from the responsibility that the state once had.
Mr. Llwyd: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, to which I shall turn in detail later. I know that one of my constituents' biggest worries is where they are going next after hospital at a time when they are in dire need.
What kind of society can accept such a state of affairs? Like all Opposition Members, I want a return to a fully funded NHS that is truly free at the point of delivery and in which waiting lists are minimal. If that takes a penny or two on income tax and a rescheduling of priorities, so be it. We must grasp the nettle now, because figures show that there are ever more elderly people in our country. I take the point that the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) made earlier—that there is a great deal of Government scaremongering going on. We must tackle it now.
Consultants who tell people that they will have to wait two years for an operation unless they undertake to pay privately and have it done in a month should be weeded out of the health service. If they want to do private surgery, let them do it—but not in NHS contract time. We must sweep all that away; the internal market created it. It is drastically destroying the service. I commend my party's extensive health policy document to hon. Members. Among other ideas, it would institute fully salaried doctors and consultants who would not work outside the NHS.
I am also concerned about a serious conflict of interest surrounding fundholding practices. Anyone with the slightest grasp of what is going on can see the conflict. That the Government are setting about dismantling the welfare state is, I am afraid, glaringly obvious. Poverty, especially among the elderly, is an increasingly serious problem, more so in the rural areas of Wales.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that most rural practices that have adopted fundholding now regard it as a poisoned chalice that has forced a great deal of extra work on them, and that most fundholding doctors believe that it offers no fair advantage to any of their patients?
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. and learned Gentleman is on to an accurate point. I have heard the same from GPs in my constituency. I wonder what the future of fundholding in Wales is—no doubt it will become clearer in the next 18 months or so.
In 1979, 10 per cent. of elderly people of Wales lived on an income below half the average. Today, 25 per cent. of elderly people do. Professor Julian Le Grand of the

889
London school of economics was reported as saying, in an article in The Guardian of 24 September, that things would be much worse without the welfare state:
"Welfare services are arguably the only bulwark against increasing poverty and ill health, social misery and perhaps social instability. The question is not whether we can afford to have a properly funded welfare state; it is whether we can afford not to".
In the same article, Andrew Dilnot, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said:
"The issue is not really about affordability. In the literal sense these services can all be paid for. What is at stake is a political decision about whether to pay for them communally or individually. If we do it communally, through taxation, then we redistribute from the affluent to the less affluent. If we do it individually, then people get what they pay for. The better off will do better, but at the price of more inequality. It is really that simple a choice."
Instead of scrambling around looking for tax cuts to try and save their own political skin in 18 months' time, the Government—if they have any social conscience—should be looking for tax increases—certainly in the higher rates.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Is it not also true that, during the Conservative years since 1979, the gap between the rich and the poor has accelerated here faster than in any other country except New Zealand?
Mr. Llwyd: Absolutely. It must be on the Government's agenda, for it has been going on year after year. Those who were less well off 10 years ago are considerably worse off today. The Government must be well aware of their plight, but they seek to do nothing about it.
I believe that the higher rates of income tax should be rescheduled so that the health service and other social priorities can be allocated the expenditure that they deserve.
Mr. David Hanson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's fiscal and taxation policies have been directed to damaging elderly people? The shift from direct to indirect taxation has been particularly damaging to people on fixed incomes. The Government's imposition of VAT on fuel and the many other indirect taxes and VAT increases that they have brought in have hit people on fixed incomes in Wales—the unemployed and pensioners—like those in my constituency.
Mr. Llwyd: I agree. I hope to refer shortly to the problem of fuel and poverty. The effects of indirect taxation have been regressive for the elderly population.
Anything less than giving higher priority to the health service and ensuring an adequate service for the elderly and the rest of us is simply an abrogation of the Government's duty to the people whom they serve. The very notion of declining to treat a person because of his or her age fills me with disgust and rage. I hope that we will see no more of it, but I am afraid that there is a tendency to spend less on people the older they get—they are regarded as expendable. That is an obscene idea, but I fear that it is increasingly prevalent.
We also need to stem the tide of closures in NHS hospitals which has been created by the movement of funds from hospital care to community care. The Government must provide and ring-fence adequate funding for local primary health clinics within the community care programme, if it is to last. I also know
890
of the worries about the funding of residential care and nursing homes—it is an important topic at the moment. I think particularly of the shortfall experienced by many residents between the payments met by income support and the fees charged by private homes. People going into private or voluntary homes since 1 April, when the community care changes were introduced, have their funding met in a different way and hence do not suffer shortfalls in exactly the same way. Sally Greengross, director general of Age Concern, recently said:
"It is wrong that a state-funded system should be forcing people to seek charitable help or make relatives feel obliged to pay for essential care; yet it is happening."
Continuing care and the responsibilities of the NHS are also of great concern. As we all know, if care is provided in the NHS sphere, it is free, and if it is arranged by the local social services department, the individual will be assessed on his or her ability to pay. Put simply, the NHS provides "health" care and social services "social" care, but very often that distinction is blurred and far from clear. I hope that people who are aware of the content of the debate know that they still have rights and that they can decline to move from an NHS bed if their case is valid. Too many people, when a consultant assesses them and says, "You're fit to go home," go home and think that the consultant must be right, because consultants are people in authority. People are cogs in the system, and the system, I believe, is wrong.
I have received a letter from a constituent of the Minister who will reply to the debate, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards). This gentleman represents Pensioners Voice in Clwyd. I do not know whether the Minister has received the letter. Doubtless he will not act on it anyway, but were he to act on it—possibly even read it—he would see that it contains many valid and reasonable concerns. I shall refer briefly to what Mr. Alan Roberts, BSc, says in his carefully written letter. He said that it is worrying that the change in policy on NHS provision of continuing health care has come about. He continues:
"The 1990 Welsh Office circular WHC(90)1, paragraph A5 in the Appendix gave the—
Mr. Richards: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is raising an issue of a letter that allegedly is from one of my constituents. He did not inform me before the debate that he was going to raise that issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I would not regard that as necessarily a point of order for the Chair, but it is perhaps the subject of an intervention.
Mr. Llwyd: Does the Minister wish to intervene at this stage?
Mr. Richards: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has invited me to intervene. Mr. Roberts is well known to me. He corresponds with me regularly. I see him regularly at my surgeries and I have discussed with him many issues relating to pensioners and other people since I became a Member of Parliament more than three and a half years ago. It would have been a courtesy if the

891
hon. Gentleman had told me before the debate that he was going to raise an issue that one of my constituents, whom I know extremely well, had raised with him.
Mr. Llwyd: I know that the Minister is famed for his own personal courtesy always.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Did the hon. Gentleman have the courtesy to tell Mrs. Sally Greengross that he was going to mention her as well?
Mr. Llwyd: I am afraid that I slipped up there as well.
On an obvious point, and without delaying the House, I should like to say that Mr. Roberts represents a society, so that point is quickly dispatched, as points raised by the Minister usually are.
I shall quote three paragraphs from the letter by from Roberts, as they are rather important. He said:
"The 1990 Welsh Office circular WHC(90)1, para A5 in the Appendix gave the elderly chronic sick clear rights, including the right to refuse to be transferred to a nursing home if they did not wish to pay the fees.
Government Ministers"—
he refers to a certain written answer—
"made it abundantly clear that patients exercising this right, if they were adjudged to need continuous nursing care, would remain in the care of the NHS, whatever form that took."
He went on:
"These rights have now been cancelled in the Feb., 1995 circular WHC(95)7. In a letter to me, Mrs. B. J. Wilson, head of the Social Services Division at the Welsh Office, implied that only those patients requiring 'specialist' as opposed to 'general' nursing care in a nursing home will remain an NHS responsibility."
That is the change to which I referred.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: Is the hon. Gentleman going to mention pensioners' fears about losing their home and inheritance, which were expressed in a pensioners' meeting that I had during the recess? I realise the difficulties that are involved in dealing with this issue; nevertheless, it is one of the most serious fears that is expressed to us time and again in every single pensioners' meeting.
Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, and I shall conclude my speech later on that point. It is one of the most important in the whole debate. I agree with him on that.
Another live issue was raised by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson): fuel poverty and the problems that the elderly face. It is not known precisely how many people die from hypothermia each year, but excess winter mortality in the United Kingdom has ranged from 29,000 in 1986–87 to 55,000 in 1985–86, which is up to three times greater than that experienced in countries such as Germany and Sweden, where winters are even more severe but homes are warmer. The death rate in winter for those aged 60 to 69 is on average 12 per cent. higher than in the summer; this increases to 17 per cent. for those in their 70s and 26 per cent. for those aged 80 and over. It has been estimated that there are 8,000 excess deaths for every degree celsius that the winter is colder than average.
Older people are more likely to experience the circumstances that cause fuel poverty: low income, poor quality housing with little or no insulation, and reliance on expensive—often inefficient—heating systems. They are also likely to have greater need for heating than other groups because they spend more time at home. The
892
general household survey in 1993 found that 31 per cent. of single, retired households mainly dependent on the state pension do not have central heating. "Cold Comfort", a national survey of 900 people over the age of 65 by the Age Concern institute of gerontology, published in February 1993, found that 26 per cent. had no loft insulation, compared to 10 per cent. of the general population. Some 18 per cent. compared to 6 per cent. did not have hot water tank insulation, and 64 per cent. compared to 60 per cent. had no double glazing.
I am an executive member of the all-party warm homes campaign, and there is a growing appreciation in the House of the fuel poverty issue. According to the World Health Organisation, the minimum bedroom temperature should be 21 deg C. A recent Age Concern survey showed last winter that 91 per cent. of pensioners fall below that level. Hypothermia is indeed a menace. I think that we need VAT to be zero-rated and not imposed in such a regressive manner. It is truly regressive because those on modest incomes spend a far higher proportion of their incomes just to keep warm than other people. I want to see a standard cold weather payment system over the whole winter, beginning on 1 October and ending on 31 March. That would be a great step forward, rather than tinkering with thermometers, as now seems to happen.
I also believe, as a matter of good sense, that we should extend the range of measures for home insulation, with mandatory council renovation grants for low-income elderly home owners whose heating systems are deficient, and an improved compensation package. The all-party group will meet tomorrow and throughout the year. We hope to enhance some of these thoughts and to push the debate further. The cold weather payment is inadequate and pathetic and in no way makes up for the deficiency.
Mr. Nick Ainger: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the Government really wanted to be portrayed as caring, they could zero-rate insulation materials in the forthcoming Budget? Is it not completely ludicrous that VAT on insulation materials is 17.5 per cent. but only 8 per cent. on the fuel consumed?
Mr. Llwyd: I agree entirely, and I am sure that that would also create jobs. It is good common sense.
Much has been heard this year of the plight of war widows. There were significant improvements for war widows in the 1970s, but the situation should now be reconsidered urgently.
Another huge issue is law and order—the so-called battle for the streets. We all fondly recall the time when the front doors of houses in villages and towns were held open by a stone. Those days, alas, are gone, but we could realistically see them again. It is no use the Home Secretary talking about boot camps. What we really need is better financing for the police to enable them to extend community policing—by far the most effective but also the most expensive form of policing.
In that regard, I am sure that prevention is far better than cure. We need to prioritise spending on policing and on building good relations between youngsters and the police. We need to encourage young people to make their voice heard, to take pride in their localities and to play a full role in community life.
Time and again I hear, especially from the elderly, that the village bobby has gone and that they do not know to whom to turn. I do not wish to scaremonger, but even in

893
a village such as Betws-y-coed in my constituency, the elderly are saying that it is risky to go out after dark. I remember that village when there was never any risk, despite the fact that it was on a main trunk road—the A5. There is much that can be done, and the Government should he doing it, to make the elderly in society more comfortable.
I want to see free or reduced cost travel on public transport for the elderly and I want it to be extended. Like many hon. Members, I have often been lobbied on the subject of television licences. Many of us have argued long and hard for an amendment to the Wireless Telegraphy (Television Licence Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 1995 and I am sure that the campaign will continue. There is a case for a free television licence for the elderly and the retired.
I also want to see the abolition of standing charges for gas, water and electricity for the elderly. Again, they are often disproportionately high in comparison with the actual values consumed—another point referred to by the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson).
Some three years ago, I introduced a ten-minute Bill on water charges. It attempted to secure a water charges benefit for the elderly and two other classes of society. We need a change and that change is overdue. That matter was brought to my attention quite dramatically by a constituent of mine from Bala, an elderly lady who said that she had never been in debt in her life and that the prospect of gas and electricity bills and, in particular, spiralling water bills, was making her ill. She was visibly anxious and upset and, when I noted the details of her latest water rates demand, I saw that she was paying £5 per annum more than my household where two of us are wage earners—and we have two teenage children whom I am sure use a great deal more water than that elderly lady.
The truth is that there is no regard for the all-important factor of ability to pay, and that is iniquitous. Even the despised poll tax had some regard to that principle. The Government will undoubtedly say that that is nothing to do with them, but it was the Government who privatised the utilities—those bare necessities on which life depends. It is no use hiding behind the water companies. The Government should intervene, and I commend my Bill to the Minister for reconsideration.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred to the elderly being deprived of their homes. That is a serious problem. It is estimated that some 40,000 family homes in the United Kingdom are sold each year just to meet the cost of care—note the use of the word "home" rather than house or property. People, in the autumn of their lives, are subjected to the ordeal of having their home—which they have worked hard to pay for—taken by the state which had guaranteed them state-funded care from the cradle to the grave. They are industrious people who have paid their dues in the form of taxes and national insurance and who were relying on the contract with the state. Now it has been decided to move the goalposts and, effectively, make them pay twice. That is disgraceful and cannot be justified.
The Government must reconsider urgently. I strongly suggest that the home be kept out of the equation altogether and that the £8,000 savings limit or capital threshold should be raised considerably. I have a figure of £20,000 in mind, but it should be at least doubled so
894
that the elderly can live with dignity. I understand that that is a live issue in Cabinet and change is overdue. I hope that the Government will conclude that the current position is untenable and should be changed without delay.
How can the Government, who are actively considering the abolition of inheritance tax, not accede to that call for change? It is viewed by many people across the political spectrum as an absolute scandal, which I trust will shortly be addressed. If the Prime Minister's nest egg speech was anything other than empty rhetoric, we should see much-needed change shortly.
I have two outstanding points to make. First, the Government should reintroduce free eye testing and dental treatment for the elderly. They should also provide dental treatment for all in society. In my constituency, as elsewhere in Wales, there are areas with no dentists. The position is complex. Some steps have been taken, for which I give due credit, but more should be done. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the matter. That is an acute problem in many areas in Wales.
The elderly are put off going to the dentist because they believe that that will be expensive, they do not have the money to pay and they are worried about huge bills. Opticians tell me that they come across glaucoma and similar conditions more often now and more often at an advanced stage because people feel that they cannot afford to have their eyes tested. Such conditions can lead to blindness. The problem is becoming acute. Therefore, I ask the Government to reconsider the question of free eye testing and, in particular, free dentistry for the elderly in Wales.
Many pensioners in Wales are concerned about mobility. Efforts must be made to assist local government in the provision of cheaper public transport for the elderly.
If all this sounds like a continuous moan or, as the Secretary of State for National Heritage would have it, whingeing, I make no apology. It is simply impossible to discuss the current situation of pensioners in Wales without turning to a catalogue of real and serious complaints.
I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree when I say that it is high time that pensioners' concerns received due priority. My party intends to do just that, and I am sure that other Opposition parties will do likewise.
I want society's natural respect for the elderly to be translated into action. The younger generation owes much to today's senior citizens and it is about time that we set about paying off that debt of gratitude.
7.59 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the rise in pensioners' living standards throughout Wales and the rest of the UK since this Government took office; applauds the fact that pensioners' average incomes have increased by 51 per cent. in real terms since 1979, compared with only 5 per cent. between 1974 and 1979; welcomes the extra help, amounting to £1.2 billion per year above the rate of inflation since 1988, awarded through improvements to income-related benefits for pensioners; believes it is far better to target benefit resources on those in the most need; applauds the fact that this Government has provided a solid basis for income in retirement by maintaining its pledge to

895
increase basic retirement pension at least in line with prices; and welcomes wholeheartedly the wider and substantial benefits delivered to pensioners by this Government's policies, particularly the control of inflation."
I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss the position of pensioners in Wales. I assure the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that I am no less concerned than he is about Welsh pensioners—indeed, about all pensioners. He was right to pay tribute to those who fought so bravely in the second world war to protect us all from fascism, as I know hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree.
At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman pointed out that he is a solicitor. As a lawyer, he will be acquainted with the well-known legal expression, "Do not let the facts get in the way of a good speech." I do not intend to start by commenting on whether it was a good speech—that is for others to judge—but he certainly did not let the facts get in the way.
Let us look first at the hon. Gentleman's central argument that pensioners' living standards are falling rapidly. That is just plain wrong. Pensioners' real incomes have risen by an average of 51 per cent. since 1979. Furthermore, when the hon. Gentleman referred to the average income of individuals—the earners—he referred to what is now £301 per week gross in Wales.
Mr. Hanson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Heald: I should like to make some progress first.
No one listening to the remarks of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy would have known that pensioners' real incomes have outpaced those of earners in Wales since 1979: pensioners' average real incomes have increased by 5 per cent. more.
Mr. Llwyd: The figure that I gave was £97.01, one third of £301. That is one fact on which I did not slip up.
Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman may be a little confused. The figure for average earnings in Wales is £301, not £97. The hon. Gentleman seemed to have a little difficulty with the question. Pensioners' real incomes in Wales have risen by more than those of earners. That is the point that undercuts the hon. Gentleman's entire argument about Welsh living standards.
Mr. Hanson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Heald: In a moment.
The fact that there has been a guarantee of index linking of retirement pensions is important; but the overwhelmingly important issue is the way in which private provision has been encouraged, and has supplemented pensioners' real incomes. That is one of the great successes of the current Government.
Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister disaggregate that figure, and reveal the effect on those who depend purely on state pensions?
Mr. Heald: The lowest amount that could be received by a pensioner couple on income support, with no private or occupational pensions, is just over £100 per week, excluding the cost of renting their homes. The difference is substantial. The Government's achievement has been to encourage private provision and occupational pensions: as a result, pensioners have improved their position. Meanwhile, their savings have retained their value.
896
[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) makes his comments, but under Labour, pensioners' savings were ravaged by high inflation. The present Government have presided over the longest period of sustained low inflation since 1961.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. William Hague): And Labour pinched the bonus.
Mr. Heald: Indeed.
Had it not been for that long period of low inflation, pensioners' savings would be nowhere near as strong as they are today, and their investment income would not be coming through.
Pensioners in the private sector are more secure than they were because of the reforms in the Pensions Act 1995, and spending on health and care services has risen rapidly. The hon. Gentleman was wrong to say that living standards had fallen; he was wrong to say that average earnings had exceeded the income of pensioners; and he was wrong to say that nothing had been done about heating. I shall deal with each of those issues shortly.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that, in 1995, pensioners who are dependent on their state pensions are relatively far poorer than those who have the advantage of private pension provision, and that the difference is greater than it has ever been?
Mr. Heald: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a trite point. It is obvious that pensioners who take out private occupational pensions—the Government have encouraged them to do so, and 5.6 million more are doing so—are in a better position than those who do not.
In Wales, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, pensioners' average incomes have risen at today's prices. In 1979, the figure was £95.60 per week; in 1993—I am quoting real figures—it was £138.60. That is the latest information that we have. Across the United Kingdom and in Wales, pensioners' average incomes have risen; and, if housing costs are taken into account, the position is even stronger. The increase is explained by index linking of the retirement pension, by the impact of income support and by the Government's policy of encouraging occupational and personal pension provision. Retirement pensions have maintained the value that they had in line with inflation, and constitute an essential building block in retirement income.
Sir Wyn Roberts (Conwy): Will my hon. Friend confirm that eight out of 10 pensioners have income from other sources—occupational pensions, savings or investments?
Mr. Heald: That is true. More than half the pensioners in Wales now receive occupational pensions, amounting on average to £74 per week. A substantial proportion—two thirds—now receive income from investment, averaging £37.40 per week. That improvement is the result of the Government's policies.
We should not forget that the approach of targeting help through income support means that the pensioners who are least able to make provision for themselves have a benefit that has been uprated ahead of inflation by £1.2 billion since 1988. As I have said, the lowest rate for a pensioner couple receiving income support is now more than £100 a week, and that couple's housing costs will also be met.

897
Occupational and personal pension provision has dramatically increased the incomes of pensioners in the United Kingdom and Wales. There are 5.6 million individual personal pension holders in the United Kingdom. That has not happened as a result of coincidence; it has happened as a result of low inflation, which has made saving worth while. As I have said, we have experienced the longest period of sustained low inflation since 1961. The encouragement of occupational and personal pensions, and low taxes for individuals, have enabled people to choose how to spend their incomes and to take out such pensions.
Mr. Martyn Jones: I thank the Minister for giving way at last. I just wanted to know whether he had any figures on the disposable income of pensioners in Wales and on the effect of VAT on fuel on that income.
Mr. Heald: It is right that the increases in relation to VAT on fuel were made across the board, but the effect on pensioners was mitigated by a substantial package of help, which was introduced, as the hon. Gentleman should know, in April 1994 for all pensioners, most disabled people and all people on income-related benefits. Fifteen million people benefit from that aid package. In 1994–95, the Government provided £420 million of extra help. That will rise to around £700 million extra during this financial year.
The Government are not in a position to dictate the charges that are made by various industries. Where possible, however, we try to influence the industry and, if necessary, increase or introduce grants to offset the costs. Value added tax is a broad-based tax: the supply of most goods and services is subject to VAT at the standard rate. This is the only sector where a lower rate applies. Standing charges are not part payment for supplies of domestic fuel and power-which would mean that they would be covered by the reduced rate-so they are taxed at 17.5 per cent.
The Government's policy on pensions has brought the prospect of increased prosperity to millions. We have more employer occupational pension schemes and more people taking responsibility for their retirement income. We have built a solid foundation of funded pension provision that is the envy of the rest of Europe, and we have done that through providing more choice and opportunity. That will remain the Government's policy. It is not "deplorable"—the word in the motion. It does not marginalise pensioners; it places their welfare at the heart of Government thinking.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) raised the issue of health and care. We recognise the importance to older people of the care services provided by the national health service and by local authorities. We have been active in our reforms to ensure that the right services reach the right people at the right time. The patients charter has set exacting standards for the NHS in hospital and community services. That is shown in Wales by the rise in the workload of hospitals. The number of cases that are being dealt with by Welsh hospitals has increased dramatically year on year.
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I hope that the Minister accepts that I am assisting him in this
898
intervention to enable him to consider various matters, but does he not accept that, although there has been a substantial increase in the throughput of people dealt with in hospitals, there has also been a substantial increase in return visits by people because they have been sent home too early?
Mr. Heald: I do not accept that argument. The figures for new out-patients are up by 5 per cent. year on year—from 601,827 to 635,984. The figures on day cases are up from 204,398 to 238,696—an increase of 17 per cent. It is easy for the hon. Gentleman to make his point in the way that he does, but the statistics show a clear rise in the number of patients being treated.
The national health service is more focused than ever on providing primary health care. When I heard the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy criticising the arrangements in place for general practitioners and fundholding in particular, I thought that he was ignoring patients' interests. Patients now receive the sort of health checks that we all know about, and the sort of care that doctors provide as fundholders. That system is clearly providing new benefits. It puts GPs at the forefront of caring for their patients. It is nothing other than a direct benefit not only for pensioners, but for all patients.
As in the rest of the United Kingdom, people in Wales are living longer and staying healthier for longer. Thirty years ago, Her Majesty the Queen would send out a dozen telegrams a year to centenarians; this year I believe the figure is 3,000. That improvement in health care and in longevity is the result of the Government's health care policies and of the income that is being provided.
Likewise, if one considers community care, our policies mean that more people are receiving the care that they need in their own homes, in residential care or in nursing homes in their communities. Pensioners are now involved to a much greater extent in decisions about their own care, what they need and how it is delivered, and local community charters will further those improvements.
Mr. Llwyd: What would the Minister say if he had constituents, as I have in Bala and Dolgellau in my constituency, who cannot receive any assistance from a dentist within 50 or 60 miles? Is that delivery of primary health care? What will the Minister do to ensure that those people have treatment under the national health service?
Mr. Heald: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the family health services authorities in every part of the country can provide details of dentists who work on the national health service and I commend him to take that course. He seems to be suggesting another expensive pledge in what I describe as one of the most expensive wish lists that any country has had placed on it.
Often, there are misunderstandings in relation to the issue of charging for residential care. Local authorities are required to charge up to the full economic cost of residential care, depending on the individual's means. The charging rules are closely aligned with income support rules—both capital and income is taken into account by the local authority when assessing an individual's ability to pay. Capital includes property and savings; income includes most social security benefits, occupational pensions, trust income and earnings.
If the individual owns a home, the social services department will generally take its value into account when it considers capital assets, but it must ignore its value if

899
one of the following people is still living there: a husband, a wife, a partner, a relative aged 60 or more, a relative under the age of 60 if the individual supports them, and a relative who is incapacitated. Social services may also ignore the value of the property in other circumstances, such as if the person who has been caring for the individual still lives there.
The Government's view has consistently been that people who can pay for residential care should be expected to do so, taking into account their ability to pay, but it is worth bearing in mind the rules that protect the position if someone remains in the home. It is only in circumstances where the home would otherwise be empty that it is taken into account in the calculation of residential care costs.
Residential and nursing homes set charges that represent the individual's on-going accommodation, food and care needs, just as if they were living in their own homes. It was never intended that individuals should be released entirely from the cost of their accommodation and upkeep.
In principle, it is right that people should look to their own resources before they look to the taxpayer to meet the cost of care. In that way, resources are targeted where they are most needed. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy will know that there is a capital disregard in these cases, including the value of the home in certain circumstances such as those that I have outlined. The Government, however, keep those rules under constant review.
He will also know that we have recently announced an important change to the way in which occupational pension income is dealt with when assessing the means of another member of the couple who goes into residential care. From next April, spouses remaining at home will have an automatic entitlement to half the occupational pension when their husband or wife enters residential care, recognising their continuing financial need. Of course, there is a discretion in the local authority up to that time to deal with it in that way.
The Government's objective will always be to target help in the most effective way on the people who need it most. There has been much speculation in recent weeks. All I can say is that the matter is being reviewed. I have no announcement to make and no hints to drop. I suspect that if I had any hints, I would not be giving them to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—[Interruption.]That was not meant in a churlish spirit. The issues should remain under review and that is what is happening.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy suggests increasing the retirement pension. His motion calls for large increases in state pensions—immediate uprating to one third of average earnings followed by a restoration of the earnings link. I should like to commend the hon. Gentleman. At least he was open about it and revealed what his policies would be. I should also commend his decisiveness. At least he has plumped for a policy. The same cannot be said for others and it would be interesting to hear in due course how the matter is being resolved on the Labour Front Bench.
All serious commentators—including the World bank, the National Association of Pension Funds and the Institute of Fiscal Studies—have recognised that to increase the value of the state pension, which is paid regardless of income and goes to virtually all people over
900
pension age in the United Kingdom and in Wales, is not a sensible use of taxpayers' money. It would cost more than £22 billion in 1996 to uprate the basic retirement pension to one third of average earnings. That is equivalent to 12p on standard rate income tax. Even at current rates, restoring the earnings link would cost £9.6 billion, or more than 6p on income tax.
Such an increase would mean an extra £15 a week for the average national insurance payer. Even if the cost were divided between the employer and the employee, the employee would make an extra payment of more than £8 per week. It is worth bearing it in mind that figures on income and expenditure for the United Kingdom, including Wales, show that the group who are hardest pressed are those aged between 30 and 50 who have greater commitments. Increasing taxation levels on them in that way would be not only ruinous, but extremely unfair to people on modest incomes who have an expectation of tax levels at approximately the present level.
In Wales, the balance between pensioners and active members of the work force is slightly lower than in the United Kingdom as a whole, so if Wales were to become an independent country—as the hon. Gentleman believes it should—the costs would be even higher than the very high figures that I have already outlined. Such a policy would be bad for the people of Wales and bad for those on modest incomes who are paying taxes and national insurance and I do not believe that it is what pensioners want. It would also have the effect of undercutting occupational pension schemes and personal pension provision—one of the successes of the Government's policy.
The issues put forward by the hon. Gentleman—and I shall go into them in a little more detail—are the policies of opposition; it is a wish list drawn up without regard to responsibility or cost.
Has the hon. Gentleman really thought of the consequences of requiring people across the United Kingdom—and indeed in Wales—to pay an extra 12p on income tax or £15 on national insurance? Where would he find the money? He has not thought it through seriously. He is pandering to the interests of a group that has a wish list of its own, but that is not how a Government can approach the matter. The hon. Gentleman should rethink the matter and perhaps he will.
Looking at the other side of the coin, increasing employers' national insurance contributions by some £7 or £8 per week—which would divide the cost—would put an intolerable burden on business. It would damage those businesses in Wales which are having economic success and providing jobs for people who need them. Again, the hon. Gentleman should consider the matters before making wild promises which pander to a populist instinct and are not responsible policies.
By contrast, the Government have thought the issues through. We are not in the business of making promises we cannot keep. We are in the business of looking to the future and taking some of the decisions that are often hard to make. They are not the easy decisions that parties can make in opposition.
One of the Government's successes has been to defuse the demographic time bomb. Across the world, Japan, Germany, Italy and France all have debt to GDP ratios at the year 2030 that are almost disastrous. The percentage

901
figure for Japan is 290 to 315 per cent. of GDP; for Germany, 95 to 105 per cent.; for Italy, 125 to 145 per cent.; and for France, 90 to 105 per cent. of GDP.
It is instructive to read what the OECD said about Britain in its survey earlier this year:
"In the United Kingdom with the advantages of a good starting position and a public pension scheme that runs only a small deficit, net debt as a percentage of GDP falls to very low levels and by 2030 even turns into a small net asset position."
It continues:
"The assumption of unchanged policy for spending and taxes may well not be realistic, policies might tend to be less restrictive with the evolution of debt being less favourable."
I believe that the OECD is talking about the prospect—unlikely though it may be—that an opposition party might form a Government and do some of the disastrous things that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
At the moment, countries across Europe are looking at the way in which we have made state pension provision affordable and encouraged private and occupational pension schemes. It would be typical of the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman's party at a time when we have got it right in terms of affordability to say, "Let us throw it all away." That is what it amounts to—throwing away the advantages we have and the position described by an independent commentator, the OECD.
Our policy is to target resources on those who cannot help themselves and allow those who can the flexibility and freedom to make their own choices.
Turning for a moment to the Labour party, I said that the same could not be said of the official Opposition—that they had nailed their colours to the mast when it came to pension policy. The Labour party continues to keep its options open—or, alternatively, it is floundering in a sea of confusion.
At its party conference in 1993, the Labour party was looking forward to the end of means-testing for pensioners. But by 1995, apparently without changing step, we see the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) embracing the Commission for Social Justice's proposal for a scheme which effectively means-tests every pensioner in the country at retirement age. Not, of course, that we can be sure what retirement age would be under Labour, as the Labour party has committed itself to a flexible decade of retirement without explaining what the age range would be and the way in which it would be centred. If it means what we think it means, it amounts to reducing the retirement age for most people to the age of 60, at huge cost to the country—£12 billion.
It is right that we should hear from the Opposition spokesman about exactly what is Opposition policy. After all, an alternative option is that proposed by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who suggests that there should be an end to all means-testing, and compulsory private pensions for all. We would like to hear tonight exactly what is Labour party policy on pensions because people outside the Chamber might not have a clear idea. We certainly do not.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy attacked NHS health care. We have studied activity levels in hospitals in Wales. Is he seriously suggesting that trust hospitals are not more efficient than their predecessors? Is he seriously suggesting that general practitioners are
902
not doing more for their patients and giving them extra health checks than they did in the past? Is he seriously denying all the improvements that have been made since 1979?
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that nothing has been done to meet the heating costs of pensioners, but a whole range of policies have been introduced. For example, only last year the home energy efficiency scheme more than doubled its expenditure from £35 million a year to £100 million a year, which has benefited 600,000 households. When the hon. Gentleman talks to pensioners in his constituency about insulation, surely he tells them about the Government scheme which would give them help.
Mr. Llwyd: They say it is rubbish.
Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman may say it is rubbish, but 600,000 householders have benefited from that scheme because the Government have provided help. The cold weather payment scheme has also been improved, which has helped pensioners, as does the package of help concerning VAT on fuel.
The hon. Member also raised the issue of law and order. He ignored the fact that the Government have increased the number of police officers by 16,000. He also ignored the measures that we introduced in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, for example, increased penalties and further measures on DNA testing, to make it more difficult for criminals to get away with it. They will help in the battle against law and order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Law and order?"] I meant the battle against crime. Those measures will also help to ensure better law and order.
It is no coincidence that in each of the past two years we have seen a 5 per cent. fall in crime levels—the first time for 40 years.
Mr. Llwyd: A fall in reported crime.
Mr. Heald: That is not true. There has been a reduction in vehicle crime. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that people do not report the theft of their motor cars? If they do not, they do not get their insurance money. Of course they report such crime.
There have been no changes to the methods of reporting crime in the past two years, yet criminal activity has fallen for the first time in 40 years, and at a faster rate than ever recorded. It is time the hon. Gentleman gave a little credit to the Government for that.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other issues, but I do not want to trespass on the good will of the House by dealing with each of them. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales who will be winding-up will no doubt wish to deal with some of the outstanding issues.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy put forward a whole range of propositions as though they were fact, but the truth is that not one of them has stood up to close examination. The standard of living of pensioners is not falling; it is rising. The average earnings of individuals in society are being outpaced by increases in pensions. He should accept that the Government have a deep commitment to the well-being of pensioners. That commitment is a realistic one, unlike the Opposition's wish list.

903
When we took office in 1979, we inherited a society in which pensioner interests were marginalised. Under Labour, pensioner incomes went up by a little more than 5 per cent., but they have gone up by 51 per cent. under the Conservative Government. It was a society in which impoverishment and dependency was a reality for the pensioner. That was deplorable. That is not the case now. With the provision of personal and occupational pensions, the retirement pension has been protected as the foundation of retirement income. Inflation has been brought under control and it no longer robs pensioners of their savings. We have targeted income on the least well-off pensioners, and offered all pensioners more choice.
I believe that the Government's case is strong when they argue that pensioners have been protected by them and given new opportunities through freedom and choice.
8.34 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: I congratulate the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and his colleagues on giving us the opportunity to debate pensioners in Wales.
The Minister began his speech by complaining that the hon. Gentleman had certainly not let the facts get in the way of a good speech. I must say that the Minister has failed to let a good speech get in the way of the facts about what is happening to a significant percentage of pensioners in Wales.
The Minister treated us to an exegesis on the advantages of private pension schemes. I wholeheartedly agree that those advantages exist, and I even share his aspiration that in due course every pensioner should have a guaranteed and portable pension scheme with a private element included in it, but he cannot escape from the reality—the truth that we see, or at least Opposition Members see, every weekday and every weekend in Wales: that many Welsh pensioners, especially those in rural areas, live in real poverty. They do not have private pension schemes, and perhaps they are the historical remnant of people who will rely on the state pension.
I suggest to the Minister, however, that if they are an historical remnant, they will remain so for a long time to come, and the Government must pay proper attention to that. Many pensioners fall into the poverty trap that has been created by the income support limits in particular. For many old people, who have greater needs than younger people for heat, clothing and transport provided by others, the poverty trap can sometimes be a death trap.
Mr. Heald: The hon. and learned Gentleman sees before him a motion that calls for huge increases in public expenditure. Does he support it?
Mr. Carlile: I am sure that the Minister will have taken the trouble to study the Liberal Democrat policy document entitled "The Age of Opportunity". I do not propose to weary the House by reading from it now, and I will hand the Minister the copy that I have in my hand. It deals with what is now called the "third age". We do not agree with everything in the motion, but it is certainly our view that the Government are failing to address the needs of the group I have just mentioned.
904
It is worth recalling the words of Lloyd-George in his celebrated speech on the 1908 Budget. He said:
"How we treat our old people is the crucial test of our national quality. A nation that lacks gratitude to those who have honestly worked for her in the past whilst they had the strength to do so, does not deserve a future, for she has lost her sense of justice and her instinct of mercy."
It behoves us to treat those words, albeit in the somewhat florid language of the turn of the century, as having some resonance in the public mind. They certainly have resonance in the minds of pensioners who complain to us constantly about their lot.
I invite the Government in particular to pay greater attention to the problems faced by pensioners who live alone. The percentage of elderly people living alone, many of whom are women because of the differing mortality rates of men and women, has risen from 35 per cent. in 1971 to 45 per cent. in 1991, when I believe it was last measured. I am sure that the whole House would commend the fact that that figure is evidence of more pensioners retaining their independence in their very old age and staying in their own homes. That is to be encouraged.
Indeed, I suggest to the Government that it is very good value for public money to keep pensioners in their own homes, because it is cheaper to provide domiciliary help for pensioners than to keep them in public or private sector care homes. More important, it enables pensioners such as my elderly mother, and no doubt the elderly mothers of a number of other hon. Members, to retain what they value most: their independence—sometimes their fierce independence.
State pension dependency, which is high in Wales, especially in rural Wales, is a threat to such independence. The Minister cited the figure of one third of pensioners in Wales being dependent on the state pension, but in rural areas such as my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy the figure is more like 40 per cent.
The Minister's eloquent and entirely justifiable paean of praise for the private sector and what it can provide to those who have bought private pensions from insurance companies will resonate among pensioners with a dull thud. Indeed, even where, for example, farmers or small business people in rural areas have participated in private pension schemes, the contribution made by the schemes has been very small and may have made the difference only between ensuring that the pensioner had some extra support from the state and had no extra support from the state. It can often be the very thing that draws them into the poverty trap.
The problem is worse in Wales, where the percentage of people of pensionable age is higher. About 20 per cent. of the Welsh population are of pensionable age—almost 2 per cent. more than in England. In some areas, such as the constituency of the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts)—I notice that he is present—the statistics suggest that 28 to 30 per cent. of the population are of pensionable age, so the problem is heightened in Wales.
Another group is often forgotten by the Government: those who care—very often unpaid—for the very elderly. Research suggests that there are 340,000 unpaid carers in this country, of whom 80,000 work for more than 20 hours without receiving a penny.
The Government have, to their credit, supported a private Member's Bill that provides for the recognition of carers. That is all very well, but we should like to hear

905
when they will come up with the money to give carers true recognition, which in principle they have accepted. They should do more than pay lip service to carers. Carers give very good value for money because they often save the Government having to spend money on keeping elderly people in care homes.
The 1991 census showed that social conditions are often lower in Wales. Pensioners are more likely to have unsatisfactory housing in Wales than in England. That creates special problems. It is a shocking fact that, in 1995, almost 3 per cent. of pensioners in Wales have no inside lavatory. That is not acceptable. Almost a quarter of pensioners have no form of controllable heating that can be set to their needs.
I say to Ministers, especially the Under-Secretary—the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who will reply to the debate—that the way in which renovation schemes have operated in Wales, particularly in the past three or four years, has led to a great shortage of money to meet need where it is greatest. Are the Government satisfied with the way in which grants for home renovations have constantly run out? In my constituency, the waiting list is, I think, eight years. Will the Government do something to help pensioners who, for example, do not even have an inside lavatory?
Old age, after all, should surely be a time for freedom, enjoyment, relaxation and reflection, which those of us who are fortunate enough to meet elderly people during our work as Members of Parliament have passed to us—usually to our great profit. It saddens me that the stock in trade of many conversations with elderly people who have much wisdom to contribute to our discussions starts with complaints about having to survive—about living on the breadline. We owe our pensioners more than that.
One area in which pensioners have faced particular difficulty, despite many benign and hard-working local authorities in Wales, is community care. I spoke about that recently in a debate in the House on 2 March and I shall not repeat what I said. There is a £71 million shortfall in the funding of community care in Wales and it has been drawn to the attention of Ministers time and again. It would be nice if we were to hear a helpful reaction for a change.
The experience of, for example, Gwynedd county council—which was praised by the Audit Commission for its community care—is that to provide an acceptable standard, it must overspend. It has been faced with an overspend of more than £1.2 million. The lesson that one draws from that is that it seems that the Government quite rightly want excellent community care, but are not prepared to pay for it. It seems that they are speaking with a forked tongue on that issue.
The cost of care in care homes has already been raised. Some pensioners who leave hospital are being sold to the lowest bidder. They are either being sent to the cheapest care home that can be found, if they are well enough, or to the cheapest nursing home, if they are ill enough.
Although there are some excellent private sector care and nursing homes in Wales, there are also some awful examples. The system of inspection, scrutiny and accreditation is not good enough. People are suffering as a result, yet they are the people for whom we should have the most respect: the elderly.
906
There is the whole question of the way in which capital is removed from elderly people. Although the Minister gave us some slightly labyrinthine hints of a review—no doubt as part of the bread-and-circus politics which will start on 28 November and entertain us until we have a general election—the situation at the moment is unacceptable.
Is it really right that a pensioner should have to spend all their hard-earned, hard-saved capital down to £8,000? Would not it be fairer if the Government took a different view of that issue and recognised that those savings have played an important part in our national wealth and the sustaining of the economy? Should not the Government take the view that it would be better to raise the cap significantly than to abolish inheritance tax, just to grab a few middle-class votes at the general election? I can assure the Minister that the elderly people of this country, especially those honest, decent, respectable people who have modest capital, but not huge capital, would appreciate such a change of policy.
I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West, to explain why there is discrimination against local authority care homes in terms of the way in which residents are charged. It goes like this. If one goes into one of Powys county council's very good care homes, one is charged significantly more for care than if one goes into the average private sector home situated in the part of Powys that I represent. I realise that this is because the charges are made on a real-cost basis. However, many of the private care homes—not all of them—provide a lower standard of service, there are fewer staff, there are fewer experienced staff, there are fewer shifts
Mr. Richards indicated dissent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Jonathan Evans)indicated dissent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans)indicated dissent.
Mr. Carlile: I see two, perhaps two and a half Ministers on the Treasury Bench. What a lot of Ministers there are on the Treasury Bench at the moment shaking their heads. I issue an invitation for them to come to Montgomeryshire and to have a look. They should come and make the comparison. I see the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans), shaking his head. He may have criticisms of the county care homes in his constituency, but those criticisms would not apply in mine.
The fact is that people who go into county care homes are having to pay £30 or £40 a week more for being residents there and there can be only one reason for that. What could that reason be? The only reason can be that the Government want the county care homes to go into the private sector or into a trust arrangement that they can regard as the private sector, thus taking yet more of that important community function away from elected representatives. That view has been expressed to me by social workers and by councillors of no political persuasion—independent councillors, some of great experience. It has been expressed to me by councillors of political persuasion too and it is a widely held view. The Government should not run away from the reality of it.

907
The opportunity to debate policy on pensioners in Wales is welcome. I fear, however, that at the end of the debate, we shall not have made much progress in persuading the Government that pensioners deserve a better deal. I predict that pensioners will become a much more vocal force in this country than they are already. I predict that they will become a much more political force in this country than they are already. I predict that the Government will reap a sorry reward as a result.
8.52 pm
Sir Wyn Roberts: I am probably one of the best qualified to speak in this debate as I am a Welsh pensioner and I have been so since July this year. I have not been refused treatment by anybody in the national health service as yet and I am still working, as so many pensioners do in Wales and elsewhere. Perhaps that is just as well, as we are growing in numbers, as various hon. Members have said in this debate. We are aware of the danger of becoming an excessive burden on the working people of this country—the demographic time bomb to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), referred.
I am glad that we have passed the Pensions Act 1995, which will equalise the state pension at age 65 for men and women, not in my time perhaps, but from 2010. That is a serious point. I am told that if the state pension ages were not changed, there would be just 2.2 working people per pensioner by 2030 compared with 3.3 now. The total number of pensioners will have risen from 10.5 million to 15.5 million. Those who have said that pensioners will become increasingly a political force are, I am sure, quite right, not just because I have just joined them.
Those figures are, of course, based on current projections; I am not sure that we have solved the problem completely. Projections can change, economic conditions can change and other factors, including the political situation, may change. All that may make it difficult for us to sustain our elderly people as we would wish. I was, however, delighted to hear my hon. Friend the Minister describe the situation that confronts this country in terms of the debt to gross domestic product ratio and to hear him say how much better the prospects are for the United Kingdom than for many other countries. I am also glad that we had last year's assurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security that the basic pension is there and rock solid, and that we have no intention of removing it now or in the foreseeable future.
Although more than eight in 10 pensioners now have income from other sources—an occupational pension, savings or investment—the state pension is still important for many people, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) stressed. The figures, of course, may be rather different in Wales. The answer is to target improvements in pensions and that too is very much part of Government policy, as is their commitment to protect the value of the pension against price rises.
During my 25 years in this House, I have known times when pensioners have really been up in arms and when the pensioners' voice was to be heard loud and clear. Those times were invariably the times of high inflation under the previous Labour Government, when pensioners saw the value of their savings being eroded. My only disappointment this evening is to have to record that Plaid
908
Cymru supported that Government. Successive Conservative Administrations have kept inflation low, and pensioners have undoubtedly benefited from that. I do not hear howls of complaint from pensioners or receive the flood of letters that one used to receive from pensioners in the days when inflation ran high.
As hon. Members have said, I have a high proportion of pensioners in my electorate. That does not mean, of course, that there are no concerns; some of the concerns expressed this evening are very real. There is concern in Gwynedd about community care and about the fact that the council appears to have exceeded its budget by more than £1 million. That is causing great concern to pensioners in my constituency. The £8,000 limit, too, causes concern, and one hopes that the Government will be able to do something about it in due course.
Yes, obviously we would like improvements; but not more than the country can afford. The real revelation this evening—I am glad that it has come out—is that if we were to follow the line proposed by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy when he moved the motion, there would be a bill of about £22 billion, which would mean not a penny or two on income tax but as much as 12p extra.
Mr. Llwyd rose—
Sir Wyn Roberts: I am conscious of the time, and of the fact that others wish to speak.
The Plaid Cymru motion calls for a direct link with earnings. I have heard that populist demagogic cry from the Labour and Liberal Benches from time to time over the years, but not recently. The Labour party, certainly, has changed its tack.
At the Labour party conference the Leader of the Opposition said that Labour was
"looking at ways for people to put together income from public and private sources to guarantee a minimum standard of living for our pensioners."
So far, so good. He continued:
"The aim of the policy is to remove the stigma of means testing for ever."
How on earth can one do that? I find the statement confusing, and I am sure that the Minister does too. How can one find out whether people have made prudent provision for retirement without some kind of means test?
Whatever the outcome, does that not mean that those who have made provision for their retirement will be penalised for their thrift? That is a sore point with pensioners even now. Those who have saved certainly do not like to see those who have not saved being treated as well as, if not better than they are, at the taxpayers's expense.
We must be careful what promises we make to pensioners. They know that policies have to be paid for, and will want to know the cost—as we have found out tonight the cost of the proposals of the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—and whether it can be afforded. More than anything, pensioners want certainty.
As the Prime Minister's amendment says, pensioners' living standards have risen. Not only have their average incomes risen by 51 per cent. in real terms since 1979, but extra help has been given through improvements in income-related benefits. Pensioners now own more household goods than when Labour left office. For example, 78 per cent. of pensioner households now have

909
central heating, compared with 46 per cent. in 1979. In 1979, 57 per cent. of pensioner households had a telephone, that all-important instrument for the elderly; in 1991, the proportion had risen to 93 per cent. That kind of thing can make all the difference in the world to pensioner families.
In my view there has been steady progress, and I am sure that it will continue while the Government remain in office. The great danger is that there may be a change of economic circumstances or—God forbid—political circumstances, which could affect pensioners' prospects very adversely. Whether we sit on the Front Benches or the Back Benches, we must see to it that that political change does not happen. If we are honest with the pensioners they will help to ensure our victory.
9.2 pm
Mr. Rhodri Morgan: What a pleasure it is to follow a genuine Welsh pensioner—the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts)—and how we look forward to his retirement. He may go into a nursing home eventually, although I am sure that if he does we shall all visit him as it will probably be the one just down the Corridor, which is so handily placed for us.
In congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on having achieved pensioner status, I should like to correct him on one point. The decline in the number of people of working age relative to the number of pensioners is not nearly so dramatic as he suggested. Over the next 30 years it will be very modest—almost within the margins of statistical error. In Wales the figure will fall from 3 to 2.8, and in England from 3.3 to 3.2. Even the Minister, in his opening speech, confirmed that the big differential will occur only after the year 2021, when the people born in the baby boom after the second world war reach retirement age. That is the only difference between the parties on matters of fact, although there are many differences on matters of policy.
I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on choosing the subject for the debate, which is a matter of great importance to all of us in Wales.
Mr. Sweeney rose—
Mr. Morgan: I am sorry, but I shall not give way, due to the shortage of time.
The founder of national insurance in this country, Lloyd George, was from Wales, as was the founder of the national health service, Nye Bevan. Matters of health and social care, pensions and provision for retirement were raised in the early years of this century by one of the great Welsh politicians, Lloyd George.
We are well aware that Wales will have two additional Members of Parliament following the next election, and the number of Members from Wales will be rising from 38 to 40. This is due not to a rise in the numbers of people of working age in Wales, but to an expansion in the pensioner population. The additional Members of Parliament are being provided in the counties of Dyfed and Clwyd, not in the industrial areas or in the capital city of Cardiff. The additional Members will be in those areas which are most attractive to people of retirement age who are moving to Wales in large numbers and surviving in
910
Wales in greater numbers. As a result, Wales will get those two additional Members. That is pensioner power defined in a practical way for us as politicians.
I want to concentrate on a matter which is of huge importance to Wales and on which the Minister touched in his opening speech. Many pensioners in Wales are developing a fear of losing their homes in their old age because the British Government are acting as a state repossession agency and are seen as more evil than many of the worst banks and building societies which have been involved in the repossession scandal of the past few years. The moral persuasion with which the Government could lean on those banks and building societies to reduce the pressure to repossess would be much greater if they themselves were not engaged in mass repossession through the social security system.
Mr. Richards rose—
Mr. Morgan: The Minister will have an opportunity to speak in about half an hour.
Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Morgan: Very briefly.
Mr. Richards: It is not clear at this point whether the hon. Gentleman is speaking for or against the motion.
Mr. Morgan: That is a singularly pointless intervention which is unworthy of any reply whatsoever and is a total waste of parliamentary time.
Is the Minister in favour of any amendment to the capital disregard rules, as has been speculated on? That is what most pensioners in Wales want to know, but the Minister did not answer that point. I understand the parliamentary convention that prevented him from doing so, but I want to tell him why that matter is such a burning issue with pensioners in Wales.
The Government have a totemic faith in the virtues of home ownership, but they did not need to tell us in Wales about that—we had that feeling about home ownership long before Lady Thatcher started talking about it. The present Prime Minister has talked about wealth cascading down through the generations, but it is people's fear and anxiety about the possible repossession of their homes when they become elderly and have to go into community care rather than wealth that is cascading down through the generations in Wales.
What do the Government intend to do to reduce the problem that they have created through the way in which they introduced the provisions relating to nursing and residential care homes, which have ballooned in number in this country over the past few years? The measures mean that £8,000 is the maximum capital that a resident of such a home is allowed to have.
I spoke this morning to Mrs. Marjorie Williams, whose mother is in an old people's home in Cardiff, having gone into full-time care in December 1992. As she had worked until she was 65 and her husband—who had been a miner in the valleys—had a miner's pension, she had some capital saved. Having run down that capital until it reached £3,000 in July this year, the Department of Social Security then told Mrs. Williams that it was time to put her mother's house on the market. That has now been done, and the house has been on the market for the past

911
three months because Mrs. Williams' mother's savings had dropped to the £3,000 that people are allowed to keep to cover their funeral expenses.
My constituent said that if the house was sold it might fetch between £22,000 and £25,000—the typical price for a miner's terraced house. Her mother would then have to pay back the income support that she has been receiving to cover nursing home costs between July this year and whenever the house is sold. I suppose that the money thus raised will cover the next two and a half years or so: with nursing home fees at £300 to £400 per week, £25,000 does not go very far.
What really brought the problem home to me was when my constituent told me that her mother still thought that she was in a national health service and free health care system. My constituent did not dare tell her mother that she was in a private nursing home for which she had to pay or that the house was on the market because the belief that one day she would go back to her own home had kept the old lady going while she was in nursing care. That is the tragedy of it.
We live in a society in which daughters have to protect their elderly mothers in nursing homes from the knowledge, first, that they are in private nursing homes and, secondly, that their house is having to be sold to pay for the care. Elderly people who have scrimped and saved to build up their savings and pay for their house with a mortgage over 20 to 25 years, having paid for their house through the building society, then find that the Government take it off them in a mere three or four years. Rather than wealth cascading through the generations, it is being taken away from people.
My constituent said that her mother would be very upset if she knew that her house was on the market. That made me think what an odd society we lived in. The Prime Minister is on record as saying that he wants to see wealth cascading through the generations. The Government are obsessed with trumpeting the virtues of home ownership with almost religious fervour. They have to resolve the problem. I appreciate that the Minister cannot give us too many details tonight as the issue may come up in the Budget, but it sounds as though an almighty battle is going on between the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health.
One scheme that is proposed is for nursing care costs—£100 out of the typical £400 fee—to be met by the state, but for residents to meet the accommodation costs. In that case, people would still have to sell their houses, but the money might last for five years in the nursing home rather than two and a half. Alternatively, the £8,000 capital disregard may be doubled to £16,000 or trebled to £24,000. Something must be done to solve the problem. Either the Government must stop pushing out propaganda about wealth cascading through the generations or they must solve the problem that anxiety and fear instead of wealth are cascading through the generations.
The pensioners of Wales find that the Government's propaganda is contradicted by their daily experience when they require permanent, long-term care in a nursing or residential home. Chronic care is in chronic crisis. The Government are acting as repossessors. That is destroying the belief in home ownership that people in Wales always had. It makes people feel that when they buy a house they are probably not buying something permanent. They can keep the house only if they are lucky enough not to
912
require long-term community care. That puts the frail elderly into a state of acute anxiety which makes their illness even worse.
The Minister said that many of us felt that we owed a debt of gratitude to all the elderly people who sacrificed so much during the second world war to keep Europe, the world and certainly Britain free from fascism, Nazism, and so on. That touches a raw nerve with many pensioners in Wales, who look at the level of pension enjoyed by people in Germany now and wonder who really won the war and who won the peace. They do not think that they are getting a square deal.
9.13 pm
Mr. Walter Sweeney: May I first draw the attention of the House to the sparse attendance on the Opposition Benches today. To be fair, the Liberal attendance is 100 per cent., and the Plaid Cymru attendance is fairly substantial. Labour attendance is poor for such an important debate, on an issue about which the Labour party is fond of weeping crocodile tears.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) spoke with sincerity, but unfortunately he spoke as a member of a party that is never likely to gain power, and his wish list could therefore be extremely long. He wanted free or reduced rate travel, free television licences, and free eye testing and dental treatment for pensioners. Surely it is better to ensure that they have a decent pension and the freedom to decide how to spend their money, like the rest of us.
The hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) rubbished the Government's claim that demographic changes will lead to a large increase in the number of pensioners next century. All the evidence points in that direction, and it is totally unrealistic for any Government to bury their head in the sand and fail to acknowledge that reality.
The hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) referred to value added tax on fuel, and was supported by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy, who referred to the warm home campaign. The Government have been to the fore on that issue, in making grants for insulation available to all pensioners. I did not hear Opposition Members giving the Government credit for that.
It was suggested that we should introduce zero rating for insulation materials—on the face of it, an appealing idea. The difficulty is that it would certainly be hard to define. Some items would be included, and others unfairly excluded. On the whole, I believe that we should, as far as possible, have a standard rate of VAT, when it is applied at all, and that the minimum number of items should be exempt.
The Government approach has been to increase state pensions in line with prices and to encourage private pensions. Opposition Members have not given the Government's successes due credit during the debate. It is fair to say that about 80 per cent. of pensioners will now have some form of income over and above the state pension. Surely that is a marvellous achievement. It has enabled the Government to give selective help to those pensioners who need it most. As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, the average pensioner is 51 per cent. better off than when the Conservatives came to power.
I shall mention a few statistics on the ownership of goods to illustrate the way in which pensioners have become better off under the Conservatives. In 1979, only

913
57 per cent. of pensioner households had a telephone. Now, the figure is 93 per cent. In 1979, only 46 per cent. had central heating; now, it is 78 per cent. In 1979, 88 per cent. of pensioner households had a refrigerator; now, it is 99 per cent. Those are impressive statistics.
The Conservatives believe in giving priority to those who need it most. We believe that means tests are appropriate where necessary. It was interesting to hear the Leader of the Opposition standing on his head on this issue when he said at the Labour party conference, first, that he opposed means testing, but at the same time that he would ensure that everyone had a basic minimum pension.
The importance of private pensions lies not only in the fact that they encourage people to provide for themselves, which is surely a good thing, but also in the fact that they stimulate industry, in that pension funds are able to invest heavily, and have made a major contribution to growth in the economy.
The average occupational pension is well over £70 a week, and, for those who are retiring now, it is around £95 per week. That shows the success of the introduction of such pensions.
I shall deal briefly with one of my favourite subjects—Europe. A study commissioned by the Department of Social Security, published in March 1993, considered various countries in the European Union. It is interesting that, in seven out of nine cases, the United Kingdom came ahead of Germany when purchasing power parity is taken into account. Does that not show that the Opposition are whipping up false concerns by constantly arguing that pensioners in Europe are better off than our pensioners?
I firmly oppose the motion, and support the amendment.
9.15 pm
Mr. Martyn Jones: I believe that being a pensioner in Wales should not be viewed as a negative state. People's retirements should be filled with leisure and enjoyment and truly become their golden years. Those golden years should be filled with opportunities to enjoy more leisure time, and ways in which to enjoy more interesting and independent lives.
Unfortunately, pensioners in Wales face a bleak future. Their golden years have been transformed from a comfortable retirement to a basic struggle to make ends meet. More than half a million pensioners in Wales have had their dreams of comfortable retirement squashed. They are forced to regard living with their basic needs met as an unattainable dream. Talk of private pensions rings hollow to them. Some are prevented from receiving state benefits because they have small, inadequate works pensions.
Pensioners want to have their fundamental requirements met—basic items such as health care, decent living conditions, and enough money to afford heating and a decent diet. Under the Government, those needs are not being met. Pensioners find themselves freezing in fuel poverty, unable to afford to heat their homes. Their low incomes, coupled with poor housing and inefficient heating systems, make the elderly prime candidates for hypothermia.
914
As has been mentioned, mortality rates among the elderly sky-rocket each and every winter, as hypothermia claims more and more elderly pensioners. Over 8,000 deaths can be attributed to every degree by which the winter temperature drops below average. That situation is not helped by increases in VAT on fuel.
Under the Tory Government, pensioners are often forced into housing that is unfit for human habitation or in a state of serious disrepair. Elderly pensioners make up over two thirds of those eligible for grants for living in unfit houses—and the grants are not forthcoming. In Wales, more than 29,000 pensioners live in unfit homes, and almost 11,000 live in houses that either lack—or have shared—basic facilities such as showers, baths and toilets. The Conservative Government have failed to deal with those dire problems, which are punishing the elderly.
Old age is not a disease, but pensioners face health problems without much support. The Tories have designed a health care system that is unresponsive to the needs of pensioners, even though one in 10 will suffer from dementia and a shocking 25 per cent. will suffer fractures as a result of osteoporosis. The Tory Government have done little to ensure that care remains adequate.
The call for health care and a decent standard of living is not a call for frivolous luxuries, but a plaintive plea for the basic necessities of life. Under the Government, the dream of pensioners' golden years still exists, but it is not a dream of a fulfilling, productive, fruitful and happy life: it is of decent housing, health care and attempting to stay warm rather than the continuing nightmare of making ends meet.
The Government will ask what can be done. Labour's last manifesto included a modest but costed promise to increase pensions by £8 for a couple and £5 for a single pensioner. Not much, perhaps, but it was a promise. A Labour Government would help the plight of pensioners in other ways, not only with money. We would introduce measures to help restore the NHS, reduce the fear of crime and improve housing.
Finally, although I congratulate the Welsh National party on choosing this important subject, the pensioners of Wales should realise that that party cannot do anything for them; it cannot deliver. Only the Labour party can replace the Tory Government and start to put right the wrongs suffered by our pensioners in Wales.
9.23 pm
Mr. Don Touhig: The amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and others is an affront to pensioners everywhere. With the smug complacency that we have come to expect of the Tory party, it seeks to gloss over the real plight of pensioners in Wales—pensioners who, for the past dozen years, have watched the value of their pensions fall, their savings dwindle, and the cost of just staying alive increase all the time. People who have worked all their lives are struggling to live a reasonable life, confronted as they are by a Government who, when they find it difficult to make ends meet, simply say that these people should have provided better for themselves when they were working.
The Minister talked about disposable income, a matter on which the Government can speak with some authority. They put VAT on fuel and helped to dispose of a lot more income belonging to pensioners and others than they would otherwise have spent.

915
The Prime Minister's amendment invites the House to applaud the Government for providing
"a solid basis for income in retirement".
At best, I conclude that those who drafted that are out of touch; at worst it is a cynical display of contempt for the elderly. The amendment is insensitive to the plight of 500,000 people in Wales who are of pensionable age. I regularly see elderly people at my surgery. They are discovering that, far from old age being a time when they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their lives' labours, they face a desperate plight.
One pensioner who came to my surgery had a problem paying for his wife's funeral. The benefits system was unable and unwilling to help. He was a former service man; I pay tribute to the organisations for former service men who came to his rescue and paid the undertaker's bill—while the country he served in the war abandoned him to his plight.
A group of pensioner constituents of mine live in bungalows on a mountain at Markham, in the north of my constituency. They are desperately trying to persuade their landlord, Islwyn borough council, to change their central heating system from electricity to gas, because they cannot afford to keep warm. According to the Swalec report, the average tenant in those bungalows pays £500 a year, or £10 a week, for heating. To achieve that average, some tenants must be paying £244 and others £753. I have seen tenants' bills of £250 a quarter, or £20 a week.
Much of the housing stock in Wales is pre-war and lacking in basic amenities. Councils such as mine have done well to pay for housing improvements, but such funding in no way matches the need, and it will take a great many years to improve the housing stock.
Many houses in my area were built by the National Coal Board on the exposed sides of valleys. They catch the worst of the weather, and many of them are occupied by an aging population. That fact should be recognised, as should the needs of the elderly people who live in some of the poorest accommodation in Wales.
Life under the Tories is difficult for many pensioners, and it is very far from the description in the amendment. The problem of providing for old age will not go away or diminish. In my constituency, 15 per cent. of the population are over 65. Figures published in the Islwyn health plan last year forecast that that number will increase to half the population by the year 2026. By the year 2006, just over 10 years away, the proportion of people in my constituency over the age of 75 will be the highest in Gwent.
The Government should be preparing schemes and services to cater for this growing population of elderly people. The health plan, however, revealed a terrible lack of provision. We have no hospital in Islwyn. In 1993–94, 33,000 visits were made by my constituents, many of them pensioners, to the nearest general hospital, 15 miles away at Newport. We desperately need a neighbourhood health unit.
What about care in the community, as many of my constituents ask? To be frank, the resources available in no way match the expectations raised by the Government when they introduced it. Many old people who looked to care in the community to provide some insurance so that they could continue to live independently in their own homes have been sadly disillusioned.
916
Without the support of local authority services such as meals on wheels, and the various voluntary organisations, many old people would have no lifeline to the outside world whatever. I paint a grim picture, because it is grim for so many people living in Wales at the present time. Many elderly people live on the edge of poverty, in a society that appears to think that old age is a crime. The old folk of Wales, as the Government will learn, are made of sterner stuff. They will fight back. They will not be denied their chance to enjoy their autumn years in dignity and contentment.
The message to the Government is clear: "Ignore the pensioners at your peril." Let us have no more of the "Alice in Wonderland" approach that we see in the Government's amendment. If the Conservative party is not prepared to do something about the plight of the pensioners, they should move over for a Government who will.
9.30 pm
Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Mô): This has been a very interesting debate and I would like to thank hon. Members, from both sides of the House, who have made such a valuable contribution to it. I thank all those who have made cogent points in the debate, and hope that the Minister and his colleagues will take a number of them on board.
I have to say, however, that the Minister and, perhaps, the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) are the only people tonight who have given the Government a clean bill of health. Even the right hon. Member for Conwy (Sir W. Roberts), in his usual way, gave some credit to the Government, but he said that there was a little bit more that they could do. He acknowledged two quite serious issues that affect pensioners in Wales: the concerns on community care, which I hope the Government will address, and the capital threshold for contributions towards residential care. We heard from the Minister that that is being considered elsewhere in the Government, and I hope that, when an announcement is eventually made, pensioners will benefit from it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) made a thoughtful and passionate speech, and he will certainly go down tonight as being on the side of the pensioners, as the pensioners' friend.
The Minister's response was extremely complacent. He seemed to give the impression that all pensioners in Wales were happy with the Government's policies. It is strange, then, that 75 per cent. of the people of Wales do not vote for the Conservatives. It seems to me that they know where their political priorities lie. I believe that the support for the Conservative party in Wales will fall dramatically at the next election, partly as a result of its policies towards pensioners.
I found it most surprising that the Minister chided my hon. Friend for pandering to the wishes of people who had a long wish list. He said that the Government were not in the business of making promises that they could not keep. What has happened during the past three years? Promise after promise, not only to the pensioners but the people of Wales, has been broken. Why are the Government now 30 percentage points behind in the opinion polls? Is it because they have kept their promises, or is it because they have broken them? The result will be quite clear at the next election. The promises made have simply not been kept.

917
The Minister also chided my hon. Friend for failing to understand the niceties of one or two of the points made by Conservative Members. He fell into the same trap, because a very good point was put to him by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) about the differential between those on state pensions and those on private pensions. The gap between the two has risen. The Minister made the point that people on state pensions are worse off than people with private pensions and occupational pensions, but our point is that the gap between the two has also risen. The inequality has also risen. Those at the bottom of the pile are much worse off in relation to others than they have been at any time since the second world war.
The Minister said that the Government have responded to the concerns of those who have high fuel bills, particularly the elderly and the disabled, and that much help has been given to meet their needs, but he failed to point out that assistance towards heating costs was made on the basis of average bills. We must accept that the elderly and the disabled have higher than average bills and they have to pay more in order to keep warm during the winter months. The high mortality rate among people over 60 and, in particular, those over 80, is highlighted by the fact that many feel that they cannot afford the heating necessary to sustain them.
Apart from one or two points acknowledged by the Minister, particularly concerning the capital disregard, his response was extremely complacent. The Government have sought to create an image of the elderly as a group of people who have grown in wealth and independence under the Conservatives and who exercise an element of choice which they never had before. That is not the case in Wales.
There are three categories of pensioners. The top 20 per cent. is the category about which the Minister spoke. They are the people who can exercise choice, who had the wealth during their working lives to provide for their pensions. But 80 per cent. of pensioners in Wales have degrees of difficulty, some so extreme that they fall into the poverty trap.
In Wales, 40 per cent. of pensioners have capital assets in their home and some form of occupational pension. For the vast majority, that occupational pension is not particularly large, but it is too large for them to have any state benefits in addition to their pension. Therefore, they lose the benefits that others may have and they are in danger of losing their homes if they want to go into residential or nursing homes.
The right hon. Member for Conwy said that he was not receiving the same number of letters from pensioners as he was 20 years ago. I have not been in the House as long as he has, but I know that there are genuine and deep-seated concerns among the pensioners of Wales about the loss of their homes to pay for residential care. Their homes have been taken away from them and many pensioners in Wales believe that that is wrong. It is morally wrong. People should not be in danger of losing their homes if they have to look after themselves in residential and nursing homes. That is a moral issue which the Government must address. If that requires more resources, the Government must meet the challenge head on.
918
The other group of pensioners, the bottom 40 per cent., comprises those who live on state benefits. I fully support the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. Pensioners in that group are found particularly in rural areas, where they have special concerns in addition to those of pensioners living in urban areas. The value of their pensions has dropped dramatically in recent years. The inequalities that are built into the system for those who have not been able, through force of circumstance, to have private pensions places them in a particularly bad position.
The Government must not say simply say that all those with private pensions are better off. Of course they are better off. But what about the bottom 40 per cent? What help will the Government give them? Shall we allow them to fall into greater inequality, or will the Government acknowledge that they have a moral responsibility to those people? Does one say that because an elderly pensioner on state benefit has not had the opportunity to obtain a private pension he should fall further behind? The value of the state pension is constantly eroded. The Government have failed to address people's concerns in tonight's debate.
We must also accept a few salient points about the position of pensioners in society in Wales. First, elderly people are over-represented among low-income groups. Secondly, dependence on state benefits in that category has increased in recent years. Income falls with increasing age; women—an issue that the Government have not addressed—and especially the large number of single elderly women, are more likely to be living on lower and dwindling incomes. The value of occupational pensions often dwindles over the years, although in the first few years it may constitute an important addition to recipients' incomes.
There are growing inequalities among the Welsh pensioner population owing to a real terms shortfall in the value of their pensions. There are growing inequalities in incomes, and—as others have pointed out—in the provision of housing. Because pensioners often live in houses that are not properly insulated, their running costs are substantially higher than those of others, and because they tend to live in large properties, often alone, their heating bills are high.
There is also inequality in the provision of care. One of the reasons why pensioners in Wales are now in difficulties is the blurring of the distinction between social and health care. The Government know full well that the more pensioners and disabled people can be transferred to the social sector, the more the NHS will be excused from paying the bill. The Minister said that more people were being treated in hospitals, and that is true; but, as every hon. Member knows, many elderly pensioners are being sent home far too early. Pensioners are having to return to hospital because the care is not available at home.
Health care that was provided in elderly people's homes by district nurses free of charge, on the NHS, must now be provided by home carers. Who is paying the bill? Pensioners, who cannot afford it. The Government are transferring responsibility from the state to pensioners who cannot afford it in the first place. Is that the priority that the Government are giving to dealing with the elderly population in Wales? Those are certainly not the principles of Lloyd George or Aneurin Bevan; they are the principles of the Conservative right, which believes that tax cuts are more important than the health of pensioners in Wales.

919
When community care was introduced, we were told that it created real choices for people: it meant that they could live in their own homes for much longer. The problem was that the Government underestimated, considerably, the number of people who would decide to go for that costly option. A clear choice is now unavoidable: the Government must either recognise the under-provision and provide more from their own resources or make pensioners pay more. What will happen? Pensioners will pay more. Local authority budgets cannot sustain the demand, and unless the Government are prepared to recognise that, the elderly population will pay more and more for social care.
If the Government have any credibility left in this regard, they must accept the real concerns of pensioners. They must accept that the people of Wales, including pensioners, believe that they have failed the test. At least all Opposition parties have had an opportunity to present their point of view tonight; we await the Minister's response with interest.
9.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Roderick Richards): It is my privilege to respond to a debate on such an important issue.
Conservative Members subscribe to the maxim "Age commands respect", and we respect the elderly people of this country—not least because, some 50 years ago, their generation secured freedom for us and the rest of the western world. They bequeathed to us what we have today. We respect them also for their independence. They were brought up to believe in the work ethic, to stand on their own two feet and to help their fellow man. They are a generation who are entitled to be told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
I am afraid that all they have heard from the Opposition parties today are lies, damned lies and statistics—politicians on the Opposition Benches promising the earth without ever acknowledging that such promises would cost the earth and so cannot be fulfilled. It is a cruel deceit on a grand scale to make claims and promises that not only cannot be delivered but politicians know they will never be in a position to attempt to deliver. Opposition Members have today shown their total disrespect for the pensioners of Wales.
Do Opposition Members seriously believe that our parents' generation will be fooled by a list of empty promises? They forget that this is the generation that was tricked by the Attlee Government in 1945 into believing that socialism would deliver prosperity. It did not and it never will, so they will not be tricked today by Plaid Cymru or by new Labour: Conservative Members will see to that.
The motion that we are debating, and I notice that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) is already shaking his head—I am fascinated—[Interruption.] He failed to say, when speaking in a debate on a specific motion, whether he was for or against the motion. Now is he for or against it?
Mr. Morgan: Given a choice between the motion and the Government's rebuttal of it, the motion is far superior to that rebuttal. What worries me about the Government's rebuttal is that the Minister's Department does not appear to have contributed to it. The Plaid Cymru motion
920
contains not only references to pension issues, properly the province of the Department of Social Security, but matters related to long-term nursing care and social care, which are his responsibility. In the rebuttal, however, there is no mention of those aspects. I do not even know why he is winding up for the Government.
Mr. Richards: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for signifying on behalf of his party that he is for the motion and, therefore, that he is for the spending implications that go with it, which amount to some tens of billions of pounds. Conservative Members will return to that issue time and again.
The motion suggests that pensioners' interests are marginalized—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene again?
Mr. Morgan ind indicated dissent.
Mr. Richards: Those interests would be marginalised as an independent Wales—which the nationalists advocate—would be marginalised under the policies of Opposition Members, but not under this Government. We instead have shown our commitment to pensioners through real measures of real benefit, but it is not only about pensioners' income, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Social Security made clear.
We want older people to continue to live full lives and to play as full a part as possible in society and we have created a climate in which they can do so, with a high-quality national health service and with the emphasis we have placed on community care and meeting housing needs. Over the years, my predecessors and I have met representatives of pensioners in Wales many times. We respect their perspective and views. We have sought actively to find out about their concerns and worries and our policies reflect that.
I was intrigued that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) was interested in pensioners. I carried out some research into the extent of that interest and I discovered that, in the past 12 months, the hon. Gentleman's interest in pensioners extended to one entire parliamentary question.
The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy referred to my constituent, Mr. Alan Roberts, without having told me that he would do so, so I should like to take up one or two of the points that he raised. As the hon. Gentleman already knows, I correspond and speak with Mr. Roberts frequently and regularly.
The national health service and local authorities have played different but complementary roles since the inception of the welfare state. To address the specific point that the hon. Gentleman raised, the guidance that we issued in February reiterates the responsibilities of the NHS to provide continuing health care for those who need it, whether in hospital, in nursing homes, in residential care homes or in their own homes. The guidance does not signify a change in policy; it offers a practical national framework which clarifies the long-standing responsibilities of the NHS. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, who is not paying attention, that the guidance has been welcomed by a range of key interests in the health service, in local authorities and in the voluntary sector.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of concessionary fares. I am trying to address issues that he has raised and he does not seem to be paying attention; I wish that he

921
would. All local authorities in Wales have schemes for pensioners, ranging from fare reductions of one third or half to free travel. Some authorities also have schemes for cheap travel on the railway as an alternative to concessionary bus fares. Local authorities are in the best position to decide what schemes are appropriate for their area.
In addition to all the other super high spending proposals that the hon. Gentleman made in his speech, he referred to free television licences for pensioners. That particular scheme would cost £700 million a year across the United Kingdom. That is in addition to the £22 billion linking state pensions with average earnings to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), referred earlier. If we aggregate that as we go along, the sum approaches £23 billion. The Labour party is in favour of that and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West says that he now supports the motion.
There is one issue which the hon. Gentleman raised that I wish he had not raised, but I cannot allow it to pass. He spoke about pensioners having given everything to defeat fascism. I need hardly remind him that, when Britain was preparing for war, the founding fathers of his party attacked and burnt a RAF station on the Lleyn peninsula, so the hon. Gentleman need not pretend that the history of his party, which he and his supporters revere, is as clean, clear or supportive of British policies in the second world war as he would wish it to be.
Mr. Alex Carlile: Will the Minister give way, or is he frightened to give way?
Mr. Richards: No. The hon. and learned Gentleman has had all the time I intend to give him and he has had his say.
I now wish to refer the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy to his party's so-called white paper on health, which was published in December. I understand that there was a public meeting on 10 January that health service professionals were invited to attend. I would love to know from the hon. Gentleman how many health service professionals, if any, attended.
The white paper referred to an awful lot of high-spending proposals, which, naturally, the hon. Gentleman, or the person who wrote it, did not cost. Fortunately, I was in a position to assess those costs, so I should like to run through one or two of the proposals that the hon. Gentleman has published.
The hon. Gentleman's white paper argued that there should be "wholly free" nursing home care. My estimate is that that would cost about £140 million a year. That white paper proposed that GP fundholding should be abolished and that all GPs and dentists should be salaried—the hon. Gentleman repeated that pledge in his speech. Apart from driving GPs and dentists out of the NHS, and probably out of the country, the cost of acquiring those practices would be about £100 million. That white paper also advocated the abolition of prescription charges, even though about 90 per cent. of people in many parts of Wales are exempt from them. That proposal would cost another £17 million, so that is another quarter of a billion pounds to add to the aggregate.
922
That white paper also contained some other multi-million pound proposals which were totally uncosted, and which were even beyond my capability to cost. It proposed that there should be a new tier of health authorities to come beneath an elected Welsh Parliament, a health Ministry, principal health and social care authorities, health and social care authorities and, finally, hospital boards. Those five tiers of bureaucracy would lean down on our NHS and cost the earth—I cannot possibly assess how much.
The hon. Gentleman's white paper also suggested that junior doctors should work eight hours a day, 48 hours a week, which is an expensive item. It also called for the provision of extended community hospitals. I should love to cost that one, but, unfortunately, that white paper does not say how many extended community hospitals there should be.
The hon. Gentleman's white paper also suggested that community health specialists should receive new priority and increased funding—again, that was uncosted. The increase in the provision of services as a result of overlaps between health and social policy and health and housing policy also has serious cost implications to which the nationalists did not refer at all.
The joke of it all is that the proposals would be funded from 9 per cent. of the gross domestic product of Wales. The hon. Gentleman and his party have suggested that all those extra funding demands would be met by that 9 per cent. of GDP—they cannot even do their arithmetic. We already spend 9 per cent. of Welsh GDP on the health services and an extra 1 per cent. on social services. None of the wacky schemes in the white paper could possibly be funded out of that 9 per cent. of GDP. The required percentage of GDP would be even higher than that, so to the £23 billion I guess we could probably add between another £500 million and £700 million. It does not matter any longer because it is all the same as cricket scores, is it not?
Opposition Members continually call for an independent Wales. Today, for a change, they called for a better deal for Welsh pensioners. But today has given us an insight into what life in Wales, with its own Parliament, would be like if Plaid Cymru had its way. It would be a case of spending as though there were no tomorrow—the taxes to pay for that would guarantee no tomorrow. There would be bureaucrats from Benllech to Bridgend. There would be interference in people's lives: restriction of choice and curtailment of individual freedoms.
We would have an economy so burdened with taxation, regulation and government that business men would be queuing up to cross the Severn bridge—and, going that way, it would be free. Wales would witness a brain drain on an unprecedented scale. All this mayhem through the medium of Welsh—llongyfarchiadau. But for the pensioners of Wales, there would be no escape. For them, Plaid Cymru's solution would be final.
What of new Labour? That one-man band, without the—
Mr. Llwyd rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 25,Noes 129.

Division No. 223]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Kirkwood, Archy

Ashton.Joe

Llwyd, Elfyn

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Lynne, Ms Liz

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

McCrea, The Reverend William

Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

Maddock, Diana

Cunningham, Roseanna

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Rendel, David

Dafie, Cynog

Simpson, Alan

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

Skinner, Dennis

Foster, Don (Bath)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

Harvey, Nick

Tyler, Paul

Johnston, Sir Russell

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mrs. Margaret Ewing.

Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Fabricant, Michael

Alexander, Richard

Fishburn, Dudley

Amess, David

Forman, Nigel

Ancram, Michael

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

Fry, Sir Peter

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Gallie, Phil

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Gardiner, Sir George

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Gillan, Cheryl

Baldry, Tony

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bates, Michael

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Bellingham, Henry

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Hague, Rt Hon William

Booth, Hartley

Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

Boswell, Tim

Hawksley, Warren

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Heald, Oliver

Bowis, John

Hendry, Charles

Brandreth, Gyles

Hicks, Robert

Brazier, Julian

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Bright, Sir Graham

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

Burns, Simon

Hunter, Andrew

Burt, Alistair

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Butler, Peter

Jenkin, Bernard

Carrington, Matthew

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Carttiss, Michael

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Kirkhope, Timothy

Conway, Derek

Knapman, Roger

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Cran, James

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Day, Stephen

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Devlin, Tim

Legg, Barry

Dover, Den

Lidington, David

Duncan, Alan

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Elletson, Harold

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

MacKay, Andrew

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Maitland, Lady Olga

924

Malone, Gerald

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Mans, Keith

Stern, Michael

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Streeter, Gary

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Sweeney, Walter

Merchant, Piers

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Thomason, Roy

Neubert, Sir Michael

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Nicholls, Patrick

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Thurnham, Peter

Oppenheim, Phillip

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Pickles, Eric

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Twinn, Dr Ian

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Powell, William (Corby)

Waller, Gary

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Richards, Rod

Waterson, Nigel

Riddick, Graham

Wells, Bowen

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Whitney, Ray

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Whittingdale, John

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Wilkinson, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Willetts, David

Sims, Roger

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Skeet Sir Trevor

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Speed, Sir Keith

Spink, Dr Robert

Tellers for the Noes:

Sproat, Iain

Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Richard Ottaway.

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the rise in pensioners' living standards throughout Wales and the rest of the UK since this Government took office; applauds the fact that pensioners' average incomes have increased by 51 per cent. in real terms since 1979, compared with only 5 per cent. between 1974 and 1979; welcomes the extra help, amounting to —1.2 billion per year above the rate of inflation since 1988, awarded through improvements to income-related benefits for pensioners; believes it is far better to target benefit resources on those in the most need; applauds the fact that this Government has provided a solid basis for income in retirement by maintaining its pledge to increase basic retirement pension at least in line with prices; and welcomes wholeheartedly the wider and substantial benefits delivered to pensioners by this Government's policies, particularly the control of inflation.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.—[Mr. Streeter.]
Question agreed to.

Classic FM
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]
10.11 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate the debate, and especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage for being in his place at this late hour. I seek to draw to the attention of the House the sword of Damocles, indeed the death threat, hanging over one of the success stories of the century.
A recent survey showed that Classic FM is the radio station most listened to by Members of Parliament. Perhaps far more importantly, it is the most listened to classical radio station in Europe. The Broadcasting Act 1990 allowed the birth of Classic FM, our first national commercial radio station. Such a station would not be viable, said the critics, if it did not succumb to the normal diet of pop music and prattle. The more optimistic gave the planned classical music station two years at most.
That was based on a belief that, as a nation of philistines, we would not be able to recognise excellence either in musical or in broadcasting terms. Instead, we have gained the success story of independent national radio. In three short years Classic FM has built up more than twice as many listeners as its nearest rival, Radio 3. Nearly 5 million listeners a week, 25 per cent. of whom are under 35, tune in to enjoy "the world's most beautiful music", in addition to news bulletins, travel, cookery, sport and financial programmes. Even Radio 4 was shaken to its core when its "Gardeners' Question Time" team crossed the Floor of the ether and joined Classic FM's "Gardening Forum".
Before I entered the House I co-founded a company offering a design, installation, manufacturing and investment service to radio stations in the far east, eastern and southern Africa, the Americas, the Soviet Union and the European Union. I therefore have a little practical experience of the broadcast sector, and an interest in seeing broadcasting—an industry in which British technology and expertise are the envy of the world—succeed.
Classic FM has occasionally been dismissed as lightweight or frivolous—a constant diet of "The Four Seasons" and the "1812 Overture", pundits have said. Nothing could be further from the truth. While I level no criticism at either Vivaldi or Tchaikovsky—
Mr. John Whittingdale: I am sure they will be relieved.
Mr. Fabricant: I am glad to know that I have support on the Government Benches. Every listener can now find something in the 23,000 tracks on the play list.
The Lucerne music festival—long considered to be one of the greatest of modern times—was brought to listeners in the United Kingdom for the first time this year by Classic. This success has been recognised, with Classic winning many awards since 1992, including the Sony national radio station of the year award. However, a good radio station should not be concerned merely with the music on the airwaves.
926
Committed to music education, Classic endeavours to encourage young musicians by providing a platform to reflect their lives, music and future careers. This commitment is backed by a charitable trust which raises funds for music education and child-related charities aimed at stimulating an appreciation of classical music.
All the nation's orchestras have links with Classic FM, with the Royal Philharmonic receiving substantial direct and indirect support. Broadcasting 24 hours a day, seven days a week, Classic FM has proved through its success that we are not quite the nation of philistines which some would have us believe and, more importantly, that classical music has much to offer any listener, regardless of his knowledge of the subject—something, I am afraid, that Radio 3 has been unable to achieve to date.
The right hon.Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who is not in his place, has said that he fears that Radio 3 is now trying to imitate Classic FM. Imagine for a moment if it were to be the other way round. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that Classic FM would be the success it is if it were organised by the BBC? I think not. Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, I hope that Radio 3's shift in policy will mean that our public sector classical station now starts to provide a service that attracts listeners, as well as attracting public funds. I commend Radio 3's shift in programming. Paul Gambaccini has a knowledge of classical music to be revered, and not reviled, and the controller of Radio 3 showed insight in recruiting him. He has my congratulations.
Building on its success, Classic FM has started to expand. A glossy magazine based on the Classic format now sells more than 40,000 copies a month. The Government—rightly in my view—have encouraged broadcasters to go out and export what they produce, proving once again that we have the best broadcasting industry in the world.
Classic FM has responded to the Government's campaign with a pan-European network. There is already a sister station in the Netherlands and a licence for Stockholm, and the first ever national independent station in Finland has finally been agreed. Classic is now taking the first steps towards the American market by providing a consultancy and technology for a Classic FM franchise in partnership with the Department of Trade and Industry and the British embassy in the United States.
Those Members who believe that quality and commercialism are often mutually exclusive might also be interested to learn that, while Classic FM is reliant on advertising revenue, it has a policy which allows no more than three advertisement breaks an hour. Those who may believe that my opening remarks until now have sounded like an advertisement for Classic FM may appreciate benefits such as that policy.
I gave credit to the Broadcasting Act 1990, which allowed Classic FM to develop in the first place. However, as I am sure the House is aware, the Act has been accused of creating more problems than it solved. My right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor)—the former Secretary of State for National Heritage—stated:
"In developing the Bill, a small group of Ministers pursued, in private, a range of proposals. They should have known that, the moment that the proposals saw the light of day, they would have to beat a retreat from many of the points that had seemed so clear cut in a small room but would not appear so in the clear light of day before wider consultation."

927
One of the flaws in the Bill was the arrangement that national independent radio licences should be awarded on an eight-year basis. No provision is made within the Act for renewal, and there is also no requirement that a bidder would have to offer a similar programme to the existing station. There is no emphasis on quality in the bidding criteria. That could result in Classic FM being replaced by another higher bidder, offering an entirely different style of music. Could Blur be the replacement for Beethoven? Is that what we want?
The position for radio is in stark contrast to the provision made for independent television licences. The Act reads:
"A Channel Three licence shall continue in force for a period of ten years, and may be renewed on one or more occasions for a period of ten years, beginning with the date of renewal."
Despite the uncertainty, Classic FM is still thinking and planning ahead. The future of broadcasting is already cast to be an exciting time, with the introduction of digital broadcasting, which will enhance choice and technical quality for listeners and viewers and maintain Britain's reputation as a creative innovator and a technical leader.
The development of digital audio broadcasting will require co-operation between broadcasters, manufacturers and the Government, a process in which Classic is seeking to play a full role. Classic FM has welcomed the Government's proposals on digital terrestrial broadcasting and proposed, alongside NTL, an experimental DAB service for London, keeping Britain's technical standards at the high level which is envied by the rest of the world.
Establishing a digital network will, however, require substantial investment. Supporters of Classic have already invested more than £18 million, but attracting investment is made more difficult by the fact that Classic does not have a secure future at present. Seen from the perspective that Classic has only five years more air time guaranteed, investment in a digital service would result in a huge loss for the company. Classic must have a lifespan longer than this.
I do not seek privilege for Classic FM or any other station in its market in the future. I do, however, believe that the station should enjoy the same benefits of licence security as those operating Channel 3 television stations. There is no guarantee at present that a Classic-type licence will be advertised next time, and even if Classic is able to make a bid for a new licence, it will be up against new competition keen to build on the market that Classic has developed without any requirement to guarantee that quality in broadcasting will remain.
I am sure that many of my colleagues in the House were lobbied when Radio 4 long wave was threatened, and that was only one frequency of that popular station. Listeners become passionate about the stations that they listen to on a regular basis. The station, and the personalities that go with it, become a valuable part of people's day-to-day lives. I remind the House that Classic has built up more than 5 million listeners. Are we to tell them that their choice may disappear, to be replaced by yet another station devoted to the teen pop culture?
There can be no guarantees for Classic's future. However, if the changes that I have asked for tonight are implemented, the Radio Authority, and not the arbitrary wording of an Act, will be the judge of whether Classic FM continues broadcasting into the 21st century. The Radio Authority should be the arbiter of quality and
928
public service. This makes sense and it will be yet another incentive for Classic to maintain its quality threshold and be an innovator in the market that it serves.
The chief executive of Classic, John Spearman, has said:
"I am sure that it was not the intention of Parliament to threaten the long term existence of Classic's success".
I agree. I therefore look to my colleague, the Minister of State, for action—action that will ensure that Classic is able to compete in the world broadcasting industry on a secure platform equal to that which our television companies enjoy; action that will enable Classic FM to invest in the technology necessary for the 21st century, and action that will ensure that Classic FM will be able to continue to add to the enjoyment of millions of listeners in the United Kingdom and abroad.
10.23 pm
The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) on securing this debate. He is always extremely sharp in finding opportunities to express his views and effective in the way in which he does it. I congratulate him on the sincerity and passion with which he put a strong case. I join my hon. Friend in recognising and applauding the great success not merely of Classic FM but of the independent radio sector, which is one of this country's success stories. As a sector, independent radio is growing both in popularity and financial strength.
My hon. Friend mentioned the BBC. He may be interested to know that the audience research figures just published for the third quarter of 1995 show that the share of listening achieved by commercial radio was 2.3 per cent. ahead of that for the BBC. The Radio Authority's annual report agrees that commercial radio has now overtaken the BBC. Since the BBC had a head start of some 50 years, the independent radio sector has good reason indeed to be pleased with that performance in meeting the needs of listeners.
Listeners now have a greater range of choice available to them than ever and stations continue to proliferate. In this situation, and since listeners are not normally concerned about who owns a station as long as it provides what they want to hear, the Government have been able to simplify and liberalise the ownership regulations and we are committed to further liberalisation at the earliest legislative opportunity.
It should be remembered that there were no independent radio services in this country until 1973. At that point, the Government proposed introducing independent radio at both national and local level. It coincided, however, with a difficult period for the newspaper industry and the Government were persuaded that, as it would have been a direct competitor for advertising revenue, the introduction of independent national radio could have had unacceptable implications for the national press. It was, therefore, principally for that reason that independent radio came into being as a local service only.
Parliament debated the issue during the passage of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984, which, in the event, permitted the establishment of a transmitter network for a national service, but did not yet allow such a service to

929
broadcast. Plans were, however, drawn up by the Independent Broadcasting Authority for the service to be speech-based, to compete with BBC Radio 4.
The Government's proposals for introducing independent national radio then featured in a 1987 consultative document, which suggested that it need not be limited to a single service, but ought to be capable of providing competition to the BBC in the areas of music, entertainment and sports coverage, as well as news and speech. On that basis, three networks were envisaged, and the ensuing Broadcasting Act 1990 provided for those to be introduced.
The 1990 Act requires the Radio Authority to secure a diversity of independent national radio services, of which
"one is a service the greater part of which consists in the broadcasting of spoken material"
and
"another is a service which consists, wholly or mainly, in the broadcasting of music which, in the opinion of the Authority, is not pop".
The third service is undefined.
The sector is of considerable economic and cultural importance. It quickly adjusted to the changes brought about by the 1990 Act and has also carved out a new and more secure environment for itself through internal changes. Independent radio is the United Kingdom's fastest-growing advertising medium. I understand, for example, that the sector is aiming for a 6 per cent. share of total UK advertising by the turn of the century, which represents a challenging target and demonstrates the confidence of the industry in the future.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, digital technology will play an important part in that future. The Government welcome the potential that such technology offers. It will improve the quality, ease and reliability of reception, and could also increase the range of choice for listeners and, in the longer term, might release valuable spectrum.
The BBC introduced digital audio broadcasting services in September. I am sure that the independent sector will be pleased to see the publicly funded broadcaster leading the way, taking the initial risks and bearing the inaugural costs of that major venture. The BBC estimates expenditure of about £11 million for the first phase of development alone. That should bring digital audio broadcasting to 60 per cent. of the population within four years. I am sure, however, that independent radio will not want to lag too far behind in taking up that new opportunity, and I know that Classic FM is keen to play its part.
Within the independent sector, the national radio stations—Talk Radio UK, Virgin and, of course, the first one, Classic FM—continue to go from strength to strength. Classic FM came on air in September 1992 and proved very successful from the outset. It is now the UK's fifth most popular station, with some 4.8 million listeners.
930
As my hon. Friend mentioned, it has had considerable success overseas and has, I understand, further international ambitions.
I am well aware of the requests that we should take the opportunity of any legislation that might be proposed to alter the licensing procedures in the Broadcasting Act 1990. My hon. Friend has correctly pointed out that there is a difference between the radio and television licensing provisions and asked that incumbent operators should be given similar scope for licence renewal.
I understand the desire for parity between independent national radio services and the Channel 3 television companies, but the requirement for fresh competitive tender for the independent national radio licences was designed to keep services fresh and offer regular opportunities for new operators. It also recognised that national radio frequencies were at a premium. While the advent of digital audio broadcasting will allow for the provision of six independent national radio services as compared with the existing three, they will still be at a greater premium than their digital television counterparts.
The distinction between the arrangements for independent national radio and television licensing in the 1990 Act was drawn in recognition of the differences between the two media. Television stations, for instance, face considerably higher start-up costs to meet their more stringent licence conditions. Parliament considered that eight-year licences for radio stations offered sufficient scope for them to recoup their costs and to make a reasonable return on their investment. There was also the view that these arrangements would be more disruptive to viewers, if applied to television licensing arrangements, than to radio listeners.
Government policy is to provide regular opportunities for newcomers, to secure a proper return to the taxpayer for the use of a limited national resource and to encourage competition. At the same time, however, the Government recognise the need for those criteria to be balanced against acceptable levels of potential disruption for listeners. I can only assure the House and my hon. Friend that we are looking closely at these issues right now, but I cannot at this moment give any indication as to the outcome.
It is the nature of radio that safeguards its future. It has a unique appeal to the imagination. It has the ability to go anywhere with the consumer without intruding on their other activities, whether driving a car or relaxing at home. Research shows that listeners treat it as a friend. The loyalty with which listeners continue to respond to radio in the face of competing demands on everyone's time and attention demonstrates that radio has a solid future. The growth of commercial radio's audiences and revenue and the advantages which digital audio broadcasting offers signify that radio is not only secure but that radio is on the move.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Fees Office
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will seek to define and publish targets for the work of the House of Commons Fees Office.

  Mr. Beith
  Performance indicators for the House of Commons Fees Office have been published in the 1993–94 and 1994–95 annual reports of the House of Commons Commission. Copies of these reports are available in the Library.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee (1) if asbestos products have been used in the works which have taken place in the Palace of Westminster since 20 July; and if he will make a statement;

  (2) what record is kept in the Palace of Westminster of the presence of asbestos; and if he will make a statement.

  Mr. Ray Powell
  No asbestos products have been used in the works which have taken place in the Palace of Westminster during the summer recess. Like most older buildings, the Palace of Westminster contains some asbestos, which used to be incorporated for insulation purposes. Since it became known that exposure to asbestos dust can be dangerous, the Parliamentary Works Directorate, and its predecessors, has sought to follow strictly the guidelines and procedures laid down by the Health and Safety Executive. An asbestos register is maintained recording the locations both where asbestos is known to remain—usually because it is inaccessible—and from which it has been removed. Only firms on an approved list are used for asbestos removal work and the work is carried out in the approved manner.

  It is the practice to remove asbestos found when undertaking maintenance and other works services. For example, during the installation of the wiring for the parliamentary data and video network and fire alarm system this summer, a considerable amount of previously undiscovered asbestos was found and removed. The result is that all ceiling voids and under-floor spaces which have so far been cabled for the parliamentary data and video network are now free of asbestos. All the evidence available indicates that the asbestos had not been disturbed for some considerable time and should not therefore have presented any risks. However, a full record has been made of the discoveries and will be kept on the register.

  Disabled People (Access)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what recent improvements have been made in access to all parts of the Palace of Westminster for disabled people; what plans there are for further improvements; and if he will make a statement. [38393]

  Mr. Ray Powell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on 8 February at column 243, which described in detail the conclusions of the review by the Accommodation and Works Committee into access for disabled people. Since then the Parliamentary Works Directorate has continued to implement many of the recommended improvements. The new entrance, which has been created at Black Rod's Garden, enables people in wheelchairs to go directly to the start of the line of route. A ramp has been constructed at the entrance to Speaker's House giving access to the North Door. The ramps in Star Chamber Court allow access for people in wheelchairs to the Strangers Gallery via lift number 1 and the new ramp at the Medals Corridor enables them to go on to the Terrace, the private dining rooms and via lift number 15, to the Principal Floor and Committee Rooms. This lift has been specially adapted to include such features as relocated control panels with embossed and illuminated buttons, handrails to the sides and rear of each car, and door edges with time delay sensors. Lifts numbers 3, Peers and Gallery, and 17, Speaker's House, have been similarly adapted as has one in the other place. Modifications to lavatories have been carried out and there are now specially adapted facilities in the following locations:
  Centre Curtain Corridor, Lower Waiting Hall, opposite Committee Room 7 on the Main Committee Corridor, and opposite Committee Room 19 on the Upper Committee Corridor.

  In addition, a continuous handrail has been ordered for installation on the Strangers' Gallery staircase and a platform lift is shortly to be installed to take people in wheelchairs from Westminster Hall to the Grand Committee Room. In time, we hope to install a proper lift in that area as part of the plans for a visitor centre in 1996–97. It is planned to spend a further £250,000 on overhauling five lifts including the provision of facilities for the disabled and £55,000 on other access facilities.

  Some £688,000 is to be spent this financial year in the Palace of Westminster on facilities for disabled people.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the latest figure for the amount of legal aid paid to Kevin and Ian Maxwell. [38196]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  It would not be appropriate for me to give further details of payments in this case while the trial is in progress.
  505

  Employee Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what was the total number of cases of all forms of fraud committed by employees of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental bodies for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95; and for each of those years what was the total monetary sum (1) misappropriated and (2) subsequently recovered. [39125]

  Losses (£) due to proven staff fraud

  1991–92

  1992–93

  Number

  Loss

  Recovered

  Number

  Loss

  Recovered

  Lord Chancellor's Department1 2

  11

  313,754

  7,753

  7

  58,890

  2,026

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  2

  1,166.70

  nil

  1

  17,507.01

  265.70

  Non-Departmental Public Bodies3

  1

  324

  324

  1

  500

  nil

  Total

  12

  314,078

  8,076

  8

  59,389

  2,026

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Number

  Loss

  Recovered

  Number

  Loss

  Recovered

  Lord Chancellor's Department1 2

  4

  180,876

  54,961

  7

  23,703

  72

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  nil

  nil

  nil

  1

  20

  nil

  Non-Departmental Public Bodies3

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Total

  4

  180,876

  54,961

  7

  23,703

  72

  1 The Public Trust Office became an executive agency on 1 July 1994. For ease of comparison data since then has been separated.

  2 The Court Service became an agency on 1 April 1995.

  3 The frauds shown in the table above relate to the Legal Aid Board. There are no reported frauds from any of LCD's other NDPBs.

  Letter from Edward Beardsall to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 24 October 1995:
  In the absence of the Chief Executive who is presently away from the office I have been asked by the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, to reply to your recent question concerning the total number of all forms of fraud committed by employees in the Land Registry for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95 and for each of these years the total monetary sum (1) misappropriated and (2) subsequently recovered. All cases related either to misuse of official postage, misuse of the telephone or abuse of the flexible working hours system. I can provide the following information:

  Total sum

  Number of cases

  Misappropriated £

  Recovered £

  1991–92

  7

  380.66

  380.66

  1992–93

  4

  (Minor sums of less than £10)

  1993–94

  4

  760

  760

  1994–95

  1

  58

  58

  I do hope that this answers the points raised with the Parliamentary Secretary but please contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

  Letter from Sarah Tyacke to Mr. Malcolm Bruce, dated 24 October 1995:
  I have been asked by the Lord Chancellor's Parliamentary Secretary to reply to your question about employee fraud.There were no cases of fraud committed by employees of the Public Record Office in the years that you list.506
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The information requested is set out in the table. In many cases we cannot establish whether a fraud was by an employee or an outsider, and by no means all attempted frauds succeeded. The table therefore includes known cases of actual fraud attributable to staff. Some further recoveries may have been made since the records for each year were compiled, and further recoveries may be made, especially in relation to frauds in 1994–95. I have asked the chief executives of the Public Record Office and Her Majesty's Land Registry to reply to the hon. Member directly.

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to publish the report of the Securities and Investments Board/Department of Social Security study of the sale of personal pensions to low-income earners; and what are the terms of reference of the study. [38259]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 23 October 1995]: I have been asked to reply.

  The Securities and Investments Board will be responsible for publishing a report into potential mis-selling of personal pensions to people who were previously in the state earnings-related pensions scheme. I understand that SIB hopes to report on this issue by the end of the year.

SCOTLAND

  Farm Sizes
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of farms sized(a) 1–25 hectares, (b) 26–50 hectares, (c) 51–75 hectares, (d) 76–100 hectares, (e) 101–150 hectares, (f) 151–200 hectares and (g) 201 or more hectares for the last available year and for 1985. [36431]
  507
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information is given in the table:

  Number of farms of size (hectares)

  1985

  1994

  Less than 26

  11,413

  12,592

  26-<51

  4,759

  4,754

  51-<76

  3,567

  3,476

  76-<101

  2,579

  2,490

  101-<151

  3,083

  3,205

  151-<201

  1,590

  1,652

  201 or more

  4,357

  4,344

  Total

  31,348

  32,513

  The figures come from the June agricultural census in 1985 and 1994 and relate to main holdings. The hectarages refer to total agricultural areas which include rough grazings.

  Red Deer Commission
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he is giving to the future of the Red Deer Commission; and if he will make a statement. [36939]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) to the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) on 10 May 1995 Official Report, column 450. In addition, a policy and financial management review of the Red Deer Commission is currently being undertaken, in accordance with the Government's commitment to appraise effectiveness and value for money in all non-departmental public bodies on a regular basis.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what subsidies were paid out for environmentally sensitive areas in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95 and (d) 1995–96; and how many individuals were recipients of these payments in these years. [37125]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The total payments made under the environmentally sensitive areas scheme and the number of participants for the years requested are set out in the table.

  Amount paid £ thousands

  Number of participants

  1992–93

  1,086

  802

  1993–94

  963

  583

  1994–95

  1,044

  717

  1995–96 (to 31 August)

  781

  847

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what area in hectares and percentage terms of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland is made up of productive, or potentially productive, agricultural land. [37124]
  508
  Mr. Robertson
  The information is set out in the table.

  Estimated hectares of agricultural land in each designated area

  Estimated percentage of total area designated

  Breadalbane

  140,000

  78

  Loch Lomond

  36,900

  75

  Stewartry

  48,500

  82

  Central Borders (formerly Whitlaw and Eildon)

  28,800

  81

  Machair of the Uists and Benbecula, Barra and Vatersay

  12,000

  79

  Central Southern Uplands

  220,300

  81

  Western Southern Uplands

  131,000

  52

  Cairngorms Straths

  148,700

  68

  Argyll Islands

  177,400

  84

  Shetland Islands

  144,900

  99

  Total

  1,088,500

  76

  New Homes
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set out the total number of new homes started by(a) local authorities and new towns and (b) housing associations in Scotland in each year since 1974, and his estimate of the likely number of starts in 1995 and 1996. [37492]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested on the number of new homes started is set out in the table. Housing associations plan to start 6,155 houses in 1995–96 and 193 new town starts are expected during 1995 and 1996. Information on planned local authority starts is not held centrally.

  New housebuilding starts—Scotland, 1974 to 1994

  Local authorities

  New towns

  Housing associations

  1974

  16,324

  2,600

  660

  1975

  12,326

  3,683

  592

  1976

  7,578

  2,665

  1,362

  1977

  5,829

  1,673

  629

  1978

  4,185

  2,202

  1,365

  1979

  4,858

  984

  963

  1980

  2,770

  1,155

  1,261

  1981

  1,929

  733

  1,051

  1982

  2,585

  765

  2,446

  1983

  2,141

  194

  1,068

  1984

  1,755

  126

  1,239

  1985

  1,693

  190

  1,487

  1986

  1,671

  141

  1,414

  1987

  2,145

  374

  1,988

  1988

  1,433

  495

  2,068

  1989

  871

  680

  2,748

  1990

  886

  720

  2,111

  1991

  848

  134

  3,448

  1992

  429

  395

  3,051

  1993

  503

  429

  5,062

  1994

  544

  208

  4,807

  Housing association figures are likely to be subject to future revision.

  Short-time Working
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate his Department has made of the number of companies on short-time working; and how many employees are affected by such short-time working. [37514]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Available information is restricted to operatives—manual workers—in the manufacturing sector. In the week ending 9 June 1995, the latest date for which figures are available for Scotland, an estimated 1,300 operatives in manufacturing industries were affected by short-time working. Of these, 900 were stood off the whole week. The source of these figures is the Central Statistical Office.

  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will increase hill livestock compensatory allowances for 1996. [37918]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Decisions on the rates of hill livestock compensatory allowances are taken by Ministers in the light of the annual autumn review of economic conditions in the hills and uplands, which is currently under way.

  Health Service Revenue
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans the Government have to revise the Scottish hospital resource allocation formula—SHARE—in a manner similar to the revision of the NHS formula for allocating hospital and community health service revenue resources in England. [38001]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no immediate plans to revise the Scottish hospital resource allocation formula. We do, however, continually consider whether there is scope to improve the formula.

  Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh
  Sir Hector Monro
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about a policy and financial management review of the royal botanic garden, Edinburgh. [39728]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  As part of the Government's rolling programme of five-yearly policy and financial management reviews of non-departmental public bodies, My Department will conduct a thorough review of the work of the royal botanic garden, Edinburgh between now and March 1996. The first stage of the review will take the form of a "prior options" study. This will include an examination of what scope there is, if any, for discontinuing, or undertaking in some other way some or all of the functions which the garden carries out. This will include looking at how it takes forward its statutory obligations, including its objectives, as set out in the National Heritage (Scotland) Act 1985.

  The second stage of the review will concentrate on the garden's financial management systems and controls.
  510
  I would welcome comments from interested parties. They should be sent by 30 November 1995 to:

  Mr. K. K. Steven

  The Scottish Office Agriculture Environment and Fisheries

  Department

  Pentland House

  47 Robb's Loan

  Edinburgh

  EH14 1TY.

  Vandalism (Schools)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what help is available to schools in Scotland suffering especially severe problems of vandalism. [37937]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 20 October 1995]: The response to acts of vandalism will depend on the nature of each incident and the circumstances in which they have been perpetrated. It is for the education authority concerned to consider appropriate measures having regard to the local circumstances and physical characteristics of the schools affected.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Kenya
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date programme aid was suspended to Kenya. [37675]

  Mr. Hanley
  Programme aid to Kenya has not been suspended. But disbursements continue to depend, as they always have, on Kenya continuing to implement economic programmes agreed with International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and on the overall political environment in Kenya.

  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards Kenya at the World Bank, and if he will make a statement. [37674]

  Mr. Hanley
  Discussions between the World Bank and the Kenyan Government continue. We hope that there will be sufficient progress in Kenya to allow early agreement on a structural adjustment credit.

  Bilateral Aid Programme
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the bilateral aid programme in promoting political and economic stability in the least developed countries. [38145]

  Mr. Hanley
  We believe that British bilateral aid, with its emphasis on good government and sound economic policies, has played a vital role in promoting political and economic stability in many of the least developed countries, notably in the Commonwealth. The effectiveness of British aid in meeting this objective is kept under constant review.
  511
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the foreign policy implications of reduction in Britain's bilateral aid programme; and if he will make a statement. [38147]

  Mr. Hanley
  The bilateral aid programme is a very significant part of the United Kingdom's relationship with the developing world. The size of the programme is kept under constant review, along with all the other factors which contribute to the relationship with developing countries, including trade and investment.

ENVIRONMENT

  European Building Projects
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many British firms secured contracts on the(a) European Parliament building, Strasbourg,(b) European Parliament building, Brussels, and (c) Bundestag building, Berlin, projects; and what was the value of these projects. [37045]

  Mr. Clappison
  My officials are currently assembling the information requested and I will write to the hon. Gentleman shortly.

  Housing Initiatives
  Mr. Devlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, what assessment he has made of the impact of his Department's policy initiatives since 1979 on the housing associations. [37677]

  Mr. Clappison
  Between 1979–80 and 1994–95, capital and revenue grants totalling more than £16 billion have been made to registered housing associations, which are now the main providers of new social housing. By April 1995 there were around 860,000 housing associations properties, compared with around 350,000 in 1979.

  In 1988, we introduced mixed funding for housing association developments which has enabled associations to raise over £5 billion in private finance. This has generated almost 100,000 more housing association homes than would have been possible without the private finance input.

  Our shared home ownership and incentive initiatives have helped people who wanted to buy their own home but could not otherwise afford to do so. These initiatives represent good value for money, particularly where they release rented lettings for others in housing need. From 1990–91 to the end of 1994–195 more than 60,000 households have benefited from these initiatives, and more than 40,000 existing social lettings have been released for others in housing need.

  We have also encouraged housing associations to take on former local authority housing. Since 1988, 43 new housing associations have been created for this purpose. More than 180,000 dwellings have been transferred from local authority ownership, generating some £2.8 billion of linked private sector investment for the purchase, repair and long-term maintenance of the properties.

  Pay Bargaining
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will provide in respect of his plan for pay delegation submitted to the Treasury(a) a description of the staff in each bargaining unit covered by the plan, distinguishing staff in headquarters functions, agencies and agency candidates, and in other identifiable business units and (b) proposals for trade union recognition in each bargaining unit and the negotiating machinery to be put in place in each bargaining unit. [38282]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The pay bargaining units and the union recognition and bargaining arrangements proposed for 1996 are:DoE (central)
  Staff in headquarters, staff in the Government offices for the regions and rent assessment panels; current patterns of union recognition will remain and procedural agreements for future consultation and negotiation are under discussion.
  Planning Inspectorate
  Staff in the agency; union recognition will be on current lines and procedures for negotiations are in place.
  Building Research Establishment
  BRE already has responsibility for negotiating the pay of its industrial staff and will take this on for all staff in the agency; union recognition will be on current lines and procedures for negotiations are under discussion for non-industrial staff.
  PSA Services
  Staff in the centre will become part of the DoE (central) bargaining unit. Those on secondment to the successor businesses to PSA will have their pay determined by analogue to arrangements in DoE (central).
  Property Holdings (to become Property Adviser to the Civil Estate)
  Staff in the PACE agency; union recognition will be on current lines and procedures for negotiations are under discussion.
  Security and Facilities Executive
  SAFE already has responsibility for negotiating the pay of its industrial staff and will take this on for the other staff in the agency; union recognition will be on current lines and procedures for negotiations are under discussion.
  The Buying Agency
  Staff in the TBA agency; union recognition will be on current lines and procedures for negotiations are under discussion.
  It is planned that the final three bodies listed will have become the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by 1 April 1996.
  In addition, the Health and Safety Executive, the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre agency and the Ordnance Survey already have responsibility for their own pay arrangements and have agreed arrangements for negotiating with those unions recognised.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what monitoring is taking place following the Health and Safety Executive's increased emphasis on the risks of casual exposure to asbestos as outlined in the HSE statement on asbestos 1994. [38052]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive is currently commissioning an independent evaluation of its asbestos awareness campaign. The results should be available towards the middle of 1996.
  513
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what is the number of cases identified where respiratory protective equipment has been used but where the respirable asbestos dust levels exceed the respiratory protective equipment manufacturers claimed level of protection since July 1992; [38055]

  (2) what sanctions are applied to contractors who are caught using respirable protective equipment but where the level of respirable asbestos dust exceeds the respiratory protective equipment manufacturers claimed level of protection; [38056]

  (3) how many contractors have been sanctioned for using respiratory protective equipment where the level of respirable asbestos dust exceeds the respiratory protective equipment manufacturers claimed level of protection since July 1992; [38057]

  (4) how many contractors have been fined for using respiratory protective equipment where the level of respirable asbestos dust exceeds the respiratory protective equipment manufacturers claimed level of protection since July 1992; and what is the average level of the fine. [38058]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  If standards of health and safety are not adequate, health and safety inspectors have the statutory power to serve improvement or prohibition notices, or prosecute duty holders. Information is not centrally available on the number of cases or contractors sanctioned involving the use of respiratory protective equipment where the level of respirable asbestos dust exceeds the manufacturers claimed level of protection. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many instances have been identified in each of the last three years for which figures are available of asbestos removal work being carried out by licensed contractors using self-employed operatives who have been required to provide their own respiratory protective equipment; [38059]

  (2) what sanctions have been applied to licensed asbestos removal contractors who have been found using self-employed operatives who have been required to provide their own respiratory protective equipment. [38060]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Licensed asbestos removal contractors cannot require self-employed operatives to provide their own respiratory protective equipment. Where self-employed operatives voluntarily provide their own respiratory protective equipment the licensed contractor, as duty holder under the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987, remains responsible for ensuring that the equipment is suitable for the work to be undertaken, taking into account the approved code of practice.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what work is being carried out to monitor the Health and Safety Executive's July 1992 initiative to reduce exposure to asbestos dust during the removal of asbestos insulation; and if he will make a statement. [38065]
  514
  (2) what evidence he has of reduced exposure to asbestos dust during the removal of asbestos insulation since July 1992; [38066]

  (3) what progress has been made on reduced exposure to asbestos by measures other than the use of respiratory protective equipment since July 1992. [38068]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive does not hold quantitative data on the progress made in reducing exposure to asbestos by measures other than the use of respiratory protective equipment since July 1992.

  Licensed asbestos removal contractors are required to provide the appropriate enforcing authority with written notification of the proposed work entailing the removal of asbestos insulation or asbestos coating. On the notification form, the licensed asbestos removal contractor is required to specify the dust suppression or dust control technique to be used. Where dust suppression methods—controlled wet stripping—are not to be used, that decision has to be justified to the satisfaction of the enforcing authority which can monitor the action being taken by the contractor in accordance with the July 1992 initiative.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many cases have been identified, in each of the last three years for which figures are available, of operatives directly employed by licensed asbestos removal contractors who are not under medical surveillance; [38050]

  (2) how many cases have been identified, in each of the last three years for which figures are available, of operatives directly employed by licensed asbestos removal contractors who have not been medically examined within the preceding two years. [38051]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information requested is not centrally available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many contractors have been(a) sanctioned and (b) fined for asking little attempt to use effective dust suppression or dust control measures and relying on respirators to protect against high levels of respirable dust, since July 1992; and what is the average level of fine. [38054]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information requested is not centrally available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money has been spent on publicity to increase awareness of the risks of casual exposure to asbestos since the publication of the Health and Safety Executive statement on asbestos 1994. [38070]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  In February this year HSE launched a major campaign to raise awareness of the risks of casual exposure to asbestos and of the appropriate precautions which should be taken when working with it. A total of £227,700 was spent on national newspaper and trade journal advertising alone. A low-cost telephone order line and the production and distribution of more than 250,000 free leaflets and pocket cards cost a further £244,000.
  515
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what approaches have been made to employers' associations and trade unions to participate in a joint publicity drive to highlight the risks of casual exposure to asbestos as outlined in the HSE statement on asbestos 1994. [38053]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Trade unions and employers' associations have been involved in HSE's asbestos awareness campaign, through the usual channel of the Health and Safety Commission's advisory committees, and in particular the Health and Safety Commission's construction industry advisory committee. In addition, HSE recently sought the help of all local authorities to ensure that workers and contractors involved in building maintenance are aware of the risks of exposure to asbestos dust.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what sanctions are applied to contractors who make little or no attempt to use effective dust suppression or dust control measures and rely on respirators to protect against high levels of respiratory dust. [38069]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  If standards of health and safety are not adequate, health and safety inspectors have the statutory power to serve improvement or prohibition notices, or prosecute duty holders. The Health and Safety Executive may revoke a licence if an asbestos removal contractor is convicted of an offence of failing to discharge a duty relating to work with asbestos insulation or asbestos coating to which he is subject by any health and safety legislation.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made on reducing the risk of heat stress during the removal of insulation from hot plant and pipework, since the publication of the Health and Safety Executive's guidance note EH 57, "The problems of Asbestos Removal at High Temperatures" in December 1992. [38067]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive has not undertaken a formal assessment of the impact of the advice contained in guidance note EH 57.

  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions have been taken by the Health and Safety Executive to enforce asbestos regulations since the publication of the HSE Statement on Asbestos-1994, and what was the corresponding number of prosecutions taken in the preceding period covering the same time span. [38071]

  Dorset County Council SSA (unadjusted for changes in function)

  SSA Element

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Education

  £ million

  157.560

  184.435

  200.117

  185.549

  191.515

  197.952

  Percentage change

  —

  +17.1

  +8.5

  -7.3

  +3.2

  +3.4

  Percentage adjusted1

  —

  +17.1

  +8.5

  +4.4

  +3.2

  +1.1

  Per Social Services

  £ million

  43.495

  53.506

  57.420

  59.481

  68.427

  77.623

  Percentage change

  —

  +23.0

  +7.3

  +3.6

  +15.0

  +13.4

  Percentage adjusted1

  —

  +23.0

  +7.3

  +3.6

  -1.4

  +0.2

  516
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive's statement on asbestos was published in September 1994. Details of informations laid by Health and Safety Executive inspectors alleging contravention of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 1987, the Asbestos (Licensing) Regulations 1983 or the Asbestos (Prohibitions) Regulations 1992 are given in the table. Statistics from April 1995 have not yet been compiled.

  Period

  Number of months

  Number of informations

  1 August 1993 to 31 August 1994

  13

  152

  1 September 1993 to 31 March 1994

  7

  31

  1 September 1994 to 31 March 1995

  7

  127

  1 Provisional: Statistics for April 1994 to March 1995 not yet verified.

  Safety Consultants
  Mr. McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how many safety consultants are currently in operation in the United Kingdom; [38061]

  (2) what qualifications are required and what BSI standard is to be achieved before a person is recognised as a safety consultant; [38062]

  (3) what type of training, and for what duration, is required before a person is recognised as a safety consultant; [38063]

  (4) if safety consultants operating in British industry are required to register with the Health and Safety Executive. [38064]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive has no information on the numbers of safety consultants. Safety consultants are not required to register with HSE or to have any specific qualifications or undergo any particular type or duration of training. While there are a range of qualifications in health and safety, including National and Scottish Vocational Qualifications in Occupational Health and Safety Practice, there is no British Standard. HSE has published a free booklet, "Selecting a health and safety consultancy", which helps business to find competent consultants.

  Local Government Finance, Dorset
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total percentage increase in the various categories of standard spending assessments for Dorset compared with inflation since 1990. [38376]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information is as follows:
  517

  Dorset County Council SSA (unadjusted for changes in function)

  SSA Element

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Fire

  £ million

  9.527

  10.928

  11.753

  12.065

  12.179

  12.444

  Percentage change

  —

  +14.7

  +7.6

  +2.7

  +0.9

  +2.2

  Percentage adjusted1

  —

  +14.7

  +7.6

  +2.7

  +0.9

  +2.2

  Police

  £ million

  20.801

  22.879

  26.993

  28.043

  29.218

  2—

  Percentage change

  —

  +10.0

  +18.0

  +3.9

  +4.2

  2—

  Percentage adjusted1

  —

  +10.0

  +18.0

  +3.9

  +4.2

  2—

  Highways maintenance

  £ million

  21.758

  24.680

  24.632

  24.273

  24.292

  24.828

  Percentage change

  —

  +13.4

  -0.2

  -1.5

  0

  +2.2

  Percentage adjusted1

  —

  _13.4

  -0.2

  +5.5

  +0.1

  +2.2

  Capital financing

  £ million

  24.207

  27.321

  24.253

  24.240

  22.181

  20.065

  Percentage change

  —

  +12.9

  -11.2

  -0.1

  -8.5

  -9.5

  Percentage adjusted1

  —

  +12.9

  -11.2

  +0.1

  -8.5

  2-6.2

  All other services

  £ million

  12.992

  18.069

  24.608

  23.839

  23.731

  25.362

  Percentage change

  —

  +39.1

  +36.2

  -3.1

  -0.5

  +6.9

  Percentage adjusted1

  —

  +39.1

  +36.2

  -2.8

  -0.5

  +5.4

  Total SSA

  £ million

  290.339

  341.818

  369.776

  357.489

  371.543

  358.274

  Percentage change

  —

  +17.7

  +8.2

  -3.3

  +3.9

  -3.6

  Percentage adjusted1

  —

  +17.7

  +8.2

  +3.4

  +1.1

  +0.9

  GDP Deflator

  Percentage change

  -

  +4.1

  +3.0

  +1.8

  +3.0

  +3.0

  1For 1993–94 onwards, an adjusted SSA figure has been used to provide an appropriate year on year comparison. Details of the calculation are included in the annual Standard Spending Assessment Handbook.

  2In 1995–96, Dorset police authority's SSA is £31.619 million. This includes a police SSA element of £31.109 million, a capital financing element of -£0.273 million and an all other services element of £0.783 million. The comparable figures for 1994–95 and earlier years are included in Dorset county council's SSA.

  Regional Planning Guidance, West Midlands
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to review the regional planning guidance for the west midlands, to reduce the level of new house building required in Worcestershire and correspondingly increase it in Birmingham. [38146]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We shall keep our recently issued regional planning guidance for the west midlands under review. In particular, I have asked the local authorities to reconsider the housing figures in the light of the latest national household projections. They will advise me on this next year and we will then consider whether to revise our guidance. However, I cannot promise the hon. Member that the outcome will be a lower figure for Worcestershire and a higher figure for Birmingham.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the estimated cost of reorganisation in each of the individual local authority areas affected. [38412]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  It is too early to estimate the final cost of reorganisation in each area. The reports of the Local Government Commission give estimates of costs and savings for the main options they considered and for their recommendations. The outcome will depend on how authorities implement reorganisation.

  EU Fur Imports Ban
  Mr. Heppel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when a technical working group of the European Union with Canada and the USA was established to develop humane trapping standards; and if he will make a statement on its activities. [38705]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that EC Regulation 3254/91 to Ban the Import of Fur from Certain Species will be implemented at the end of the year and that no further delays in its implementation occur; and if he will make a statement. [38706]

  Mr. Clappison
  I understand that the working group was established in August this year. The United Kingdom is not represented on it and we have not so far received any written report from it. We would expect any advice from the working group to be submitted to the Council of Ministers.

  The Government strongly support the objectives of EC Regulation 3254/91 which was adopted by the Council of Ministers in November 1991. The ban will come into force on 1 January 1996. We are currently awaiting formal receipt of the Commission's detailed proposals for implementing the ban on the import of certain furs from countries which still use leghold traps. The proposals are expected to include a list of countries which have already banned the use of leghold traps and can therefore continue to trade in fur products from the 13 species listed in the regulation.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) when he will publish revised financial guidelines for the management agreements with owners and occupiers of sites of special scientific interest; [39242]

  (2) when he will publish recommendations, advice and information to aid owners and occupiers of sites of special scientific interest in accordance with section 33 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. [39243]

  Mr. Clappison
  Work on revising these documents is continuing. They will be the subject of consultation with interested parties before being finalised and issued.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review permitted development rights for temporary activities within or adjacent to sites of special scientific interest. [38525]

  Mr. Clappison
  Following a review in 1992, permitted development rights for certain recreational uses of sites of special scientific interest were withdrawn. The Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994 remove permitted development rights which would adversely affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site which is also a site of special scientific interest. We have no plans for a further review.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take to prevent Mickletownings site of special scientific interest from receiving sewage-created nutrient input. [38529]

  Mr. Clappison
  In 1991, following a series of accidental sewage overflows during storm conditions in the 1980s, English Nature initiated a 10-year monitoring programme agreed with British Coal Opencast and Leeds city council to monitor the physical and chemical nature of the pond waters within the site of special scientific interest. Evidence points to an improvement in water quality and no damage to the special interest.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has made and received on the impact of sea level rises on sites of special scientific interest in the Humber estuary. [38530]

  Mr. Clappison
  English Nature is working with the National Rivers Authority to address the concerns expressed and develop a comprehensive framework for the future management of the flood defences of the Humber.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to protect Skipwith Common site of special scientific interest from dredging and drainage operations. [38531]

  Mr. Clappison
  Routine maintenance, including dredging and drainage, does not adversely affect the scientific interest of this site.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to protect Bingley South Bog site of special scientific interest from damage arising from road construction. [38532]

  Mr. Clappison
  Appropriate mitigation measures will be taken to protect the scientific interest of this site.
  520
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he will take to protect(a) Broadhead Clough, (b) Dark Peak and (c) Haworth Moor site of special scientific interest from acid deposition. [38533]

  Mr. Clappison
  The southern Pennines, in which the three sites lie, has had a long legacy of air pollution from the effects of the industrial revolution in neighbouring Lancashire and Manchester. The special interest of the sites of special scientific interest is presently maintained but long-term sustainability can only be ensured through the UK's commitment to reducing sulphur emissions. UK emissions of sulphur dioxide have fallen by 45 per cent. since 1970. The Government are committed to making further cuts under the EC Large Combustion Plants Directive, which will substantially reduce the proportion of the UK surface area suffering from acid damage by the end of the century.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he will take to protect the Leeds-Liverpool canal site of special scientific interest from development for a boat and caravan storage facility. [38534]

  Mr. Clappison
  Appropriate mitigation measures have been taken to protect the nature conservation interests of this site.

  European Biodiversity Strategy
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what response he has made to the pan-European biological diversity strategy in relation to no climbing areas or seasons; and what discussions he has held with the British Mountaineering Council on this matter. [38029]

  Mr. Clappison
  The strategy is on the agenda of the European Environment Ministers conference in Sofia, which the Secretary of State is currently attending.

  The strategy is a useful framework for international action but further work is needed on it, particularly consultation with relevant interests, including the British Mountaineering Council.

  Mines Rescue Service
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future size, location and funding of the mines rescue service. [38262]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government have been concerned to ensure that a mines rescue service continues to be available to those mines who may have need of it. To this end I will be making regulations in the near future requiring the owners of certain types of mines to participate in a mines rescue scheme approved by the Secretary of State and which would ensure that appropriate and effective rescue services continue to be available. Once these regulations are made I will consult the Health and Safety Commission and others whom I consider to be appropriate, on proposals for approval of such a mines rescue scheme. A scheme has already been submitted for approval which proposes to maintain the current level of provision of six central rescue stations in strategic locations and a minimum of 80 full-time
  521
  employees. The mines rescue service is currently operated by British Coal on a contract basis, and funded by the mine owners. Within the framework of the relevant statutory requirements, including the regulations and the scheme when these come into force, the future organisation of mines rescue service will be a matter for the mine owners.

  Local Government Residuary Body
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will issue the management statement to the chairman of the Local Government Residuary Body (England). [39322]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have today issued the management statement to the chairman of the Local Government Residuary Body (England). I am placing a copy in the Library.

  Employee Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of cases of all forms of fraud committed by employees of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95; and for each of these years, what was the total monetary sum (1) misappropriated in such frauds and (2) subsequently recovered. [39130]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is in the table:

  Number of frauds

  Total misappropriated £

  Total recovered £

  1991–92

  Department

  7

  84,139

  57,215

  Agencies

  0

  0

  0

  NDPBs

  6

  19,690

  2,442

  1992–93

  Department

  7

  9,024

  7,635

  Agencies

  0

  0

  0

  NDPBs

  9

  3,056

  1,028

  1993–94

  Department

  5

  3,241

  3,241

  Agencies

  1

  1,025

  0

  NDPBs

  6

  50,230

  50,000

  1994–95

  Department

  4

  84

  84

  Agencies

  0

  0

  0

  NDPBs

  2

  397

  0

  Environment Council
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Environment Council on 6 October. [39829]

  Mr. Gummer
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council in Luxembourg held on 6 October.

  Common positions were reached on a decision on the exchange of information on air quality and on a directive temporarily deferring the emission standards for certain diesel engines, in line with technical progress. On the
  522
  latter I secured the deletion of text relating to fiscal incentives. Political agreement was secured on the second phase of the financial instrument for the environment—LIFE—which agreed a budget of 450 mecu over four years, 1996–1999, to be reviewed in 1997. Political agreement was also achieved on an amendment to the Waste Shipments Regulation. In both cases a common position is expected in December.

  There was a policy debate about the proposed amendment to Directive 85/337 on Environmental Impact Assessment. I secured some helpful amendments to the proposals and further detailed discussions will now continue in the experts working group. The Presidency is aiming for a common position in December.

  Council conclusions were agreed on a number of international conferences taking place in the coming months. These include the third pan-European conference, "Environment for Europe", the seventh conference of the parties to the Montreal protocol, the second conference of the parties to the biodiversity convention and the Euro-Mediterranean conference. Agreement was also reached on Council conclusions deferring the review of the functions of the European Environment Agency for two years.

  Direct Labour Organisations
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further action he proposes to take against those local authorities whose direct labour and direct service organisations failed to meet their statutory financial objectives in 1993–94. [39828]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  On 25 July this year, 18 statutory notices were served on 18 local authorities concerning the failure of their direct labour and service organisations to meet the required financial objectives in 1993–94. A further five notices were served on the London borough of Islington for failure to submit unqualified accounts.

  My right hon. Friend has now considered the responses to those notices and has today given six directions to Corby borough council on vehicle maintenance, to Devon county council on grounds maintenance, to the London borough of Islington on building maintenance, grounds maintenance, and highways and sewers work, and to Ryedale district council on sports and leisure management.

  The directions take three forms:
  preventing the authority from carrying out the work if it fails to meet the financial objective in 1995–96:—Corby, vehicle maintenance.
  requiring the authority to retender the work if they fail to meet the financial objective in 1995–96, and to seek the Secretary of State's prior consent where the work has to be retendered and where the authority subsequently wishes to award the work in-house:—Devon, grounds maintenance, and Ryedale, sports and leisure management.
  preventing the authority from carrying out the work if they fail to submit unqualified accounts for work carried out in 1995–96:—the London borough of Islington, building maintenance, grounds maintenance and highways and sewers.
  The Secretary of State has also decided to take no further statutory action in respect of financial failure in 1993–94 by:
  Bedford, refuse collection; Colchester, sport and leisure management; Coventry, grounds maintenance; Dacorum, vehicle maintenance; Gedling, grounds maintenance; High

  523
  Peak, grounds maintenance; Hove, sports and leisure management; the London borough of Islington, refuse collection and sports and leisure management; Mansfield, refuse collection; New Forest, building cleaning; North Cornwall, building maintenance; Sedgefield, refuse collection; South Herefordshire, building maintenance; Stoke-on-Trent, other catering; Torbay, grounds maintenance; and Wakefield, schools and welfare catering.

  A decision on Lincolnshire county council's failure to meet the financial objective for highways and sewers work has been deferred and will be announced at a later date.

  To date, 120 statutory notices have been served by the Department on local authorities for losses incurred by their DLOs/DSOs in 1993–94. A further five statutory notices have been served on the London borough of Islington following its failure to submit unqualified accounts. Today's decisions follow those announced on 6 June, 11 July and 22 August 1995.

  Dounreay Reactor Site
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the results to date of the survey carried out of the whole of the Dounreay reactor site in respect of radioactive hotspots, and if he will make a statement. [38302]

  Mr. Page
  I have been asked to reply.

  The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency has been carrying out an extensive survey of contamination on the Dounreay site and any areas of significant contamination on the Dounreay site have either been removed or have been barriered off to restrict access. A strategy for dealing with those areas where contamination has not yet been removed is being prepared for submission to the Health and Safety's Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate, the Scottish Office and Her Majesty's industrial pollution inspectorate. The survey is now well advanced and is expected to be completed by the end of this year.

  Details of the UKAEA's findings have been reported to the relevant regulatory and advisory bodies and have been the subject of UKAEA "facts faxes" which have been issued to the site work-force, the hon-Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) members of the Dounreay local liaison committee, the Highland regional council and the local media. I am now arranging for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  Personal Pensions
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress made on the implementation of the SIB/PIA review of pension transfer opt-outs and non-joiners. [38263]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government fully support the efforts of the financial services regulators to arrange for reviews to identify cases in which investors face financial loss as a result of bad investment advice not given in compliance with regulatory rules, and to ensure that redress is made where it is due. Progress in implementing the review has been delayed by a judicial 524
  review of the Securities and Investment Board's guidance earlier this year. However the Personal Investment Authority has now issued guidance, and many firms now have reviews in hand.

  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of purchasers of personal pensions contracted according to the SIB/PIA guidelines by(a) tied agents, (b) independent financial advisers and (c) all vendors of personal pensions. [38264]

  Mrs. Knight
  I regret that this information is not currently available. However, the Securities and Investments Board plans to collect data to monitor the progress of the review and I understand that it should be available early next year.

  Fish Imports
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investigations have been made by(a) his Department and (b) the EEC Commission of the origin of fish products and prawns or shrimps imported into this country on EURI certificates from (i) Iceland, (ii) Norway and (iii) the Faroe Islands; how many staff were involved and for what period of time; and what information about consignments was made available to them. [37954]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No investigations have been made in Iceland, Norway or the Faroe Islands by Customs an Excise. The EC Commission has sent mission teams to all three countries. No information is available as to the precise duration of the inquiries or the number of staff involved.

  A team visited Iceland on several occasions from July 1992 to early 1993, in connection with exports of prawns. They were able to examine processing plant records, which identified the source of raw materials through to consignments of finished product. In 1995 another team visited Iceland to look at cod. The result of their inquiries are still being evaluated.

  A team visited Norway to make inquiries about cod. These inquiries were subsequently pursued by the Norwegian customs authorities who reported their conclusions to the EC Commission in January and March 1995.

  The mission to the Faroe Islands took place in 1991. Processing plant and export consignment records were examined.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many retrospective claims against how many firms, for what total sums of money and for what period are being made by his Department against importers of prawns or shrimps in respect of(a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands and at whose behest. [37946]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is as follows:
  525

  Number of claims

  Number of firms

  Total (£)

  Period

  a-i) Iceland (mission)

  15

  12

  435,000

  October 1990 to August 1992

  a-ii) Iceland (disclosure)

  11

  9

  23,000

  1993

  c) Faroes (mission)

  13

  13

  1,900,000

  May 1989 to October 1991

  a-i) and c) were the result of EC missions, while a-ii) was a disclosure by Icelandic customs in respect of one of their exporters.

  No claims have been made against importers in respect of Norway.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has made to the EEC Commission for compensation for British importers of prawns or shrimps innocently imported from(a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands on EUR1 certificates now considered by the European Commission to be invalid, what scale of compensation has been proposed; when it will be payable; and what response has been forthcoming from the Commission. [37955]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No such proposals have been made because duty recovery has been suspended pending completion of the legal process. Therefore, compensation is not appropriate in the circumstances. The Commission and member states are being urged to produce a lasting solution which properly balances safeguarding the Community budget and the interests of European business. Such a solution will need to address the future as well as the past.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice was and is now given by his Department to importers of fish products from(a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands coming in duty free under EUR1 certificates about their liability if the certificates issued in the country of origin prove to be invalid, about how they can safeguard themselves against such retrospective charges and about how they can test the validity of EUR1 certificates. [37948]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Advice is set out in Customs notice No. 826. This recognises the difficulties that importers may experience in trying to establish whether a certificate is valid or whether goods shown on it are eligible for preferential tariff treatment. For very many years the notice has warned of the potential further duty liability and since July 1990 has advised importers to consider the advantages of including a clause in contracts allowing them to recover any duty charge from the supplier. In addition, Customs have regularly contributed articles for trade journals and participated in trade seminars and the consequences of invalid documentation has been covered on each occasion.

  , Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in levying retrospective duty on prawns or shrimps imported from(a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands with valid EUR1 certificates, he makes any allowance for the fact that a proportion of those prawn/shrimps will in fact have been caught in that country; what proportion he estimates this to be; and whether this is estimated as being constant or can be specifically assessed for each consignment. [37952]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The mission to Iceland found that most processing plants kept sophisticated records which identified the source of raw materials through to consignments of finished product. Duty demands were 526
  issued only for consignments where there was a clear audit trail from the non-originating prawns through to deliveries to specific companies in the EC. Where part of a consignment qualified, typical because it comprised prawns of different sizes and origin, then the duty demand was restricted to the non-originating element.

  No duty demands have been issued for prawns or shrimps imported from Norway.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will publish the evidence provided to him by the European Commission that prawns or shrimps imported from(a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands in fact originated elsewhere; and indicate what proportion of the imports from the Faroe Islands this applied to. [37947]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  EC mission team reports, which contain sensitive commercial information, are protected by EC agreements which restrict their issue or publication.

  The proportion of imports from the Faroe Islands established as non-originating was 66 per cent. for 1989, 81 per cent. for 1990 and 53 per cent. for 1991.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what representations he has made to his customs counterpart in(a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands about their acceptance of EUR1 certificates for the export of fish products to Britain which subsequently proved to have originated elsewhere than in Iceland; what compensation he has requested from them for British importers trusting these certificates; and what procedures his Department has put in place to check the validity of EUR1 certificates for Iceland. [37951]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No such representations have been made to third country customs authorities.

  The UK has, however, made strong representations concerning these difficulties at recent EC meetings and gained considerable support from other member states. A number of different proposals have been put forward to alleviate the burdens on importers and these now have to be considered carefully. It will be for the European Commission to write to third country authorities if this is considered appropriate.

  In accordance with normal practice, EUR1 certificates are from time to time returned to exporting countries for verification by their customs authorities.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give the outcome of all court cases pursued by his Department against importers of prawns or shrimps from(a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands on the basis of EUR1 certificates now considered by him to be invalid; what costs have been awarded and to whom; how much retrospective duty has actually been paid; and by how many firms. [37956]
  527
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Two of the companies who received duty demands in respect of imports from the Faroe Islands submitted an application for a judicial review on the grounds that the demands were incorrect in law. The High Court referred a number of questions to the European Court of Justice and awarded costs against Customs. No reason was given for the award and Customs are still in correspondence on the matter. The judgment of the European Court of Justice is expected by early December.

  There have been no other relevant court cases, although several importers have appealed to the VAT and duties tribunal. These cases are being stood over by the tribunal pending the European Court of Justice judgment. Payment of duty will not be pursued until the legal process is completed.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many claims for duty have been made in each year since 1980 for duty not paid on fish products imported from(a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands on EUR1 certificates which subsequently proved to be invalid. [37949]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The information requested is as follows:

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Iceland

  —

  12

  —

  9

  Norway

  —

  —

  —>

  2

  Faroe Islands

  13

  —

  —

  —

  Figures are not available for imports of fish products prior to 1992.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what burden of proof about the origin of fish products imported on EUR1 certificates falls on(a) his Department (b) the British importer, (c) the customs of the originating country and (d) the exporter issuing the EUR1 certificate where such certificates are deemed by his Department to be invalid; on what basis such retrospective claims are made by his Department; and what time limitations apply. [37953]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The responsibilities of the various parties are set out in the preferential trade agreements between the European Community and Iceland, Norway and the Faroe islands. The prime responsibility for determining whether particular goods qualify for preferential status lies with the exporter. Where it is not possible to determine the origin of goods, or where they are non-originating—that is, they do not come originally from the exporter's country—an EUR1 certificate is inappropriate.

  The responsibility for accounting for any import duties due falls on the importer in the country of destination.

  The customs authorities in the country of importation are responsible for collecting any duties due, including duties charged retrospectively where EUR1s are found to be invalid.

  The customs authorities in the country of export are responsible for issuing EUR1s verifying any certificates returned by foreign import authorities and considering sanctions against exporters who abuse the system.
  528
  Customs and Excise have issued retrospective duty demands only where either the customs authorities for the exporter have advised that certificates were invalid or where an EC mission has provided firm evidence that goods did not meet the rules of origin.

  The time limitation for retrospective duty demands is three years from importation.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instructions he has had from the European Commission about retrospective duty on prawns or shrimps imported from(a) Iceland, (b) Norway and (c) the Faroe Islands on EUR1 certificates; how much he has been required to recover; to whom this is payable; what information he has about the levy of such duties in each fish importing member of the EU; and what representations he has made to the Commission about such changes. [37950]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  No specific instructions have been received from the European Commission about retrospective duty on prawns or shrimps. However, where checks on EUR1s show that the goods were not entitled to relief, duty at the full rate becomes payable under the terms of the preferential trade agreement with the country concerned, which in the community are implemented in EC law. Customs duty is collected by member states and remitted to the Community as own resources.

  In the case of retrospective duty demand on prawns from Iceland, Customs and Excise are aware that duty recovery action has also been taken by Denmark and Germany, the only other countries with a major interest.

  Customs have made strong representations at recent EC meetings about the problems associated with duty recovery in respect of invalid documentation, including EUR1s, and have gained considerable support from other member states. Over the next few weeks, Customs will continue to press for urgent attention to be given to this issue with a view to reaching consensus among member states on the best solution.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount collected in value added tax(a) in 1979, (b) in 1985 and (c) in the latest year for which figures are available. [37910]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Net receipts of value added tax for financial years 1979–80, 1985–86 and 1994–95 are as follows:

  £million

  Net receipts

  1979–80

  1985–86

  1994–95

  8,189.3

  19.331.4

  41,817.3

  Independent Television (Taxation)
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total amount of taxation paid by the ITV companies to the Exchequer(a) in 1985, (b) 1990 and (c) in the latest year for which figures are available. [37966]
  529
  Mr. Jack
  Companies licensed by the Independent Television Commission to provide Channel 3 services had an estimated corporation tax liability in 1993 of approximately £50 million. Figures for 1985 and 1990 are only available at disproportionate cost.

  Kenya (IMF Facility)
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy towards the enhanced structural adjustment facility for Kenya at the International Monetary Fund; and if he will make a statement. [37673]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Discussions between the IMF and the Kenyan Government continue. We hope that there will be sufficient progress in Kenya so as to allow early agreement on an enhanced structural adjustment facility.

  Tobacco Smuggling
  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he proposes to take to reduce tobacco smuggling into the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [38040]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Customs and Excise will continue to take vigorous action against those who smuggle tobacco goods. Working closely with the trade and developing intelligence to identify offenders remains the best method of achieving successful detections.

  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what numbers of Customs and Excise officers have been involved in pursuing tobacco smuggling into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [38041]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The duties of Customs and Excise officers cover a wide range of revenue and prevention functions. Officers are not normally assigned to deal with a single commodity.

  The information requested is not available.

  Mr. Atkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the loss of revenue in each of the last five years caused by the smuggling into the United Kingdom of(a) hand-rolling tobacco, (b) cigarettes, (c) pipe tobacco and (d) cigars. [38082]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  It is particularly difficult to make meaningful estimates of smuggled tobacco goods. What can be relied upon however is the number of detections made by Customs and Excise. In the period from 1 January 1993 to 31 August 1995 there were 4,124 detections of smuggled tobacco goods representing a revenue value of some £7.05 million.

  The information requested for the last five years is not available. However following recent discussions with the trade, Customs are actively considering methods of deriving credible estimates of smuggling of tobacco goods.

  Government Debt
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of general Government gross debt for each country within the EU; and what were the figures for 1991, 1987 and 1983. [38335]
  530
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government do not produce estimates for general Government gross debt for countries in the EU other than the UK. The most recent figures for the UK are available in the Summer Economic Forecast. Historical data are available in the Financial Statement and Budget Report. Forecasts and historical figures for the rest of the EU can be found in the "OECD Outlook" of June 1995. All three publications are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Tourism
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of British competitiveness of the level of VAT on tourism products; and what conclusions he has reached. [38454]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There is no compelling evidence that the fiscal and regulatory environment in the United Kingdom places tourism at a disadvantage. We have a lower standard rate than most EU member states and our zero rate is applied to a wide range of consumer expenditure.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress has been made in the consultations between Customs and Excise and the travel industry about the effects of the Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) Order 1995; and if he will make a statement. [39727]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There have been extensive and very productive talks over the summer between Customs, the travel industry and its representatives. These talks have produced a package of options to be publicised today which should allow most tour operators to organise their business so as to minimise any potential for distortion of competition while still fully respecting the provisions of the order. Unlike earlier proposals put forward by some in the industry, this package will not increase taxation for four operators' products. The major trade associations have confirmed that the options adequately address the industry's immediate concerns. Customs' review of the tour operators' margin scheme will now proceed to its second phase which will involve an examination of longer-term issues, including possible simplification of the scheme.

  Social Security (Liaison)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how often he liaises with the Secretary of State for Social Security. [38815]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  Frequently.

  Share Option Schemes
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Inland Revenue has made of the percentage of option holders who cash in their options or shares as soon as possible; and if he will publish the assumptions made and the basis of calculation. [37963]

  Mr. Jack
  Two independent surveys indicate that up to 90 per cent. of option holders sell all or most of their shares on exercise.
  531
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has from internal or external sources of the average income of all employees granted share options under approved discretionary share options schemes in each of the last three years. [37902]

  Mr. Jack
  A provisional estimate of the average relevant emoluments of those granted share options under approved discretionary share option schemes in 1994–95 is approximately £45,000. Estimates for the earlier years are not readily available.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will publish the results of all research conducted by the Treasury or Inland Revenue since 1984 on the use of share option schemes by small and medium-sized enterprises; [37960]

  (2) if he will publish the results of all research conducted by the Treasury or Inland Revenue since 1984 on the use of share option schemes for the benefit of low and middle income employees; [37961]

  (3) if he will publish the results of all research carried on by the Treasury or the Inland Revenue since 1984 on the tax revenue gains resulting from increased payment of corporation tax and other taxes in companies whose shares increased in value and which operated successful approved discretionary share option schemes; and if he will publish the research. [37962]

  Mr. Jack
  A report by KPMG Management Consulting on employee share schemes, prepared for the Inland Revenue, Treasury and Department of Employment, was published by the Inland Revenue in 1991. This report addressed a wide range of issues, including an analysis of employee share schemes by company size. It did not consider the income of employees or any possible impact on corporation tax receipts. In addition regular monitoring is published in "Inland Revenue Statistics".

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much corporation tax was paid in the last three tax years; and what proportion of the total corporation tax paid was by companies operating approved discretionary share option schemes. [37882]

  Mr. Jack
  The figures for corporation tax receipts are as follows:

  Year

  Corporation tax £ million

  1992–93

  15,783

  1993–94

  14,887

  1994–95

  19,390

  Estimates of the proportion of total corporation tax paid by companies operating approved discretionary share option schemes are not available.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many companies started(a) save-as-you-earn share option schemes and (b) profit sharing schemes in each of the last three tax years and the current year to date. [37901]
  532
  Mr. Jack
  Available information is given in the table.

  Year

  Profit-sharing schemes

  Savings-related share option schemes

  1992–93

  61

  95

  1993–94

  35

  104

  1994–95

  47

  144

  1995–961

  17

  77

  1 Year to date.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment the Inland Revenue has made of the value of revenue savings to be made by the proposed changes in taxation of share options; and if he will publish the assumptions made and the basis of the calculation. [37964]

  Mr. Jack
  There will be no effect on tax receipts for the next three financial years and the full-year level will not be reached until approximately 2002–03 as a result of transitional arrangements for options granted before 17 July 1995. A provisional estimate of the full-year revenue yield is about £80 million each year based on current levels of exercise, size of gains and the 1995–96 income tax and capital gains tax systems.

  An outline of the methodology and underlying assumptions for the estimated cost of tax relief for approved discretionary share option schemes was published in chapter 6 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1991." It has been assumed that the bulk of schemes will continue after the tax relief is withdrawn, and that the gains made on the exercise of options will generate income tax.

  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what percentage of companies which floated on the Stock Exchange during the last year had approved discretionary share option schemes in operation; [37879]

  (2) how many United Kingdom subsidiaries of United States parent companies operate approved discretionary share option schemes involving options being granted over shares in the United States parent companies; [37900]

  (3) how many of the 100 largest corporation tax paying United Kingdom—registered companies in the last year operated share option schemes; [37885]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the relationship between changes in the value of share options normally and over the longer term and the profitability of companies; [37972]

  (5) how many of the companies which have set up approved discretionary share options schemes since 1984 (a) had turnover below £50 million, (b) has pre-tax profits below £10 million and (c) did not have occupational pension schemes in the year the option schemes were approved by the Inland Revenue. [37903]

  Mr. Jack
  This information in the form requested can be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, discretionary share option schemes have been monitored since the scheme began in 1984 and statistics published each year in "Inland Revenue Statistics", copies of which are in the Library.

  Loans to Business
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of loans to business are for(a) under three years, (b) under four years, (c) under five years and (d) over 10 years. [38829]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  This information is not collected by the Government. Figures on major British banking groups' advances to non-personal customers resident in the UK, analysed by residual maturity, are set out in table 1.10 of the British Bankers Association "Annual Abstract of Banking Statistics" which is in the Library.

  Import Duty on Wine
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds Customs and Excise are now expressing the import duty on wines in terms of ecu per hectolitre, details of which have been sent to the Minister in charge of Customs and Excise; and on what legal basis this description of duty is used. [37629]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 19 October 1995]: The legal basis for customs duties on goods imported into the European Union is an EC agreement on a common tariff which is then incorporated into the UK tariff. To ensure equity, duties are expressed in the same units in all language versions of the common tariff. In the case of wine imports, one element of the duty is defined in monetary terms. In order that the same rate of duty is levied throughout the community, this is expressed in ecu, but is of course converted to national currency for payment.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Church Repair Grants
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list those churches which(a) have received, (b) are currently receiving and (c) have been granted but have not yet received, grant aid from English Heritage towards repairs necessitated by atmospheric pollution together with the amounts in each case. [38635]

  Mr. Sproat
  English Heritage does not categorise its grants according to the causes which have necessitated structural repairs. Therefore, it is not possible to provide a breakdown of English Heritage's grant expenditure for work resulting from atmospheric pollution to churches. During 1994–95, English Heritage offered £14 million in grants for repairs to historic churches.

  Imperial War Museum
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to construct or assist with the construction of an imperial war museum for the north of England; and if she will make a statement. [39037]

  Mr. Sproat
  It is for the trustees of the imperial war museum to decide on whether there should be a branch of the museum in the north of England.

  Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when the report of the reviewing 534
  committee on the export of works of art 1994–95 will be published. [39780]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The reviewing committee's annual report 1994–95 has been published today, and copies have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Film Industry (Financial Support)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will publish details of the total financial support for the film industry during each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [38134]

  Mr. Sproat
  My Department's total expenditure on film over the past three years is as follows:

  1993–94: £24.34 million (out-turn)

  1994–95: £26.16 million (out-turn)

  1995–96: £26.07 million (planned expenditure)

  Funds are provided to two non-departmental public bodies, the British Film Institute and the National Film and Television School; three private-sector companies: British Screen Finance, the European Co-production Fund and the British Film Commission, and a number of European initiatives.

  Libraries (Internet Connections)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many libraries and what percentage of the total are currently linked to the Internet; what is the estimated cost of linking those libraries not hitherto connected; and if she will make a statement. [38585]

  Mr. Sproat
  We do not have precise information about the total number of public libraries with Internet connections, but we believe that a minimum of 35 out of 167 library authorities—over 20 per cent.—have connections to the Internet or are about to become connected. The cost of connection depends very much on how a library wishes to use the Internet but a basic package could cost from about £2,000, including hardware.

  Millennium Commission Funding
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what proposals she has to reinforce compliance with the principle for Millennium Commission funding that it shall not replace, but be additional to already available sources of Government funding, while maintaining the principle of matching Millennium Commissions funding only with private funding. [38415]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 20 October 1995]: National Lottery funding is additional to existing provision. Millennium Commission projects can attract partnership funding from any eligible source, including public and private funds.

  Employee Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was the total number of cases of all forms of fraud committed by employees of her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95; and for each of these years, what was the total monetary sum (i) misappropriated in such frauds and (ii) subsequently recovered. [39133]

  Mr. Sproat
  The information requested is as follows:

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Total number of cases of fraud committed by employees of

  (a) DNH

  Nil

  1

  Nil

  Total monetary sum

  (i) misappropriated

  —

  £31.70

  —

  (ii) recovered

  —

  Nil

  —

  (b) its agencies

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  (c) its NDPBs

  6

  6

  9

  Total monetary sum

  (i) misappropriated

  £202,422

  £10,913

  £80,759

  (ii) recovered

  £138,637

  £6,155

  £76,270

  The figures for the year 1991–92, prior to the establishment of my department in April 1992, are not available.

  Pay Delegation Plan
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will provide in respect of her plan for pay delegation submitted to the Treasury(a) a description of the staff in each bargaining unit covered by the plan, distinguishing staff in HQ functions, agencies and agency candidates and in other identifiable business units and (b) proposals for trade union recognition in each bargaining unit and the negotiating machinery to be put in place in each bargaining unit. [38272]

  Mr. Sproat
  The pay delegation plan that my Department submitted to the Treasury covered staff in the Department of National Heritage only. The Royal Parks Agency and the Historic Royal Palaces Agency are preparing separate delegation plans in consultation with my Department. The information requested for each bargaining unit is:

  Department of National Heritage

  The pay delegation plan covers all staff in my Department at grade 6 and below. This is currently 334 staff in grades as follows:

  Staff

  Grade 6

  8

  Grade 7

  48

  SEO and equivalent

  24

  HEO and equivalent

  71

  EO and equivalent

  61

  AO and equivalent

  59

  536

  Staff

  AA and equivalent

  24

  Secretarial group

  26

  Support grades

  13

  My Department is recognising all relevant unions for pay bargaining purposes and is currently in discussion with the trade unions about a procedural agreement which will enable negotiations to take place about changes to terms and conditions and pay progression.

  Royal Parks Agency

  The Royal Parks Agency already has delegated pay authority for the royal parks constabulary and negotiates this with the National Union of Civil and Public Servants. My Department is in discussion with the RPA about its delegation plan for all remaining staff, apart from the chief executive—currently 98 staff in the following grades:

  Staff

  Grade 6

  1

  Grade 7

  3

  SEO

  4

  SPTO

  2

  HEO

  9

  HPTO

  1

  EO

  15

  AO

  27

  AA

  1

  Typist

  2

  Park Manager

  4

  Assistant Park Manager

  7

  Park Supervisor

  13

  Groom

  6

  Cartographer

  1

  Wildlife Officer

  1

  Assistant Wildlife Officer

  1

  It has not yet finalised its negotiating arrangements with its trade unions for these staff.

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency

  The Historic Royal Palaces Agency already has delegated pay authority for its industrial staff. The agency is in discussion with my Department about a pay delegation plan covering all other staff in the agency, except the chief executive and any other staff who may form part of the new senior civil service. These staff number 394 staff in the following grades, excluding the chief executive.

  Staff

  Grade 5

  6

  Grade 6

  1

  Grade 7

  15

  SEO and equivalent

  18

  HEO and equivalent

  26

  EO and equivalent

  47

  AO and equivalent

  141

  AA and equivalent

  140

  Industrial staff

  55

  537
  The agency has held preliminary discussions with all the unions currently represented, but has not yet reached agreement on formal negotiating arrangements.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Child Support Agency (Inquests)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in how many suicide cases evidence relating to the activities of the Child Support Agency has been presented at a coroner's inquest since April 1993. [37593]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information about the evidence submitted at individual inquests is not held centrally.

  Mobile Phone Fraud
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out the figures for the incidents for(a) each category of mobile phone cloning reported and/or investigated and (b) each category of mobile phone theft reported and/or investigated by each police force in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in each of the last two years for which figures are available and the totals for the last five years. [38344]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected centrally. However, I understood that the mobile telecommunications industry has provided some estimates on mobile phone fraud as part of its contribution to the work of the industry and Government study group on mobile phone fraud. I understand that a copy of the briefing paper containing these estimates is in the Library.

  Burglaries (Amersham and Slough)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information he has about the incidence of burglary in the Amersham and Slough police areas in the latest quarter for which figures are available and for the corresponding quarter a year earlier. [38438]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not available centrally although figures for the 12 months to June 1995 for Thames Valley as a whole are published in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 19/95, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Fine Defaulting (Young Offenders)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by individual centres the numbers of young people who have been committed to young offenders' centres for defaulting on fines in each of the last six years. [39277]

  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. Mark Fisher, dated 24 October 1995:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, if he will list by individual centres the numbers of young people who have been committed to young offenders' centres for defaulting on fines in each of the last six years.
  538
  The information requested is in the attached table and is for young people aged under 21 for the years 1990 to 1994. Data for 1989 is not available.

  Receptions of young people into young offender institutions.

  Establishment

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Closed YOIS (male)

  Brinsford

  —

  —

  —

  97

  51

  Deerbolt

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dover

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Feltham

  84

  26

  185

  237

  218

  Glen Parva

  184

  37

  214

  323

  321

  Guys Marsh

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Hollesley Bay

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Huntercombe

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Lancaster Farms

  —

  —

  —

  19

  66

  Moorland

  —

  5

  24

  13

  —

  Northallerton

  —

  —

  —

  21

  —

  Wetherby

  133

  181

  —

  —

  —

  Total closed YOIS (male)

  403

  251

  423

  712

  657

  Open YOIS (male)

  Guys Marsh

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Hatfield

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Thorn Cross

  —

  2

  1

  12

  —

  Usk

  —

  —

  —

  6

  32

  Total open YOIS (male)

  —

  2

  1

  21

  33

  Short sentence YOIS (male)

  Eastwood Park

  6

  26

  176

  —

  —

  Hollesley Bay

  96

  107

  61

  —

  —

  Lowdham Grange

  9

  4

  —

  —

  —

  Werrington

  3

  6

  —

  —

  —

  Wetherby

  29

  609

  703

  —

  —

  Total short sentence YOIS (male)

  143

  752

  940

  —

  —

  Juvenile YOIS (male)

  Feltham

  —

  —

  51

  35

  —

  Lancaster farms

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Werrington

  —

  —

  5

  —

  —

  Total Juvenile YOIS (male)

  —

  —

  56

  35

  1

  Total all YOIS (male)

  546

  1,005

  1,420

  768

  691

  Closed YOIS (female)

  New Hall

  23

  6

  12

  22

  14

  Styal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total closed YOIS (female)

  23

  6

  12

  22

  14

  Open YOIS (female)

  Drake Hall

  1

  —

  2

  12

  21

  Total open YOIS (female)

  1

  —

  2

  12

  21

  Total all female YOIS (female)

  24

  6

  14

  34

  35

  Total all YOIS

  570

  1,011

  1,434

  802

  726

  Police Funding (Merseyside)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will now announce the date of his proposed visit to Liverpool and Mersyside to
  539
  discuss funding of the police authority; and if he will make a statement; [38832]

  (2) if he will list the hon. Members and organisations who have asked him to visit Merseyside to discuss police funding and the recent disturbances on Liverpool streets; and if he will make a statement; [38833]

  (3) what representations he has received from Merseyside police authority and hon. Members concerning police funding; and if he will make a statement. [38834]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have received invitations from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry) and the chairman of the Merseyside police authority to visit Merseyside. I would be happy to visit the area when a suitable opportunity arises and when it would be practical to do so.

  I have received a number of representations from right hon. and hon. Members, local councils, and members of the public about the funding of Merseyside police. The police funding formula has been subject to some further developmental work this year. I cannot say at present how this will affect the allocation of funding to Merseyside for 1996–97. I have, however, taken note of the views of the police authority.

  Special Constables
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to provide funding to police forces to assist the recruitment of special constables and improvements to their conditions and training. [39830]

  Mr. Maclean
  We have established a new challenge fund for special constables. It includes £4 million of Government grant in 1995–96. Police forces in England and Wales are being invited to bid for money to help to resource an increase in the size of their local special constabularies and to help bring the training and equipment of special constables to a more consistent standard.

  We have asked forces to look for other sources of support, such as local sponsorship, to boost the fund. Sponsors are also invited to contribute on a national basis.

  The special constabulary makes a valuable contribution to the policing of this country by supplementing the efforts of the regular force. Specials provide an important and visible link between the police and local communities. I hope that the fund will not only increase numbers towards the Government target of 30,000 but improve the quality of the assistance special constable can give to regular police officers.

  We have issued guidance to all forces in England and Wales about bidding for grants from the fund. I am placing a copy of it in the Library.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the split between operations and policy in each agency which reports to him. [38853]
  540
  Mr. Howard
  There are four executive agencies within the Home Office: the Prison Service, the United Kingdom Passport Agency, the Forensic Science Service and the Fire Service College. In all cases, responsibility for day-to-day management is delegated to the chief executive, and responsibility for policy rests with me. This division is reflected in the framework document of each of these agencies, copies of which are in the Library.

  Police Stations
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police stations in each county in England have(a) closed permanently and (b) restricted their opening times in each year since 1987. [38568]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police stations in each English county are in premises shared with(a) the fire brigade, (b) the local authority and (c) other organisations. [38569]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Prime Minister's oral answer of 17 October,Official Report, column 142, when he expects to announce where the 10,000 CCTV cameras will be; what will be the rules of the competition for them; and if he will make it his policy that cameras will be allocated regardless of party political affiliations. [38720]

  Mr. Maclean
  I am currently considering the detailed funding arrangements for the support of further closed circuit television schemes. A challenge competition will be run and bidding guidance explaining the rules for the competition is being drawn up. Copies will be distributed shortly. The bids will be judged against the criteria set out in that guidance.

  Prison Cell Sharing
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many(a) male and (b) female prisoners currently share two to a cell designed for (i) one and (ii) two; [38292]

  (2) how many (a) female and (b) male prisoners currently share a cell with three or more other inmates; and if he will make a statement; [38290]

  (3) how many (a) male and (b) female prisoners currently share three to a cell designed for (i) one, (ii) two and (iii) three. [38291]

  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.
  541
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 24 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about cell sharing in the Prison Service.

  The only information recorded centrally is about the number of prisoners sharing two and three to a cell designed for one. At the end of September 1995 there were no prisoners sharing three to a cell designed for one. On that date there were 8,440 male prisoners and 56 female prisoners sharing two to a cell designed for one.

  Child Prostitution
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to hold centrally information in respect of the number of cases of child prostitution that are reported in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [38298]

  Mr. Maclean
  Statistics on cautions and convictions for soliciting offences committed by children are already held centrally. Details are contained in the table.

  Convictions and cautions for soliciting offences for children under the age of sixteen years

  Offence

  Legislation

  Year

  Number convicted/ cautioned

  Common prostitute

  Street Offences Act

  1992

  145

  loitering or soliciting for

  1959 section 1

  1993

  183

  the purposes of prostitution(Female only offence)

  11994

  194

  Soliciting by a man

  Sexual offences Act

  1992

  6

  (Male only offence)

  1956 section 32

  1993

  4

  11994

  4

  1 Provisional.

  Police Discipline (Blackburn)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what disciplinary proceedings were taken against a police officer of the Lancashire police force in respect of the loss and recovery in Blackburn town centre in June 1994 of police revolvers; and if he will make a statement. [38969]

  Mr. Maclean
  Police disciplinary matters are the responsibility of individual chief officers. However, I understand that the officer concerned was reprimanded at a disciplinary hearing for neglect of duty in respect of this incident and has been removed from firearms duties.

  Rohan Thomas
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he was informed that Scotland Yard had allowed Rohan Thomas into the United Kingdom to help with investigations that were being undertaken by the Metropolitan police; and on what date he granted permission. [38391]

  Mr. Maclean
  The granting of leave to enter this country is a matter for the immigration service alone. Rohan Thomas presented a passport in a false identity and was given leave to enter the United Kingdom for six months as a visitor on 28 March 1993. The immigration service was informed of his true identity a few days later.542
  He was served with notice of intention to remove him as an illegal entrant after he was apprehended on 19 June 1993.

  Family Passports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will reconsider his policy whereby husbands on dual passports are eligible to travel alone without their wives, but wives are not allowed to travel without their husbands; and if he will make a statement. [38414]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Family passports, which included details of the passport holder's wife or husband, were discontinued in 1988, through those issued previously remain valid until their normal date of expiry. It is still possible to include particulars of children under 16 years of age on the passports of either or both parents. In accordance with international practice, only the person in whose name the passport is issued may travel on it alone.

  Fire Service College
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many firefighters have been trained at the Fire Service College in each of the last five years. [38160]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Fire Service College under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from N. K. Finlayson to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 24 October 1995:

  Your Parliamentary Question seeking information relating to the number of Firefighters trained at the Fire Service College in each of the last five years, has been referred to me by the Home Secretary as falling within my delegated authority.

  In each of the 5 years up to and including the year 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995, the following numbers of students from United Kingdom Fire Brigades were trained at the Fire Service College.

  1990–91: 3,915 students

  1991–92: 4,187 students

  1992–93: 4,383 students

  1993–94: 4,571 students

  1994–95: 4,297 students

  Witness Intimidation
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action is being taken to prevent intimidation and harassment of witnesses(a) before, (b) during and (c) after completion of trials. [37971]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government have introduced provisions in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 which make it an offence to intimidate a witness, juror or someone assisting the police. The relevant section, section 51, came into force on 3 February this year.

  Responsibility for the protection and relocation of witnesses rests with the police. They will consider in each case the degree of intimidation and assess the capability of those making the threats to carry them out.

  Sri Lankan Tamil Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the prisons or detention centres at which Sri Lankan Tamils are being held while their application for asylum is being considered. [37644]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information for Sir Lankan Tamils is not recorded separately. As at 17 October 1995, all Sri Lankan nationals detained pending consideration of their applications for asylum were held at the immigration detention centre, Campsfield house.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the longest period to date that a Sri Lankan Tamil has been held in custody pending a decision on their application for asylum. [37646]

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

  Prison Costs
  Mr. Grocott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average weekly cost of imprisonment in each category of prison(a) in 1985, (b) in 1990 and (c) in the latest year for which figures are available. [37958]

  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. Bruce Grocott, dated 24 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the average weekly cost of imprisonment in each category of prison.

  The attached table gives the average weekly net operating cost per inmate for the years 1984–85, 1989–90 and 1993–94, which is the latest year for which figures are readily available.

  Net operating cost per prisoner per week in cash terms (£)

  Category of establishment

  1984–85

  1989–90

  1993–94

  Local prisons and remand centres

  241

  309

  441

  Contracted out establishments

  —

  —

  385

  Dispersal prisons

  482

  554

  659

  Category B training prisons

  255

  318

  404

  Category C training prisons

  196

  257

  336

  Adult male open prisons

  164

  218

  269

  Young offender closed establishments

  269

  346

  415

  Young offender open establishments

  294

  459

  473

  Young offender remand establishments

  —

  —

  420

  Female establishments

  363

  433

  540

  Fear of Crime
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will give details of recent meetings he has had with representatives of women's organisations to discuss crime and the fear of crime; [37522]
  544
  (2) what recent representations he has received from women's organisations on the subject of crime and fear of crime. [37521]

  Mr. Maclean
  Although there have been no further meetings since my reply to the hon. Member on 22 March at column 202, a number of wide-ranging representations have been received from women's organisations on issues relating to domestic violence issues. Many of these were received during the preparation of the recently published inter-agency circular on domestic violence.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to improve recorded information about incidents of domestic violence against women. [37520]

  Mr. Maclean
  Measures aimed at improving the quality of information on incidents of domestic violence are to be considered at forthcoming meetings of the official and ministerial groups on domestic violence.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rugby Football in Schools
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will conduct an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the banning of Gavin Gordon from playing Rugby Union for Campbell college, Belfast; and if he will make a statement. [38527]

  Mr. Ancram
  The Irish Rugby Football Union has advised the headmaster at Campbell college that there is now no restriction on the selection of Gavin Gordon for the school's rugby team. His selection for the team is therefore a matter for the school.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his policy with regard to the playing of Rugby League by pupils in state schools in Northern Ireland. [38528]

  Mr. Ancram
  None. While team games are an important element of the physical education curriculum for Northern Ireland schools, the Government do not prescribe which team games should be played. That is a matter for schools to decide.

  Paramilitary Arms and Explosives
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a further statement on progress towards the decommissioning of arms and explosives held by paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. [36901]

  Mr. Ancram
  No paramilitary arms or equipment have been decommissioned to date. The Government believe that progress on this issue is essential to create the necessary trust and confidence for successful all-party talks. I remain hopeful that progress can, and will, be made.
  545

  Employee Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total number of cases of all forms of fraud committed by employees of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95 and for each of these years, what was the total monetary sum (1) misappropriated in such frauds and (2) subsequently recovered. [39132]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is as follows:

  Year

  Number of frauds

  Sums misappropriated£

  Sums recovered£

  Departments (including agencies)

  1991–92

  17

  96,892

  50,314

  1992–93

  14

  5,323

  37,847

  1993–94

  21

  161,676

  30,954

  1994–95

  13

  94,846

  89,267

  Non Departmental Public Bodies

  1991–92

  5

  67,403

  13,231

  1992–93

  3

  189,440

  6,351

  1993–94

  2

  14,665

  21,016

  1994–95

  9

  26,675

  16,089

PRIME MINISTER

  Belfast
  Rev. Martin Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to visit Belfast, South. [36596]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has at present no plans to do so.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36846]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 24 October. [36848]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is attending the commemorations for the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in New York.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Mobile Phone Fraud
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will announce the recommendations of the industry and Government study group on mobile phone fraud which was set up in June. [39327]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I am pleased to announce the recommendations of the study group on mobile phone fraud which I set up in June. The group, comprising senior representatives from the industry, the Federation of Communication Services, my Department, the Home Office and the police, has analysed in detail the technical and legislative issues which need to be tackled if this fraud is to be combated more effectively.

  The recommendations which Government will consider are:
  1. Industry and the Government should fully support the introduction of the crime prevention scheme being set up by the FCS and endorse its early implementation. Once the scheme is in force, the four network operators—Vodafone, Cellnet, One 2 One and Orange—service providers and dealers in the industry must use their best endeavours to ensure that any equipment bought or connected by them is not stolen and that records are kept to demonstrate the precautions they have taken. Those that are found not to conform to this scheme will be unable to operate in the industry. Subject to the Director General of Fair Trading being satisfied with the scheme on competition grounds, it should be launched by December 1995.
  2. The Government should consider extending the range of offences under section 42 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 so that, in addition to the existing offence of dishonestly obtaining telecommunications service with intent to avoid payment, it would also cover, broadly, the possession or supply of equipment capable of use in the course of or in connection with the current section 42 offence. The maximum penalty for these new offences should be five years and the penalty for the existing section 42 offence should also be increased from two to five years. This would make all offences arrestable, provide the police with powers to search for and seize evidence and will be a major deterrent to those intent on using scanners or other high technology equipment with intent to defraud the network.
  3. Industry, police and Government should take action to build on previous initiatives to raise the level of public awareness of the problem of mobile phone fraud and crime and foster further crime prevention initiatives. In particular
  the industry increases its work with the police through seminars and training packages to raise the level of awareness of police forces around the UK to mobile phone fraud and crime and works with the police to implement any new legislation,
  the industry and the police take action to encourage owners of handsets to mark their phones.

  The Government welcome the recommendations of the study group, especially the proposed crime prevention scheme which should make a substantial contribution to reducing fraud within the industry. The group rightly recognises that the proposal for further legislation will need to be considered carefully, in particular taking into account any resource implications. The Government also welcome the practical suggestions of the study group to raise the level of public awareness. I am keen to see wider use of mobile phone marking schemes, such as post code markings or a register. It is only when those who own mobile phones appreciate that their phone is an attractive target for fraud and crime, and protect it accordingly, that serious inroads will be made into reducing the problem.
  548
  I am delighted at the work done by this group over the last few months. It has proved a highly effective forum for the industry, the police and the Government to work together to consider what further actions are needed to underpin the work of the industry in fighting mobile phone fraud and crime. These recommendations need to be considered very carefully. In respect of the suggested change to the Telecommunications Act, I am having discussions with ministerial colleagues, including at the Home Office, in respect both of the legislative programme and the implications for resources.

  A briefing paper describing the group's summary of the threat posed by mobile phone fraud and the group's subsidiary recommendations has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the report by his industry and government study group of mobile phone fraud and associated topics; and if he will make a statement as to his current and future proposals on these matters; [38340]

  (2) if he will set out the evidence, together with all figures of the incidence of cloning of mobile telephones for (a) each network licensed by his Department and (b) the combined networks, stating the source from which the figures were obtained and measures taken to verify those figures that have been presented to his Department; [38342]

  (3) if he will place in the Library a copy of all evidence, and including all figures, indicating the source from which they were obtained, and indicate the measures taken to verify those figures presented to his recent industry and Government study group on mobile phone fraud and associated topics; [38341]

  (4) if he will set out the evidence, with the figures, stating the individual sources from which they were obtained, concerning the cases of fraud involving the provision and use of mobile phones overall and for each network licensed by his Department. [38343]

  Mr. Taylor
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I have given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes). Individual cases of mobile telephone fraud are a matter for the companies involved, the police and the prosecution authorities. The mobile telecommunications industry did provide some estimates for the overall scale of mobile phone fraud as part of their contribution to the work of the industry and government study group on mobile phone fraud. These have been reproduced in the briefing paper mentioned in my answer. The paper has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Copyright Tribunal
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what changes he has made and what further changes he proposes to make to the procedures of the Copyright Tribunal; and if he will make a statement. [38740]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  Last year, my Department sought the views of users of the Copyright Tribunal to determine how satisfied they were with its performance, and how its procedures might be improved. The vast majority of respondents considered that tribunal procedures were fair,
  549
  flexible, unintimidating and thorough. There were, however, some concerns about the cost and speed of procedures and some suggestions were made for improvement in these and other respects. The Department is still considering, in consultation with the chairman of the tribunal, possible changes to the procedures in the light of suggestions with a view to proposing a statutory instrument providing for some amendments to the tribunal rules in due course. In the meantime, some useful changes have been made to the Copyright Tribunal practice direction and the new version was sent in July to all solicitors involved in cases currently before the tribunal and respondents to the user survey. The practice direction is issued for the guidance of parties, with a view to achieving a just, expeditious and economical disposal of proceedings. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  British Coal Enterprise
  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if British Coal Enterprise will be sold as a single entity or broken down into its constituent parts; and if he will make a statement; [37658]

  (2) what plans exist for Grosvenor Career Services, the outplacement division of British Coal Enterprise, in the event of an outright sale of British Coal Enterprise; and if he will make a statement. [37659]

  Mr. Page
  Bids will be invited for all of British Coal Enterprise or its main activities—workshops, business funding and outplacement services (Grosvenor).

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the timetable for the proposed privatisation of British Coal Enterprise; and if he will make a statement. [37655]

  Mr. Page
  British Coal expects that the process will be concluded by March 1996.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on future methods of funding of British Coal Enterprise, Fast Track and Enterprise Fund; and if he will make a statement. [37657]

  Mr. Page
  Direct Government Funding of BCE, through British Coal, will continue until March 1996. Thereafter, funding will be a matter for the new owners of BCE.

  Mr. Bell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what are the criteria for the sale of British Coal Enterprise; and if he will make a statement; [37656]

  (2) what priority he attaches to ensuring the continuation of effective assistance to the coalfield communities in the event that British Coal Enterprise is privatised; and if he will make a statement. [37660]

  Mr. Page
  The sales process is intended to enable British Coal to take a clear view on the best way forward for BCE, having due regard to its statutory duties and the importance of ensuring continuation of effective assistance to the coalfield communities.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the role of(a) trading standards officers,
  550
  (b) the fire service and (c) the police in enforcing the law relating to the sale of fireworks to children under the age of 16 years in metropolitan areas. [38899]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  Section 31 of the Explosives Act 1875 makes it an offence to supply fireworks to children apparently under 16 years of age. The 1875 Act makes no provision for the enforcement of section 31. Accordingly, the police, in conjunction with the Crown Prosecution Service, have the clearest role in dealing with offenders. However, trading standards departments have a well-established responsibility for safeguarding the safety of consumers and, in our opinion, should be in a position to bring prosecutions under section 31 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 regarding the standing of trading standards departments with respect to this legislation. Fire authorities in metropolitan areas are designated to undertake certain functions under the 1875 Act but have no duty to enforce section 31. Nevertheless, they too may be able to bring prosecutions under this provision.

  It is also an offence under the General Product Safety Regulations 1994 for a retailer to supply to any person a product which he knows, or should have presumed on the basis of information in his possession, is a dangerous product. Local authority trading standards departments have a duty to enforce the regulations and in doing so can draw on the range of powers supporting consumer safety legislation.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the President of the board of Trade what has been the number of firework-related injuries since 1985 in total and each year, and how many of these were children under the age of 16 years. [38914]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  For the year 1985 to 1994, the total number of people receiving treatment for firework injuries at accident and emergency units in Great Britain within the four-week period around 5 November was 9,553; 5,053 of these were children under the age of 16. The figures for the individual years are set out in the table.

  Year

  Total injured

  Aged less than 16

  1985

  968

  593

  1986

  846

  466

  1987

  960

  540

  1988

  877

  446

  1989

  800

  414

  1990

  805

  394

  1991

  723

  362

  1992

  942

  488

  1993

  1,058

  542

  1994

  1,574

  808

  British Coal (Retirement Funds)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ensure that British Coal distributes the coal industry industrial death and retirement funds among the people who contributed to it, or to their dependants. [37769]

  Mr. Page
  The operation of the industrial death and retirement scheme is a matter for British Coal. However, I understand that the scheme was not financed from a
  551
  conventional fund with separate assets. If it had been, British Coal's liabilities would have been capped in accord with the total amount of contributions paid. Instead, in return for contributions from members and notional matching contributions from British Coal itself, the corporation will continue to meet all entitlements under the scheme. British Coal confirms that all contributors who qualify for benefits will receive them. My Department will take over this responsibility when the liabilities associated with this scheme transfer at the of 1997.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what safeguards exist to protect funds and schemes similar to the coal industry industrial death and retirement fund in the privatised coal industry. [37770]

  Mr. Page
  The industrial death and retirement scheme did not transfer to successor coal companies on privatisation. Insurance and retirement arrangements in respect of service with the newly privatised industry are matters for the new owners.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what benefits were being paid out from the coal industry industrial death and retirement fund on 1 January; [37763]

  (2) what was the value of the coal industry industrial death and retirement fund on 1 January 1993, 1 January 1994, 1 January 1995 and its projected value on 1 January 1996; [37765]

  (3) what benefits are currently being paid from the coal industry industrial death and retirement fund; [37764]

  (4) how many people were paying into the coal industry industrial death and retirement fund on 1 January; [37762]

  (5) what was the initial payment made to the industrial death and retirement fund at its inception, and by whom. [37766]

  Mr. Page
  These are matters for British Coal. I am asking the chairman to write to the hon. Member.

  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) in what circumstances the British Coal Corporation may appropriate the assets of the industrial death and retirement fund; [37767]

  (2) what legal provisions govern the distribution of the assets of funds of the nature of the coal industry industrial death and disablement fund when they are wound up. [37768]

  Mr. Page
  I understand that the industrial death and retirement scheme ceased to accept further contributions from members on 6 January 1995, but as it was not wound up the question of distribution of funds did not arise. As the arrangements constituted a scheme, there was no fund and thus no assets.

  Deputy Prime Minister
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister within the area covered by the Department of Trade and Industry. [38453]
  552
  Mr. Lang
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has overall responsibility within Government for competitiveness, deregulation and public service issues. We work closely together on the issues of competitiveness and deregulation.

  The drive for enhanced competitiveness is central to my Department's work. It underlies the Department's programmes of support and assistance to business, including export promotion, innovation and small firms initiatives.

  Competitiveness and Deregulation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what responsibility his Department has for the areas of competitiveness and deregulation. [38449]

  Mr. Lang
  My Department remains central to the Government's work on competitiveness and deregulation.

  The drive for enhanced competitiveness underlies the Department's programmes of support and assistance to business, including export promotion, innovation and small firms support initiatives.

  Following the transfer of the central deregulation unit to the Cabinet Office, my Department retains specific responsibility for ensuring that the deregulation initiative is reflected in the way DTI itself undertakes regulation which impacts on business.

  Redundant Mineworkers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what education and training schemes are currently available to miners and their families made redundant during the past decade; [38489]

  (2) what plans he has to extend the current education and training schemes available to miners and their families made redundant during the last decade. [38490]

  Mr. Page
  In addition to its general training and education measures, a major element of the Government's £200 million regeneration package specifically directed to helping areas affected by pit closures since October 1992 was a £75 million package provided by the training and enterprise councils, which includes provision for training measures.

  British Coal's job and career change scheme which is managed by British Coal Enterprise Ltd. was established to provide support to those made redundant from the corporation. JACCS includes the provision of education and training support. This can take the form of on-the-job training where this meets specific identifiable skills shortages in local economies; and in some cases vocational educational courses.

  British Coal is currently proceeding with the disposal of BCE. Arrangements for JACCS beyond March 1996, when it is anticipated that the disposal of BCE will have been completed, are being considered by British Coal. However, I understand that British Coal will continue to provide outplacement assistance to its current and former employees made redundant and not in employment in line with present policy.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the costs of the refurbishment of his Department's buildings in the past two years. [38451]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Department has carried out the following refurbishments over the past two years, listed by year of project completion:

  £ thousands

  Financial year and project

  Cost

  1993–94

  Partial refurbishment of Ashdown House, 123 Victoria Street, London SW1, to enable additional staff to be accommodated following the closure of 1–19 Victoria Street, London SW1

  4,532

  Full refurbishment of Kinsgate House, 66–74 Victoria Street, London SW1

  4,211

  Refurbishment of sub-standard parts of the Eastcote site, Eastcote, Middlesex

  720

  Partial refurbishment of Bushy House NPL site, Teddington, Middlesex

  1,077

  Full refurbishment of Main administrative building, NPL site, Teddington, Middlesex

  1,990

  1994–95

  No projects completed in this financial year

  The refurbishment of 1 Victoria street achieved practical completion in the current financial year. For the costs of that project, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe), on 21 June 1995, Official Report, columns 311–12.

  This reply does not take account of any buildings which the Department acquires as a result of the machinery of government changes announced on 5 July.

  Belvedere Waste-to-energy Plant
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to be able to make an announcement on the proposal by PowerGen and Cory for a waste-to-energy plant in Belvedere. [38566]

  Mr. Eggar
  The present position on the application is that pursuant to regulation 10 of the Electricity and Pipe-line Works (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1990 my officials will be writing to PowerGen CHP Ltd. seeking further environmental information in relation to its application.

  European Regional Aid
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the European Commission regarding the proposed reduction in funds for the RESIDER II steel regions aid programme in 1998–99; and if he will make a statement. [38714]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Commission has not proposed a reduction in the allocation to RESIDER, but on the contrary, an increase of 380 mecu for RESIDER, RECHAR, RETEX and KONVER together: of which 60 mecu is for the UK. The Government would have preferred a larger figure. The Commission's proposal will be discussed by the member states in the structural funds 554
  community initiatives management committee in due course, but no date has been set for the committee's meeting.

  Iron and Steel Industry
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimates his Department has made for output and employment in the United Kingdom iron and steel industries over the next five years. [38713]

  Mr. Page
  My Department does not forecasts of output and employment in the UK iron and steel industries.

  Osprey Wave Project
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assistance his Department has given to applied research and technology over(a) research, (b) production and (c) newsletters of the Osprey wave power project; and if he will make a statement. [38375]

  Mr. Page
  My Department has directly assisted applied research and technology during the early phase of research and development on the OSPREY device through funding a wave tank testing experiment during 1992–93 at a cost of approximately £50,000 and a tow-out evaluation at an additional cost of £12,000.

  My Department has also assisted ART through sponsoring an assessment of OSPREY's structure, carried out by Advanced Mechanics and Engineering, an independent engineering consultancy, at a cost of £25,000, and to date has funded around £130,000 of research and development into pneumatic turbines, carried out by the Queen's university of Belfast, which will have been of indirect benefit to ART as the purpose of the work was to provide testing facilities for turbines suitable for eventual deployment in the OSPREY device. This work is scheduled for completion in 1996 at a final cost of around £200,000.

  My Department has also commissioned an independent study of the OSPREY device at a cost of around £17,000, conducted with full co-operation from ART.

  A short article on the OSPREY device is due to appear in the next issue of "New Review" magazine, scheduled for publication in December 1995, which is devoted to new and renewable energy and fully funded by my Department. "New Review" has a circulation in excess of 30,000. Copies are sent to the libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what contribution his Department has made to research into renewable sources of energy during each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [38370]

  Mr. Page
  My Department has undertaken the following expenditure on research into new and renewable sources of energy during each of the last 10 years.

  Year

  Expenditure £ million

  1985–86

  13.2

  1986–87

  12.0

  1987–88

  16.3

  555

  Year

  Expenditure £ million

  1988–89

  16.0

  1989–90

  17.9

  1990–91

  20.8

  1991–92

  24.8

  1992–93

  25.6

  1993–94

  25.2

  1994–95

  19.1

  Dock Workers (Merseyside)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions have taken place with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company about the dismissal of dockers in Merseyside. [38738]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  None. The Government believe that the resolution of industrial disputes is entirely a matter for the parties concerned—enlisting, as with the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, the services of ACAS if both sides agree.

  Inward Investment
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the inward investment to the United Kingdom in excess of £10 million made in each year since 1979. [38334]

  Mr. Eggar
  For the financial years 1979 to 1995, of the total number of inward investment decisions notified to my Department's Invest in Britain Bureau, in excess of £10 million were 625. In recent years these have included:

  £

  Siemens

  1.1 billion

  Samsung

  450 million

  Toyota

  700 million

  Nissan

  250 million

  Goldstar

  40 million

  Fujitsu

  400 million

  These figures are based on information provided by the companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest, and take no account of subsequent developments.

  Product Use
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what legislation requires private businesses to inform their customers how they use a product once a transaction has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [39052]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  If a consumer wishes to put a product to some unusual use he should seek advice from the trader. The trader should then indicate whether it will be reasonably fit for the purpose or make it clear if he is not confident on the point. There is no legislation which requires private businesses to inform their customers how they should use a product.

  High-tech Companies
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many high-tech industrial companies have been established in the United Kingdom during each of the last five years. [38636]

  Mr. Page
  The information requested is not readily available.

  Electricity Privatisation
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for the four years leading up to the privatisation of the electricity industry and for the four years after(a) the retail prices index and (b) domestic electricity index, including all taxes at the relevant rate. [38179]

  Mr. Eggar
  [holding answer 20 October 1995]: The new electricity companies were established in March 1990 and flotation occurred at several different stages thereafter. For convenience, 1990 has been taken as the year of privatisation. The information requested is set out in the table.

  Year

  Retail Prices Index (all items)

  1Domestic electricity

  1986

  100.0

  100.0

  1987

  104.1

  99.5

  1988

  109.3

  104.9

  1989

  117.8

  112.5

  1990

  128.9

  121.7

  1991

  136.5

  133.9

  1992

  141.5

  140.9

  1993

  143.8

  140.4

  1994

  147.4

  2136.9

  Note:

  1The electricity component of the RPI.

  2Excludes VAT at 8 per cent. from 1 April 1994. The figure including VAT for 1994 would be 145.0.

  Source:

  Retail Prices Index compiled by the Central Statistical Office.

  Domestic electricity prices, excluding VAT, have fallen faster than the all items RPI since 1990. Further price falls can be expected as a result of additional reductions in electricity distribution charges which take effect on 1 April 1996.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if officials of his Department or its agencies met General Pinochet of Chile during his recent visit. [37978]

  Mr. Nelson
  [holding answer 19 October 1995]: No.

  Private Coal Mines
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many licences were held by private licensed mines on 31 March and in May in(a) south Wales, (b) the remainder of the United Kingdom and (c) the United Kingdom; and how many miners were employed at these dates. [37628]

  Mr. Page
  [holding answer 19 October 1995]: The Coal Authority informs me that:

  (a) the numbers of licensed underground mines were as follows:

  557

  At 31March1995

  At 31 May 1995

  At 18 October1995

  Great Britain

  Licensed by British Coal under section 36(2)(a) of the Coal Industry nationalisation Act 1946

  1140

  24

  24

  Licensed by the Secretary of State/Coal Authority under section 26 of the Coal Industry Act 1994

  18

  63

  71

  Total

  1158

  87

  95

  South Wales

  Licensed by British Coal under section 36(2)(a) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946

  87

  5

  5

  Licensed by the Secretary of State/Coal Authority under section 26 of the Coal Industry Act 1994

  1

  33

  39

  Total

  88

  38

  44

  1 Includes 115 mines whose licences expired on that date, about half of which were not producing coal at that time.

  (b) while precise figures are not available, employment at these underground mines has remained at around 10,500 for Great Britain and 700 for South Wales.

  Merseyside Docks
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Merseyside docks port operation being carried out by Drake International Port Services of Southampton. [37732]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 19 October 1995]: No. Any operation being carried out by Drake International Port Services of Southampton on the Merseyside docks is a matter for the companies involved.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  French Nuclear Tests
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has received from the Australian Government in respect of French nuclear tests in the Pacific. [38399]

  Mr. David Davis
  We have had a number of contacts with the Australian Government on this issue.

  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has received from the New Zealand Government in respect of French nuclear tests in the Pacific. [38397]

  Mr. Davis
  We have had a number of contacts with the New Zealand Government on this issue.

  Mr. Michael Horne
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who has replaced Mr. Michael Horne in his Department; at what salary; and if he will make a statement. [38300]

  Mr. Hanley
  Mr. Michael Home was replaced in his last appointment in the FCO by Mr. Shaun Cleary. Mr. Cleary is a grade 5 officer in HM Diplomatic Service and is paid on a salary range between £26,535 and £41,092.

  Romania
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the state of negotiations with regard to Romania's application to join the Council of Europe; what assessment he has made of Romania's ability to accede to the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms; and if he will make a statement. [38020]

  Mr. David Davis
  Romania has been a member of the Council of Europe since 7 October 1993.

  Romania signed the European convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms on 7 October 1993 and ratified on 20 June 1994.

  Reflections Group
  Sir Thomas Arnold
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the reflections group; and if he will make a statement. [38574]

  Mr. David Davis
  I am the Foreign Secretary's representative on the study group preparing the intergovernmental conference. I have reported regularly to the House on progress in the group, which will report to the Madrid European Council in December.

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the extent of reporting restrictions in place in Sri Lanka at the present time. [38458]

  Mr. Hanley
  There are no restrictions on material produced by the international media for publication or broadcast outside Sri Lanka. Material on military issues to be published or broadcast in Sri Lanka has to be submitted to a censor.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact the Minister of State had with representatives of the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka on his recent visit there. [38459]

  Mr. Hanley
  I met a number of representatives of the Tamil minority during my recent visit to Sri Lanka, including Mr. Douglas Devanda and Mr. Neelan Tiruchelvam.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy on the Sri Lankan Government's proposals for devolution in Sri Lanka. [38460]
  559
  Mr. Hanley
  We welcome the efforts of the Government of Sri Lanka to achieve a lasting political settlement to the conflict by issuing proposals for devolution in Sri Lanka.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the extent to which renewed military action between Government forces and the Tamil Tigers in the north of Sri Lanka has caused civilian casualties; and if he will make a statement on the conflict. [38461]

  Mr. Hanley
  We do not have exact figures for civilian casualties caused in the renewed military action in the north of Sri Lanka. I raised this issue with the Sri Lankan Government during my official visit to Colombo from 8–10 October, and urged them to make every effort to avoid further civilian casualties.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the reported bombing by Sri Lankan Government forces of a school at Nagar Kovil Makavithiya Layam in Vadamarachi on 22 September; and if he will make a statement on the incident. [38462]

  Mr. Hanley
  We understand that on 22 September bombs landed close to Nagar Kovil Makavithiya Layam school in Nagar Kovil, killing over 60 people, including 34 children, and injuring many more.

  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been received, from(a) the Sri Lankan Government and (b) the Tamil Tiger rebels, to Britain's offer to facilitate negotiations, made by the Minister of State on his recent visit to Sri Lanka. [38463]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have offered to facilitate negotiations between the Government of Sri Lanka and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam on several occasions, but neither side has responded. There has been no change in this position.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he has had and with whom on reports prepared by the Council of Europe on Cyprus; and if he will make a statement. [38619]

  Mr. David Davis
  None.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when representatives from the British high commission in Cyprus last visited the Karpas area of occupied northern Cyprus; and what report was made following that visit. [38487]

  Mr. Davis
  High commission staff regularly visit all areas of Cyprus. The high commissioner visited the Karpas area on 30 March this year for extensive contacts with the local community accompanied by officials from the humanitarian branch of the UN force in Cyprus, UNFICYP. The latter have the responsibility for safeguarding the welfare of the Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas, and visit them every week.

  Islamic Countries (Defence and Security)
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the value of the contribution of the Islamic countries to international defence and security. [36574]

  Mr. Hanley
  The contribution of Islamic countries to international defence and security varies from country to country.

  United Nations Day
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the actions planned by Her Majesty's Government to mark United Nations Day. [37632]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  UN flags fly in Parliament square on UN Day.

  Iran
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Iran following the parliamentary human rights group's report on the position of women in Iran. [38769]

  Mr. Hanley
  Our policy on Iran remains unchanged since the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) on 25 January 1994 at column 144. We are concerned about the situation of women in Iran and raise this matter whenever appropriate.

  Sudan
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the Sudan in relation to allegations of harbouring of terrorist groups. [39270]

  Mr. Hanley
  We regularly express our concern to the Sudanese Government about reports that Sudan supports the activities of extremist groups. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raised this with the Sudanese ambassador on 13 September. In particular, we regard as extremely serious allegations of official Sudanese complicity in the terrorist attack against President Mubarak in Addis Ababa on 26 June.

HEALTH

  Deprivation Payments
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the reduction of deprivation payments to General Practitioners within the Oldham family health services authority area and the resulting decision to abandon plans to extend their premises and improve their services. [37421]

  Mr. Malone
  Deprivation payments are based on the Jarman index and 1991 census data. The move to 1991 census data, recommended by the independent Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body in its latest report, is one agreed by the profession and my Department. A generous transitional protection scheme has been agreed with the profession to protect those affected.

  Cooking Fumes (Cancer)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research is being undertaken by the NHS management executive or his Department into the possible occupational cancer risk for cooks from carcinogenic chemicals in cooking fumes. [37993]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Department has undertaken no such research.

  Accident and Emergency Units
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information he has on the number of anaphylactic incidents dealt with at hospital accident and emergency units in recent years. [38359]

  Mr. Sackville
  There were nearly 12 million new attendances at accident and emergency departments in national health service hospitals in England in 1994–95. Information about the reasons for attendance is not available centrally.

  NHS Management
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on how the figure of £140 million in his press release 95/473 to be transferred from administrative costs to patient care is calculated; what cash amount he intends to release from cuts in administrative costs in(a) NHS trusts, (b) health authorities, (c) GP fundholding practices and (d) other areas; and if these sums will be retained by the trusts, health authorities and general practitioner practices which make the savings, or will revert to the NHS executive or his Department. [38380]

  Mr. Malone
  We expect planned spending on running district health authorities and family health services authorities and estimated spending by national health service trusts on managerial and non-clinical administrative staff to be reduced by 5 per cent. nationally in 1996–97 in cash terms. This is equivalent to an 8 per cent. reduction in real terms on the basis of the latest expected gross domestic product deflator for 1996–97 and is estimated to yield savings of some £140 million. I anticipate savings on health authority costs will amount to some £40 million in real terms and savings by trusts to some £100 million. The savings will be retained locally and will be available for patient care.

  UKCC
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting and the bodies responsible for appointing these members; and to whom they are responsible. [38390]

  Mr. Sackville
  The council has 60 members, of whom 40 are elected by the professions and 20 are appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The council is required to submit an annual report and accounts to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
  562

  Name

  Whether appointed or elected

  Dr. D. K. Bose MBBS FRCGP

  Appointed

  Mrs. H. D. D. Campbell RGN RM

  Elected

  Prof. G. Castledine MSc BA(Hons) DipSocStud(Oxon) PGCE RGN RNT FRCN.

  Elected

  Mr. A. J. Charnock EN(MH) EN(G) RGN BN(Hons) PGCE CMS

  Elected

  Mr. P. Clarke RMN RGN

  Elected

  Mrs. L.M. Coey EN

  Elected

  Mrs. L. A. Connor RGN

  Elected

  Miss S. H. Coull RGN DipProfStudies

  Elected

  Mrs. M. W. Cronk RGN RM DNCert RGN RMN

  Elected

  Prof P. T. Darcy MSc DipN CertEd RGN RMN

  Elected

  Mr. J. Evans RGN RMN RNT BEd(Hons)

  Elected

  Miss M. G. E. Foster RGN RM MTD

  Elected

  Mrs. J. A. Frost MEd BN RGN RM DipN PGCAE RNT

  Elected

  Ms J. Furlong EN(G) RGN

  Elected

  Mr. G. N. V. Green MA AHSM

  Appointed

  Mr. C. B. Grimes IPFA FCCA

  Appointed

  Mrs J. W. Halleran RGN RHV

  Elected

  Mrs. M. B. Hanratty MSc BA RGN RMN RCIRNT

  Elected

  Mrs. H. Y. Herron RGN RSCN.

  Appointed

  Mrs J. Hughes.

  Appointed

  Mrs. A. Jackson RGN.

  Elected

  Dr. E. Jacobs MA(London) D.Univ(Paris)

  Appointed

  Mrs. F. R. Jones RGN EN

  Elected

  Mr. J. Kelly RMN RGN DMS MIPM

  Appointed

  Dr. A. A. Khan MBBS FRCOG FRCS FFARCS JP

  Appointed

  Mr. H. O. Lewis RMN

  Elected

  Mrs. R. A. R. M. Lewis MSc(Econ) BA(Hons)Econ PGCE

  Appointed

  Prof C. A. Lowis MEd DipN(Lond) RGN OHNC PgCertTLT

  Appointed

  Mrs. C. S. McGilvray RGN RHV

  Elected

  Prof S. A. M. McLean LLB MLitt PhD

  Appointed

  Miss J. C. Mahoney RGN RSCN RM DNCert PWT FETC

  Elected

  Mrs. A. V. Males RGN ONC RCNT

  DipN(Lond) MIPD MIM BA.

  Appointed

  Miss J. T. Matthew RGN RM MTD BA Master of Nursing

  Elected

  Mrs. M. J. Mitchell RGN RM RHV

  Elected

  Ms J. Morris RGN DipNPart A(Lond)

  Elected

  Mrs. A. V. Morrison MSc BEd(Hons) RGN RSCN RCI RNT DipN(Part A)

  Elected

  Mr. S. M. Niven BSc FTMgt

  Appointed

  Mrs. A. Norman RGN RM RHV

  Elected

  Ms T. A. O'Brian EN(G) RGN

  Elected

  Mr. P. J. O'Reilly RGN RMN

  Elected

  Prof J. A. Orr BA MSc RGN RHV HVT

  Elected

  Ms E. O. Paden MSc RGN RM DAM CertEd(FE)

  Elected

  Prof. P.M. Reilly MD FTCGP

  Appointed

  Mrs. S. Richards MSc DipHRC RGN CertHealtEdt PNT

  Elected

  Prof J. A. Robinson MA PhD MIPD RGN ONC RHV HVT FRCN

  Appointed

  Miss S. E. G. Roch RM RGN MTD FPACert

  Elected

  Mrs. E. C. Rush RGN EN

  Elected

  Ms A. E. Scouller BA(Hons) RGN RM DAM

  Elected

  Dr. E. Shanley BA(Hons) MSc PhD RNMH RMN CPN RNT CPsychol

  Elected

  Mr. A. M. Shannon BA(Hons) RGN

  Elected

  Prof D. T. Sines PhD BSc(Hons) RMN RNMH PGCTHE FRCN RNT

  Appointed

  Mrs. J. E. Smail RGN RM DNCert CertEd(FE)

  Elected

  Mr. T. A. Starrs MSc RNMH RGN RCNT RNT

  Elected

  563

  Name

  Whether appointed or elected

  Mrs. K. Touhig RGN RHV CPT DNCert

  Elected

  Miss M. E. Uprichard OBE RSCN RGN RM MTD

  Elected

  Mrs. E. Walker BEd(Hons) MA RGN RM RNT

  Elected

  Ms N. Watson-Druee MSc BA(Hons) PGCE DipHEd RHV RM RNT MITD

  Appointed

  Mrs. E. R. Williams CertED

  Appointed

  There are two vacancies for appointed members.

  Nurse Registration
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the policy of his Department as to the restoration of former nurses who have been struck off their professional register. [38386]

  Mr. Sackville
  This is a matter for the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had and with whom regarding the cases of(a) Dennis Thorpe-Price and (b) Subaschan Bunbuhn; and if he will make a statement as to their presence on the register of professional nurses. [38388]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. Registration is a matter for the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent discussions he has had with the Institute of Health Services Management regarding nurses who have been struck off their professional register. [38387]

  Mr. Sackville
  None.

  Epilepsy
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide funding for the opening of centres of excellence in treating epilepsy throughout the country. [38403]

  Mr. Bowis
  The organisation of health services, including services for people suffering from epilepsy and the manner in which they are delivered, are matters for health authorities in their role as purchasers of services for their populations. They enter into arrangements with hospital and community trusts to ensure that the entire range of services is available, taking account of the needs of the local population and the priorities set for the use of the available resources.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the birth disorder sodium valproate syndrome and its connection with prescriptions following the misdiagnosis of epilepsy in mothers; and if he will make a statement. [38407]

  Mr. Bowis
  Many women with epilepsy need anti-epileptic medication in pregnancy to keep their seizures under control. When prescribing a drug in pregnancy, the doctor weighs the risks associated with no treatment against the risk of possible side effects of treatment. Without treatment, epileptics are likely to have major seizures, which could cause serious harm to both mother and unborn child.
  564
  Sodium valproate—Epilim—is a commonly used effective anti-epileptic. Like all anti-epileptic therapies, it has been associated with occasional foetal abnormalities, in particular spina bifida. Doctors are aware of this risk through the product data sheet and the British National Formulary, which recommends that women who become pregnant on sodium valproate should be offered screening and advised about the risks. A patient information leaflet is also available to inform women about these risks.

  The education and training of health professionals is a matter for the relevant royal college. However, as part of the programme of co-ordinated initiatives on epilepsy which I announced on 17 January, Official Report, columns 576–77, we shall be seeking to raise awareness of this condition among general practitioners and primary care teams.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he intends to take to provide information about epilepsy and its treatment to doctors and the public. [38404]

  Mr. Bowis
  As part of the Department of Health's programme of co-ordinated initiatives on epilepsy, which I announced in the House on 17 January, we have:

  Commissioned a new series of posters on epilepsy which aim to address the stigma associated with epilepsy by providing positive images of real people with epilepsy. Two of the posters were used to advertise National Epilepsy Week 1995 and two more will be issued shortly,

  Provided £108,000 spread over three years to support the expansion of the British Epilepsy Association's freephone helpline and information service,

  Provided £36,000 to support a nationwide programme of primary healthcare workshops on epilepsy run by the Continuing Care at Home Association, CONCAH,

  Provided £40,000 over two years to support a joint Royal College of General Practitioners-National Society for Epilepsy Fellowship which will consider advice provided to general practitioners about the information and care that should be offered to people with epilepsy and those who care for them,

  Provided funding for two innovative service development projects:

  a. a total of £12,000 to support a project run by Doncaster health authority. This is an evaluation of a district epilepsy service involving an epilepsy clinic, guidelines for general practitioners, and a specialist epilepsy liaison nursing service.

  b. a total of £83,000 to support a project run by general practitioners in Cheshire. This project is an evaluation of providing services to people with epilepsy, in the community, through a working collaboration between the general practitioners themselves and a specialist epilepsy centre, the David Lewis centre.

  Awarded £90,846 to a joint Royal College of Physicians-National Hospital for Neurology project to develop national audit review criteria for the care of patients with newly diagnosed and established epilepsy,

  Sponsored a major multidisciplinary conference on users of services, youth and primary care which aimed to share information between people working in the field and users of services and to encourage good practice throughout the NHS and the wider field. A report of the conference will be disseminated shortly.

  Other possible activities aimed at professional and public education are under consideration.

  Hospital Discharge Procedures
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to ensure that health and local authorities adhere to the general good practice on hospital discharge procedures issued by his Department in 1994. [38034]

  Mr. Bowis
  Performance of hospital discharge is monitored by the national health service executive.

  Care for the Elderly
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the NHS's fulfilment of its responsibilities in providing in-patient care for elderly people. [38035]

  Mr. Bowis
  Health authorities are responsible for assessing the continuing health care needs of their local population. This includes continuing in-patient care for older people. Recent guidance set out national health service responsibilities in this area and requires health authorities to develop local policies and eligibility criteria for continuing health care. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Cemfuel
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies his Department has commissioned into the possible health effects of burning cemfuel. [38570]

  Mr. Sackville
  We have commissioned no such studies.

  Departmental Files
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if his Department's file WOP/4/5 that was mislaid in Hannibal house in 1981 has yet been traced; what was the nature of its contents; and if he will make a statement. [39078]

  Mr. Sackville
  Yes. The file relates to radio and television licences for receivers used in national health service hospitals.

  Asthma (Smoking)
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department is intending to take to inform(a) young female smokers and (b) the general public of the effect of maternal smoking on asthma; and if he will make a statement. [37588]

  Mr. Sackville
  Asthma in children is one of the many health problems associated with maternal smoking and symptoms of asthma are twice as common in the children of smokers. Information on this and the many other health problems caused by parental smoking forms an important part of the Department's anti-smoking campaign and is particularly emphasised in the smoking in pregnancy programme currently being run by the Health Education Authority.

  Health Care Terms
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had expressing support for a standard thesaurus for terms used in the caring services. [38027]
  566
  Mr. Sackville
  The national health service has created a standard thesaurus of health care terms used by the clinical professions. This thesaurus is available in read coded format for use in computerised clinical information systems.

  Expressions of support for the read coded standard thesaurus of health care terms have been received from the following organisations:

  British Medical Association

  Joint Consultants Committee

  Conference of Medical Royal Colleges

  Royal College of Nursing

  Royal College of Midwives

  Health Visitors Association

  The Spinario Federation

  College of Speech and Language Therapists

  British Dietetic Association

  Chartered Society of Physiotherapy

  British Psychological Society

  Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain

  The following organisations have supported a scoping project to assess the extension of the read codes thesaurus into the personal social services arena:

  Association of Directors of Social Services

  Social Services Inspectorate

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received registering dissatisfaction about the misunderstanding of terms used in the caring profession. [38026]

  Mr. Sackville
  In 1991, the chief executive of the national health service set up a working group consisting of representatives of the Conference of Medical Royal Colleges and their Faculties in the United Kingdom, the joint consultants committee, the general medical services committee of the British Medical Association and the NHS executive. The group's function is to advise him on the medically orientated NHS executive initiatives which have an information technology element and to strengthen the medical profession's contribution to this work. The group was later expanded to include the Royal College of Nursing, Royal College of Midwives, Health Visitors Association and the representative bodies of the professions allied to medicine.

  The professional bodies on the working group pointed out that without a common language useful communication is impossible. It was immediately recognised as vital to establish an agreed thesaurus of clinical terms without which computerised clinical information systems in the NHS could not capture, store, compare and transfer data. It was also agreed that the professions had to take the lead in this project to ensure professional "ownership" and commitment.

  The proposals to create the thesaurus of terms common to all sectors of the NHS was approved by the working group and subsequently endorsed by the clinical professions involved.

  This common thesaurus of terms used by the medical profession, nursing professions and professions allied to medicine was subsequently incorporated into the read codes. The read codes are Crown copyright and are structured for use in computerised clinical information

  567
  systems. The clinical professions have formally supported the adoption of the read codes as the underlying thesaurus for all NHS clinical information systems.

  A scoping project to extend this thesaurus into the personal social services arena has commenced. The scoping project has the support of the social services inspectorate of the Department of Health and the Association of Directors of Social Services. This initiative supports the care in the community programme and in the broader context of inter-agency teamwork, for example between social and health services, has shown that there are substantial areas in which there is comparable need to be able to share the use of terms, and feel secure that they are appropriately understood.

  Social Terms Scoping Project
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the cost so far of the social terms scoping project; and what are its estimated total costs. [38028]

  Mr. Sackville
  The social terms scoping project is a six month project which commenced on 1 May 1995. The cost at 30 September 1995 was £17,501. The estimated total cost is £34,383.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the remuneration of the Chairman and the project researchers of the social terms scoping project. [38025]

  Mr. Sackville
  The social terms scoping project is a six-month project which commenced on 1 May 1995.

  The chairman is employed one day per week at the standard university rate and will receive £6,760 in total.

  There are two part-time research workers. One research worker—0.6 whole-time equivalent—will receive £6,943 in total, and the second research worker—0.4 whole-time equivalent—will receive £6,702 in total.

  These rates of pay are also based on standard university research grades.

  Unregistered Children's Homes
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the names of those organisations mentioned in the national study of the social services inspectorate, published in August, on small unregistered children's homes whose homes do not achieve a satisfactory standard of care; and if he will make a statement. [38187]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is not social services inspectorate practice to do so in such studies and visits to a sample of homes during the course of the study were not inspections.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will provide information on the numbers of staff working in small unregistered children's homes as a proportion of the social services inspectorate study(a) who had no relevant training, (b) who had no previous experience, (c) who were on short-term contracts and (d) who had been employed for less than six months; [38189]
  568
  (2) if he will make a statement on the percentage of children who have been placed in small unregistrable children's homes as emergency placements at the time of the social services inspectorate study into children's homes; [38190]

  (3) if he will make a statement on the percentage of children who were at the time of the social services inspectorate study into children's homes (a) were not attending a local school and (b) were unregistered at a local school; [38191]

  (4) if he will give information on the number of children placed in unregistered children's homes at the time of the social services inspectorate study he deems (a) to be in suitable accommodation and (b) to be at risk. [38194]

  Mr. Bowis
  This information was not sought as part of the recent social services inspectorate study.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the numbers of children in unregistered children's homes at the time of the social services inspectorate study who were placed(a) more than 50 miles and (b) more than 100 miles outside their placing authority's area. [38192]

  Mr. Bowis
  Some 47 and 13 respectively.

  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new practice guidelines he is planning to issue to local authorities as a result of the social services inspectorate study into unregistered children's homes. [38193]

  Mr. Bowis
  I do not intend to issue new practice guidelines. The current regulations and guidance, when applied properly, provide adequate protection for children placed in unregistered children's homes. The report of the study, which has been issued to local authorities, indicates what is good practice.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will send the hon. Member for South Hams a revised reply to his letter of 13 September regarding Mr. S. G. Horrocks of Brixham about charges for residential accommodation. [38835]

  Mr. Bowis
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 2 October and sent a further reply on 23 October.

  White Report
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he has informed all social service departments that his Department holds the index of names of former members of Islington social services department mentioned in the White report. [38900]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is not necessary to do so. Every social services department has received information on the procedures of the Department of Health's consultancy index and Islington council wrote on 1 June to every social services department agreeing to check against the White report the name of any former Islington employee currently employed by any local authority or child care agency.
  569
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 October,Official Report, column 153, if he will list the three social service departments which have made inquiries about the index of ex-employees of Islington council named in the White report. [38902]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Department's consultancy service index is operated on the basis of absolute confidentiality, and it is not our practice to provide information regarding which employers have sought checks against the index.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the net cost to the national health service, after taking into account reduction in income from prescription charges and savings on the overall national health service drugs budget, of allowing individual pharmacists to offer patients the option of paying the cost price where the drug costs less than the prescription charge. [37048]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 16 October 1995]: The current net cost to the national health service in England is estimated to be in the order of £90 million per annum.

  This estimate is based on an assumption that all chargeable prescription items with a total cost of less than £5.25 would be dispensed privately. There is, however, no reliable way of estimating what proportion of patients and pharmacists might choose this option.

  In appropriate cases, it is already open to pharmacists to offer patients non "prescription only" items as an alternative to using an NHS prescription and paying the prescription charge.

  Public Immunity Certificates
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 July,Official Report, column 1286, if he will give details of the occasions on which the Secretary of State signed public immunity certificates in 1993 and 1994. [37414]

  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 17 October 1995]: I am answering in relation to the two certificates served on defendants in 1993 and 1994. The first was signed in relation to proceedings against the Department of Health and the second in relation to an application for preaction discovery.

WALES

  Pay Negotiations
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide in respect of his plan for pay delegation submitted to the Treasury(a) a description of the staff in each bargaining unit covered by the plan, distinguishing staff in HQ functions, agencies and agency candidates, and in other identifiable business units and (b) proposals for trade union recognition in each bargaining unit and the negotiating machinery to be put in place in each bargaining unit. [38274]
  570
  Mr. Hague
  There are two bargaining units; the Welsh Office, excluding Cadw, covering some 1,900 staff; the Welsh Historic Monuments executive agency and Cadw, covering some 220 staff.

  The Welsh Office proposes to recognise the Civil and Public Services Association, the National Union of Civil and Public Servants, the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists and the First Division Association and to have single table negotiation covering all staff. In Cadw, CPSA NUCPS and IPMS are recognised.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many sites of special scientific interest in Wales have been denotified since 1981 on the grounds of a decline in their scientific interest. [38357]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information is not held centrally in the form requested. However, since the establishment of the Countryside Council for Wales on 1 April 1991, this data has been included in their annual reports. Prior to 1991 it was collated centrally for England, Scotland and Wales by the nature Conservancy Council and was published in it's annual reports. The annual reports of both organisations are in the Library of the House.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total proposed membership of the new unitary authorities in Wales. [38023]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are currently 1,273 councillors in the 22 new unitary authorities in Wales. On 16 June 1995, following consultation with local government, my right hon. Friend, the then Secretary of State for Wales issued directions to the Local Government Boundary Commission to conduct a review of electoral arrangements in the 22 unitary authorities. At the time he indicated that he had no desire to see a cut in councillor numbers. Copies of the directions have bene placed in the Library of the House.

  Tir Cymen
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will ensure the expansion of the Tir Cymen scheme along the lines of the expansion of the countryside stewardship scheme in England. [38474]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Tir Cymen is a five-year experimental scheme which commenced in 1992. A full review of the scheme will be made towards the end of the experimental period, and decisions on its future will be made in the light of that review.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list all the payments made by the Welsh Office for capital works at grant-maintained schools and occasions when such payments have not been paid at the appropriate stages or on the completion of the work. [38429]
  571
  Mr. Richards
  A list of all grant payments made by the Welsh Office to grant-maintained schools for capital works will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible. There have been no occasions where grant payments have not been made at appropriate stages or on completion of work where the Department was satisfied that grant should be released.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he make will a statement about the administrative processes involving grant maintained schools and the Welsh Office in paying building contractors for the work carried out at grant maintained schools. [38430]

  Mr. Richards
  Building contractors are paid by grant-maintained schools following the issue of an architect's certificate which states the value of work undertaken. Where the work is being funded by the school's formula-based capital grant, the school applies to the Welsh Office for the grant prior to the commencement of work. Where the building work being carried out forms part of a "named" project under the grant-maintained schools capital building programme, the Welsh Office pays grant to the school against certified claims form supported by the architect's certificate.

  As a precaution against overpayment of the total grant payable, and to ensure that the work is satisfactorily completed, grant payments on named projects are stopped once the level of grant reached 97.5 per cent. of the total approved grant, pending settlement at final cost stage. As soon as possible after completion of the work, schools are required to submit final cost documentation to the Welsh Office and following scrutiny and approval of the documentation, the final instalment of grant is released to the school.

  Capital Receipts
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list by local housing authority the amounts raised by sales of council homes to date and the amounts each local authority has available in capital receipts from these sales. [38431]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The cumulative amount of receipts from the sales of council homes since 1981 is set out in the following table. The usable receipt at the spot date of 31 March 1995 is also provided.

  Receipts from the sale of council houses1

  £ million

  Receipts from the sale of council houses 1 April 1981 to 31 March 1995

  Usable receipts from the sale of council houses available at 31 March 1995

  Alyn and Deeside

  18.4

  0.5

  Colwyn

  8.9

  0.6

  Delyn

  15.7

  0.0

  Glyndwr

  13.1

  0.5

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Primary and secondary schools

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  At

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  September 1988

  6,342

  17.8

  46,092

  17.4

  3,358

  14.5

  27,551

  14.3

  9,700

  16.5

  73,643

  16.1

  September 1989

  6,315

  17.4

  46,124

  17.1

  3,284

  14.5

  25,190

  13.5

  9,599

  16.3

  71,314

  15.6

  572

  Receipts from the sale of council houses1

  £ million

  Receipts from the sale of council houses 1 April 1981 to 31 March 1995

  Usable receipts from the sale of council houses available at 31 March 1995

  Rhuddlan

  9.5

  0.4

  Wrexham Maelor

  42.0

  1.0

  Carmarthen

  16.4

  0.8

  Ceredigion

  20.7

  1.2

  Dinefwr

  9.7

  0.6

  Llanelli

  28.3

  0.0

  Preseli Pembrokeshire

  27.0

  2.6

  South Pembrokeshire

  12.6

  1.2

  Blaenau Gwent

  26.5

  2.2

  Islwyn

  36.9

  0.4

  Monmouth

  31.9

  3.6

  Newport

  53.5

  7.6

  Torfaen

  58.4

  2.7

  Aberconwy

  16.3

  0.2

  Arfon

  16.5

  0.0

  Dwyfor

  3.9

  0.3

  Meirionnydd

  7.6

  0.0

  Ynys Mon

  17.5

  0.2

  Cynon Valley

  13.6

  0.0

  Merthyr Tydfil

  20.2

  0.3

  Ogwr

  50.3

  0.6

  Rhondda

  5.7

  0.0

  Rhymney Valley

  35.5

  0.0

  Taff Ely

  36.4

  0.5

  Brecknock

  15.9

  1.2

  Montgomeryshire

  13.6

  0.7

  Radnorshire

  8.0

  0.4

  Cardiff

  101.0

  7.1

  Vale of Glamorgan

  38.7

  6.7

  Port Talbot

  33.4

  0.0

  Lliw Valley

  18.2

  0.0

  Neath

  21.7

  0.0

  Wales

  951.2

  44.4

  1 Includes receipts from the sale of dwellings and the repayment of principal from local authority mortgages.

  School Meals
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the entitlement to free school meals in(a) West Glamorgan, (b) Wales and (c) the United Kingdom from 1979 to the latest available date expressed (i) numerically and (ii) in percentage terms indicating the figures for (1) primary school pupils and (2) secondary school pupils and (3) total pupils. [38261]

  Mr. Richards
  The following table shows the number of children entitled to free school meals in maintained primary and secondary schools in West Glamorgan and Wales, and the percentage they represent of the total number of children on the school rolls. No comparable information is available for the United Kingdom. Data for West Glamorgan and Wales are not available prior to 1988, as information was not collected on the number of pupils entitled to free school meals.
  573

  Primary schools

  Secondary schools

  Primary and secondary schools

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  West Glamorgan

  Wales

  At

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  Number

  Per cent.

  September 1990

  6,744

  18.5

  48,860

  17.9

  3,358

  14.8

  24,865

  13.4

  10,102

  17.1

  73,725

  16.1

  September 1991

  7,733

  21.1

  56,593

  20.6

  3,842

  16.7

  29,220

  15.4

  11,575

  19.4

  85,813

  18.5

  September 1992

  8,305

  22.6

  62,973

  22.7

  4,338

  18.6

  33,320

  17.2

  12,643

  21.1

  96,293

  20.5

  January 19941

  9,342

  24.6

  71,675

  25.1

  5,003

  21.0

  36,526

  18.8

  14,345

  23.2

  108,201

  22.5

  Source:

  School Census.

  1 From 1993–94 onwards school meal data has been collected at January not September.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 16 October,Official Report, column 114, concerning the number of applications awaiting departmental approval under the private finance initiative, if he will give the capital value of each of the projects being examined. [39273]

  Mr. Hague
  The estimated capital value of each of the projects which have been announced is: M4 relief road (£330 million); A465 Heads of the Valleys road (£175 million); new general hospital, Baglan (£40 million); staff residential accommodation, district general hospital, Llantrisant (£3 million); car park, University hospital of Wales, Cardiff (£5 million); day surgery unit, Nevill Hall hospital, Abergavenny (£1.5 million); cancer treatment centre, Glan Clwyd district general hospital, Rhyl (£15 million); community hospital, Chepstow (£6 million); medium-secure unit, north Wales (£3.5 million); OSIRIS, office automation system for Welsh Office (£13 million).

  National Lottery
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place a copy in the Library of the guidance note sent to the non-departmental public bodies in Wales concerning the principles and eligibility rules under which matching funding for projects offered grants from the national lottery may be received; what is his definition of public funding for this purpose; and if he will list for each non-departmental public body

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Number

  Value £

  Amount recovered £

  Number

  Value £

  Amount recovered £

  Number

  Value £

  Amount recovered £

  Number

  Value £

  Amount recovered £

  Welsh Office

  1

  3,000

  Nil

  —

  —

  —

  1

  24

  Nil

  —

  —

  —

  Agencies

  1

  6

  Nil

  1

  6

  Nil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  NDPBs

  4

  24,137

  392

  2

  269

  215

  1

  41,739

  Nil

  1

  56

  56

  ERDP Grants
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his meeting with the member of the European Commission responsible for regional development in Brussels on Wednesday 4 October, in relation to the application of the additionality principle of his Department's grant-in-aid to the Welsh 574
  how many grants offers have been (a) made and (b) subsequently withdrawn. [39121]

  Mr. Hague
  I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  WDA: Cynon Valley
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement giving a detailed response to the legal opinion of Vernon Pugh, QC on the Grant Thornton report of 7 December 1994 on the actions of the Welsh Development Agency in relation to Gadlys road and Tirfounder fields which was enclosed with the letter to him of 21 March from Landare Investments Limited. [39272]

  Mr. Hague
  My officials have already made clear that it is not for them to judge the merits of Mr. Pugh's opinion or to offer a view on it. I have nothing to add.

  Employee Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the total number of cases of all forms of fraud committed by employees of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non—departmental public bodies for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95; and for each of these years, what was the total monetary sum (i) misappropriated in such frauds and (ii) subsequently recovered. [39134]

  Mr. Hague
  The information requested is in the following table.

  Development Agency; and when he expects to supply the additional information on the funding of the Welsh Development Agency to the Commission. [37531]

  Mr. Hague
  I had a constructive meeting with the Commissioner for Regional Development, and the problem has been resolved.

TRANSPORT

  M25 (Service Area)
  Mr. Tim Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what conclusions were reached when his Department last undertook a comprehensive survey of possible sites for a motorway service area on the western quadrant of the M25. [38437]

  Mr. Watts
  The last such survey was carried out in July 1984 and led, in 1988, to an announcement that the Department would promote an MSA at Iver. Uncertainties over finance and the effect on an MSA of M25 widening meant, however, that no planning application was submitted. Instead, in 1989, the Department announced a fresh search for an MSA site on the western quadrant. Shortly afterwards, the decision was taken to deregulate the provision of new MSAs and the proposed site search was abandoned. The current Iver MSA proposals are purely private applications submitted under the deregulated arrangements.

  I will arrange to send my hon. Friend copies of the 1984 survey report and of the 1989 announcement of the fresh site search.

  Railway Speed Restrictions
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many K2 speed restrictions exist on the rail line between Paddington and Plymouth; if he will list them; and what was the date and reason for their imposition. [38836]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack inform me that the total number of speed restrictions currently in place is approximately 16. All of these restrictions have been in place for between one and 14 months and in each case the reason for the restriction is the condition of the track.

  Employee Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total number of cases of all forms of fraud committed by employees of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95; and for each of these years, what was the total monetary sum (i) misappropriated in such frauds and (ii) subsequently recovered. [39137]

  Mr. Norris
  The figures requested are not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Mr. David Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to reply to the Second Report of the Transport Committee on the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services (HC 36). [39275]

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State has responded to the recommendations made by the Transport Select Committee. It is for the Committee to decide when and how to publish that response.

  Mr. Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to what extent the recommendations contained in the Second Report of the Transport Committee on the 576
  privatisation of National Air Traffic Services (HC 36) that the Safety Regulation Group's Air Traffic Services Standards Department should be transferred to a body separate from the Civil Aviation Authority has been accepted by his Department; what progress has been made towards the implementation of this recommendation; and if he will make a statement. [39276]

  Mr. Norris
  The Secretary of State has responded to the Committee's report. It is for the Committee to decide when and how to publish that response. It would be inappropriate for me to comment more fully on the issues raised until the Select Committee publishes the responses to its recommendations.

  Bull Bars
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce legislation banning the fitting of steel bars as bumpers to(a) four-wheel drives and (b) ordinary private vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [39018]

  Mr. Norris
  The Transport Research Laboratory is currently analysing police reports of accidents involving bull bars which occurred in 1994. The results will not be available until towards the end of the year. We shall then decide what legislation if any, is needed.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consideration his Department has given to the environmental balance between the principle route alternatives in respect of Greenham Common air base and the Newbury bypass; and if he will make a statement. [39060]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency.

  I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 24 October 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to write in reply to your Parliamentary Question about the Newbury Bypass.The Study Team commissioned by the then Secretary of State, Dr. Brian Mawhinney, did consider whether the closure of the Greenham Common Air Base had opened new possibilities for an eastern bypass of Newbury. A copy of their report is enclosed and you will see that their conclusion was that the overall balance remained in favour of a western bypass. The conclusion was endorsed by the then Secretary of State.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set out the major components of his announced £7 million cost of a study of the re-equipping the west coast main line and the estimated components and total cost of its modernisation. [39320]

  Mr. Watts
  The overall costs of the west coast main line investment programme is estimated at some £1 billion. Nearly £7 million of European funding has been secured for 1995. This money will be used to finance the
  577
  feasibility and design works for the modernisation project and go towards work to enable Eurostar trains to run international services on the route from next year.

  Road Signs (Metrication)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans he has for the replacement of existing road signs to include metric distances; [38876]

  (2) what plans he has for the introduction of metric distances for all new road signs. [38877]

  Mr. Watts
  None.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the Doncaster travel-to-work area the current numbers of(a) casual and (b) fixed-term appointments in each Department of Transport office; and what were the figures 12 months ago. [39055]

  Mr. Norris
  According to the Department's personnel information systems, the numbers of casual and fixed-term appointments in my Department in the Doncaster area at 1 October 1995 and those of 12 months ago are given in the table.

  Address

  Casuals 1994

  Casuals 1995

  Fixed-term 1994

  Fixed-term 1995

  Sackville street, Barnsley

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Wellsyke road, Doncaster

  4

  1

  0

  0

  Shaftesbury avenue, Doncaster

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Doncaster road, Rotherham

  2

  4

  0

  0

  St Peter's house, Sheffield

  2

  6

  0

  1

  Orgreave way, Sheffield

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Middlewood road, Sheffield

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Richmond Park road, Sheffield

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Municipal Bus Undertakings
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the management-employee buy-outs of municipal bus undertakings which have since been sold on to private operators. [38756]

  Mr. Norris
  Municipal bus undertakings which are bought out by management-employee teams become private sector companies. My Department does not formally monitor changes of ownership within the bus industry.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what is his policy in respect of compelling local authorities to dispose of their municipal bus companies and to bring forward the necessary legislation in this Parliament. [38892]
  578
  Mr. Norris
  Our policy continues to be to encourage local authorities to sell their bus companies, as many have already done. As and when a suitable legislative opportunity arises, we shall seek powers to compel authorities still owning bus companies to sell them.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what considerations he takes into account when deciding whether or not to approve the sale of a municipal bus undertaking to a management-employee buy-out. [38891]

  Mr. Norris
  The decision on whether a municipal bus company is put up for sale and the conditions attaching to that sale are solely matters for the owners, but under the Transport Act 1985 the consent of the Secretary of State is needed to the arrangements made. Since 1992 it has been policy not to grant consent to a sale, whether to a management-employee buy-out or otherwise, unless it has followed a competitive tender.

  Rail Fare Increases
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list all cases of which his Department has received notification of increases in rail fares deliberately introduced in order to reduce demand; and if he will make a statement. [38132]

  Mr. Watts
  The setting of rail fares is a commercial matter for train operators. Operators are not required to notify my Department of their reasons for increases in individual fares.

  From 1 January 1996 fares will be subject to the regime announced by the Director of Passenger Rail Franchising.

  Motorway Lighting
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in reducing the glare in the night sky caused by the lighting of motorways; what is his policy for ensuring that motorway service areas do not add to the loss of night sky caused by their illumination; and if he will make a statement. [38354]

  Mr. Watts
  It has been a requirement of motorway lighting schemes designed since February 1993 that the impact of lighting at night on dark landscapes should be minimised using an appropriate degree of special light control whenever lanterns are being provided or replaced. Examples of modern lanterns can be seen on M40 junctions 3 to 5.

  It is for the local planning authority to assess the environmental effects of lighting at motorway service areas. My Department's role is limited to ensuring that the lighting does not have an adverse effect on road safety on the motorway.

  Railway Property Sales
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whom Railtrack will have to consult after privatisation before selling or leasing its land or other property. [38307]

  Mr. Watts
  Although, as now, there will be no specific requirement after privatisation for Railtrack to consult before selling or leasing its land or other property, the
  579
  rigorous closure procedures set out in the Railways Act 1993 will continue to apply in respect of any proposal by Railtrack to close a part of its operational passenger network or any railway facility that it operates.

  Rural Roads
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what new proposals he has to protect the safety and integrity of green roads or lanes. [38851]

  Mr. Watts
  The Government's position on the regulation of vehicular use of byways is most recently set out in the White Paper, "Rural England—A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside", Cm 3016, published on 17 October. A section devoted to the subject appears on page 127.

  Railtrack Employees Share Offer
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many shares will be issued free or at a reduced price to Railtrack employees when the company's shares are put on the market; what he estimates the total value of employees' free shares and discounts will be; and how many employees will be eligible for these benefits; [38306]

  (2) how many shares and share options will be issued free or at a reduced price to Railtrack directors when the company's shares are put on the market; what he estimates the total value of directors' free shares and discounts will be; and how many directors will be eligible for these benefits. [38305]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend announced on 25 September the Railtrack employee share offers as part of the intended stock market flotation of Railtrack. The offers include:

  free shares for each eligible Railtrack employee worth approximately £160 at the offer price plus a further £2 worth of shares for each year of continuous service int eh rail industry;

  a matching offer of two free shares for every one purchased by eligible Railtrack employees up to a maximum value of approximately £250—that is, free shares of up to approximately £500;

  discount of 20 per cent. for eligible Railtrack employees on up to approximately £1,400 worth of shares at the offer price—that is, a discount of up to £280;

  priority over shares offered to the public to the value of approximately £18,000 at the offer price, including the shares purchased through the discount offer.

  The priority offer, excluding the discount element, will also be offered to Railtrack pensioners.

  It is too early to say how many shares will be issued or what the total value will be or how many employees and directors will be eligible. This will depend on the share price, the level of take-up and the number of eligible employees and directors at the time.

  There will be no share options for Railtrack directors.

  Motorway Resurfacing
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of concrete motorway have been resurfaced in black-top; and what factors caused it to be used. [38413]
  580
  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Christopher Gill, dated 24 October 1995:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking how many miles of concrete motorway have been resurfaced in black-top; and what factors caused it to be used.Figures are not available for years prior to 1992/93. The lengths of concrete motorway in England resurfaced in black-top in recent years are as follows:

  Financial Year

  Miles

  1992–93

  1.8

  1993–94

  15.6

  1994–95

  9.3

  Motorways with a concrete road surface can be resurfaced in black-top as part of normal maintenance operations. This would be carried out for two main reasons—as a surface treatment or as a strengthening treatment. A surface treatment is required when the skidding resistance of the road surface falls below specified levels of where the concrete surface is showing signs of distress. A strengthening treatment is required when the structural condition of the pavement has deteriorated to the point where it is no longer able to carry the predicted future traffic. Overlaying with black-top is one means of providing the additional strength and extending the pavement life. Alternatively, concrete can also be used as an overlay treatment.

  Piracy
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for the past 12 months how many attacks by pirates on British shipping have taken place on the high seas; and if he will make a statement. [39027]

  Mr. Norris
  During the last 12 months there has been one report of a piracy attack on the high seas against a ship registered in the UK or the Crown dependencies. This was against the UK-registered ocean-going yacht, the Longo Barda, attacked off Somalia in April 1995.

  Air UK
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from Air UK in the last three years concerning the designation of civil air routes in eastern areas of the United Kingdom. [38121]

  Mr. Norris
  I am not aware that the Department has received any representations from Air UK on this subject in the last three years. However, I understand that the Civil Aviation Authority received a letter in December 1992.

  Solent Buoys
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list those buoys in the Solent for which Trinity House is responsible; and what powers he has to require Trinity House to pass them out to another competent authority. [37906]

  Mr. Norris
  Trinity House is responsible for the following lights in the solent area:

  Prince Consort;

  581

  Gurnard;

  Gurnard Ledge;

  East Lepe;

  Salt Mead;

  West Lepe;

  Hamstead Ledge; and

  Sconce

  The Secretary of State has no powers to require Trinity House to transfer buoys to another authority. Under section 33 of the Ports Act 1991, it is for the appropriate general lighthouse authority to determine, with the consent of the Secretary of State, whether or not to transfer buoys to a harbour authority.

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his latest estimate of the gross cost to the public purse of British railways in the years 1998 to 2001 if the privatisation plans are implemented. [38460]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 23 October 1995]: The privatisation process has irresistible momentum. The Government remain committed to continuing to provide financial support to the railways. We believe that privatisation will bring efficiency improvements, competition and innovation, from which passengers and taxpayers will benefit, and which will become

  Date

  Location

  Numbers and type of A/C

  Nationality

  Nature of breach

  7 January

  Lockerbie Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Lockerbie avoidance area

  17 January

  Eshott Northumberland

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Eshott Microlight Site avoidance area

  17 January

  Ruabon, Clwyd

  1 x Hercules

  RAF

  Monsanto Chemical Works avoidance area

  20 January

  Beverley Humberside

  1 x Harrier

  RAF

  Hull Aero Club avoidance area

  25 January

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Gazelle

  AAC

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  9 February

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Sea King

  RN

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  28 March

  Lockerbie Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Gazelle

  AAC

  Lockerbie avoidance area

  6 April

  Market Rasen Lincolnshire

  1 x Tornado

  TTTE

  Hill House Riding School avoidance area

  11 April

  Bude, Cornwall

  2xF15

  USAF

  Seasonal avoidance area in Little Youlstone

  12 April

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Jaguar

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  12 April

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  12 April

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Jaguar

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  13 April

  St. Mary's Lock Selkirk

  2 x Jaguar

  RAF

  Failed to observe uni-directional flow while flying in the Moffat Valley

  15 April

  Beverley North Humberside

  1 x Tornado 4 x A7

  RAF Portuguese Airforce

  Hull Aero Club avoidance area

  25 April

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Jaguar

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  582
  increasingly evident over time. The major area of cost will be for the provision of passenger services. The level of this cost will be determined by market competition through the process of franchising the passenger train operating companies. No estimate of the cost of public sector support has been made beyond 1995–96.

DEFENCE

  Low Flying
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received concerning problems of low flying. [36570]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has received a number of representations from hon. Members and the general public about military low flying.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates, locations, numbers, types and nationalities of aircraft, nature of breach, disciplinary actions taken against aircrew and lessons learned from each of the confirmed breaches of low flying regulations during 1994. [38140]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of breaches of military low flying regulations during 1994 confirmed by RAF police investigations are as follows. Unless stated otherwise, a lateral breach of the avoidance area listed occurred in each case.
  583

  Date

  Location

  Numbers and type of A/C

  Nationality

  Nature of breach

  26 April

  Bude, Cornwall

  1 x Hunter

  RN

  Seasonal avoidance area in Little Youlstone

  28 April

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Chinook

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  17 May

  Near Hay on Wye Powys

  1 x Hawk

  RAF

  Hay Bluff Hang Gliding site avoidance area

  17 May

  Shobdon Hereford and Worcester

  1 x Hawk

  RAF

  Shobdon Airfield avoidance area

  1 June

  Near Hay on Wye Powys

  2 x F15

  USAF

  Hay Bluff Hang Gliding site avoidance area

  1 June

  Near Hay on Wye Powys

  2 x F15

  USAF

  Flying in UKLFS outside of allocated times

  15 June

  Salisbury Wiltshire

  1 x Gazelle

  AAC

  Dean Hill RN Armaments Depot

  23 June

  Near Hay on Wye Powys

  1 x Hawk

  RAF

  Hay Bluff Hang Gliding site avoidance area

  20 July

  Ruabon, Clywd

  1 x Tornado

  TTTE

  Monsanto Chemical Works avoidance area

  27 July

  Carlisle, Cumbria

  1 x Tornado

  TTTE

  Overflew Carlisle, a town listed for avoidance

  28 July

  Near Hay on Wye Powys

  1 x F15

  USAF

  Hay Bluff Hang Gliding site avoidance area

  28 July

  Near Hay on Wye Powys

  1 x Hercules

  RAF

  Hay Bluff Hang Gliding site avoidance area

  29 July

  Keswick, Cumbria

  2 x F15

  USAF

  Bewaldeth Hang Gliding site avoidance area

  4 August

  Glyn-Neath, Dyfed

  2 x F15

  USAF

  Royal National Eisteddfod temporary avoidance area

  4 August

  Near Plymouth Devon

  1 x Sea King

  RN

  Dartmoor Wildlife Park avoidance area

  5 August

  Penrith, Cumbria

  2 x Jaguar

  RAF

  Lowther Event temporary avoidance area

  9 August

  Near Hay on Wye

  2 x Hawk

  RAF

  Hay Bluff Hang Gliding site avoidance area

  17 August

  Church Stretton Shropshire

  1 x Hawk

  RAF

  Midlands Gliding Club avoidance area

  1 September

  Caerlaverlock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  5 September

  Haltwhistle Northumbria

  1 x Tornado

  TTTE

  CANP avoidance area

  6 September

  Caerlaverlock Dumfries and Galloway

  2 x Tornado

  TTTE

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  11 September

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Hercules

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  13 September

  Caerlaverlock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Hawk

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  13 September

  Dolgellau/Tewkesbury/Gwynedd/Gloucestershire

  2 x F15

  USAF

  Unauthorised flight within UK night low flying system

  22 September

  Ambleside, Cumbria

  1 x F15

  USAF

  Flew below authorised Minimum Separation Distance

  28 September

  Beverley North Humberside

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Hull Aero Club avoidance area

  6 October

  Near Plymouth, Devon

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Dartmoor Wildlife Park avoidance area

  584

  585

  Date

  Location

  Numbers and type of A/C

  Nationality

  Nature of breach

  12 October

  Peebles, Borders

  1 x Tucano

  RAF

  Overflew Peebles, a town listed for avoidance

  17 October

  Haltwhistle Northumberland

  1 x F15

  USAF

  CANP avoidance area

  16 November

  Dumfries Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Jaguar

  RAF

  Crichton Royal Hospital avoidance area

  18 November

  Slimbridge Gloucestershire

  3 x B105

  Royal Netherlands Air Force

  Slimbridge Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust seasonal avoidance area

  18 November

  Hawick, Borders

  1 x Harrier

  RAF

  Minto Hills Hang Gliding Site avoidance area

  28 November

  Hawick, Borders

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Minto Hills Hang Gliding Site avoidance area

  9 December

  Sywell Northamptonshire

  1 x F15

  USAF

  Sywell Aerodome Avoidance area

  12 December

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  2 x Tornado

  TTTE

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  14 December

  Carlisle, Cumbria

  1 x F15

  USAF

  Overflew Carlisle, a town listed for avoidance

  15 December

  Market Rasen Lincolnshire

  2 x F15

  USAF

  Hill House Riding School avoidance area

  22 December

  Caerlaverlock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  In cases where the nationality of the aircraft is shown as TTTE, the aircraft came from the Tri-national Training Establishment at RAF Cottesmore which trains aircrew of the Royal Air Force, German air force and Italian air force using aircraft provided by all three nations.

  Formal disciplinary action under the service discipline Acts was taken against the pilot of the Royal Navy Hunter responsible for the breaches at Langar airfield on 10 February 1994, who pleaded guilty to one charge of conduct to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline and one charge of annoyance by flying under the naval discipline Act for which he was severely reprimanded and fined. In cases involving UK aircrew where formal disciplinary action is not appropriate, aircrew who have breached regulations may be interviewed by their station commander or other appropriate senior officer. Such action could be recorded on individual's career records and affect flying status and promotion prospects. It is not our policy to release details of such action. It is the responsibility of senior officers to ascertain what lessons there are to be learnt from such incidents; central records are not maintained.

  Reports on breaches by foreign aircrew are passed to their relevant national authorities, which whom responsibility for any further action rests.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of low-flying sorties carried out over the United Kingdom by each aircraft type in each month from January 1994 to the latest available date. [38120]
  586
  Mr. Soames
  The number of sorties by aircraft type booked in the United Kingdom low flying system in each month from January 1994 to August 1995, the most recent month for which figures are available, were as follows:

  1994

  Aircraft type

  January

  February

  March

  April

  Buccaneer

  36

  70

  94

  21

  Harrier

  574

  442

  498

  466

  Hawk

  892

  887

  1,104

  1,168

  Jaguar

  409

  375

  276

  566

  Tornado

  1,615

  1,433

  1,847

  1,567

  Tucano

  653

  594

  855

  631

  F15

  241

  300

  252

  204

  Other aircraft (including helicopters)

  3,857

  3,838

  5,744

  3,689

  Total

  8,277

  7,939

  10,670

  8,312

  1994

  Aircraft type

  May

  June

  July

  August

  Buccaneer

  0

  4

  0

  1

  Harrier

  549

  574

  472

  365

  Hawk

  1,364

  1,496

  1,474

  1,398

  Jaguar

  318

  293

  522

  405

  Tornado

  1,554

  1,738

  1,554

  1,844

  Tucano

  693

  778

  720

  712

  F15

  292

  284

  278

  292

  Other aircraft (including helicopters)

  4,401

  6,081

  4,604

  4,000

  Total

  9,171

  11,248

  9,624

  9,017

  587

  1994

  Aircraft type

  September

  October

  November

  December

  Buccaneer

  5

  0

  3

  0

  Harrier

  682

  502

  648

  394

  Hawk

  1,180

  790

  764

  530

  Jaguar

  498

  608

  377

  420

  Tornado

  1,788

  1,598

  1,716

  1,358

  Tucano

  722

  669

  468

  534

  F15

  194

  278

  319

  211

  Other aircraft (including helicopters)

  5,477

  4,709

  4,500

  2,808

  Total

  10,546

  9,154

  8,795

  6,255

  1995

  Aircraft type

  January

  February

  March

  April

  Buccaneer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Harrier

  528

  676

  861

  409

  Hawk

  711

  635

  1,079

  853

  Jaguar

  469

  504

  504

  393

  Tornado

  1,769

  1,676

  1,765

  1,568

  Tucano

  404

  636

  637

  429

  F15

  346

  260

  397

  373

  Other aircraft (including helicopters)

  4,197

  4,406

  5,602

  3,889

  Total

  8,424

  8,793

  10,845

  7,914

  1995

  Aircraft type

  May

  June

  July

  August

  Buccaneer

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Harrier

  994

  608

  701

  426

  Hawk

  1,213

  1,223

  620

  926

  Jaguar

  571

  710

  457

  297

  Tornado

  1,693

  2,025

  1,594

  1,571

  Tucano

  352

  693

  612

  643

  F15

  274

  325

  188

  232

  Other aircraft (including helicopters)

  5,607

  6,379

  5,022

  3,919

  Total

  10,704

  11,963

  9,194

  8,014

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what was the minimum authorised altitude for flights over the United Kingdom by the Italian air force Tornados deployed to RAF Cottesmore from 3 to 7 July; and if the aircraft were permitted to descend below that height when within(a) low flying area 13 and (b) the Spadeadam range danger area; [38128]

  (2) what was the minimum authorised altitude for flights over the United Kingdom by the Italian air force AMX aircraft deployed to RAF Leeming from 19 to 23 June; and if the aircraft were permitted to descend below that height when within (a) low flying area 13 and (b) the Spadeadam range danger area; [38126]

  (3) what was the minimum authorised altitude for flights over the United Kingdom by the Italian air force AMX aircraft deployed to RAF Leeming from 3 to 7 July; and if the aircraft were permitted to descend below that
  588
  height when within (a) low flying area 13 and (b) the Spadeadam range danger area; [38125]

  (4) what was the minimum authorised altitude for flights over the United Kingdom by the Italian air force Tornados deployed to RAF Cottesmore from 24 to 28 July; and if the aircraft were permitted to descend below that height when within (a) low flying area 13 and (b) the Spadeadam range danger area. [38127]

  Mr. Soames
  In each case, the authorised minimum separation distance for the Italian aircraft within the United Kingdom low flying system, including low flying area 13, was 500ft. Within the Spadeadam range danger area the aircraft were permitted to descend to 250ft.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what responsibilities are held by authorising officers concerning the pre-flight checking of low-level flight profiles for(a) safety and (b) conformity with low flying regulations. [38136]

  Mr. Soames
  Authorising officers are responsible for ensuring that low-level sortie plans comply with the regulations and procedures in the United Kingdom military low flying handbook, and that aircrew are suitably qualified to execute the planned sortie safely.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 13 January,Official Report, columns 272–74, at what altitude and speed the aircraft were found to have been flying at the time of the two sonic boom incidents; and if either of the aircraft was carrying out a simulated attack or interception at the time of the incident. [38320]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is as follows:

  Date

  Estimated height

  Estimated speed

  21 July 1993

  12,800

  Mach 1.01

  11 August 1993

  25,000

  Mach 1.02

  The aircraft involved in the incident on 21 July was engaged in air combat manoeuvring and the aircraft involved in the incident on 11 August was running in to commence a simulated attack.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the RAF police are tasked to investigate breaches of low flying regulations in cases where the breach also leads to an air miss report being filed. [38138]

  Mr. Soames
  It is not our usual practice to initiate an RAF police investigation if, in the course of an investigation of an air miss report, it appears that a breach of low flying regulations may have occurred, but it is open to the chain of command of the aircrew concerned to request such an investigation if they believe there may be grounds for subsequent disciplinary action.

  If the alleged breach of low flying regulations is reported separately, an RAF police investigation may be started, but this will normally be terminated when it becomes apparent that an air miss investigation into the same incident is in progress.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many sorties are required for(a) pilots and (b) navigators to qualify in use of the thermal imaging

  589
  airborne laser designation pod; and how many of these sorties are required to be at low level. [38129]

  Mr. Soames
  To become qualified in the use of the TIALD pod, RAF Tornado pilots and navigators are required to fly four medium-level and six low-level sorties, and RAF Jaguar pilots five medium-level sorties.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the number of flying hours' experience held by the aircrew involved in each of the RAF fast jet low-level accidents listed in his Department's evidence to the Defence Committee, HC 120 (1989–90) pp.144–153, and HC 314 (1993–94), pp.29–30. [38137]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 January,Official Report, column 105, if he will list the dates, numbers, types and nationalities of aircraft, for the four alleged breaches of the Eshott avoidance area which were subsequently not confirmed. [38321]

  Mr. Soames
  Details of the four alleged breaches of Eshott microlight site in 1992 where a breach was suspected but could not be confirmed by RAF police investigations are as follows:

  Date

  Number and type of aircraft

  Nationality

  3 August

  1 x Tornado

  Italian Air Force

  6 August

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  6 August

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  14 September

  1 x F111

  USAF

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes were made to the boundaries of low flying area 1 in April 1993; and what notification of any such changes was made to(a) the media, (b) hon. Members, (c) the local authorities in the area concerned and (d) civil aviation interests. [38123]

  Mr. Soames
  The boundary between low flying area 1 and low flying area 18 was moved eastwards by approximately 15 miles. It is not our practice to notify hon. Members and the local media of all changes to the United Kingdom low flying system, and none of the individuals or bodies listed was notified at the time. Details of the change were, however, passed to the Defence Committee and published on page 25 of the House of Commons Defence Committee report, HC 314 of Session 1993–94, on low flying.

  Complaints from the Public
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints were received by his Department from Welsh members of the public in(a) 1985, (b) 1990 and (c) 1994. [36571]

  Mr. Soames
  We have no way of knowing how many members of the public who complain to our Department are Welsh. We deal with all complaints as quickly and sympathetically as possible.

  Trafalgar Class Submarines
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to award the contract for the construction of batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines. [36572]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I hope to be in a position to place a prime contract for the construction of batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines next year.

  UNPROFOR
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future role of UNPROFOR. [36573]

  Mr. Portillo
  Subject to the outcome of peace negotiations, we would expect UNPROFOR to be replaced by a NATO-led implementation force. The Government welcome the progress so far, but much remains to be done and UNPROFOR will continue to have a vital role to perform while the peace talks continue and until the implementation force is in place.

  Overseas Wars
  Mrs. Gorman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's policy on involvement in wars overseas. [36576]

  Mr. Portillo
  The United Kingdom is committed to the defence of its dependent territories and, under article 5 of the Washington treaty, to assist a NATO ally should its territory come under attack. In addition, we shall continue to play an appropriate role—political, diplomatic or military—in international efforts to promote peace and stability.

  Reserve Armed Forces
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he proposes to enhance the role and status of the reserve armed forces over the next 12 months. [36577]

  Mr. Soames
  We aim to introduce a Reserve Forces Bill as soon as possible. I announced to the House on 30 March the publication of the Bill in draft for consultation. More than 500 written responses have been received, the great majority supportive of our proposals. Many useful detailed observations were made and the draft Bill is being revised to take account of them.

  Intelligence-gathering Satellites
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with which countries the United Kingdom is collaborating or discussing collaboration on intelligence-gathering satellites. [36578]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Western European Union is currently studying the possibilities of co-operation on a European satellite observation system. The United Kingdom is contributing fully to that work.

  Hydrographic Service
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of ships available to the hydrographic service. [36579]
  591
  Mr. Soames
  There are currently six RN vessels available to the hydrographic service. There are three coastal survey vessels, HMS Bulldog, Beagle and Roebuck, the ocean survey vessels HMS Hecla and Herald and an inshore survey launcher, HMS Gleaner. HMS Scott, the replacement for HMS Hecla, is under construction as part of the ongoing programme to upgrade the capability of the hydrographic service. The hydrographic service also charters suitable commercial survey vessels which are used by RN survey teams in support of the civil hydrographic requirement.

  Anti-missile Defence
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of progress on the feasibility study on anti—missile defence. [36580]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  A contract was awarded in October 1994 to a consortium led by British Aerospace to carry out a pre-feasibility study to identify ballistic missile defence systems to counter potential threats to the United Kingdom, the dependent territories and our forces deployed overseas. The study, which is scheduled to run for some 18 months and is proceeding according to schedule, will identify practical defensive architectures against a range of scenarios taking account of performance criteria, costs, timescales and technical risk. This advice will inform subsequent policy consideration, including whether the UK has a requirement for ballistic missile defence.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on official hospitality by his Department in 1994–95 and in 1995 to date. [36581]

  Mr. Soames
  During financial year 1994–95 my Department spent £4.867 million on official hospitality, and as at 1 October 1995 £2.14 million has been spent during the current financial year. These figures include expenditure incurred by the Ministry of Defence itself, by formations and establishments of the armed forces at home and abroad, and by individual officers occupying command and international appointments for which entertainment allowances are payable.

  RAF Northolt
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the number of military air traffic movements at RAF Northolt for the most recent 12-month period for which figures are available. [36582]

  Mr. Soames
  There were 7,750 military air traffic movements at RAF Northolt during the period 1 October 1994 to 30 September 1995. Additionally, there were 2,085 civil movements on Ministry of Defence business during the same period.

  Western European Union
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his counterparts in the WEU to discuss the further development of a common defence policy; and if he will make a statement. [36583]
  592
  Mr. Soames
  WEU Foreign and Defence Ministers last met in Lisbon in May this year. The outcome was published in a communiqué of the meeting, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. They will meet again in November.

  Bosnia
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the situation in Bosnia. [36584]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on Bosnia. [36588]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer given to the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British troops are currently serving in Bosnia; and if he will make a statement. [36847]

  Mr. Soames
  Following the relocation of 24 Airmobile Brigade to the UK as part of the reconfiguration of United Nations forces requested by the UN Secretary General, almost 5,000 UK ground troops will remain in the former Yugoslavia. In addition, there are some 3,000 Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel deployed in the Adriatic theatre in support of UN and NATO operations.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many humanitarian aid convoys to Sarajevo were escorted over Mount Igman by United Nations forces during August and September 1995; and approximately what tonnage of relief supplies was delivered by that route. [38328]

  Mr. Soames
  No United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees humanitarian aid convoys were escorted over Mount Igman by UNPROFOR during August and September. Aid convoys from non-governmental organisations were escorted over this route during the same period, but the UN has been unable to provide statistics on the numbers or tonnage involved.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average minimum temperature at the British Army positions on Mount Igman during the last two weeks of September; and when the soldiers serving at these positions were issued with cold weather clothing. [38045]

  Mr. Soames
  The average minimum temperature at the British positions on Mount Igman during the last two weeks of September was minus 1 deg C. Winter clothing was issued in the first half of September to personnel in exposed positions such as observation posts; the balance was issued over the period 23 to 27 September.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Britain's requirements for attack and support helicopters now meet the United Kingdom's needs into the next century. [36585]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The orders which were announced during the 1995—for 67 Apache attack helicopters for the Army and 14 Chinook MkII and 22 utility EH101 support
  593
  helicopters for the Royal Air Force—will ensure that the United Kingdom's requirements for these capabilities will be satisfied for the foreseeable future.

  Land Mines
  Mrs. Jane Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ban the export of self-destruct anti-personnel land mines. [36586]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No. It would not be right to ban completely the export of a weapon which we may in future need to import for our own armed forces.

  New Office Accommodation
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff have been or are planned to be accommodated in new office accommodation. [36587]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Detailed information relating to all the new-build office accommodation is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Four new office accommodation projects in excess of £10 million in value have been approved centrally since 1991 to accommodate some 8,800 staff in total. All of these are part of wider strategies which result in significant savings to the taxpayer. They are the new Procurement Executive headquarters at Abbey Wood near Bristol, an additional office block at Andover for HQ Quarter Master General's staff, a new personnel and training command headquarters at RAF Innsworth and a new logistic command headquarters at RAF Wyton.

  French Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications he has had with his French counterpart on nuclear testing since July. [36751]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Nuclear testing was one of a wide range of defence issues discussed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during his meeting with the French Defence Minister in Paris on 27 September.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what access the United Kingdom will have to information or data resulting from the current French nuclear testing programme. [38457]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The UK has neither asked for, nor been offered, information or data resulting from the current French nuclear test programme.

  Nuclear Weapons (France)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each of the memoranda of understanding which currently exist between Britain and France with regard to all aspects of nuclear weapons, outlining the purpose of each, the date on which each one was signed and whether its text is classified; on what dates each one has been amended; and if any other countries are party to these memoranda. [38455]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is not our practice to reveal details on contacts with France on defence nuclear matters.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will define the current status of the technical discussions between Britain and France, referred to in 594
  para. 25 of the Commons report of the Defence Committee, "Progress of the Trident Programme", HC 350, on issues related to nuclear weapons stewardship, hydrodynamic experiments and computer simulations; which Ministers and officials have taken part in these discussions; and what subjects were covered. [38456]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) on 16 October 1995,Official Report, column 37.

  Helicopter Accident, Wales
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the report of the inquiry into the cause of the accident on 12 August 1993 at Padarn Lake, Llanberis, involving an RAF Wessex helicopter. [38097]

  Mr. Soames
  The RAF board of inquiry into this accident has been protracted by the complex technical investigation. It is planned to release the findings shortly.

  Royal Naval College (Irradiation Facilities)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the extent to which the Royal Naval College at Greenwich irradiation facilities have been used for commercial purposes. [39260]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency, under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive of the NRTA to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. D. Ferguson to Mr. Llew Smith, dated 24 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked the Chief Executive of the Naval Recruiting and Training Agency (NRTA) to reply to your Parliamentary Question, about the extent to which the irradiation facilities at the Royal Naval College at Greenwich have been used for commercial purposes. I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive who is away.Whilst it is Ministry of Defence policy to make use of any irreducible and temporarily unallocated training capacity wherever it is possible to do so, it is not the case that RNC Greenwich has provided irradiation facilities for commercial purposes. RNC Greenwich is part of the recently created NRTA and the Agency operates in accordance with the MOD policy and HM Treasury guidelines to market spare training capacity at its shore training facilities and thereby generate income.The Navy's Department of Nuclear Science and Technology (DNST), together with its low power nuclear reactor (known as JASON) are located at RNC Greenwich and are also part of the NRTA. Whilst DNST has a number of irradiation facilities other than JASON (including X-radiation and Gamma radiation facilities), in the context of your Parliamentary Question you will wish to be aware that DNST has provided only two training courses on a commercial basis during the past 12 months. The first being a one day training session for university students where the students observed JASON, but did not use it as an irradiation facility. The second was a three week course on instrument calibration. During this course, one practical session made use of JASON, but, again, not as an irradiation facility.I hope that you will find the foregoing to be helpful.

  Next Steps Agencies
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about possible defence agency status for the Director General Naval
  595
  Bases and Supply and Director General Ships organisations. [39420]

  Mr. Soames
  I have decided that the Director General Naval Bases and Supply and Director General Ships organisations, within the Naval Support Command, should be considered as candidates for defence agency status under the next steps initiative. Prior options studies will be undertaken to establish whether agency status or other options would be appropriate. Comments and ideas would be welcome from any interested parties. These should be sent by 15 December 1995 to D. G. Jones Esq, Director General Naval Bases and Supply, Management suite, Room 13, Block C, Ensleigh, Bath BA1 5AB or R. V. Babington Esq, Director General Ships, Spur 12, Block B, Foxhill, Bath BA1 5AB as appropriate.

  Air Defence Fighter Aircraft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has with the United States authorities concerning the leasing of F-16C aircraft for use as air defence fighters by the Royal Air Force. [38130]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My Department is currently examining proposals to upgrade the weapon systems of the Tornado F3 air defence fighter. A routine part of our evaluation procedure is to examine the comparative costs of alternative options. We have, in this context, contacted the United States Department of Defence for information concerning F-16 aircraft.

  Dodman Point Naval Firing Range
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many days firing practice has taken place since the naval firing range opened at Dodman Point in Cornwall; and on how many of those days safety boats have been present. [38479]

  Mr. Soames
  There have been 16 naval gunfire support training serials in the exercise areas off Dodman Point since the Operational Sea Training organisation moved to Plymouth this summer. Firing has taken place during five of these, at each of which a range safety craft was present.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when firing practice is taking place at Dodman Point naval firing range in Cornwall; on which occasions safety boats have been present throughout the firing; and for what period of time they have been absent. [38480]

  Mr. Soames
  Naval gunfire support training will be carried out in the sea exercise areas off Dodman Point on up to 72 occasions per year. Details of the specific timings of the individual firing serials are being published in advance in the local press and are also being broadcast through the Gunfacts system. A range safety craft has been present throughout all the firings which have been completed to date.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what regulations are in force regarding the use of safety boats during firing practice at Dodman Point naval firing range in Cornwall. [38478]

  Mr. Soames
  There are no specific regulations governing the use of safety boats during firing practice off Dodman Point. The requirement for such a boat is decided on a case by case basis by the Royal Navy, taking account of the particular conditions and circumstances of 596
  the firing. The main methods of ensuring that the range is clear are through visual and radar observation from the firing ship, and observation from the helicopter which is present.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans has he for allowing the use of MoD airfields to export livestock from the United Kingdom or for the sale of MoD airfields to exporters of livestock; and if he will make a statement on this point. [38704]

  Mr. Soames
  We have no plans to allow the use of operational MoD airfields for the export of livestock from the United Kingdom. I am not aware of any specific offer from companies to purchase any redundant airfield for this purpose at this time.

  Defence Expenditure
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission a study of the cost savings that would be made from linking British defence expenditure to the average level of out western European partners. [39250]

  Mr. Soames
  No. United Kingdom defence expenditure is determined by the Government's assessment of the UK's defence needs and spending priorities. It would be wrong to link defence spending to the average of other countries' defence spending.

  RAF 100 Squadron
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library the specification used under the market-testing initiative in respect of contracts involving RAF 100 Squadron; how many firms bid for these contracts; and which firms were successful. [38378]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The statement of requirement used in respect of the strategic contractorisation of target towing facilities at RAF 100 Squadron is an integral part of the contract which has been placed and is, therefore, considered to be contracts in confidence. As such, it cannot be made available in the Library of the House. Six contractors bid for the contract, which was won by Hunting Aviation.

  Regimental and Military Museums
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money will be provided out of MOD funds to pay for staff in each regimental or military museum in the United Kingdom in 1995–96. [38382]

  Mr. Soames
  Seventy regimental museums will receive a total of around £1.6 million funding from MOD towards staff costs in 1995–96. Separately, MOD provides a grant in aid of £3.2 million to the National Army Museum which is applied to the museum's operating costs and purchase grant.

  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if we will ensure that his Department's funding for the museum of the Royal Dragon Guards and Prince of Wales, Own Regiment in York will be maintained in future years at a sufficient level to keep this joint regimental museum open; [38384]
  597
  (2) what are the terms of reference of his Department's review of funding for regimental museums; and when the conclusions of the review will be made public. [38383]

  Mr. Soames
  An internal MOD study earlier this year suggested, that savings might be possible in MOD funding for regimental and corps museums. Work is continuing on how savings could be achieved and the impact this would have on the continued existence of these museums, but no decisions have yet been made.

  Tornado Aircraft
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the location of the Tornado event to be held in 1996. [38124]

  Mr. Soames
  We are not aware of any substantial Tornado event in 1996.

  Navigator Flying Training
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to privatise Royal Air Force navigator flying training. [38142]

  Mr. Soames
  There are no plans to privatise Royal Air Force navigator flying training.

  Air Miss, Humberside
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the US air force F15 aircraft involved in an air miss incident with an Icelandair Boeing 737 off Humberside on 19 August 1994 were found to have penetrated controlled airspace; and if he will make a statement. [38141]

  Mr. Soames
  The United States air force aircraft was operating legitimately within controlled airspace under air traffic control instruction at the time of the alleged incident. The pilot of the civil airliner has now withdrawn his report of an air miss, based on air traffic control evidence.

  Army Careers Information Office, York
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to close the Army careers information office in Micklegate, York. [38385]

  Mr. Soames
  No decision has yet been taken on when the Army careers information office in Micklegate, York should close.

  Jaguar Aircraft (Stress Corrosion)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances of the damage to Jaguar T.2A, serial number XX839; and what is the current status of the aircraft. [38119]

  Mr. Soames
  During a routine major servicing of Jaguar T.2A, serial number XX839, some relatively small stress corrosion cracks were identified in part of the fuselage structure. The aircraft is being held temporarily at St. Athan awaiting delivery of repair parts from the manufacturer.

  RAF Waddington
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what hydrazine incident response capability exists at RAF Waddington; and how many hydrazine incidents have occurred at RAF Waddington in each of the last three years. [38143]

  Mr. Soames
  All RAF Waddington's fire crash and rescue personnel are fully trained—and continue to receive refresher training—in hydrazine emergency handling procedures. Apart from a minor incident on 17 October 1995, which was successfully handled in accordance with standard procedures, there have been no other incidents involving hydrazine at RAF Waddington in the past three years.

  Flying Regulation Breaches
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates, locations, numbers, types and nationalities of aircraft, nature of the breach, disciplinary actions taken against aircrew and lessons learned from each of the confirmed breaches of flying regulations other than low flying regulations during 1994. [38139]

  Mr. Soames
  Unlike breaches of low flying regulations, no cental record is maintained of breaches of general flying regulations which are much more wide ranging and varied. As a result, the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, details of incidents with flight safety implications are notified to the appropriate authority.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the methods of BSE transmission since the ban on certain forms of offal in animal feed. [36422]

  Mrs. Browning
  This Department has an extensive programme of research on BSE. Results are published in scientific journals. Details are also contained in the latest report of the Spongiform Encephalopathies Advisory Committee—"Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies—A Summary of Present Knowledge and Research", published in February this year. In addition, they are detailed in the regular reports on BSE which MAFF makes to the House. Copies of these reports are available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases have been discovered of prohibited forms of offal being put into animal feeds since the ban was introduced, and if he will make a statement. [36426]

  Mrs. Browning
  We are not aware of any cases of Specified Bovine Offals being put directly into animal feeds since the ban was introduced. However, the fact that we are continuing to see cases of BSE in animals born after the introduction of the feed ban in July 1988 suggests that there has been some continued leakage of BSE infective material into feed. The results of recent
  599
  surveillance at slaughterhouses and head boning plants, announced in the House on 19 July, Official Report, 19 July 1995, columns 1467–68, also suggested that this was a possibility.

  Mr. Jones:
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the rate of enforcement of the ban on the use of certain forms of offal in animals feeds, with particular reference to restricting BSE transmission; and if he will make a statement. [36424]

  Mrs. Browning
  The state veterinary service regularly monitors the enforcement of the controls in slaughterhouse and elsewhere, on specified bovine offals, which are required to be separated and disposed of by incineration or burial. The results of recent surveillance of slaughterhouses and head boning plants were announced in the House on 19 July,Official Report, 19 July 1995, columns 1467–48.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of maternally transmitted BSE have been recorded in the United Kingdom herd, for each of the last seven years; and how many cases of BSE have been recorded for each of the last seven years. [36421]

  Mrs. Browning
  There is no experimental or epidemiological evidence available to confirm that maternal transmission of BSE occurs. Results of research to test the hypothesis that the disease might be transmitted maternally will not be available until 1997, when a definitive cohort study will be completed. It is already clear, however, that if maternal transmission does occur, it does so too infrequently to be detected with current statistical techniques or to sustain the epidemic.

  The following list of the number of confirmed cases of BSE in United Kingdom up to 13 October 1995. The cases prior to 21 June 1988 are recorded by date of clinical onset of disease and the cases thereafter are recorded by date of restriction.

  1986: 7

  1987: 435

  1988: 2,469

  1989: 7,137

  1990: 14,181

  1991: 25,032

  1992: 36,681

  1993: 34,371

  1994: 23,943

  1995: 9,602

  It is not possible to identify routes of transmission for each individual suspect given the long incubation period BSE, and considerable potential for exposure via feed. Evidence gathered when individual cases are investigated forms the basis of a statistical analysis on a population basis.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the budget of his Department to ensure regulations relating to BSE and the use of offal in feeds have been enforced, and if he will make a statement. [36425]
  600
  Mrs. Browning
  The BSE manpower budget for this Department, excluding agencies, for the current financial year is £4.2 million. It is not possible, without disproportionate costs, to identify enforcement costs separately.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the budget and how many staff are involved in monitoring the prohibited forms of bovine offal entering human food. [36727]

  Mrs. Browning
  Enforcement of the controls on specified bovine offal in slaughterhouses and head boning plants is the responsibility of the Meat Hygiene Service. The MHS currently employs 778 red meat inspectors in day to day enforcement work at red meat plants—pig, sheep and cattle—which includes the enforcement of the SBO controls. The cost of this work is not recoverable from the industry.

  The total budget for these staff for the current financial year is £12,180,000. It is not possible, without disproportionate costs, to identify from among the non-recoverable costs the enforcement costs from the SBO controls alone.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in how many cases in the last five years prohibited forms of offal have been found entering human food; and what fines have been imposed. [36728]

  Mrs. Browning
  No such cases have been notified to this Department. However, until 1 April 1995 local authorities were responsible for enforcement of the controls on specified bovine offal in slaughterhouses and head boning plants. Information on enforcement before that date is not therefore held centrally. It is not possible, without disproportionate costs, to collect and collate this information from local authorities.

  Since 1 April 1995 the Meat Hygiene Service has been responsible for enforcement of the controls. We know of no instances where SBOs have entered the human food chain. We are aware of four cases where small amounts of SBO had been left attached to carcases after dressing but these were properly removed before the carcases left the premises.

  Codex Alimentarius Agreement
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans his Department has to establish maximum residue limits for hormones in meats following the recent codex alimentarius agreement. [36423]

  Mrs. Browning
  Decisions by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to adopt maximum residue limits are not binding on codex member countries. They are taken into account when the Community establishes MRLs under regulation (EEC) 2377/90 which are then applicable in all member states. Before MRLs can be considered, applications must be submitted by pharmaceutical companies.

  The use of hormonal growth promoters in food producing animals has been banned throughout the Community since 1988. It also applies to meat and meat products imported from third countries. As a result of the ban, Community MRLs have not been set for growth-promoting hormones and residues surveillance is

  601
  based on analysis to the minimum level of quantification. It is for the European Commission to consider whether or not the Codex decisions will have any effect on the current prohibition.

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what subsidies were paid out for environmentally sensitive areas in England in(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95 and (d) 1995–96; and how many individuals were recipients of these payments in these years. [37130]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Ministry paid the following sums to ESA agreement holders in England:

  Amount paid (£000s)

  Number of recipients

  1992–93

  10,461

  3,265

  1993–94

  16,235

  4,514

  1994–95

  19,367

  6,141

  The above figures relate to United Kingdom financial years (i.e. 1 April to 31 March).

  It is estimated that £30 million will be paid in 1995–96 to about 7,000 recipients.

  Game Rearing Industry
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has had from the game rearing industry regarding the ban on Emtryl. [37430]

  Mrs. Browning
  We have received a number of representations from the game rearing industry, including the Game Conservancy Trust and the Game Farmers Association.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence Ministers received from the Veterinary Medicines Directorate about the ban on dimetridazole. [37428]

  Mrs. Browning
  We are aware of the concerns over this ban, and a number of options to overcome the consequential problems of the game rearing industry are under active consideration.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the effect of Emtryl on the economies of those areas of rural Britain where game birds are bred. [37432]

  Mrs. Browning
  To official assessment has been made. We are aware however, that the banning of dimetridazole could lead to flock losses as high as 50 per cent. or more. This is why we are working with game bird organisations to try to find a solution.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the policy of Her Majesty's Government in respect of the recent European Union ban on the chemical dimetridazole sold under the trade name Emtryl. [37422]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Government opposed the proposal to prohibit the therapeutic use of dimetridazole—Emtryl—by its inclusion in annex IV of Council regulation (EEC) 2377/90, on the grounds that the 602
  scientific data could enable a maximum residue limit to be set to protect consumers and because of the animal welfare problems which would result from a ban.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what weighting was given to the United Kingdom position on the European Union decision to ban Emtryl. [37431]

  Mrs. Browning
  The position of the UK was accorded its due weight under the normal procedures of the Community. Decisions on entries in the annexes of Council regulation (EEC) 2377/90 are taken at regulatory committee by qualified majority voting. If referred to the Council of Agriculture Ministers, the contre filet procedure applies.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what alternative drugs are available to breeders of game birds to control hexamitiasis and trichomoniasis in larger flocks. [37429]

  Mrs. Browning
  We are not aware that there are any satisfactory alternative medicinal products available to the game rearing industry for the treatment of these conditions.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if Her Majesty's Government will now take steps to suspend the European Union ban on Emtryl pending further investigations on alternative disease control agents. [37433]

  Mrs. Browning
  We are considering a number of options to try to assist the game rearing industry as a result of this prohibition.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what monitoring is carried out by or for his Department to ensure(a) that pesticide residues on horticultural produce remain below recommended levels and (b) that the amount of pesticides sprayed on to horticultural crops remains below recommended levels. [37747]

  Mrs. Browning
  Monitoring of both home-produced and imported food for pesticide residues is carried out for the Government's working party on pesticide residues. Some 3,000 to 4,000 samples are analysed each year at a cost of over £2 million.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research has been carried out by or on behalf of his Department into the effects on humans of pesticide levels which exceed recommended levels, with special reference to the long-term low-level effects of pesticides on humans. [37745]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department does not carry out or directly commission any such research. However, before any pesticide is permitted for use, a thorough assessment of its potential impact on humans, including long-term effects, is carried out based on research carried out by the applicant company on that specific pesticide. This assessment will identify the level at which no adverse effects will be seen and use is only permitted if it is expected to lead to human exposure substantially less than that level. The assessment also identifies the effects that may begin to be seen at high levels.
  603
  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidelines there are to control(a) the amount of pesticides sprayed on to horticultural crops and (b) the levels of pesticide residues on fresh fruit and vegetables. [37748]

  Mrs. Browning
  For each approved pesticide the maximum permitted usage rate, which may vary from crop to crop, will be set out on the product label. In some cases, a minimum interval between application of a pesticide and harvesting a crop will also be specified. It is an offence for a pesticide user to breach these statutory conditions of use. The conditions are set so as to ensure that, when observed, they do not give rise to unacceptable levels of residue on and in crops.

  For many pesticides, statutory maximum residue levels have been set which reflect the greatest amount of pesticide that should be found in a crop which has not been treated according to the approved conditions of use. The statutory code of practice for the safe use of pesticides on farms and holdings provides general guidance on the application of pesticides.

  Mr. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what pesticide products have been licensed for use in horticultural production since 1972; and what is the proprietary name, the manufacturing company, the exact ingredients and the date of the licence in each case. [37746]

  Mrs. Browning
  Pesticides approved as of 31 October 1994 are listed in the HMSO publication "Pesticides 1995". However, the detailed information requested could only be provided at disproportionate cost. Ministers only approve the marketing or use of a pesticide if thorough evaluation establishes that it is effective and poses no unacceptable risk to human beings, non-target species or the wider environment.

  Pigs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are his plans with regard to the welfare of pigs. [38004]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994, S.I 2126 implemented EU directive 91/630 laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, including minimum space requirements for weaners and rearing pigs which will fully come into force on 1 January 1998. The regulations also maintained the requirement that the use of sow stalls and tethers should be phased out by the end of 1988 and banned the use of sweat box systems from 1 July this year.

  We await with interest the outcome of the Farm Animal Welfare Council's review of the welfare of outdoor pigs.

  The EU directive is due for review in 1997 and we have reminded the Commission of the importance of keeping to this timetable. We remain committed to securing harmonisation of EU legislation on the basis of our own high standards.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to repeal or amend the prohibition on sow stalls and tethers provided for by the Welfare of Livestock Regulations 1994; and if he will make a statement. [38007]
  604
  Mrs. Browning
  We have no such plans.

  Milk and Dairy Inspections
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals he has to bring milk and dairy inspection charges into line with those in Scotland. [38150]

  Mr. Baldry
  None. Inspections in England and Wales are carried out by ADAS and the costs recovered from producers. In Scotland, inspections are carried out by environmental health officers and the costs met by the local food authorities.

  Intervention Stocks
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he next expects the Intervention Board to release for distribution stocks of(a) butter, (b) cheese and (c) wine; and if he will make a statement. [38295]

  Mr. Baldry
  I have no such plans for release of stocks of butter from intervention for distribution under the surplus food scheme. Neither cheese nor wine is held in intervention in the United Kingdom.

  Nuclear Waste
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department possesses as to the quantities of nuclear wastes dumped(a) in Hurd deep off Alderney and (b) the Beaufort dyke off Scotland and Northern Ireland by the United Kingdom; and if he will place in the Library copies of all reports on the disposal of radioactive waste in these two locations held by his Department. [39254]

  Mr. Baldry
  No nuclear waste has been disposed of in the Beaufort dyke. Very low-level radioactive waste was disposed of in the Hurd deep from 1950 to 1963. Full details are contained in "Report of the Independent Review of Disposal of Radioactive Waste in there Northeast Atlantic" by Professor F. G. T. Holliday. This report was placed in the Library of the House on publication in 1984.

  Orange Juice
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the price of orange juice; what assessment he has made of future trends in prices; and which authorities influence the price charged in the United Kingdom. [39279]

  Mrs. Browning
  There is a wide variety of types of orange juice, including premium juice made from freshly squeezed oranges, long-life juice made from imported concentrate, and mixtures with other fruit juices. The retail price depends on the type of juice, the cost of manufacture and packaging, the pricing and promotional policy of the retailer and other factors. I see no way of predicting future price trends with confidence, given the number of variables involved.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the amount of the import levy on non-EC orange juice being imposed in the present month; what will be the impact on retail prices; what is
  605
  the object of the levy; and what assessment he has made of whether the levy conforms to the EU's general agreement on tariffs and trade obligations. [37630]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 19 October 1995]: Imports of orange juice into the European Union from non-preferential sources are at present subject to an ad valorem duty of either 18.4 per cent., or 40.6 per cent., depending on the nature of the product, and in most cases a specific duty of 24.8 ecu—currently about £20—per 100 kg. Preferential arrangements apply to imports from a range of countries, for example imports from Israel within a quota are subject only to any specific duty payable.

  Given the range of duty rates and variety of product lines concerned, the impact on retail prices cannot readily be assessed.

  These duties form part of a system of Community preference that has existed for many years: on 1 July 1995, the variable levy that existed before that date was replaced by a specific duty required under the GATT settlement. I am satisfied that these duties conform to the EU's obligations under that settlement.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the average journey distance of a quadraped livestock animal to its place of slaughter for each of the last 15 years. [38422]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 20 October 1995]: The Department does not collect such information and has no plans to do so.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of abattoirs in the UK by convenient capacity categories for each of the last 15 years. [38445]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 20 October 1995]: The Department does not hold figures on the individual or total capacity of slaughterhouses in Great Britain and has no plans to collect this information centrally. The Meat and Livestock Commission's annual publication entitled "The Abattoir Industry in Great Britain"—available from the MLC—ISBN 0904650.33.2—contains information on the numbers of British abattoirs for the period requested, and discusses the changes in capacity that have occurred since 1982.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Short-time Working
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimates her Department has made of the number of companies currently on short-time working; and how many employees are affected by such short-time working. [37513]

  Mr. Forth
  In August 1995—provisional—8,000 operatives were affected by short-time working. Further information can be obtained from table 1.11 of the 606
  Employment Gazette, copies of which are in the House of Commons Library. Figures for the number of companies on short-time working are not available.

  Pupil Costs
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent per(a) primary and (b) secondary school pupil in each of the local education authorities in England in the most recent year for which figures are available at constant prices. [37665]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table sets out for each LEA in England the net institutional expenditure per pupil in LEA maintained pre-primary/primary schools and secondary schools.

  Cost per pupil—net institutional expenditure 1993–94

  Nursery/primary £

  Secondary £

  Corporation of London

  3,587

  0

  Camden

  2,047

  2,716

  Greenwich

  2,009

  2,583

  Hackney

  1,958

  2,617

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,534

  3,329

  Islington

  2,719

  3,005

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,394

  3,266

  Lambeth

  2,666

  3,296

  Lewisham

  2,058

  2,614

  Southwark

  1,806

  2,421

  Tower Hamlets

  2,656

  3,157

  Wandsworth

  2,139

  2,795

  City of Westminster

  2,592

  2,739

  Barking

  1,790

  2,355

  Barnet

  2,006

  2,952

  Bexley

  1,573

  2,341

  Brent

  1,633

  1,835

  Bromley

  1,525

  2,280

  Croydon

  1,793

  2,309

  Ealing

  1,915

  2,575

  Enfield

  1,768

  2,531

  Haringey

  2,236

  3,041

  Harrow

  1,913

  2,439

  Havering

  1,636

  2,290

  Hillingdon

  1,804

  2,670

  Hounslow

  1,935

  2,282

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,728

  2,284

  Merton

  1,853

  2,463

  Newham

  1,708

  2,563

  Redbridge

  1,640

  2,526

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,794

  2,280

  Sutton

  1,639

  1,978

  Waltham Forest

  1,821

  2,526

  Birmingham

  1,572

  2,330

  Coventry

  1,684

  2,469

  Dudley

  1,490

  2,098

  Sandwell

  1,681

  2,349

  Solihull

  1,574

  2,217

  Walsall

  1,672

  2,281

  Wolverhampton

  1,357

  2,300

  Knowsley

  1,485

  2,243

  Liverpool

  1,586

  2,613

  St. Helens

  1,605

  2,315

  Sefton

  1,448

  2,204

  Wirral

  1,552

  2,299

  Bolton

  1,581

  2,119

  Bury

  1,432

  1,979

  Manchester

  1,547

  2,328

  Oldham

  1,645

  2,278

  Rochdale

  1,307

  1,974

  Salford

  1,505

  2,215

  Stockport

  1,466

  2,310

  Tameside

  1,442

  2,095

  607

  Cost per pupil—net institutional expenditure 1993–94

  Nursery/primary £

  Secondary £

  Trafford

  1,428

  2,156

  Wigan

  1,437

  2,141

  Barnsley

  1,539

  2,101

  Doncaster

  1,425

  2,022

  Rotherham

  1,723

  2,271

  Sheffield

  1,573

  2,119

  Bradford

  1,654

  1,969

  Calderdale

  1,607

  2,162

  Kirklees

  1,579

  2,207

  Leeds

  1,647

  2,164

  Wakefield

  1,577

  2,150

  Gateshead

  1,664

  2,252

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  1,697

  2,187

  North Tyneside

  1,469

  1,995

  South Tyneside

  1,463

  1,948

  Sunderland

  1,509

  2,114

  Isles of Scilly

  2,401

  4,415

  Avon

  1,571

  2,288

  Bedfordshire

  1,639

  2,103

  Berkshire

  1,592

  2,214

  Buckinghamshire

  1,735

  2,286

  Cambridgeshire

  1,534

  1,956

  Cheshire

  1,483

  2,106

  Cleveland

  1,461

  2,129

  Cornwall

  1,535

  2,160

  Cumbria

  1,667

  2,216

  Derbyshire

  1,600

  2,214

  Devon

  1,503

  2,157

  Dorset

  1,485

  2,065

  Durham

  1,664

  2,114

  East Sussex

  1,643

  2,270

  Essex

  1,724

  2,286

  Gloucestershire

  1,523

  2,084

  Hampshire

  1,583

  2,180

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,617

  2,038

  Hertfordshire

  1,664

  2,245

  Humberside

  1,621

  2,257

  Isle of Wight

  1,598

  2,027

  Kent

  1,397

  2,079

  Lancashire

  1,669

  2,347

  Leicestershire

  1,629

  2,263

  Lincolnshire

  1,496

  2,322

  Norfolk

  1,585

  2,309

  North Yorkshire

  1,555

  2,187

  Northamptonshire

  1,522

  2,125

  Northumberland

  1,686

  2,083

  Nottinghamshire

  1,653

  2,381

  Oxfordshire

  1,765

  2,191

  Shropshire

  1,577

  2,354

  Somerset

  1,583

  2,138

  Staffordshire

  1,534

  2,078

  Suffolk

  1,673

  2,190

  Surrey

  1,701

  2,215

  Warwickshire

  1,555

  2,420

  West Sussex

  1,579

  2,467

  Wiltshire

  1,521

  2,379

  All England

  1,630

  2,245

  Education Expenditure, Staffordshire
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent in total on education in Staffordshire in each of the past 25 years, at constant prices. [37667]
  608
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table shows expenditure by Staffordshire local education authority from 1970–71 to 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available. The figures have not been adjusted for any changes of function.

  Gross expenditure (1993–94 prices)

  Staffordshire county council

  £ million

  1970–71

  264.12

  1971–72

  279.46

  1972–73

  297.28

  1973–74

  320.22

  1974–75

  451.10

  1975–76

  463.65

  1976–77

  469.50

  1977–78

  450.99

  1978–79

  461.05

  1979–80

  451.17

  1980–81

  459.07

  1981–82

  466.49

  1982–83

  456.00

  1983–84

  461.19

  1984–85

  449.32

  1985–86

  440.32

  1986–87

  460.01

  1987–88

  472.42

  1988–89

  481.56

  1989–90

  457.29

  1990–91

  465.41

  1991–92

  470.05

  1992–93

  512.69

  1993–94

  405.15

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent per pupil in Staffordshire(a) in primary schools and (b) in secondary schools in each of the past 25 years, at constant prices. [37671]

  Mr. Squire
  The table shows expenditure by Staffordshire local education authority on(a) pre-primary and primary pupils combined, and on (b) secondary pupils from 1974–75 and 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available. Equivalent figures prior to 1974–75 are not readily available centrally. The figures differ from those in my answer of 28 February 1995, Official Report, column 536, because firm figures are now available for 1993–94, and because a revised GDP deflator has been applied.

  Unit costs (1994–95 prices)

  £

  Pre-;primary/primary

  Secondary

  Staffordshire county council

  1974–75

  1,195

  1,938

  1975–76

  1,201

  2,001

  1976–77

  1,220

  1,944

  1977–78

  1,164

  1,824

  1978–79

  1,178

  1,817

  1979–80

  1,192

  1,778

  1980–81

  1,183

  1,636

  1981–82

  1,250

  1,707

  1982–83

  1,276

  1,705

  1983–84

  1,320

  1,759

  1984–85

  1,285

  1,761

  1985–86

  1,278

  1,817

  609

  Unit costs (1994–95 prices)

  £

  Pre-primary/primary

  Secondary

  1986–87

  1,340

  1,968

  1987–88

  1,414

  2,108

  1988–89

  1,438

  2,219

  1989–90

  1,448

  2,242

  1990–91

  1,460

  2,173

  1991–92

  1,524

  2,231

  1992–93

  1,533

  2,189

  1993–94

  1,561

  2,114

  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent in total on school education in Staffordshire in each of the past 25 years, at constant prices. [37663]

  Mr. Squire
  The table shows expenditure on per-primary, and primary and secondary education by Staffordshire local education authority from 1970–71 and 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available. These figures have not been adjusted for any changes of function.

  Expenditure on school education (1993–94 prices)

  £ million

  Staffordshire county council

  1970–71

  156.23

  1971–72

  165.64

  1972–73

  175.95

  1973–74

  191.14

  1974–75

  283.80

  1975–76

  289.81

  1976–77

  292.80

  1977–78

  278.39

  1978–79

  281.47

  1979–80

  276.93

  1980–81

  288.04

  1981–82

  292.34

  1982–83

  285.42

  1983–84

  287.83

  1984–85

  277.12

  1985–86

  274.36

  1986–87

  282.80

  1987–88

  291.86

  1988–89

  293.64

  1989–90

  301.35

  1990–91

  304.63

  1991–92

  295.94

  1992–93

  353.99

  1993–94

  290.65

  Teachers' Salaries
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of the total schools' budget was spent on teachers' salaries in each of the local education authorities in England in the most recent year for which figures are available. [37668]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The table sets out for each LEA in England the expenditure on teaching staff in LEA maintained pre-primary/primary schools and secondary schools as a percentage of the net institutional expenditure in those schools for 1993–94, the latest year for which figures are available.610

  Teaching staff cost as a percentage of net institutional expenditure 1993–94

  A

  B

  C

  LEA

  Teaching staff £000

  Net institutional expenditure £000

  A as a percentage of B Percentage

  Corporation of London

  378

  733

  52

  Camden

  35,194

  46,302

  76

  Greenwich

  50,130

  77,061

  65

  Hackney

  38,459

  51,207

  75

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  22,873

  39,040

  59

  Islington

  33,662

  63,274

  53

  Kensington and Chelsea

  15,156

  23,362

  65

  Lambeth

  34,363

  59,898

  57

  Lewisham

  41,099

  68,108

  60

  Southwark

  35,338

  54,945

  64

  Tower Hamlets

  54,948

  91,306

  60

  Wandsworth

  26,905

  43,474

  62

  City of Westminster

  29,294

  43,757

  67

  Barking

  33,546

  49,756

  67

  Barnet

  53,545

  79,721

  67

  Bexley

  39,690

  57,976

  68

  Brent

  35,940

  46,275

  78

  Bromley

  32,864

  45,870

  72

  Croydon

  48,644

  73,977

  66

  Ealing

  43,194

  64,023

  67

  Enfield

  49,634

  75,390

  66

  Haringey

  45,935

  69,825

  66

  Harrow

  37,489

  55,040

  68

  Havering

  40,556

  59,589

  68

  Hillingdon

  24,566

  38,121

  64

  Hounslow

  44,736

  66,548

  67

  Kingston upon Thames

  20,811

  29,733

  70

  Merton

  31,906

  43,984

  73

  Newham

  50,705

  75,469

  67

  Redbridge

  46,535

  67,518

  69

  Richmond upon Thames

  24,903

  35,540

  70

  Sutton

  21,402

  30,401

  70

  Waltham Forest

  40,535

  58,999

  69

  Birmingham

  196,471

  289,888

  68

  Coventry

  64,075

  95,385

  67

  Dudley

  53,025

  71,564

  74

  Sandwell

  62,564

  92,154

  68

  Solihull

  40,771

  58,845

  69

  Walsall

  52,830

  78,333

  67

  Wolverhampton

  51,527

  64,736

  80

  Knowsley

  31,389

  45,255

  69

  Liverpool

  96,545

  151,860

  64

  St. Helens

  37,063

  54,132

  68

  Sefton

  55,666

  79,781

  70

  Wirral

  66,090

  92,781

  71

  Bolton

  52,422

  72,778

  72

  Bury

  31,913

  43,809

  73

  Manchester

  82,441

  121,410

  68

  Oldham

  53,602

  76,242

  70

  Rochdale

  37,191

  51,176

  73

  Salford

  43,307

  60,293

  72

  Stockport

  51,810

  73,397

  71

  Tameside

  37,618

  55,878

  67

  Trafford

  34,606

  48,526

  71

  Wigan

  62,581

  83,150

  75

  Barnsley

  40,554

  57,556

  70

  Doncaster

  60,089

  83,367

  72

  Rotherham

  55,960

  81,735

  68

  Sheffield

  87,358

  120,122

  73

  Bradford

  104,376

  146,676

  71

  Calderdale

  36,813

  51,534

  71

  Kirklees

  78,290

  108,218

  72

  Leeds

  141,119

  198,082

  71

  Wakefield

  60,282

  88,219

  68

  Gateshead

  38,847

  55,499

  70

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  49,545

  74,609

  66

  North Tyneside

  38,582

  51,418

  75

  South Tyneside

  30,202

  40,908

  74

  Sunderland

  62,686

  85,118

  74

  Isles of Scilly

  582

  915

  64

  Avon

  167,577

  245,926

  68

  Bedfordshire

  100,576

  146,717

  69

  611

  Teaching staff cost as a percentage of net institutional expenditure 1993–94

  A

  B

  C

  LEA

  Teaching staff £000

  Net institutional expenditure £000

  A as a percentage of B Percentage

  Berkshire

  128,112

  181,262

  71

  Buckinghamshire

  105,449

  168,270

  63

  Cambridgeshire

  98,564

  143,360

  69

  Cheshire

  178,169

  258,947

  69

  Cleveland

  116,869

  165,533

  71

  Cornwall

  85,273

  122,213

  70

  Cumbria

  87,360

  121,321

  72

  Derbyshire

  161,265

  229,278

  70

  Devon

  169,425

  238,869

  72

  Dorset

  93,728

  131,513

  71

  Durham

  116,556

  171,186

  68

  East Sussex

  109,940

  158,657

  69

  Essex

  199,831

  297,785

  67

  Gloucestershire

  68,882

  95,940

  72

  Hampshire

  243,811

  350,002

  70

  Hereford and Worcester

  123,108

  169,327

  73

  Hertfordshire

  176,401

  254,881

  69

  Humberside

  165,106

  258,537

  64

  Isle of Wight

  23,356

  32,533

  72

  Kent

  216,360

  299,603

  72

  Lancashire

  277,811

  398,358

  70

  Leicestershire

  178,468

  256,746

  70

  Lincolnshire

  83,627

  118,238

  71

  Norfolk

  121,095

  170,158

  71

  North Yorkshire

  133,453

  184,672

  72

  Northamptonshire

  104,657

  148,318

  71

  Northumberland

  60,487

  94,228

  64

  Full-time equivalent teachers employed by local education authorities and grant-maintained schools in the nursery, primary and secondary sector 1991–95

  Position in January each year

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Local education authority area

  All schools

  GM only

  All schools

  GM only

  All schools

  GM only

  All schools

  GM only

  All schools

  GM only

  Corporation of London

  14

  —

  11

  —

  15

  —

  14

  —

  16

  —

  Camden

  1,196

  —

  1,299

  —

  1,273

  —

  1,321

  160

  1,346

  165

  Greenwich

  2,196

  —

  2,234

  —

  2,033

  —

  1,984

  —

  1,939

  11

  Hackney

  1,715

  —

  1,604

  —

  1,550

  —

  1,459

  —

  1,429

  7

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  1,045

  79

  1,033

  83

  1,024

  88

  977

  86

  941

  82

  Islington

  1,310

  —

  1,338

  —

  1,533

  —

  1,627

  —

  1,360

  —

  Kensington and Chelsea

  689

  41

  795

  42

  696

  45

  670

  65

  674

  78

  Lambeth

  1,453

  —

  1,541

  39

  1,549

  55

  1,575

  303

  1,680

  390

  Lewisham

  1,818

  —

  1,411

  —

  1,777

  19

  1,809

  23

  1,863

  21

  Southwark

  1,714

  31

  1,695

  34

  1,705

  33

  1,739

  236

  1,687

  237

  Tower Hamlets

  2,115

  —

  2,118

  56

  2,232

  59

  2,309

  57

  2,250

  59

  Wandsworth

  1,725

  —

  1,730

  186

  1,754

  314

  1,625

  478

  1,561

  485

  Westminster

  1,154

  —

  1,147

  —

  1,188

  —

  1,160

  —

  1,121

  —

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,267

  —

  1,322

  —

  1,353

  —

  1,375

  —

  1,446

  —

  Barnet

  2,415

  131

  2,595

  139

  2,597

  224

  2,596

  649

  2,638

  720

  Bexley

  1,745

  —

  1,711

  —

  1,753

  20

  1,781

  202

  1,836

  261

  Brent

  2,023

  63

  2,032

  64

  2,030

  147

  1,962

  595

  1,971

  803

  Bromley

  1,958

  58

  1,938

  383

  2,080

  720

  2,179

  745

  2,181

  871

  Croydon

  2,548

  —

  2,486

  50

  2,397

  57

  2,326

  266

  2,409

  544

  Ealing

  2,202

  —

  2,143

  —

  2,130

  349

  2,077

  444

  2,097

  460

  Enfield

  2,264

  —

  2,292

  —

  2,324

  —

  2,273

  362

  2,358

  371

  Haringey

  1,553

  —

  1,605

  —

  1,589

  —

  1,719

  —

  1,730

  —

  Harrow

  1,450

  —

  1,570

  —

  1,581

  —

  1,566

  33

  1,576

  37

  Havering

  2,011

  —

  2,049

  —

  2,009

  —

  1,907

  236

  1,891

  249

  Hillingdon

  1,754

  60

  1,770

  422

  1,843

  609

  1,814

  875

  1,870

  911

  Hounslow

  1,928

  —

  1,891

  —

  1,869

  —

  1,880

  128

  1,890

  134

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,035

  —

  988

  —

  1,051

  60

  1,066

  202

  1,057

  208

  Merton

  1,311

  —

  1,268

  —

  1,297

  —

  1,255

  —

  1,269

  51

  Newham

  2,070

  —

  2,039

  45

  1,972

  43

  1,916

  43

  1,968

  44

  Redbridge

  1,698

  —

  1,796

  —

  1,858

  —

  1,927

  72

  1,937

  74

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,016

  —

  1,135

  —

  1,029

  —

  1,040

  —

  1,052

  —

  Sutton

  1,345

  50

  1,299

  152

  1,266

  254

  1,292

  443

  1,354

  452

  Waltham Forest

  1,917

  —

  1,976

  67

  1,903

  71

  1,718

  127

  1,706

  140

  612

  Teaching staff cost as a percentage of net institutional expenditure 1993–94

  A

  B

  C

  LEA

  Teaching staff £000

  Net institutional expenditure £000

  A as a percentage of B Percentage

  Nottinghamshire

  194,118

  290,292

  67

  Oxfordshire

  100,658

  147,651

  68

  Shropshire

  75,902

  107,487

  71

  Somerset

  82,420

  115,127

  72

  Staffordshire

  185,020

  279,249

  66

  Suffolk

  126,513

  175,794

  72

  Surrey

  135,672

  195,024

  70

  Warwickshire

  85,464

  121,532

  70

  West Sussex

  122,783

  181,070

  68

  Wiltshire

  92,673

  132,678

  70

  8,462,266

  12,243,402

  69

  Teacher Numbers
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers were employed and how many of them were employed in grant-maintained schools in each local education authority in England in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what were the figures in the previous five years. [37664]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  613

  Full-time equivalent teachers employed by local education authorities and grant-maintained schools in the nursery, primary and secondary sector 1991–95

  Position in January each year

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Local education authority area

  All schools

  GM only

  All schools

  GM only

  All schools

  GM only

  All schools

  GM only

  All schools

  GM only

  Birmingham

  9,125

  165

  9,343

  311

  9,548

  335

  9,452

  922

  9,366

  1,087

  Coventry

  2,745

  —

  2,795

  —

  2,752

  —

  2,747

  —

  2,657

  —

  Dudley

  2,727

  43

  2,781

  43

  2,670

  45

  2,534

  303

  2,576

  318

  Sandwell

  2,949

  —

  2,921

  50

  2,959

  53

  2,828

  48

  2,689

  109

  Solihull

  1,860

  —

  1,795

  —

  1,857

  27

  1,836

  26

  1,845

  25

  Walsall

  2,744

  —

  2,619

  —

  2,575

  154

  2,668

  390

  2,560

  465

  Wolverhampton

  2,582

  40

  2,636

  122

  2,467

  120

  2,447

  164

  2,377

  166

  Knowsley

  1,481

  —

  1,398

  —

  1,351

  —

  1,354

  44

  1,446

  46

  Liverpool

  4,470

  65

  4,221

  69

  4,185

  69

  4,191

  147

  4,194

  204

  St. Helens

  1,713

  —

  1,656

  —

  1,679

  —

  1,637

  —

  1,635

  —

  Sefton

  2,433

  —

  2,479

  —

  2,515

  —

  2,484

  —

  2,546

  —

  Wirral

  3,099

  —

  2,924

  —

  2,963

  —

  2,885

  129

  2,927

  132

  Bolton

  2,550

  47

  2,496

  50

  2,517

  71

  2,445

  202

  2,467

  202

  Bury

  1,484

  —

  1,461

  —

  1,467

  —

  1,395

  10

  1,420

  10

  Manchester

  4,254

  —

  3,974

  —

  4,044

  —

  3,631

  —

  3,587

  —

  Oldham

  2,196

  —

  2,253

  —

  2,256

  —

  2,215

  —

  2,202

  —

  Rochdale

  1,934

  —

  1,987

  —

  1,851

  10

  1,789

  101

  1,819

  189

  Salford

  2,147

  —

  2,052

  —

  2,000

  —

  1,802

  27

  1,821

  30

  Stockport

  2,340

  —

  2,332

  —

  2,362

  —

  2,170

  —

  2,185

  —

  Tameside

  2,042

  47

  2,085

  49

  2,036

  49

  1,791

  137

  1,842

  139

  Trafford

  1,763

  —

  1,611

  —

  1,616

  —

  1,621

  192

  1,694

  205

  Wigan

  2,972

  —

  3,015

  —

  3,096

  —

  2,728

  —

  2,754

  —

  Barnsley

  1,760

  —

  1,714

  —

  1,696

  —

  1,721

  —

  1,704

  —

  Doncaster

  2,753

  —

  2,691

  —

  2,760

  —

  2,732

  —

  2,703

  —

  Rotherham

  2,522

  —

  2,464

  —

  2,335

  —

  2,403

  —

  2,440

  —

  Sheffield

  4,043

  —

  3,937

  —

  3,866

  4

  3,797

  136

  3,719

  182

  Bradford

  5,012

  —

  5,093

  66

  5,004

  66

  5,103

  342

  4,779

  400

  Calderdale

  1,791

  —

  1,806

  89

  1,827

  96

  1,814

  298

  1,769

  530

  Kirklees

  3,701

  62

  3,590

  70

  3,632

  71

  3,443

  77

  3,373

  79

  Leeds

  6,320

  —

  6,300

  —

  6,010

  —

  5,839

  75

  5,759

  71

  Wakefield

  2,909

  —

  2,748

  —

  2,741

  —

  2,630

  —

  2,704

  —

  Gateshead

  1,750

  —

  1,731

  —

  1,707

  —

  1,759

  —

  1,715

  —

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,346

  —

  2,285

  —

  2,212

  —

  2,112

  —

  2,104

  —

  North Tyneside

  1,826

  —

  1,768

  —

  1,765

  —

  1,649

  —

  1,639

  11

  South Tyneside

  1,410

  —

  1,385

  —

  1,325

  —

  1,342

  —

  1,340

  —

  Sunderland

  2,681

  —

  2,692

  —

  2,651

  —

  2,744

  —

  2,728

  —

  Isles of Scilly

  29

  —

  27

  —

  28

  —

  27

  —

  26

  —

  Avon

  7,401

  51

  7,996

  96

  7,612

  99

  7,504

  107

  7,677

  118

  Bedfordshire

  4,909

  44

  4,959

  51

  4,983

  194

  4,808

  586

  5,008

  629

  Berkshire

  5,892

  41

  5,892

  360

  6,080

  540

  6,149

  614

  6,171

  729

  Buckinghamshire

  5,136

  150

  4,973

  217

  5,215

  299

  5,236

  689

  5,310

  770

  Cambridge

  5,377

  —

  5,419

  10

  5,667

  367

  5,501

  1,005

  5,573

  1,029

  Cheshire

  7,956

  30

  7,968

  34

  8,072

  42

  7,922

  177

  8,013

  185

  Cleveland

  5,536

  —

  5,546

  —

  5,560

  —

  5,243

  —

  5,189

  —

  Cornwall

  3,751

  —

  3,697

  —

  3,647

  —

  3,561

  —

  3,675

  —

  Cumbria

  4,191

  4,154

  102

  4,211

  341

  4,078

  612

  4,016

  849

  Derbyshire

  8,490

  127

  7,910

  139

  8,098

  285

  7,861

  1,069

  7,555

  1,185

  Devon

  7,133

  31

  7,076

  33

  7,229

  90

  7,358

  304

  7,437

  319

  Dorset

  4,476

  56

  4,512

  168

  4,389

  374

  4,330

  587

  4,393

  651

  Durham

  4,845

  —

  5,007

  —

  5,239

  —

  5,105

  —

  5,117

  —

  East Sussex

  4,524

  —

  4,673

  —

  4,908

  —

  4,779

  —

  4,899

  —

  Essex

  12,274

  —

  12,251

  205

  12,033

  1,665

  11,616

  4,407

  11,771

  5,165

  Gloucestershire

  4,349

  187

  4,042

  186

  4,090

  828

  4,195

  1,234

  4,258

  1,616

  Hampshire

  11,415

  44

  11,593

  190

  12,037

  394

  11,394

  1,147

  11,871

  1,348

  Hereford and Worcester

  5,413

  —

  5,451

  —

  5,441

  —

  5,256

  202

  5,329

  207

  Hertfordshire

  8,248

  165

  8,155

  305

  8,280

  411

  8,510

  1,256

  8,725

  1,719

  Humberside

  7,722

  —

  7,680

  4

  7,740

  5

  7,229

  13

  7,394

  19

  Isle of Wight

  1,008

  —

  1,021

  —

  997

  —

  1,013

  —

  999

  —

  Kent

  11,674

  30

  11,724

  828

  11,980

  1,709

  12,224

  3,110

  12,552

  3,724

  Lancashire

  11,761

  106

  11,733

  225

  11,922

  281

  12,051

  455

  12,088

  485

  Leicestershire

  7,764

  21

  7,830

  24

  7,570

  25

  7,832

  193

  7,810

  194

  Lincolnshire

  4,869

  185

  4,748

  479

  4,808

  935

  4,876

  1,344

  4,877

  1,507

  Norfolk

  5,564

  65

  5,687

  102

  5,791

  474

  5,808

  706

  5,898

  763

  North Yorkshire

  5,656

  —

  5,803

  —

  5,954

  —

  5,844

  5,774

  2

  Northamptonshire

  5,337

  39

  5,458

  222

  5,466

  602

  5,376

  767

  5,624

  796

  Northumberland

  2,736

  —

  2,791

  —

  2,677

  —

  2,644

  42

  2,672

  45

  Nottinghamshire

  8,383

  —

  8,530

  —

  8,508

  20

  8,376

  120

  8,354

  121

  Oxfordshire

  4,042

  —

  4,150

  —

  4,206

  —

  4,363

  5

  4,426

  5

  614

  615

  Full-time equivalent teachers employed by local education authorities and grant-maintained schools in the nursery, primary and secondary sector 1991–95

  Position in January each year

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Local education authority area

  All schools

  GM only

  All schools

  GM only

  All schools

  GM only

  All schools

  GM only

  All schools

  GM only

  Shropshire

  3,634

  30

  3,712

  31

  3,563

  31

  3,352

  243

  3,384

  330

  Somerset

  3,585

  —

  3,558

  34

  3,595

  46

  3,653

  49

  3,665

  76

  Staffordshire

  8,862

  —

  8,798

  —

  8,357

  —

  8,263

  267

  8,245

  279

  Suffolk

  4,949

  —

  5,277

  —

  5,276

  —

  5,391

  —

  5,466

  —

  Surrey

  6,625

  47

  6,511

  276

  6,677

  590

  6,206

  816

  6,529

  1,218

  Warwickshire

  3,984

  —

  3,904

  88

  3,961

  206

  4,017

  311

  4,027

  327

  West Sussex

  4,855

  —

  5,210

  —

  5,319

  —

  5,208

  —

  5,230

  17

  Wiltshire

  4,513

  —

  4,559

  34

  4,596

  112

  4,604

  759

  4,698

  1,053

  England

  394,945

  2,430

  394,874

  7,121

  396,332

  15,353

  390,430

  33,794

  392,910

  39,941

  1. Figures for 1994 onwards exclude sixth from colleges which transferred to the new FE sector on 1 April 1993.

  Surplus School Places
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many surplus school places there were and what was their cost in each local education authority in England in the most recent year for which figures are available. [37666]

  Mrs. Gillan
  For the numbers of surplus school places in each local education authority I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris) on 9 December 1994,Official Report, columns 410–14. At a national level, the average premises-related cost of maintaining a surplus place is estimated to be £182 a year for a primary school and £303 a year for a secondary school at 1995–96 prices. The actual cost and the scope for realising savings from removal of surplus places in practice in each local education authority will depend on local circumstances.

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the directors of Barnsley and Doncaster TEC have received payments from TEC funds for services provided by the TEC; what these were and when; and if such payments will continue in the current financial year, and in 1996–97. [38293]

  Mr. Paice
  The activities of Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council are governed by the TEC licensing agreement, which provides that no director, except where he holds office as managing director or chief executive of the TEC, shall receive any remuneration from the TEC or a subsidiary of the TEC from payments made to the TEC by the Secretary of State. All directors give their time freely for TEC and TEC partnership activities. The chief executive's remuneration is reported in the TEC's annual report, a copy of which is placed in the Library.

  Careers Service Inspectorate
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the policy of publishing the inspectors' reports following careers service inspections, mentioned in the answer of 30 November 1993,Official Report, column 518, was changed and when it was reported to the House. [38318]
  616
  Mr. Paice
  The policy of publishing inspection reports has not changed. Inspections of aspects of careers service work will start later this year and reports will be published. The Chief Inspector of Careers Service has published two annual reports on the work of the Careers Service since the enactment of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will the public reports by the inspectorate of careers services since the enactment of the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. [38155]

  Mr. Paice
  The public reports by the inspectorate of careers services since the enactment of the TURER Act 1993 are as follows:

  The Careers Service annual report 1994–95

  The Careers Service annual report 1993–94

  Pay Bargaining
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will provide in respect of her plan for pay delegation submitted to the Treasury(a) a description of the staff in each bargaining unit covered by the plan, distinguishing staff in Headquarters functions, agencies and agency candidates, and in other identifiable business units and (b) proposals for the trade union recognition in each bargaining unit and the negotiating machinery to be put in place in each bargaining unit. [38275]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The pay delegation plan for the Department for Education and Employment bargaining unit, excluding the Employment Service, includes the following staff, covered by the union agreement described:

  Grade

  Union agreement

  Staff in posts

  Administrative Officer

  CPSA

  1,348

  Personal Secretary

  CPSA

  156

  Support Grade Band 1

  NUCPS

  77

  Support Manager 3

  NUCPS

  12

  Economic Assistant

  FDA

  11

  Senior Economic Assistant

  FDA

  9

  Management Trainee

  NUCPS

  11

  Senior Executive Officer (inc.)

  NUCPS

  422

  617

  Grade

  Union agreement

  Staff in post

  Auditors and Accountants

  FDA

  8

  Admin Trainee HEO (D)

  FDA

  26

  Administrative Assistant

  CPSA

  410

  Chief Typing Manager

  CPSA

  1

  Typist

  CPSA

  98

  Higher Executive Officer (inc.

  NUCPS

  1,098

  Auditors and Accountants)

  NUCPS

  5

  Senior Instructional Officer

  NUCPS

  205

  Support Grade Band 2

  NUCPS

  1

  Support Manager 1

  Senior Personal Secretary

  CPSA

  43

  Typing Manager

  CPSA

  6

  Executive Officers (inc. Accountants)

  NUCPS

  1,203

  Support Manager 2

  NUCPS

  4

  Assistant Statistician

  FDA

  14

  Senior Assistant Statistician

  FDA

  8

  Higher Instructional Officer

  NUCPS

  12

  Senior Information Officer

  IPMS

  23

  Scientific Officer

  IPMS

  3

  Higher Scientific Officer

  IPMS

  7

  Senior Scientific Officer

  IPMS

  2

  Senior Professional and Technology Officer (SPTO)

  IPMS

  18

  Information Officer

  IPMS

  38

  Graphics Officer

  IPMS

  1

  Higher Graphics Officer

  IPMS

  1

  Assistant Information Officer

  IPMS

  14

  Research Officer

  IPMS

  2

  Senior Psychologist

  IPMS

  7

  Senior Research Officer

  IPMS

  27

  Grade 6

  IPMS,

  66

  Grade 7

  NUCPS and

  518

  Super Spec Inspector Band C

  FDA

  1

  Assistant Librarian

  IPMS

  16

  Librarian

  IPMS

  5

  Senior Librarian

  IPMS

  2

  Senior Training Adviser

  IPMS

  24

  Total

  5,963

  For collective bargaining purposes the DFEE intends to recognise four unions—the Civil and Public Services Association, the National Union of Civil and Public Servants, the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists and the Association of First Division Civil Servants.

  The Department will pursue single table bargaining arrangements.

  Indigenous Populations
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to ratify ILO convention 169 on indigenous and tribal populations. [38317]

  Mr. Forth
  ILO convention 169 has no practical application in the UK. The Government do not propose to ratify it.

  School Internet Links
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, how many 618
  schools and what percentage of the total are currently linked to the Internet; what is the cost of linking those schools not hitherto connected; and if she will make a statement. [38584]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Estimates of the number of schools currently connected to the Internet, and other relevant issues, will be covered in a paper to be published next month by the UK Education Departments outlining the way forward for superhighways in education.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made on the introduction of the formulation of a national policy on the provision of special education. [38790]

  Mr. Forth
  The Education Act 1993 requires the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs. The code, which was issued in May 1994 and came into effect from September that year, gives practical guidance to local education authorities, schools and other agencies on identifying, assessing and monitoring all children with SEN. The Department is monitoring carefully the implementation of the code.

  Unemployment Benefit Fraud
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total amount saved by unemployment benefit fraud investigators in the last financial year; what evidence is required for each individual signing off unemployment benefit to be counted in the total figure for unemployed fraud figures; what is the assumed number of weeks that a unemployed fraudulent claim would have on average continued if not investigated; what research is the basis for the assumed number of weeks that an unemployed fraudulent claim would have on average continued if not investigated and what consideration has been given to the continued accuracy of this research; and what safeguards exist against Department of Social Security inspectors exaggerating the benefit savings for investigations into fraudulent benefit claims in an attempt to meet Department targets. [37592]

  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 Ms Liz Lynne, dated 24 October 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about benefit fraud investigation.

  In 1994/95 78,231 clients withdrew their claim to benefit after being investigated by Employment Service (ES) Inspectors. This resulted in gross benefit savings of £92,061,095. After deducting the cost of the benefit fraud organisation, the net savings were £64,556,652.

  Safeguard exist through the checking and validation process performed by fraud staff, their managers and Audit. ES Inspectors authorise each saving/sign off, provided there is a link between the saving/sign-off and the last recorded action of the investigation and the claim is closed or modified within 10 working days of that action.
  619 Inspector Manager, who manage 10–15 ES Inspectors, check a minimum of 10% of all cases where a saving/sign-off is claimed to ensure that they are valid. All client prosecutions are authorised by Senior Inspector Managers who also arrange for an annual audit of savings/sign-off cases, where a proportion of cases are checked for validity. The cases checked include some which have not previously been validated.Benefit savings are calculated by multiplying the weekly amount of benefit in payment, at the time the client signs-off/modifies their claim, by 22. This 22 week figure was identified by Department of Social Security research in 1982 and represents the number of weeks clients would have remained on the register if they had not been investigated by ES Inspectors.Since 1982 there have been several similar studies undertaken by Benefits Agency and the ES, the last such study was in 1994. This is an ongoing process and has confirmed that the 22 week multiplier is still valid.I hope this is helpful.

  Social Affairs Council
  Ms Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Social Affairs Council of 5 October. [37709]

  Mr. Forth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) on 19 October 1995,Official Report, column 379.

  Employment Service Agency
  Mr. Hinchcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many persons unemployed for over(a) one year and (b) two years were placed in employment by the Employment Service agency in 1994–95. [38526]

  Mr. Forth
  In Great Britain during the financial year 1994–95 the Employment Service placed into jobs 556,600 people who had been claimant unemployed for six months or more. This represents an increase of 20 per cent. over the previous year. This is the extent of, the readily available information.

  School Premises Regulations
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the cost of ensuring that all schools meet the requirements of the Education (School Premises) Regulations 1981. [38765]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information about school premises that is available to the Department is not sufficient to allow such an estimate to be made.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many responses she has had to the consultation on the Education (School Premises) Regulations; and how many were in favour of proposed changes. [38767]

  Mrs. Gillan
  A total of 111 responses were received by the Department before the consultation period formally came to an end on 18 October. They are still being analysed. We shall make available a summary of the responses in the usual way.
  620
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools meet the requirements in the Education (School Premises) Regulations in respect of(a) space allocation, (b) washrooms and (c) staff rooms. [38768]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Education Authority Capital Spending
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what amounts have been requested by way of capital spending in 1996–97 by each local education authority; and what has been the total amount requested in England. [38766]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The closing date for the submission of capital bids by local education authorities was 13 October. The bids are therefore still being analysed by the Department.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what method of funding the Government envisage for the new nursery classes under the consultation for removing the requirements to publish statutory proposals to establish nursery classes in the maintained, grant-maintained, voluntary and county school sector. [39148]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently consulting interested parties on removing the requirement for the maintained sector to publish statutory proposals to establish new nursery classes. The consultation letter discusses a number of options and their funding implications. These will be considered in light of the responses to the consultation letter.

  Student Union Membership
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students have chosen to exercise their right not to be a member of a students union following the enactment on 21 September 1994 of the Education Act 1994, section 22, subsection 2(c) relating to the rights of students; and from which institutions unions students have exercised this right. [39147]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available as it is not collected centrally.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what factors led her not to intervene in the case of Mr. Michael Johnson's appearance before the industrial tribunal on 23 May; what factors underlay her delay in intervening in the case under the terms of the Education Act 1944 and the Education Reform Act 1988; when she expects to intervene in this case; and what factors allowed her to intervene in the case of Jennifer Watson under this legislation. [39146]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  It is not my right hon. Friend's practice to seek to usurp the functions of industrial tribunals through the exercise of her powers under
  621
  sections 68 and 99 of the Education Act 1944. My right hon. Friend is still considering certain points of law in the case of Mr. Johnson and hopes to conclude her consideration in the near future. In the case of Mrs. Watson, my right hon. Friend concluded that the appointment of a particular governor to the disciplinary panel constituted a breach of natural justice of a kind that no sensible governing body acting with due appreciation of its statutory duties could have decided to adopt.

  School Leavers
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school leavers there were in each of the past five years from maintained and independent sectors; and what percentage in each category were intending to enter degree or teacher training courses. [38901]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Information on school leavers is no longer collected by the Department. The numbers of school leavers in maintained and independent sector schools in England for the latest two years for which information was available are as follows:

  Number of school leavers of which intended to enter degree or teaching training courses

  1990–91

  1991–92

  Maintained schools

  494,130

  474,450

  11 per cent.

  13 per cent.

  Independent schools

  47,740

  44,750

  46 per cent.

  54 per cent.

  Employee Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total number of cases of all forms of fraud committed by employees of her(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies, for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95; and for each of these years, what was the total monetary sum (i) misappropriated in such frauds and (ii) subsequently recovered. [39140]

  Mr. Forth
  The number of cases of all forms of fraud committed by Department for Education and Employment staff for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95 and the sums involved and subsequently recovered are as follows:

  Number of cases

  Amount involved £

  Amount recovered £

  1991–92

  DFEE

  1

  24,417.92

  24,417.92

  Agencies

  30

  141,753.97

  846.58

  NDPBs

  1

  3,7000.00

  Nil

  1992–93

  DFEE

  2

  1,675.00

  1,675.00

  Agencies

  18

  12,749.41

  861.65

  NDPBs

  2

  3,657.00

  Nil

  1993–94

  DFEE

  4

  204,493.05

  Nil

  Agencies

  24

  89,570.79

  277.54

  NDPBs

  6

  3,588.90

  642.00

  622

  Number of cases

  Amount involved £

  Amount recovered £

  1994–95

  DFEE

  6

  8,329.55

  3,000.00

  Agencies

  12

  78,562.01

  3,190.81

  NDPBs

  3

  3,727.54

  556.54

  Notes:

  1. The figures for DFEE have been produced from the annual Treasury returns submitted by the Employment Department and the Department for Education.

  2. Where thefts have occurred but no perpetrator identified these cases have been excluded.

  3. The figures represent the year in which the frauds were reported to Treasury, not necessarily when they were committed.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many pupils attended each school taking part in the assisted places scheme in the last academic year; how many in each case were on an assisted place; and what was the percentage on the assisted places scheme. [37933]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 19 October 1995]: The information requested, which relates to England only and to the academic year 1994–95, is given in the following table.

  Assisted places scheme 1994–95 academic year

  School name

  Number of pupils on roll1

  Number of APs

  Percentage of APs

  Abbey School, Reading

  991

  47

  4.74

  Abingdon

  761

  96

  12.61

  Ackworth

  470

  26

  5.53

  Aldenham

  350

  29

  8.29

  Alice Ottley

  700

  89

  12.71

  Alleyn's, Dulwich

  1,101

  207

  18.80

  Ardingly College

  668

  31

  4.64

  Arnold School, Blackpool

  1,145

  80

  6.99

  Ashford

  556

  42

  7.55

  Ashville College

  725

  15

  2.07

  Austin Friars

  298

  15

  5.03

  Bancroft's

  943

  80

  8.48

  Barnard Castle

  624

  23

  3.69

  Bath High GPDST

  632

  100

  15.82

  Batley Grammar

  582

  270

  46.39

  Bedales

  646

  3

  .46

  Bedford

  1,119

  104

  9.29

  Bedford High

  916

  113

  12.34

  Bedford Modern

  1,171

  144

  12.30

  Belvedere GPDST

  653

  177

  27.11

  Berkhamstead Girls

  529

  21

  3.97

  Berkhamsted

  694

  28

  4.03

  Birkenhead

  1,086

  179

  16.48

  Birkenhead High GPDST

  973

  251

  25.80

  Bishop's Stortford College

  564

  50

  8.87

  Blackheath High GPDST

  596

  96

  16.11

  Bloxham, Banbury

  339

  26

  7.67

  Bolton School Boys

  1,008

  253

  25.10

  Bolton School Girls

  1,162

  240

  20.65

  Bootham, York

  334

  30

  8.98

  Bradfield College

  592

  6

  1.01

  623

  Assisted places scheme 1994–95 academic year

  School name

  Number of pupils on roll1

  Number of APs

  Percentage of APs

  Bradford Girls Grammar

  911

  65

  7.14

  Bradford Grammar School

  1,107

  231

  20.87

  Brentwood School

  1,259

  113

  8.98

  Brighton College

  472

  114

  24.15

  Brighton and Hove High School GPDST

  750

  155

  20.67

  Bristol Cathedral

  471

  132

  28.03

  Bristol Grammar

  1,225

  280

  22.86

  Bromley High GPDST

  792

  102

  12.88

  Bromsgrove

  1,156

  27

  2.34

  Bruton Girls

  538

  137

  25.46

  Burgess High Girls

  610

  30

  4.92

  Bury Grammar Boys

  820

  209

  25.49

  Bury Grammar Girls

  1,092

  253

  23.17

  Canford

  467

  31

  6.64

  Carmel College

  213

  76

  35.68

  Casterton

  359

  56

  15.60

  Caterham

  470

  133

  28.30

  Central Newcastle High School GPDST

  887

  123

  13.87

  Charterhouse

  700

  9

  1.29

  Cheadle Humle

  958

  136

  14.20

  Cheltenham Ladies' College

  853

  23

  2.70

  Chigwell

  668

  72

  10.78

  Christ's Hospital

  818

  31

  3.79

  Churcher's College

  697

  131

  18.79

  City of London

  877

  139

  15.85

  City of London Freemans

  716

  15

  2.09

  City of London Girls

  640

  125

  19.53

  Clifton College, Bristol

  1,063

  66

  6.21

  Clifton High, Bristol

  715

  54

  7.55

  Colfe's

  971

  204

  21.01

  Colston's Girls

  499

  178

  35.67

  Colston's Bristol

  632

  98

  15.51

  Coventry, Bablake

  859

  188

  21.89

  Cranleigh

  691

  35

  5.07

  Croham Hurst

  496

  27

  5.44

  Croydon High GPDST

  1,029

  96

  9.33

  Culford

  612

  51

  8.33

  Dame Alice Harpur

  943

  144

  15.27

  Dame Allans Boys

  458

  113

  24.67

  Dame Allans Girls

  443

  140

  31.60

  Dauntseys

  620

  60

  9.68

  Denstone College

  296

  119

  40.20

  Derby High

  530

  25

  4.72

  Douai, Reading

  197

  28

  14.21

  Dover College

  221

  25

  11.31

  Downe House, Newbury

  553

  16

  2.89

  Dulwich College

  1,406

  275

  19.56

  Durham

  429

  44

  10.26

  Edgbaston College Girls

  319

  27

  8.46

  Edgehill College

  470

  141

  30.00

  Ellesmere College

  352

  17

  4.83

  Eltham College, London SE9

  769

  121

  15.73

  Emanuel, London SW11

  702

  280

  39.89

  Epsom College

  657

  23

  3.50

  624

  Assisted places scheme 1994–95 academic year

  School name

  Number of pupils on roll1

  Number of APs

  Percentage of APs

  Exeter

  828

  169

  20.41

  Farnborough Hill

  536

  151

  28.17

  Felsted, Dunmow

  598

  54

  9.03

  Forest School

  1,229

  139

  11.31

  Framlingham College

  728

  13

  1.79

  Francis Holland

  376

  30

  7.98

  Friends, Saffron Walden

  341

  101

  29.62

  Giggleswick, Settle

  438

  21

  4.79

  Godolphin and Latymer

  706

  172

  24.36

  Godolphin, Salisbury

  434

  29

  6.68

  Gresham's

  743

  12

  1.62

  Guildford High Girls

  730

  30

  4.11

  Haberdashers' Aske's Boys

  1,301

  235

  18.06

  Haberdashers' Aske Girls

  1,138

  117

  10.28

  Haileybury

  585

  28

  4.79

  Hampton

  947

  204

  21.54

  Harrogate College

  342

  22

  6.43

  Headington

  768

  27

  3.52

  Hereford Cathedral

  634

  240

  37.85

  Highgate

  1,077

  41

  3.81

  Hipperholme Grammar

  353

  18

  5.10

  Holy Child

  295

  25

  8.47

  Hulme Grammar Boys

  807

  212

  26.27

  Hulme Grammar Girls

  620

  189

  30.48

  Hurstpierpoint College

  331

  26

  7.85

  Hymers College

  920

  155

  16.85

  Ipswich

  731

  75

  10.26

  Ipswich High GPDST

  671

  112

  16.69

  James Aliens Girls

  1,004

  172

  17.13

  John Lyon's

  503

  115

  22.86

  Kent College

  684

  88

  12.87

  Kimbolton Schools

  730

  32

  4.38

  King Edward VI High

  541

  131

  24.21

  King Edward VI Norwich

  762

  112

  14.70

  King Edward VI Southampton

  937

  233

  24.87

  King Edward VII Lytham

  530

  219

  41.32

  King Edward's at Bath

  869

  102

  11.74

  King Edward's Birmingham

  869

  239

  27.50

  King Edward's Witley

  515

  58

  11.26

  King Henry VIII

  1,049

  93

  8.87

  King's College Wimbledon

  1,181

  54

  4.57

  King's High Girls, Wark

  564

  135

  23.94

  King's Bruton

  312

  27

  8.65

  King's, Chester

  671

  89

  13.26

  King's Macclesfield

  1,255

  179

  14.26

  King's, Rochester

  653

  66

  10.11

  King's Tynemouth

  894

  26

  2.91

  King's, Worcester

  921

  178

  19.33

  Kinglsey

  566

  24

  4.24

  Kingston Grammar

  597

  171

  28.64

  625

  Assisted places scheme 1994–95 academic year

  School name

  Number of pupils on roll1

  Number of APs

  Percentage of APs

  Kingswood School, Bath

  437

  44

  10.07

  Kirkham Grammar

  742

  80

  10.78

  La Sagesse Convent

  466

  170

  36.48

  Lady Eleanor Holies

  867

  42

  4.84

  Latymer Upper

  1,065

  264

  24.79

  Laxton

  197

  9

  4.57

  Leeds Girls High

  959

  81

  8.45

  Leeds Grammar

  1,178

  172

  14.60

  Leicester Grammar

  584

  45

  7.71

  Leighton Park

  377

  27

  7.16

  Leys, Cambridge

  411

  38

  925

  Liverpool College

  997

  186

  18.66

  Lord Wandsworth College

  455

  81

  17.80

  Loreto Convent Grammar

  683

  41

  6.00

  Loughborough Grammar

  940

  130

  13.83

  Loughborough High

  534

  95

  17.79

  Magdalen College

  513

  125

  24.37

  Malvern College

  834

  101

  12.11

  Manchester Grammar

  1,414

  264

  18.67

  Manchester High

  934

  181

  19.38

  Marist Convent Senior

  372

  19

  5.11

  Maynard

  540

  168

  31.11

  Merchant Taylors' Girls

  914

  197

  21.55

  Merchant Taylors', L'pool

  823

  223

  27.10

  Merchant Taylors', N'wood

  748

  83

  11.10

  Mill Hill

  527

  75

  14.23

  Monkton Combe

  311

  41

  13.18

  Mount Carmel, Cheshire

  545

  30

  5.50

  Mount St. Mary's College

  297

  70

  23.57

  Mount, York

  274

  30

  10.95

  Newcastle under Lyme

  1,293

  383

  29.62

  Newcastle upon Tyne Church High

  651

  30

  4.61

  North London Collegiate

  971

  89

  9.17

  Northampton High

  831

  167

  20.10

  Norwich High GPDST

  894

  176

  19.69

  Notting Hill and Ealing High GPDST

  840

  117

  13.93

  Nottingham Girls High GPDST

  1,091

  204

  18.70

  Nottingham High

  841

  171

  20.33

  Oakham

  1,005

  28

  2.79

  Old Palace, Croydon

  817

  226

  27.66

  Oxford High GPDST

  650

  57

  8.77

  Pangbourne College

  392

  25

  6.38

  Perse School for Boys

  643

  40

  6.22

  Perse School for Girls

  710

  78

  10.99

  Plymouth College

  824

  202

  24.51

  Pocklington

  735

  152

  20.68

  Polam Hall

  409

  40

  9.78

  626

  Assisted places scheme 1994–95 academic year

  School name

  Number of pupils onroll1

  Number of APs

  Percentage of APs

  Portsmouth Grammar

  1,173

  178

  15.17

  Portsmouth High GPDST

  743

  138

  18.57

  Prior Park College

  491

  30

  6.11

  Putney High School GPDST

  849

  97

  11.43

  Queen Elizabeth's Hospital, Bristol

  501

  179

  35.73

  Queen Elizabeth's, Blackburn

  1,132

  267

  23.59

  Queen Elizabeth, Wakefield

  749

  133

  17.76

  Queen Mary, Lytham

  638

  231

  36.21

  Queen's College, London

  367

  79

  21.53

  Queen's College, Taunton

  675

  67

  9.93

  Queen's School, Chester

  634

  58

  9.15

  Ratcliffe College

  479

  74

  15.45

  Red Maids', Bristol

  581

  178

  30.64

  Redland High, Bristol

  638

  102

  15.99

  Reed's School, Cobham

  351

  26

  7.41

  Reigate Grammar

  775

  99

  12.77

  Rendcomb College

  247

  29

  11.74

  Repton

  570

  58

  10.18

  Rossall

  657

  43

  6.54

  Royal Grammar, Guildford

  834

  124

  14.87

  Royal Grammar, Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,098

  218

  19.85

  Royal Grammar, Worcester

  795

  287

  36.10

  Ryde School

  689

  17

  2.47

  Salesian College

  490

  75

  15.31

  Scarborough College

  381

  30

  7.87

  Sedbergh

  376

  45

  11.97

  Sevenoaks, Kent

  931

  26

  2.79

  Sheffield High GPDST

  780

  96

  12.31

  Shrewsbury High GPDST

  582

  91

  15.64

  Silcoates

  595

  15

  2.52

  Sir William Perkin's

  591

  89

  15.06

  Solihull

  994

  36

  3.62

  South Hampstead High GPDST

  883

  77

  8.72

  St. Albans

  635

  139

  21.89

  St. Albans High Girls

  697

  56

  8.03

  St. Ambrose College

  908

  54

  5.95

  St. Anselm's College

  839

  193

  23.00

  St. Bede's College

  1,169

  220

  18.82

  St. Bees

  287

  74

  25.78

  St. Benedict's

  544

  74

  13.60

  St. Catherine's

  603

  34

  5.64

  St. Dunstan's College

  837

  163

  19.47

  St. Edmund's College

  535

  80

  14.95

  St. Edward's College

  1,047

  396

  37.82

  St. Felix, Southwold

  308

  32

  10.39

  627

  Assisted places scheme 1994–95 academic year

  School name

  Number ofpupils onroll1

  Number of APs

  Percentage of APs

  St. George's College

  499

  36

  7.21

  St. Helen and St. Katharine, Abingdon

  530

  84

  15.85

  St. Helen's, Northwood

  939

  52

  5.54

  St. John's College, South sea

  777

  203

  26.13

  St. John's, Leatherhead

  383

  17

  4.44

  St. Joseph'sCollege, Ipswich

  714

  77

  10.78

  St. Joseph'sCollege, Stoke on Trent

  470

  25

  5.32

  St. Joseph's Convent, Reading

  372

  130

  34.95

  St. Lawrence College, Ramsgate

  357

  32

  8.96

  St. Margaret's, Bushey

  419

  27

  6.44

  St. Margaret's, Exeter

  429

  31

  7.23

  St. Mary and St. Anne

  281

  25

  8.90

  St. Mary's College, Crosby

  870

  271

  31.15

  St. Mary's Convent, Cambridge

  571

  124

  21.72

  St. Mary's Hall, Brighton

  422

  72

  17.06

  St. Maur's Convent, Weybridge

  607

  64

  10.54

  St. Paul's Girls, Hammersmith

  604

  69

  11.42

  St. Paul's, Barnes

  1,213

  76

  6.27

  St. Peter's, York

  756

  107

  14.15

  St. Swithun's, Winchester

  628

  2

  .32

  Stafford Grammar

  288

  25

  8.68

  Stamford

  922

  102

  11.06

  Stamford High

  956

  113

  11.82

  Stockport Grammar

  1,285

  243

  18.91

  Stonyhurst College

  391

  37

  9.46

  Stowe

  544

  6

  1.10

  Streatham Hill and Clapham High GPDST

  611

  164

  26.84

  Surbiton High

  885

  27

  3.05

  Sutton High GPDST

  755

  70

  9.27

  Sutton Valence

  349

  69

  19.77

  Sydenham High GPDST

  699

  124

  17.74

  Talbot Heath

  525

  137

  26.10

  Taunton

  944

  52

  5.51

  Teeside High

  553

  24

  4.34

  Tonbridge

  658

  3

  .46

  Tormead

  610

  28

  4.59

  Trent College

  688

  132

  19.19

  Trinity School of John Whitgift

  854

  149

  17.45

  Truro

  793

  115

  14.50

  Truro High

  392

  69

  17.60

  University College School

  816

  70

  8.58

  Upton Hall Convent

  601

  169

  28.12

  Ursuline Convent, Kent

  216

  30

  13.89

  628

  Assisted places scheme 1994–95 academic year

  School name

  Number of pupils on roll1

  Number of APs

  Percentage of APs

  Ursuline High, Ilford

  368

  142

  38.59

  Wakefield High

  1,061

  144

  13.57

  Walthamstow Hall

  528

  46

  8.71

  Warwick

  993

  145

  14.60

  Wellingborough

  766

  67

  8.75

  Wellington College

  810

  39

  4.81

  Wellington, Somerset

  778

  230

  29.56

  Wells Cathedral

  806

  73

  9.06

  West Buckland

  548

  82

  14.96

  Westholme

  1,009

  30

  2.97

  Westminster

  664

  61

  9.19

  Whitgift, Croydon

  1,063

  113

  10.63

  William Hulme Grammar

  789

  221

  28.01

  Wimbledon High GPDST

  810

  78

  9.63

  Winchester College

  667

  23

  3.45

  Wisbech Grammar

  638

  336

  52.66

  Withington Girls

  593

  78

  13.15

  Wolverhampton Grammar

  696

  267

  38.36

  Woodbridge

  744

  128

  17.20

  Woodhouse Grove

  774

  127

  16.41

  Worksop

  326

  25

  7.67

  Wrekin College

  248

  15

  6.05

  Wycliffe College

  607

  43

  7.08

  Yarm

  473

  44

  9.30

  1 As at January 1995.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what were the fees charged by each school taking part in the assisted places scheme in the last academic year. [37931]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 19 October 1995]: The information requested, which relates to England only and to the academic year 1994–95, is given in the following table:

  Assisted places scheme 1994–95 academic year

  School name

  Annual fees charged for assisted pupils £

  Abbey School, Reading

  3,615

  Abingdon

  4,472

  Ackworth

  4,093

  Aldenham

  7,742

  Alice Ottley

  4,092

  Alleyn's Dulwich

  5,461

  Ardingly College

  7,379

  Arnold School, Blackpool

  3,405

  Ashford

  4,790

  Ashville College

  4,520

  Austin Friars

  3,966

  Bancroft's

  4,440

  Barnard Castle

  4,230

  Bath High GPDST

  3,405

  Batley Grammar

  3,189

  Bedales

  8,158

  Bedford

  5,866

  Bedford High

  4,401

  Bedford Modern

  4,056

  Belvedere GPDST

  3,405

  Berkhamstead Girls

  4,903

  Berkhamsted

  5,926

  629

  Assisted places scheme 1994–95 academic year

  School name

  Annual fees charged for assisted pupils £

  Birkenhead

  3,249

  Birkenhead High GPDST

  3,405

  Bishop's Stortford College

  6,861

  Blackheath High GPDST

  3,825

  Bloxham, Banbury

  6,846

  Bolton School Boys

  4,071

  Bolton School Girls

  4,071

  Bootham, York

  5,426

  Bradfield College

  8,612

  Bradford Girls Grmmar

  3,720

  Bradford Grammar School

  3,619

  Brentwood School

  4,633

  Brighton College

  6,326

  Brighton and Hove High School GPDST

  3,405

  Bristol Cathedral

  3,813

  Bristol Grammar

  3,613

  Bromley High GPDST

  3,825

  Bromsgrove

  5,140

  Bruton Girls

  3,315

  Burgess Hill Girls

  4,896

  Bury Grammar Boys

  3,216

  Bury Grammar Girls

  3,216

  Canford

  8,250

  Carmel College

  7,344

  Casterton

  5,011

  Caterham

  4,910

  Central Newcastle High School GPDST

  3,405

  Charterhouse

  9,459

  Cheadle Hulme

  3,786

  Cheltenham Ladies' College

  6,875

  Chigwell

  6,029

  Christ's Hospital

  6,480

  Churcher's College

  4,656

  City of London

  5,365

  City of London Freeman's

  5,431

  City of London Girls

  4,633

  Clifton College, Bristol

  7,049

  Clifton High, Bristol

  3,962

  Colfe's

  4,220

  Colston's Girls

  3,384

  Colston's, Bristol

  4,978

  Coventry, Bablake

  3,315

  Cranleigh

  7,068

  Croham Hurst

  3,925

  Croydon High GPDST

  3,825

  Culford

  5,512

  Dame Alice Harpur

  3,807

  Dame Allan's Boys

  3,300

  Dame Allan's Girls

  3,300

  Dauntsey's

  5,841

  Denstone College

  6,037

  Derby High

  4,137

  Douai, Reading

  4,987

  Dover College

  5,488

  Downe House, Newbury

  7,032

  Dulwich College

  5,954

  Durham

  6,191

  Edgbaston College Girls

  4,309

  Edgehill College

  4,706

  Ellesmere College

  5,999

  Eltham College, London SE9

  4,791

  Emanuel, London SW11

  4,352

  Epsom College

  6,675

  Exeter

  3,789

  Farnborough Hill

  4,022

  Felsted, Dunmow

  7,758

  Forest School

  4,396

  Framlingham College

  5,718

  Francis Holland

  4,417

  Friends, Saffron Walden

  5,657

  Giggleswick, Settle

  5,067

  630

  Assisted places scheme 1994–95 academic year

  School name

  Annual fees charged for assisted pupils £

  Godolphin & Latymer

  5,166

  Godolphin Salisbury

  5,821

  Gresham's

  7,568

  Guildford High Girls

  4,530

  Haberdashers' Aske's Boys

  5,010

  Haberdashers' Aske's Girls

  3.505

  Haileybury

  6,735

  Hampton

  4,237

  Harrogate College

  5,400

  Headington

  4,079

  Hereford Cathedral

  4,185

  Highgate

  5,939

  Hipperholme Grammar

  2,951

  Holy Child

  4,476

  Hulme Grammar Boys

  3,426

  Hulme Grammar Girls

  3,426

  Hurstpierpoint College

  7,711

  Hymers College

  3,259

  Ipswich

  4,534

  Ipswich High GPDST

  3,405

  James Allen's Girls

  5,216

  John Lyon's

  4,721

  Kent College

  4,932

  Kimbolton Schools

  4,572

  King Edward VI High

  3,756

  King Edward VI Norwich

  3,976

  King Edward VI Southampton

  4,116

  King Edward VII Lytham

  3,135

  King Edward's at Bath

  3,765

  King Edward's Birmingham

  4,134

  King Edward's Witley

  5,423

  King Henry VIII

  3,302

  King's College Wimbledon

  5,802

  King's High Girls, Wark

  3,530

  King's Bruton

  6,450

  King's Chester

  3,684

  King's Macclesfield

  3,942

  King's Rochester

  5,652

  King's Tynemouth

  3,312

  King's Worcester

  4,797

  Kingsley

  3,845

  Kingston Grammar

  4,491

  Kingswood School, Bath

  4,919

  Kirkham Grammar

  3,229

  La Sagesse Convent

  3,515

  Lady Eleanor Holies

  4,281

  Latymer Upper

  4,476

  Laxton

  4,506

  Leeds Girls High

  3,814

  Leeds Grammar

  3,729

  Leicester Grammar

  3,378

  Leighton Park

  7,720

  Leys, Cambridge

  7,537

  Liverpool College

  3,984

  Lord Wandsworth College

  6,468

  Loreto Convent Grammar

  2,671

  Loughborough Grammar

  3,762

  Loughborough High

  3,399

  Magdalen College

  4,288

  Malvern College

  7,297

  Manchester Grammar

  3,704

  Manchester High

  3,589

  Marist Convent Senior

  3,650

  Maynard

  3,637

  Merchant Taylors' Girls

  3,420

  Merchant Taylors', Liverpool

  3,418

  Merchant Taylors', Norwood

  5,972

  Mill Hill

  6,509

  Monkton Combe

  6,970

  Mount Carmel, Cheshire

  3,056

  Mount St Mary's College

  5,020

  631

  Assisted places scheme 1994–95 academic year

  School name

  Annual fees charged for assisted pupils £

  Mount, York

  5,608

  Newcastle Under Lyme

  3,190

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne Church High

  3,426

  North London Collegiate

  4,302

  Northampton High

  3,858

  Norwich High GPDST

  3,405

  Notting Hill and Ealing High GPDST

  3,825

  Nottingham Girls High GPDST

  3,405

  Nottingham High

  3,865

  Oakham

  5,833

  Old Palace, Croydon

  3,681

  Oxford High GPDST

  3,405

  Pangbourne College

  6,878

  Perse School for Boys

  4,150

  Perse School for Girls

  3,672

  Plymouth College

  3,958

  Pocklington

  4,377

  Polam Hall

  3,887

  Portsmouth Grammar

  3,701

  Portsmouth High GPDST

  3,420

  Prior Park College

  4,378

  Putney High School GPDST

  3,825

  Queen Elizabeth's Hospital, Bristol

  3,758

  Queen Elizabeth's, Blackburn

  3,588

  Queen Elizabeth, Wakefield

  3,615

  Queen Mary, Lytham

  3,135

  Queen's College, London

  4,920

  Queen's College, Taunton

  5,245

  Queen's School, Chester

  3,291

  Ratcliffe College

  4,864

  Red Maids', Bristol

  3,665

  Redland High, Bristol

  3,602

  Reed's School, Cobham

  6,131

  Reigate Grammar

  4,170

  Rendcomb College

  6,361

  Repton

  7,640

  Rossall

  5,588

  Royal Grammar, Guildford

  5,467

  Royal Grammar, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  3,330

  Royal Grammar, Worcester

  4,146

  Ryde School

  3,966

  Salesian College

  2,662

  Scarborough College

  4,694

  Sedbergh

  7,369

  Sevenoaks, Kent

  6,033

  Sheffield High GPDST

  3,405

  Shrewsbury High GPDST

  3,405

  Silcoates

  4,997

  Sir William Perkins's

  3,517

  Solihull

  3,978

  South Hampstead High GPDST

  3,825

  St Albans

  4,521

  St Albans High Girls

  4,182

  St Ambrose College

  3,094

  St Anselm's College

  3,003

  St Bede's College

  3,654

  St Bees

  6,202

  St Benedict's

  4,484

  St Catherine's

  5,297

  St Dunstan's College

  4,231

  St Edmund's College

  5,106

  St Edward's College

  3,297

  St Felix, Southwold

  5,537

  St George's College

  5,953

  St Helen and St Katherine, Abingdon

  3,603

  St Helen's, Northwood

  4,401

  St John's College, Southsea

  3,340

  St John's, Leatherhead

  6,402

  St Joseph's College, Ipswich

  3,798

  St Joseph's College, Stoke-on Trent

  3,051

  St Joseph's Convent, Reading

  3,527

  632

  Assisted places scheme 1994–95 academic year

  School name

  Annual fees charged for assisted pupils £

  St Lawrence College, Ramsgate

  5,999

  St Margaret's, Bushey

  4,763

  St Margaret's, Exeter

  3,489

  St Mary and St Anne

  6,423

  St Mary's College, Crosby

  3,413

  St Mary's Convent, Cambridge

  3,515

  St Mary's Hall, Brighton

  5,349

  St Maur's Convent, Weybridge

  4,077

  St Paul's Girls, Hammersmith

  5,521

  St Paul's, Barnes

  6,452

  St Peter's, York

  5,533

  St Swithun's, Winchester

  5,964

  Stafford Grammar

  3,843

  Stamford

  3,762

  Stamford High

  3,765

  Stockport Grammar

  3,695

  Stonyhurst College

  6,729

  Stowe

  7,743

  Streatham Hill and Clapham High GPDST

  3,825

  Surbiton High

  4,296

  Sutton High GPDST

  3,825

  Sutton Valence

  6,620

  Sydenham High GPDST

  3,825

  Talbot Heath

  4,101

  Taunton

  5,978

  Teesside High

  3,259

  Tonbridge

  7,761

  Tormead

  4,315

  Trent College

  5,418

  Trinity School of John Whitgift

  4,786

  Truro

  4,074

  Truro High

  3,630

  University College School

  5,895

  Upton Hall Convent

  2,652

  Ursuline Convent, Kent

  4,616

  Ursuline High, Ilford

  3,915

  Wakefield High

  3,615

  Walthamstow Hall

  5,062

  Warwick

  4,048

  Wellingborough

  5,020

  Wellington College

  7,757

  Wellington, Somerset

  4,019

  Wells Cathedral

  4,886

  West Buckland

  4,392

  Westholme

  3,282

  Westminster

  6,933

  Whitgift, Croydon

  4,928

  William Hulme Grammar

  3,828

  Wimbledon High GPDST

  3,825

  Winchester College

  8,545

  Wisbech Grammar

  4,270

  Withington Girls

  3,357

  Wolverhampton Grammar

  4,130

  Woodbridge

  5,127

  Woodhouse Grove

  4,458

  Worksop

  5,434

  Wrekin College

  5,757

  Wycliffe College

  7,350

  Yarm

  4,318

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will state for each year in which the assisted places scheme has been operating the number of places available and the number actually taken up, the amount budgeted each year for the scheme and the amount actually spent. [37932]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 19 October 1995]: The information requested is given in the following table:

  633

  Year

  Places 1 available

  Places 1 taken up

  Budget2estimate £million

  Actual2outturn £million

  1981–82

  5,446

  4,185

  3.3

  3.0

  1982–83

  11,058

  8,616

  9.3

  8.7

  1983–84

  15,866

  13,102

  16.5

  15.0

  1984–85

  20,699

  17,386

  22.5

  22.2

  1985–86

  25,210

  21,412

  31.1

  29.6

  1986–87

  29,295

  24,478

  37.4

  37.9

  1987–88

  33,228

  26,899

  47.8

  46.0

  1988–89

  33,217

  27,083

  55.1

  50.9

  1989–90

  33,280

  27,008

  57.0

  56.5

  1990–91

  33,302

  26,740

  60.4

  63.4

  1991–92

  33,312

  27,641

  64.9

  75.7

  1992–93

  33,479

  28,674

  87.1

  392.8

  1993–94

  33,883

  29,291

  94.9

  92.3

  1994–95

  33,139

  29,747

  101.5

  101.5

  The figures are for England only.

  1 Academic year.

  2 Financial year.

  3 includes £4.9 million brought forward from financial year 1993–94.

  Careers Service
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total spending on the Careers Service by local authorities in England and Wales in each financial year since 1990–91; and what is the expected expenditure in 1995–96. [38256]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 23 October 1995]: From 1 April 1994, the duty of providing the Careers Services became the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Employment. Prior to that date, services were funded via local education authorities through the rate support grant and these figures are unhypothecated.

  The estimated outturn of spend by the Employment Department for 1994–95 for the Careers Service in England was £187.4 million. In 1995–96, the Department for Education and Employment plans to spend £211.2 million on the Careers Service.

  Responsibility for the Careers Service in Wales rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was their spending on the Careers Service through each of the five West Yorkshire metropolitan district councils in each financial year since 1990–91; and what is the expected expenditure in 1995–96 for each of the individual councils. [38257]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 23 October 1995]: From 1 April 1994, the duty of providing the Careers Service became the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Employment. Prior to that date, services were funded via Local education authorities through the rate support grant which is unhypothecated.

  Spend under Careers Service instruments of direction issued by the Secretary of State for Employment to the five West Yorkshire metropolitan district councils in 1994–95 was:

  Bradford: £1,598,302

  Calderdale: £546,000

  Kirklees: £1,103,000

  Leeds: £1,849,991

  Wakefield: £985,000

  634
  In 1995–96 only Leeds and Wakefield remain under direction from the Secretary of State. Their budget allocations are:

  Leeds: £2,041,000

  Wakefield: £1,126,000

  Since 1 April 1995, careers services in Bradford have been delivered by Careers Bradford Ltd. and in Calderdale and Kirklees by Calderdale and Kirklees Careers Service Partnership Ltd. These are both private limited companies and details of their income and expenditure will be available in their annual reports next year.

  Residual payments to local authorities for 1994–95 activities have been made in 1995–96 as follows:

  Bradford: £144,700

  Calderdale: £45,977

  Kirklees: £100,001

  Additional expenditure relating to careers libraries and careers guidance has been made available through the training and enterprise councils in West Yorkshire. In 1994–95 this amounted to: £1,622,725. In 1995–96 the allocation is £894,721. For 1995–96 the careers guidance element has been included in the Careers Service contracts for two TEC areas.

  Cooking Fumes (Cancer)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what research is being undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive into the possible occupational cancer risk for cooks from carcinogenic chemicals in cooking fumes. [37992]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive is undertaking a review of the published literature on a number of potential health problems which might affect those occupationally engaged in food handling and preparation. The incidence of cancer is one area under scrutiny. Once that review is completed, the HSE will consider whether there is cause for particular concern and, if so, whether further research could contribute to the control of risks to those working in this area.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the latest estimate of the number of medical examinations for the all-work test of incapacity which have been scheduled but have not yet taken place. [38508]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of incapacity benefit is a matter for Mr. Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ursula Brennan to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the latest estimate of the number of medical examinations for the all-work test of incapacity which have been scheduled but have not yet taken place. Mr. Mathison is away from Leeds on Benefits Agency business and he has asked me to reply on his behalf.635
  The number of medical examinations scheduled but not yet carried out as at 1 October 1995 was 64,247. This figure is made up of four weeks appointments scheduled from 1 October 1995 and includes an extra 33 per cent, which our experience has shown, fail to attend their appointment. The figure is provisional and subject to change.

  Mr. Litherland
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people(a) passed and (b) failed the new incapacity benefits all work test in the Greater Manchester areas. [38587]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of incapacity 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 Ursula Brennan to Mr. Robert Litherland, dated 23 October 1995:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of people that a) passed and b) failed the new Incapacity Benefit All Work Test in the Greater Manchester area. Mr. Mathison is away from Leeds on Benefits Agency business and he has asked me to reply on his behalf.
  Information is not available in the form that you requested for the Greater Manchester area. However, I can tell you that, for the period from 13 April to 30 September 1995, 16,984 people passed the all work test and 1,556 failed the all work test in the Manchester Lead Site. The Lead Site includes the Manchester Disability Benefits Centre and the following Benefits Agency District Offices, many of which are located within the Greater Manchester area:

  South Cheshire

  Manchester Central

  Manchester Trinity

  Manchester South

  Oldham

  Sale/East Cheshire

  Salford

  Stockport

  Tame side

  Blackburn/Accrington

  Bolton/Farnworth

  Burnley/Pendle/Rossendale

  West Pennine

  Wigan/Leigh

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many medical reports in respect of incapacity benefit have been carried out in each region; what is the average delay in producing a report; and how many are outstanding at the latest date. [37090]

  Mr. Burt
  The administration of incapacity benefit 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. Jeff Rooker, dated 23 October 1995:

  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many medical reports in respect of Incapacity Benefit have been carried out in each region; what is the average delay in producing a report; and how many are outstanding at the latest date.
  636
  Figures for the Benefits Agency's Medical Services (BAMS) operations are not available by region, they are however, available for each of the 11 major medical services centres. The BAMS computer system records the number of medical examinations carried out rather than the number of reports. A medical report is produced following each medical examination and reports are normally written on the day the examination is carried out.

  Figures for the number of medical examinations carried out this year, in the period ending 31 August, are at Annex A.

  However, figures are not available for the average delay in producing a report, nor for the number of reports outstanding.

  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Number of medical examinations carried out in respect of incapacity benefit

  Management unit

  May 1995

  June 1995

  July 1995

  August 1995

  Total

  Birmingham

  31

  740

  1,775

  2,816

  5,362

  Bootle

  37

  1,271

  2,521

  3,352

  7,181

  Bristol

  15

  465

  1,385

  2,383

  4,248

  Cardiff

  0

  899

  2,724

  3,921

  7,544

  Edinburgh

  112

  809

  1,666

  1,819

  4,406

  Glasgow

  435

  1,909

  2,241

  3,614

  8,199

  Leeds

  62

  1,670

  2,491

  4,046

  8,269

  Manchester

  96

  1,338

  2,029

  3,820

  7,283

  Newcastle

  42

  913

  1,518

  2,724

  5,197

  Sutton

  32

  1,099

  2,864

  3,487

  7,482

  Wembley

  43

  741

  2,204

  4,190

  7,178

  Total

  905

  11,854

  23,418

  36,172

  72,349

  This data is provisional and is subject to change.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if leaflet 1B214 describing the new all work test is available in all DSS/Benefits Agency offices, including those in Birmingham; and from what date. [36616]

  Mr. Burt
  IB 214 is a detailed leaflet on the incapacity benefit all-work medical test, produced primarily for advisers. The leaflet has been available since May to anyone who rings the freeline number—0800 868868—and it has been available from DSS local offices since mid-August 1995.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how the new incapacity benefit will affect those suffering from asthma. [38312]

  Mr. Burt
  The new medical test of incapacity takes account of the effect of all medical conditions. The basis of the test is the effect of a medical condition on the ability to work and not he medical condition itself. The symptoms of conditions such as asthma may vary in intensity across time from mild to severe. The new test is designed to take account of the variability of symptoms and is not a snapshot of the claimant's capacity to work at a point in time.

  Bronchitis and Emphysema
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to receive the report from the advisory body on the review of the Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [36740]
  637
  Mr. Roger Evans
  I understand that the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council expects to complete its review and submit a report to Ministers in the new year. The Government will consider carefully any recommendations that the council makes.

  Lone Parent Premium
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people received the single parent's premium in each since its inception; and what has been the cost of the premium in each of these years. [37159]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information available is set out in the table.

  The lone parent premium forms part of the calculation of the total potential amount of benefit in income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. It is not possible to apportion costs between the various allowances and premiums that make up the total potential benefit in those cases where the amount paid is less than the total.

  Income support/housing benefit/council tax benefit cases with the lone parent premium

  Year

  Number of income support cases

  Number of housing benefit/council tax benefit cases

  1988

  690,000

  —

  1989

  760,000

  —

  1990

  790,000

  110,000

  1991

  870,000

  110,000

  1992

  960,000

  110,000

  1993

  1,010,000

  120,000

  1994

  1,040,000

  140,000

  Notes:

  1. Sample size 1 in 100.

  2. Council tax benefit replaced community charge benefit from April 1993. Above figures include community charge benefit.

  3. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10,000.

  4. Housing benefit/council tax benefit/community charge benefit figures include estimates due to the data collection procedure in Scotland.

  5. The housing benefit/council tax benefit/community charge benefit analysis excludes recipients of housing benefit/council tax benefit with income support and the overlap between housing benefit/council tax benefit/community charge benefit.

  6. Housing benefit/community charge benefit figures are not provided for 1988–89 as it is not possible to accurately estimate the overlap between housing benefit and community charge benefit, at that time community charge benefit applied only in Scotland.

  Source:

  Income Support Statistics Quarterly and Annual Enquiries 1988–1994.

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiry without Income Support, taken at the end of May in each year shown.

  Share Option Schemes
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the estimated current cost to the Exchequer in(a) lost income tax and (b) lost national insurance contributions of companies paying low-paid employees earning below tax and national insurance thresholds via share options. [37074]

  Mr. Heald
  The Inland Revenue does not hold centrally collated information regarding tax revenue forgone under relieved share option schemes. However, a sample of such schemes available to the Inland Revenue indicates that very 638
  few employees currently earning below income tax and national insurance thresholds realise gains under share option schemes which would otherwise have brought them into income tax. Information regarding national insurance contribution revenue forgone is not available.

  Student Benefits
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many full-time higher education students suspended their courses due to sickness or personal circumstances and then claimed for social security benefits, for each year from 1985; and what is the total estimated annual cost of such claims. [38405]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available.

  Pay Bargaining
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide in respect of his plan for pay delegation submitted to the Treasury(a) a description of the staff in each bargaining unit covered by the plan, distinguishing staff in headquarters functions, agencies and agency candidates, and in other identifiable business units and (b) proposals for trade union recognition in each bargaining unit and the negotiating machinery to be put in place in each bargaining unit. [38280]

  Mr. Burt
  In line with the Government's Civil Service White Papers, "Continuity and Change" and "Carrying Forward Continuity and Change", at April 1996 DSS will have six bargaining units; Benefits Agency, Child Support Agency, Contributions Agency, Information Technology Services Agency, War Pensions Agency and DSS headquarters. Each bargaining unit will have responsibility for all staff up to and including unified grade 6, including professional equivalents.

  DSS headquarters will also have responsibility for the pay of staff in the five non-departmental public bodies related to the Department Central Adjudication Service, Independent Review Service for the Social Fund, Independent Tribunal Service, Pensions Ombudsman's office and the Executive Office of the Occupational Pensions Board.

  All six units have recognised the Civil and Public Servants Association and the National Union of Civil and Public Servants for collective bargaining purposes. Additionally, BA, ITSA and headquarters have recognised the Association of First Division Civil Servants and BA and headquarters have recognised the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists. The War Pensions Agency has a small number of staff represented by the Transport and General Workers Union whose pay will follow the settlement reached between the Ministry of Defence and the TGWU.

  Those bargaining units which took delegation in 1994—BA, CA and ITSA—and in 1995—CSA and WPA—agreed bargaining mechanisms with unions for past negotiations and these have been either single-table or multi-table. Arrangements for 1996 will be agreed in due course.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the number of recipients and cost
  639
  to the public of council tax benefit; and what are the figures for each of the last five years. [38332]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The available information is set out in the table.

  Number of recipients and benefit expenditure on council tax benefit

  Year1

  Number of recipients(000s)2

  Financial year

  Benefitexpenditure£ million3

  19934

  5,290

  1993–94

  1,901

  1994

  5,549

  1994–95

  2,005

  1995

  5,674

  1995–96

  2,039

  Notes:

  1 Number of recipients obtained from quarterly aggregate counts taken on last working day of May of each given year.

  Housing benefit recipients by tenancy in Great Britain

  Thousands

  Year

  Total housing benefit cases

  Rent Rebate Local authority tenants

  Total housing associations tenants and private tenants

  Rent Allowance Housing association tenants

  Private rented excluding housing association tenants

  1991

  4,030

  2,945

  1,085

  n/a

  n/a

  1992

  4,325

  3,034

  1,292

  340

  952

  1993

  4,533

  3,053

  1,481

  412

  1,068

  1994

  4,650

  3,016

  1,634

  509

  1,125

  1995

  4,734

  2,967

  1,766

  610

  1,156

  Notes:

  1. Number of recipients obtained from quarterly aggregate counts taken on last working day of May for each given year.

  2. Figures refer to the number of benefit units. These maybe a single person or a couple.

  3. Separate figures for housing association and private rented accommodation tenants excluding housing association tenants are not available for 1991.

  4. Totals may not sum due to rounding of figures to the nearest thousand.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many parents with dependent children claiming income support were receiving maintenance in each year since 1989; and in the case of Child Support Agency assessments, how many of these were minimum assessments of £2.30 or less. [37589]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Maintenance Payments
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average amount of maintenance received by parents with dependent children claiming income support in each year since 1989. [37590]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is in the following list:

  1989: £18.99

  1990: £19.60

  1991: £20.73

  1992: £22.19

  1993: £22.64

  1994: £23.71

  640
  2 Figures for recipients refer to the number of benefit units. These may be a single person or a couple.

  3 Figures given for benefit expenditure for 1993–94 are outturn, those for 1994–95 estimated outturn and 1995–96 planned outturn.

  4 Council tax benefit was introduced in April 1993.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total number of people in receipt of housing benefit in(a) local authority, (b) housing association and (c) private rented accommodation; and what were the figures for each of the last five years. [38333]

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

  Method of Payment Fraud
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what were the savings made by his Department in tackling organised method of payment fraud in 1993–94 and 1994–95; what were the reasons for any change in savings; and what new policies his Department intends to take to substantially increase the savings by tackling organised method of payment fraud. [37591]

  Mr. Heald
  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Social Security Expenditure
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current cost of the social security budget per working person per day. [38081]

  Mr. Burt
  The current cost of the social security budget is equivalent to £15.00 per working person per working day.

  Employee Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total number of cases of all forms of fraud committed by employees of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies for each year from 1991–92 to 1994–95; and for each of these years, what was the total

  641
  monetary sum (1) misappropriated in such frauds and (2) subsequently recovered. [39131]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Government Publications
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster which institutions in the USA are designated depositories for United Kingdom Government publications produced through HMSO. [38329]

  Mr. Horam
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office has no deposit arrangements with designated institutions in the USA or elsewhere overseas.

  Pay Bargaining
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will provide, in respect of his plan for pay delegation submitted to the Treasury,(a) a description of the staff in each bargaining unit covered by the plan, distinguishing staff in HQ functions, agencies and agency candidates, and in other identifiable business units and (b) proposals for trade union recognition in each bargaining unit and the negotiating machinery to be put in place in each bargaining unit. [38281]

  Mr. Horam
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's responsibilities cover several Departments\agencies which are classed as separate bargaining units for the purpose of pay delegation:642
  Cabinet Office/Office of Public Service has 1,283 staff covering support, clerical, executive, specialist and open structure grades based in London, Norwich and Basingstoke. Meeting planned with the Association of First Division Civil Servants, the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, the National Union of Civil and Public Servants and the Civil and Public Services Association to discuss negotiating machinery.
  Her Majesty's Stationery Office already has pay delegation for its clerical, executive and managerial staff which now number about 2,000 and for its printing, technical and maintenance staff which now number about 900. These staff are based in Norwich and in outlets nationwide. Single-table bargaining exists for white-collar staff with its trade union side comprising CPSA, NUCPS and IPMS and separately with the Graphical, Paper and Media Union, the General Municipal and Boilermakers Union, the Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union and the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians for its blue-collar staff.
  Central Office of Information has 480 staff covering support, clerical, executive, specialist and open structure grades based in London and a number of regions. About to discuss negotiating machinery with IPMS, NUCPS and CPSA.
  Civil Service College has 274 staff covering a range of clerical, executive and Open Structure grades based at both Sunningdale and London. About to meet FDA, NUCPS, IPMS and CPSA to discuss negotiating machinery.
  Chessington Computer Centre has 417 clerical, executive and Open Structure staff on one site. Negotiating machinery to be discussed with representatives of NUCPS and CPSA.
  Recruitment and Assessment Services covers a mix of support, clerical and executive grades together with Open Structure staff and some psychologists based in Basingstoke and London. Discussing negotiating machinery with NUCPS and CPSA.
  Occupational Health and Safety Agency covers 95 administrative, executive, specialist and Open Structure staff with HQ functions in Edinburgh and a number of offices in London and the regions. Principal discussions on negotiating machinery are currently with IPMS.

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.
Lord Phillimore Lord Phillimore —Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Rail Privatisation
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their intention to privatise Railtrack's safety and standards directorate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, yes. The new safety regime recommended by the Health and Safety Commission took into account the Government's intention to privatise Railtrack. The Health and Safety Executive remains the independent body responsible for safety regulation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there remains considerable disquiet about the whole process of rail privatisation among the public and, indeed, among his own supporters according to opinion polls and that one of the greatest causes of disquiet is safety? Why is there this ideological obsession to privatise everything to do with the railways?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the clearly stated aim of the Government in privatising the railways is to get better value for money and to improve services. That is why we are undertaking the privatisation and that is what has happened with every other privatisation we have undertaken.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, did my noble friend happen to hear a programme on BBC Radio 4 last Saturday at about four o'clock?
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: It was an objective programme which suggested that more time should be given to ensure that the safety of the public is safeguarded.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I regret that I did not hear the programme to which my noble friend paid so much attention. We believe that we have the timetable right for railway privatisation. Safety is of paramount importance; that is why we have put such a robust safety regime in place.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, if the timetable is so accurate, why was it necessary yesterday to transfer on a very high salary a very senior civil servant at the Scottish Office, Mr. Hetherington, to the authority dealing with the privatisation because, on the admission of the authority and, indeed, the Scottish Office, the whole privatisation programme is in such an appalling mess?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is clear that the privatisation programme is not in an appalling mess but proceeding extremely well. We have made significant strides. On the noble Lord's specific question, I shall investigate and let him have an answer in writing.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, on the question of safety, can my noble friend give any example of a privatised transport undertaking which is operating less safely now than when it was in the public sector? In fact, are not most such undertakings now operating a great deal more safely?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend makes an extremely important point. One need only bear in mind the example of the airline industry. British Airways is known as having nothing less than an extremely good safety record. The British Airports Authority, the ground infrastructure company, also has a very good safety record. It has been shown extremely clearly that privatised and privately owned companies take their safety obligations just as seriously, if not more seriously, than public sector operators.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, was it an accidental slip on the part of the Minister that in his catalogue of success stories he forgot to mention the bus industry where the safety record is far from good, as evidenced over and over again?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that significant improvements in service have been made in the bus industry. We are discussing the railway industry where considerable work has been done to take privatisation forward. We believe that we have an extremely rigorous safety 'regime in place. In fact, it is the regime which the independent Health and Safety Commission advised the Government to put in place. We have taken up its independent report and fully implemented exactly what it asked us to do.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, does it not seem strange that the Opposition constantly seek to denigrate privatisation which has been so incredibly successful not only in this country but throughout the world in places where it had not previously existed? Would it not be a very good thing if the Opposition ceased to try to pick on small points? There is no doubt that this particular aspect of the privatisation has been picked on in a rather strange way. Does my noble friend agree that it would be much wiser if the Opposition were to concentrate on making themselves more competent to understand what is going on in the world?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. It is regrettable that the Opposition seek to oppose all privatisations merely on principle. They display dogmatic opposition to the benefits that can flow from privatisation. Safety is an incredibly important factor. We put it at the top of our list of priorities. That is why we have adopted this extremely robust regime.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister give the House and the country a guarantee that if the privatisation of the railways takes place rural railways in Wales, which are essential to the people living there, will be kept going?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that with the passage of the Railways Bill (now the Railways Act) considerable procedures have been put in place to safeguard rural services. That is a safeguard which did not exist before privatisation but which is now there. Services have a better safeguard than ever before.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, will my noble friend ask the party opposite whether its memory needs jogging in order to appreciate that so far as concerns the cost of services and safety the current situation is highly unpopular and highly unsatisfactory?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that there is clear pressure for improvements in services to be made. We feel that taking forward the privatisation initiative is the correct vehicle to ensure that that occurs. I regret that, however often we point out the advantages of privatisation, the dogmatic opposition expressed by the party opposite is extremely difficult to undo.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has the Minister had any opportunity of making a comparison between the safety record of the privately owned road freight industry and the publicly owned rail freight industry? In particular, has he observed the large number of fatal casualties caused by the excessive hours worked by drivers in the private sector road industry? How does that compare with the record of fatalities for the transport of freight on the railways?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is an entirely spurious comparison. They are two entirely different modes. If the noble Lord wants to talk about the safety responsibility of airline pilots, for instance, I do not believe that he will tell me that just because they work in the private sector they do not take their responsibilities extremely seriously.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Government have every right to privatise whatever they believe needs to be privatised, will British Rail please remain British and will foreign investors who might want to take it over be resisted to ensure that we will always have a British railway system?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can guarantee that the network will always be in Britain. We do not intend to move it. It will be for the benefit of British passengers clearly. We feel that bringing in new investment is beneficial to the railways system and the passengers of this country.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister now be honest and answer the question? Will foreign money be invested in British Rail to take away the British part of our railways?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this party favours inward investment into this country. It would be extremely unwise to do otherwise.

Unemployment
2.48 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What proposals they have to reduce the number of long-term unemployed.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, tackling long-term unemployment is a key priority for this Government. That is why this year, through Jobcentres and TECs, we are offering longer term unemployed people around 1.5 million opportunities to help them back to work.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, if that is the best that the Government can come up with after 16 years in power, heaven help the long-term unemployed. Does the Minister accept that there are now over 1 million long-term unemployed, and that a quarter of them have been unemployed now for four years? Is the Minister aware that the scale of long-term unemployment is one of the most reliable criteria for assessing the success or otherwise of an economy? How can the Government tell us about the so-called success story when so many thousands of families are being devastated by long-term unemployment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that the Government are not doing very much. I can list a whole host of initiatives that the Government and the Employment Service have introduced to bring down unemployment. I can assure the noble Lord that long-term unemployment, which is an important figure, is falling and falling, more importantly, as a percentage of the total. It is well below the average of our European colleagues. It is now below 1 million. It is about 862,000. It is down by 218,000 since the peak. It has been down 142,000 in the past year. It is down by 24,000 in the past quarter. It is down in all regions for all ages and for men and women.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the success of the economic policy of this Government has resulted in a drop in unemployment of nearly 700,000 since its peak in December 1992? Does he further agree that if the minimum wage or the social chapter were introduced unemployment in this country would be increased? Finally, does he agree that it is rather hypocritical of noble Lords opposite to criticise this Government when their policies would increase unemployment?
Lord Henley: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the dangers of a minimum wage, which we would refuse to contemplate. Similarly, he is right to draw attention to the dangers of the social chapter, which would do much to increase unemployment as would the minimum wage. Our refusal to sign up to either of those, our reforms of the labour market in the early 1980s, which were strongly opposed by the party opposite, and the fact that we keep

963
our non-wage labour costs much lower than most of our European competitors have done much to bring down unemployment by 700,000 since its peak.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister explain why yesterday at the United Nations the Prime Minister attempted to have the International Labour Organisation disbanded, bearing in mind that what little protection some low paid workers have in this country rests with that organisation? Is the Minister aware that if the International Labour Organisation is disbanded the one line of protection for some people in the poorest countries which are governed by dictators will be removed? Is that what the Government intend? If it is, why do they not say so?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the best protection for the unemployed is to find them jobs and one will not find them jobs by imposing increased burdens of the kind that the noble Lord and the International Labour Organisation would like on employers.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not a fact that unemployment today is about twice what it was in 1979 when the Labour Government left office?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the important thing about unemployment is that it is coming down and has been coming down steadily for 24 months. It has come down much earlier in the recovery from the last recession than any of the pundits in the party opposite ever thought. It came down because of the reforms that we made to the labour market in the early 1980s and for the various other reasons which I expounded earlier. Not least of those is our refusal to touch the minimum wage which the party opposite so much desires.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, would the Minister consider extra teaching not only to students but to adults too of a foreign language to widen the chances of people seeking jobs?
Lord Henley: My Lords, any training, skill and qualification always increases the employability of any individual in the labour market. That is one of the principal reasons why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister brought together the Department for Education and the Department of Employment, which was strongly opposed by the party opposite.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to his own figures the number of people in training-for-work schemes is 30 per cent. lower than it was this time last year and that the number of starts on training-for-work in Great Britain is also 24 per cent. lower than for the same period last year? Has the Minister any idea why that should be? Further, would he mind telling his noble friend who asked a question in connection with the social chapter that the minimum wage has nothing whatever to do with the social chapter and that it is not part of it?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not believe that anyone said that the minimum wage had anything to do with the social chapter. The fact is that the party opposite has signed up to both of them. As regards the number of people in training-for-work, I do not believe that that is important. What is important is the quality of the
964
training that we can deliver and the fact that unemployment has been coming down steadily for 24 months—that is long-term unemployment and the whole figure for unemployment—as a result of the policies that we have been pursuing.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, that is from the peak of 3 million unemployed. Will the Minister explain to the House why, after the Government's 16 years in office, we have over 2,200,000 persons on the dole?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord corrected himself and reminded the House that unemployment has come down from 3 million to roughly 2¼ million. The fact is that unemployment has gone up throughout the developed world, in particular in the European Community which has the most appalling record on the creation of jobs. We, though, have seen it come down far earlier and far more strongly than most of our competitors. At the same time, we have seen employment grow far more strongly and we now have virtually the largest percentage of those of working age in employment in Europe.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the Minister not slightly worried that in this best of all possible worlds that he has been expounding an article in last week's Financial Times showed that our capital investment, for which the fall in unemployment is absolutely necessary, is the lowest in Europe?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is taking the Question slightly beyond what is on the Order Paper. We are dealing with unemployment and with the growth of employment. I have made clear to the House that although unemployment is very high it has fallen far faster and far sooner than anyone predicted and it fell because of the reforms that this Government made to the labour market and the other policies that we have espoused.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the economies that are most successful in the general field of employment are also the least regulated?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that too is a point that I have been trying to get over. It is why I stressed the importance of keeping our non-wage labour costs down and why they are far lower than those of most of our European colleagues and pretty low in world terms.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is it not significant that none of the Minister's noble friends has referred to long-term unemployment, which is the whole purpose of my Question? Is it not also significant that 216,000 people under the age of 25 have never had a job? The longer one stays out of a job the harder it is to get a job.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I will remind the noble Lord of some figures that I gave earlier. Long-term unemployment is a much lower percentage in this country than elsewhere and it is falling as a percentage of overall unemployment. The noble Lord mentioned the unemployment rate for the under-25s. Perhaps he will look at the over-regulated economies across the Channel and see how high their youth unemployment is.

The Electricity Industry
2.57 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in view of the vertical integration now taking place in the electricity industry in England and Wales as a result of take-overs and mergers, they have abandoned the concept, inherent in the Electricity Act 1989, of transparency as between the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, the Government made it clear at privatisation that when their special shares expired the regional electricity companies would be exposed to the disciplines and opportunities of the market, including mergers and acquisitions.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the Minister recall that his right honourable friend Mr. Ian Lang recently stated, as reported in the press, that at some stage an accumulation of mergers:
"may impede the electricity regulator's ability to carry out his duties."?
In view of the fact that more than half of the regional electricity companies have been the subject of mergers or take-overs, and more are in the offing, will the Minister consider that the stage referred to by his right honourable friend has now been reached? Is he aware that on this issue the existing regulator has expressed grave concern on a number of occasions?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, the existing policy on referrals to the MMC is the policy that has been followed since 1984; namely, that any referrals should be on competition grounds on a case-by-case basis. I believe that to some extent the noble Lord misinterprets what my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade said. He indicated that, where consideration was to be given to mergers between the regional electricity companies, there were particular factors to which he would pay attention. Those include the extent to which the regulatory power of the director general might be adversely affected if such a company were subsumed within a larger group; the extent to which there was a loss of comparators; any adverse effects of vertical integration; and the extent to which any of those adverse effects might be remedied by disinvestment. It would not be right for me or for my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade to determine that no further mergers were to take place. Each one should be considered on its particular merits.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, in view of what the Minister has said, does he not believe that there is a case for the take-over bid for North West Water by Norweb to be considered by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am dealing with a question about the transparency of the electricity industry. However, I have indicated a broad general
966
policy and, clearly, many aspects of that policy would also be applicable if there were to be mergers with water companies.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, will the Minister comment on the bids and the prices that are being offered in those take-overs? Will he talk to his merchant bank advisers who gave the original substantial undervaluation of those public assets?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, there may be an argument to say that at the time at which the privatisations took place, there were those who had a particular interest in trying to talk down the value of those companies. I certainly do not think that that is correct. As the noble Lord will appreciate, I must resist commenting on any one of the proposals for take-over or merger because there are proper procedures to be followed. The Director General of Fair Trading, following on the advice that he receives from the electricity regulator, gives independent and impartial advice to the President of the Board of Trade who then takes the decision whether or not to make a referral.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the main effort of the Government to introduce competition into the electricity market was by introducing the spot market; and that has failed? Instead of driving down the price of electricity, as the Government promised, it has increased it to such an extent that the regulator has been forced to cap it. Does the Minister agree that, had the regulator not capped that pool market for electricity, the price would have risen to such a level as to make the energy costs of British industry uncompetitive?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, it is rather extraordinary to put the matter that way round. Of course we recognise that there is a role for the regulator to play, and one of those roles is in relation to price. But the noble Lord should have drawn attention to the fact that domestic electricity prices have fallen by some 7 per cent. in the past two years and are expected to drop by a further 3 per cent. in real terms over the next year. Industrial prices have fallen by some 6 per cent. Furthermore, next year, once the National Grid has been floated, every consumer will receive a £50 rebate.

Transport Research Laboratory
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which organisations or companies have expressed an interest in taking over the Transport Research Laboratory when it is privatised and how many of them would be non-profit-distributing concerns.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in response to their sale memorandum issued this summer the Government received expressions of interest and indicative bids for the laboratory from a range of bodies. We have asked certain of those bodies to submit confirmed or revised bids by the end of October. The bids are confidential at this stage of the sale process.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Is it not a fact that of those expressions of interest the only offer of a non-profit-distributing company take-over comes from the Transport Research Foundation, an in-house staff management consortium of the Transport Research Laboratory? In view of the fact that the Government's own consultants, Peat Marwick, said that the best way to preserve the reputation for impartiality which the Transport Research Laboratory enjoys worldwide would he the choice of a non-profit-distributing company, will the Minister for once accept his consultants' advice?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in view of the fact that the chief executive has made clear that a management staff bid to form the TRL as a non-profit-distributing company, to be known as the Transport Research Foundation, is being mounted, I can confirm that. However, I cannot confirm what are the other bids and what stage they have reached. I cannot follow the noble Baroness in her supposition that only a non-profit-distributing company can be impartial and put forward impartial advice. The Government commission expert advice from a wide range of bodies in both the public and private sectors and we receive very good impartial advice from all of them.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, are the Government aware that a number of organisations are supporting the Transport Research Foundation, including my own, ITS Focus, which deals with transport telematics? I understand from the foundation that we are one of over 100 organisations representing universities, consultants, the construction and supply industry, infrastructure owners, transport operators and professional institutions which are supporting the bid. The strength of that support was demonstrated when 38 of them attended a meeting called at very short notice to try to set out the position. Will the Government give special consideration to the bid by the Transport Research Foundation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, all I can say at this stage of the bidding process is that full consideration will be given to all the details of all the bids.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, that was a special, individual plea from a Member of this House, which is quite unusual. I believe that the Minister mentioned that four bids are in. Are they based on a uniform basis of specification? Which criteria will the Government use when making the award? Will the final decision be based on straight price and projected performance or will there be a whittling down and negotiations taking place, as has happened previously?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I mentioned that we had gone back to a number of the bidders to ask them to clarify certain points. This will be a fair competition. We shall take into account all the relevant details including price, ability to perform, what sort of work the organisation can put forward and its record. Those will be the important criteria on which we shall consider the bids.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question put to him? There may be a difference as regards definition of the word "fairness". Is each bidder making the same bid on the same contract?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, people are bidding in response to the sale memorandum issued by the Government.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will the Minister be kind enough to answer the question put by my noble friend Lady Castle? She asked whether or not it is a fact that Peat Marwick recommended very strongly to the Government that if they were to proceed with the privatisation a non-profit-distributing concern would be the best avenue by which to pursue it. Will he answer that question which was put twice by my noble friend and not answered by the Minister?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am very glad that the Opposition place such great store on the advice given by an independent company in the commercial sector. That rather goes against the thrust of the questions which have been coming from the Opposition. We recognise the advice given to us by Peat Marwick. Nevertheless, we are considering a wide range of bids from a wide range of companies. We believe that that is the best way to ensure the future provision of high quality work by the transport laboratory.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the Minister has not answered the question. Was clear advice given by Peat Marwick that that form of organisation was the one which the Government were very strongly recommended to follow—yes or no?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the simple answer to that is that advisers provide us with advice which we take fully into consideration. We then look at all the other relevant factors involved. The company which the noble Lord mentions does not run the country and is not the elected government. The Government have a duty to provide the best value for money for their taxpayers taking fully into account the advice which they have received and commissioned in order to produce the best possible transport research laboratory and the best future for that laboratory.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, from that answer we can surely assume that the answer the Minister has not given us is yes.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the other answer I have not given the House is no. I believe that we have rehearsed fully these arguments. There will be a fair competitive process to see which company will end up running the TRL. I am sure that in view of the Government's guarantees of future work we shall end up with a strong organisation that is able to provide good quality, impartial advice to the Department of Transport and other customers.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, has the noble Viscount noticed that three of the four Questions today deal with public industries that have been sold off by the Conservative Government—railways, electricity and

969
now the Road Transport Laboratory? Will the Minister read out a list of those public interests which the Government are not prepared to sell?
Viscount Goschen: Well, my Lords, I believe that that is grabbing at straws. Indeed, it is about as far from the original Question as I can imagine. One might put at the top of such a list your Lordships' House, perhaps, as something we are not seeking to privatise. However, we are open to suggestions from the party opposite. The serious point is that the privatisations which the Labour Party has opposed over and again have turned out to be successes over and again. I am sure that that will continue.

Disability Discrimination Bill
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the House begins to consider the amendments on Third Reading, perhaps I may draw the attention of your Lordships to yet another case of late tabling of amendments by the Government. Last Friday the Government tabled 13 pages of highly technical amendments covering such subjects as occupational pensions, the lease of premises, industrial tribunals and benefits.
The Bill started its passage in the other place many months ago. We have all stages up to Third Reading in this House. We had the Report stage in this Chamber on July 20th and the Government tabled the amendments exactly three months afterwards on October 20th. So they had three months to consider, consult and draft all the amendments. They are extremely technical amendments and effectively we were given only one day to get the advice that we certainly need when they are so technical. The Minister sent the amendments out by post on Friday and his office kindly faxed them to me on Friday evening because I happen to have a fax machine at home. They certainly did not improve my weekend.
It really will not do on such an important Bill, given the limited resources of the Opposition and of the Back Benches. We all tabled our substantive amendments by the middle of last week. It happens time and again. It is not fair to the House or to the Opposition. It prevents this Chamber from performing its job of properly considering and revising legislation. It makes for bad, ill-considered legislation, which is something that we have certainly become used to from this Government and especially from the Department of Social Security.
On Question, Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "disability" and "disabled person"]:
Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert ("; and
(c) the interpretation of section (Definition of discrimination) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I see that the Minister does not intend to answer the point that I made. However, in moving Amendment No. 1 I should point out that it is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 53. It deals with organisations providing training, accommodation or other services specifically for disabled people which then find that they are discriminated against; for example, organisations which are not able to buy or rent property from which to operate.
As we understand it, under the Bill as it presently stands such organisations will not be able to challenge such discrimination because, as organisations, they are obviously not disabled persons as covered by the legislation. Therefore, the amendment would allow any person—the term includes organisations—to challenge discrimination when it takes place because they are providing training, accommodation or services to disabled people.
We all know from our own experience that organisations which provide services or accommodation for disabled people frequently find great difficulty in renting or buying property because the owner does not want disabled people to use the premises. We were sent by RADAR the example of the Surrey Heartlands which is a charity providing services to people with learning difficulties or mental health problems. The letter reads as follows:
"During the course of the last year we have in two instances found the ideal place for training worksites, both within industrial estates…In both cases negotiations progressed smoothly up to the point where we were ready to finalise the leasing arrangements. At this point in both cases we were turned down, and it was inferred that the type of people who would occupy the premises would not be acceptable to the rest of the neighbourhood. We have of course encountered similar problems when looking for residential care".
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that that has a very damaging impact because it makes it extremely hard for organisations to meet the needs of their disabled clients. We feel that the Bill will be seriously flawed if such activities are allowed to continue unchecked. Although the majority of problems arise with the procurement of premises, difficulties may also arise with other services; for example, where a charity is refused a block booking for a holiday because its clients are disabled.
As I said, organisations which provide services, training and accommodation for disabled people experience discrimination as organisations. Indeed, landlords will not allow them to rent premises if they are to be used by people with learning difficulties or mental health problems. We all know of many such examples over the years affecting a wide range of organisations as regards property for the mentally handicapped or the mentally ill, holidays for disabled people or the provision of services.
We appreciate that disabled people are the receivers of that discrimination, but their organisations are discriminated against just as much. The amendments attempt to put that right. It is a very straightforward matter and we feel that it is a weakness in the Bill. We urge the Government to accept the amendments; indeed, they can always redraft them when the Bill returns to

971
another place if the wording is not entirely correct. But I believe that it is most important for the point to be recognised on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I do not know whether the Government feel that the amendment is necessary. I hope that they will be able to explain other ways for dealing with the point. I should like to reiterate that it is a very definite matter which needs to he looked into. We know that disabled people will be able under the Bill to take action, as indeed will those supporting them.
However, most of us know of cases where places that have been assigned for disabled people to live in or be trained in have then been objected to by people in the neighbourhood. I speak particularly about mentally disabled people and also some other categories of disabled people who are thought not to make a district as acceptable as it was before. I hope that there will be a way to improve such situations where preparations have been made and everything is ready for something to be opened but then objections are received and the proposition falls through. I trust that the Government will be able to tell us what can be done in those circumstances.
Lord Addington: My Lords, the amendment effectively deals with secondary discrimination; that is, discrimination against someone through an organisation. Whether discrimination is of a primary or secondary nature—that is, to your face or behind your back—it still has the same effect. It restricts your activities. That is what the amendment is about. Surely the Government should have such a provision, or something very like it, on the face of the Bill. If you merely restrict where someone can go and do something, you are still restricting what they do. Moreover, it is not on any reasonable grounds—indeed, we have the grounds of reasonableness in the Bill—it is just allowing prejudice to stop people occupying a site for accommodation. Surely that is against the whole thrust of the Bill.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I should like to put a simple proposition to the House; namely, for noble Lords to assume that the Bill provided that it was perfectly legal to kick over wheelchairs, to kick white sticks or, indeed, to kick the dogs of the blind. If the legislation did so provide, there would naturally be public outrage. But in point of fact the Bill as it stands does permit the most savage discrimination against the people and the organisations helping the disabled. That is why the amendment has been tabled.
The people and organisations helping disabled people are just as important as the wheelchairs, the white sticks and the dogs; in fact, far more so. That is why we propose that the amendment should ensure that the people and organisations be given the same kind of protection from discrimination as is provided for disabled people. We all know from personal experience about the absolutely horrific discrimination against some organisations and people helping the disabled. That is why we want the amendment to be passed.
I should also like to point out that the Bill as it stands is grossly inadequate. I refer to the way in which people suffer discrimination. I see that the Minister is nodding
972
his head. There is no doubt that all the organisations which represent and assist disabled people suffer discrimination. Let them try to help mentally disabled people; let them try to help people with cerebral palsy and bring them in and give them accommodation or jobs. Then you find that the great British public revert to the old cliché, "Not in my backyard". Discrimination is widespread against the organisations trying to help disabled people. That is why we want the amendment passed.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should declare an interest when supporting the amendment because I work for an organisation which provides all the things listed in paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 53. I do not want to speak of the experience of my own organisation. However, I should like to give an example. A friend wished to take a group of children from a Church of England Children's Society home to a pantomime in Morecambe. The booking, for some 30 children, was turned down on the grounds that a number of them might be mentally disabled and therefore liable to make a noise during the performance. I was somewhat surprised because at a pantomime children are supposed to enjoy themselves and make a noise.
I can also give an example from some time ago when I worked as a surveyor for a firm in Kent selling property. The owner of a property refused to sell it to MENCAP because he was friendly with his neighbours and thought they would object to having people with a mild mental disability living in the same street.
There is discrimination against organisations which work for and with people who have disabilities of all kinds. We cannot allow discrimination against organisations of that kind because that is a roundabout way of discriminating against disabled people. It is obviously against the spirit of the Bill.
Therefore, I hope that my noble friend will accept the amendment as it stands or, if it needs to be improved, that he will accept it on the basis that he will arrange for it to be improved in another place.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for spoiling his weekend. I was a little disturbed when I realised that we would table amendments on Friday. We tried hard to prevent that happening but consultation on the important issues covered by the amendments in my name has taken some time. It is important that we get the amendments right. I understand that some amendments were tabled by other Members of your Lordships' House yesterday, so I was not the last offender in terms of tabling late amendments. I hope that the explanations that we provided with the material we sent to the noble Lord, were helpful.
I listened with some sympathy to the difficulties which noble Lords have described. However, I am afraid that the solution in front of us in the form of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is not acceptable.
During its passage through Parliament my ministerial colleagues and I have emphasised that the Bill is concerned solely with discrimination against disabled people. It cannot be seen as a solution for all those who

973
may possibly face discrimination. I have said on a number of occasions that it is not a general anti-discrimination Bill or even a general health discrimination Bill. In working towards our aim of eliminating discrimination against disabled people we have to carry with us employers, business and the general public. Vagueness and uncertainty will not do. Employers, business and individuals all need to know who has rights, who can complain to courts and tribunals, and whom employers or businesses will have duties towards.
The definition used in the Bill is clear. The people we intend to cover are those who have, or had, a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. As I have said on a number of occasions, those are people who are disabled in common-sense terms.
Although we are extending protection to a wide range of people, a line has to be drawn concerning those the Bill is intended to cover. That is not easy. American experience demonstrates that tremendous problems can be caused by involving groups with what may be only marginal connections to disability. Those problems include a large backlog of complaints, great uncertainty among employers and service providers, and groups rightly intended to be excluded from the Act managing to complain by claiming, for example, that they have a reputation of having a disability.
Similar problems would be caused by extending the Bill's coverage to third parties. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is intended to do just that by making unlawful less favourable treatment of a service provider on the grounds that he or she provides employment or services to disabled people.
We should be clear that there are some situations in which a disabled or able-bodied third party is so closely linked to another person that it will not really matter which receives the service. Discrimination against either will be actionable by the disabled person. An example is parent and child situations. We discussed those during previous stages of the Bill. For example, in the case of a mother and baby where either the mother or the child is disabled, a refusal to serve one of them on the grounds of disability would be a case of actionable discrimination. If, say, the mother is disabled and needs information in an accessible format from a clinic about medical treatment for her child and the clinic refuses to provide the information in an accessible way it is the baby's health which will suffer, but it will be the disabled person who has been discriminated against.
I listened to the example given by my noble friend Lord Swinfen about access to the pantomime. That case probably falls within the category I have mentioned in this part of my speech. I can reassure my noble friend that denial of access to a pantomime for disabled children would certainly be covered by the Bill, because the children would have been denied a direct service by those who refused the booking on their behalf. The amendment before us today goes a good deal wider than those circumstances to cover instances where there is not a direct service relationship between the provider
974
and the disabled person. Clearly, the disabled children hoped to go to the pantomime and the theatre was the provider. I hope that that explanation helps to calm my noble friend's fears that situations such as the one he mentioned would not be covered by the Bill. They would.
To return to the amendment in front of us, any attempt, however well intentioned, to introduce provisions which would widen the scope of the Bill to include those who are merely associated with disabled people or deal with them in some way would damage the Bill and dramatically reduce its effectiveness. Employers, business and the public at large will accept that a change in attitude and approach to their dealings with disabled people is necessary and, indeed, overdue. I expect them to respond positively to provisions which are couched in terms of what is reasonable, as they are in the Bill. However, they would fail to understand and in many cases would refuse to accept a Bill which seeks to protect people who are not disabled. The success of the legislation rests on its credibility. In my view the amendment raises enormous questions of principle which might result in the backlash we are all anxious to avoid.
I fear that a change of this nature could lead to a good deal of spurious or vexatious legislation. The number of people who provide facilities, goods, accommodation and so on to at least one disabled person must run into many millions. Each, at least in theory, would have a case under this legislation if he received poor treatment of some kind and could claim that the perpetrator knew that he had some dealings with a person who might be disabled. The legislation is sufficiently complex as it is without burdening the courts with cases brought by those who might seek to stretch its provisions way beyond their purpose.
I hope that I can add some words of reassurance to those I have already given to my noble friend Lord Swinfen in relation to his example. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carter. As has been said on a number of previous occasions, the Bill cannot be and does not purport to be the last word when it comes to tackling discrimination. But it will engender wholesale changes in attitude which will have an effect going much wider than the ambit of the Bill. For example, landlords will get used to the idea that they are not able to discriminate against disabled people when considering prospective tenants. Over time it will be the norm for disabled people and non-disabled people to receive the same treatment, just as racial discrimination in the same area has faded since the Race Relations Act was passed. I hope and expect that not many years from now the kind of difficulty which the noble Lord outlined today will be increasingly rare.
As it stands, the Bill is clear and easily operable, despite the fact that this is a very complex area. The vast majority of employers and service providers are willing to comply with the law and need to be clear about how they do that. Our primary purpose is to raise awareness of discrimination which may simply be the result of fear and ignorance. I do not believe that we can

975
do that by using vague concepts such as reputation, which I believe would only lead to confusion, uncertainty, argument and excessive litigation.
With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord, having made his points very forcefully, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carter: My Lords, that was a disappointing answer. I am extremely grateful to those noble Lords who spoke, all of whom supported the drift of the amendment.
As the Minister well knows, the amendments put down yesterday were paving amendments. They were not the substantive amendments that we had on Friday. He made an interesting point. He stated that the Government do not see the Bill as an anti-discrimination Bill against disabled people. That will surprise many people who have not been following the Bill. I believe that that is what he said.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I believe that I said—as I have stated on a number of occasions—that it is not a general anti-discrimination Bill, period.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Bill is about disabled people. If it is an anti-discrimination Bill, I fail to see the Minister's point. I believe that that statement will surprise people outside the House who, perhaps mistakenly, thought that it was a general Bill to help disabled people.
If an amendment of this nature, or one like it, is not accepted, there will be a series of test cases. That will be particularly difficult for those who are mentally handicapped or mentally ill. It will be a great strain for them. They will have to appear as individuals, even though the organisation will back them.
It is a simple point. The provision is supported by all noble Lords who have spoken who have great experience of these problems. I cited an example. I could give many more. During the passage of the Bill, the Minister has got into the habit of putting up straw men to knock down in his arguments about spurious and vexatious litigation, and the hundreds or thousands of people who will be queuing up to take action under the Bill. I agree that an enormous number of disabled people depend on organisations to support them. The provision could easily be redrafted to include, for example, only the non-profit-making or charitable organisations which support disabled people. We raised a point of real concern which has been put to us by organisations for disabled people. It has been put forward by all who spoke in the debate who obviously understood the nature of the problem. The Minister has not answered the point. I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
3.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 121; Not-Contents, 154.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Airedale, L.

Jay, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kintore, E.

Avebury, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Barnett, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Bath, M.

Lawrence, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lockwood, B.

Beloff, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

McCarthy, L.

Blackstone, B.

McConnell, L.

Brain, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Meston, L.

Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Monkswell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nelson, E.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Craigavon, V.

Ogmore, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Peston, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Prys-Davies, L.

David, B.

Richardson, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Desai, L.

Rix, L.

Diamond, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Rochester, L.

Donoughue, L.

Russell, E.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Dubs, L.

Scanlon, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Seear, B.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Ezra, L.

Serota, B.

Falkender, B.

Shannon, E.

Falkland, V.

Shepherd, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Fitt, L.

Stallard, L.

Gallacher, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Glenamara, L.

Strafford, E.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Swinfen, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.[Teller.]

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gregson, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Grey, E.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Haskel, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Hayter, L.

Tordoff, L.

Headfort, M.

Turner of Camden, B.

Healey, L.

Varley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Warnock, B.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hooson, L.

Whaddon, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

White, B.

Hughes, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hylton, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Ilchester, E.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Arran, E.

Addison, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Balfour, E.

Ailsa, M.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bethell, L.

Alport, L.

Birdwood, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Blaker, L.

977

Blatch, B.

Kimberley, E.

Blyth, L.

Knollys, V.

Boardman, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Borthwick, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Leigh, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsay, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Liverpool, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Long, V.

Butterworth, L.

Lucas, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lyell, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord Chancellor.]

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Chelmsford, V.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Chesham, L.[Teller]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clanwilliam, E.

Malmesbury, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Manchester, D.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Marlesford, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Marsh, L.

Cockfield, L.

Merrivale, L.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Milverton, L.

Courtown, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cranborne, Y.[Lord Privy Seal.]

Modistone, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V.

Munster, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Denham, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Dorwent, L.

Norrie, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northesk, E.

Dormer, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Downshire, M.

O'Cathain, B.

Dundonald, E.

Onslow, E.

Elihank, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Elles, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Ferrers, E.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Finsberg, L.

Pender, L.

Flather, B.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Foley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Forbes, L.

Plummer of St.Marylebone, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pym, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gainford, L.

Rawlings, B.

Gardner, of Parkes, B.

Reay, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton, L.

Gibson, L.

Renwick, L.

Goschen, V.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Salisbury, M.

Gridley, L.

Seccombe, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sharples, B.

Haddington, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

Hardings of Penshurst, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Swinton, E.

Hayhoe, L.

Terrington, L.

Henley, L.

Teviot, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hood, V.

Torphichen, L.

Horthfield, L.

Trumpington, B.

Howe, E.

Ullswater, V.

Hylton Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Inglewood, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Wolfson, L.

Kenyon, L.

Wynford, L.

Killearn, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.40 p.m.
Clause 3 [Guidance]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Following the publication of such draft guidance the Secretary of State shall make public any representations he has received from voluntary organisations, employers' organisations and the National Disability Council.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 2 and to speak also to Amendment No. 49 with which it is grouped. We believe that Amendment No. 2 is highly desirable in its own right but it also serves to pave the way for our debate on Amendment No. 49. Both amendments relate to the functions and responsibilities of the National Disability Council.
We on these Benches believe that the Bill is so nearly a good Bill. The Government have introduced valuable amendments as the Bill has progressed, even if, as my noble friend Lord Carter said, some have arrived only one working day before we debate them. However, in so far as that shows that the Government continue to develop their thinking and to respond to persuasion, it is all to be applauded. It is therefore in a spirit of hoping that the Government have not yet finally closed their minds on all such issues that today we move a set of amendments which we believe touch the heart of the Bill.
The year 1995 is 25 years after the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, the 25th anniversary. This Bill could be another and similar landmark Bill. No one doubts that it will offer disabled people a sizeable extension of rights and opportunities which are long overdue. The questions on which the amendment touches are simple: will the Bill work? Can those rights be exercised? Will the opportunities be enjoyed? We fear that the answer will largely be no. Why is that? At the heart of the Bill is a hole; there is no central, authoritative body to aid employers, disability organisations or disabled people to deliver the intent of the Bill. I appreciate that at Report stage the Government and the House did not want a fully empowered disability commission. So be it. The amendments do not revisit that issue.
Amendment No. 2, linked with Amendment No. 49, is very different. It proposes what at Report stage many noble Lords on the Government Benches—including, I believe, the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Campbell, and the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—would have welcomed; that is, a body simply to give advice and assistance. Why is that? As we all accept, the Bill is extremely important, complex and a difficult piece of legislation. Many of its concepts are new, much of its statutory language is new. It charts new ground, untried territory. Its implications and ramifications and its establishment of precedent are all hard to calculate. There needs to be a central body giving interpretations, advice and assistance to help employers, disability organisations and individuals know what are their rights, duties and responsibilities.
Perhaps I may give some simple examples. Controlled epilepsy may have implications as to whether it is reasonable for an employer not to permit someone with it to have a job involving driving. Employers need clear and consistent advice but they will not get it. A second example concerns HIV and the rights to mortgage and insurance protection. Disabled people need clear and consistent advice on that. Will they get it? Perhaps we may consider small firms employing under 20 people. As noble Lords will recall, such small firms are exempt from the legislation. We regret that, but your Lordships have affirmed the Government's view on that. What happens if a small firm with 19 employees wishes to replace two full-timers with four part-timers? Does it then come within the remit of the Bill? What happens if a firm with 19 employees wishes to take on extra temporary staff at Christmas? Does it come within the remit of the Bill? We do not know.
What about the term "reasonable expense"? What adaptations must a hotelier make for his hotel to be made available and accessible for disabled staff as opposed to disabled customers? We do not know. What about the reassurance that employers might have that competitors are being treated in the same way as themselves under the framework of the Bill? What about staff harassing a disabled person? What responsibilities must an employer have under the Bill? We do not know, nor will we know until guidance is established.
I dare say that the Minister and his advisers can answer every one of those questions and that noble Lords around the House could have produced another 20 or 30 simple, basic and straightforward issues which will affect many people. But will the answers reach employers and disabled people? No, they will not. What is needed is a body to which employers and organisations can turn in order to put those questions and receive consistent, authoritative advice which applies right across the board. They need to know the answers to their questions, but they do not.
None of us wants law-making by litigation. We do not want the scope, intention and purpose of the Bill to be established by courts, by complaints and tribunals. We would all prefer it to be done by advice, assistance, conciliation and good will. The advice must be authoritative and consistent. Yet there is no body to help employers, disability organisations and disabled people to understand what the Bill entails for them. There is no body at all.
How then can people make the Bill work? All we have is a National Disability Council which is inward-looking and merely advises the Secretary of State, whereas we want an outward-looking body to which people can turn because the Bill belongs to them, not to us. Of the two amendments, the first seeks to ensure that comments on the draft guidance should be in the public domain, as happens with the Social Security Advisory Committee. Its response to draft guidance is published so that we may know what its views are. The second substantive amendment will give the National Disability Council only one additional responsibility: an outward-looking public responsibility of giving advice and assistance. I emphasise that the amendment does not propose that the NDC should investigate complaints. It
980
does not propose that it should instigate inquiries; it will not overlap the courts, tribunals or the legal system. It will be simply and solely a source of advice and assistance. That is precisely what noble Lords on all sides of the House asked for and called for on Report when they rejected a fully-fledged disability commission.
The Government know and accept that this is necessary. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said in Committee that he thought it a good idea that the National Disability Council should offer advice and assistance—until he was reminded by his noble friend that the NDC would not have that function and had to withdraw his statement. As recently as last Thursday in the House of Commons, the Minister in the other place, Mr. Burt said:
"Disabled people and business will require a lot of information about the legislation. I confirm that we shall set up at least a telephone information line to meet those needs. We plan to discuss with disabled people and business how best to design that service".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/95; co1.567]
And, as of twenty past three this afternoon, the Minister, if I took his words down correctly, said that employers, business and disabled people all need to know how the Bill applies and in what ways it will work.
Finally, there is almost no difference between us. The Government accept that the legislation charts new ground. They accept that employers and disability organisations need advice and help in interpreting and understanding it. They accept that a helpline must be established to provide that. So we have moved a long way. The only question that therefore remains is: who is to provide that helpline? Should it be another agency, or the National Disability Council?
If it is to be another agency, and if that agency does not liaise with the National Disability Council, the resulting advice and assistance will not be authoritative and consistent. But if it does liaise with the National Disability Council, as surely it must, then why are the Government adding yet another piece of bureaucracy, yet another organisation, yet another layer of intervention between disabled people and the advice that they need?
We all know that legislation works and the law is obeyed not because of the work of the police, the courts or the prison system, but because people expect to comply with the law. We are fortunate in this country in having a culture of compliance rather than a culture of law evasion. People want to work with the grain of the law and expect to do so. In good faith, employers and disabled people want and expect to make this Bill work. But to be able to make it work, they have to know what it means. In order to know what it means, they need a source of advice and assistance. I urge noble Lords to agree that that advice and assistance should be located with the National Disability Council so that the council advises not only the Secretary of State but the people to whom this Bill belongs: the people of this country. I ask noble Lords: is this Bill more or less likely to work to afford rights and opportunities and fairness to employers and disabled people alike, and is it more likely to work with grace and goodwill if the National Disability Council can offer advice and assistance? We believe that it will work better if that is

981
the case. We believe that these amendments would help to do what the Government want to do; namely, make this Bill work with consent. I beg to move.
Lord Addington: My Lords, this amendment is probably one of the most straightforward and reasonable that we have seen on this Bill—and it has had some competition for that particular title. Basically it states, as the noble Baroness just said, that those who advise the Secretary of State should advise the general public; they should advise the employers and employees towards whom this Bill is primarily directed. There is no real reason why they should not do so. That is the first point that can be made in favour of this proposal.
There is no reason at all why this information could not come from a central body. We are simply talking about disseminating more information and having one or two people answering phones. It also means that we know where the central authority comes from and where people have to apply. Purely on practical grounds there is a huge case to be made for this amendment. Providing a focal point and guidance—namely, a central authority from where information is disseminated—would lend far more moral weight to the guidance. On both counts there is practicality. There is a central concept that lends authority. All these matters call for central guidance.
Implicit in the amendment is the fact that we do not call for a campaigning body. That argument has been debated in this House. The amendment seeks to control the functions that the Government have stated they want to be taken on by various bodies. Surely, there is no good reason why this amendment, or something very like it, should not appear on the face of the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, the issue is really quite simple. As the Minister said, the purpose of the Bill is to benefit disabled people. Therefore surely the expertise concentrated in the National Disability Council should be available not only to the Government but to the people for whose benefit the Bill is designed.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, very clearly indicated the purpose of Amendment No. 49; namely, to add duties to the disability council on advice and assistance. In case there was any doubt (she mentioned my name), in earlier debates I was not in favour of the establishment of a new body, a commission. I was in favour of keeping the council in the Bill. But this debate touches on another issue that will arise on Clause 24, which deals with advice and assistance. My noble friend Lady O'Cathain will no doubt speak to this when she deals with her Amendments Nos. 29 to 31. It seems to me that under Clause 24 the Government plan that advice and assistance should be provided to persons and bodies as specified. Therefore we are touching upon another debate and one that is to come. I should like to draw the attention of the House, and particularly the attention of the right reverend Prelate, to the fact that this subject will arise before very long when we debate Clause 24.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, perhaps I may answer the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. We should not assume that these issues will be debated and voted upon later. These amendments are particularly important. They seek to transform the National Disability Council from being a mere appendage to the Minister, a mere advisory body, into an authoritative body that is able to provide advice and assistance to millions of deprived disabled people. Those people are deprived because in the main they cannot consult a family solicitor simply because they cannot afford to do so. Most disabled people are poor. That means that they must turn to someone else for advice and assistance on what the legislation will mean. They will lack that information and advice if these amendments are rejected.
I am very concerned to see this House beginning to divide on party lines. This is not a party political amendment. These amendments are for disabled people. The right reverend Prelate put it in a nutshell: if the Minister says that the Bill is to help disabled people, this is the way to help them; namely, to give them advice and assistance.
In the deplorable absence of a national disability commission—I regret that fact but I cannot debate the matter now—the organisation to which disabled people will want to turn is the National Disability Council. The council can say to disabled persons that they have a case to take forward or that they are being over-sensitive and it should be dropped. It can provide reasoned advice which is of enormous value to disabled people. As the Bill stands, the council is shackled. These amendments throw off those shackles and allow the council to give advice and assistance.
I expect the Minister to make great play of the telephone helpline and to say that that is the major response of the Government to these problems. I know that he is marvellous when it comes to public relations. But that is a lot of rubbish for the following reasons. Many disabled people cannot use the telephone, perhaps because they are deaf or are afraid of it or they cannot afford it. There are many reasons why the helpline is inadequate. I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber will recognise that the helpline is a step forward but not a complete answer. The answer is to enable the council to give informed advice and assistance to disabled people. That is all that these amendments seek to do. I hope that noble Lords on all sides will be able to accept them.
4 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and other noble Lords in the matter of advice and assistance. Perhaps as chairman of MENCAP I may be permitted to trail that organisation's 50th anniversary appeal which goes from 1996 to 1997. It is intended to improve and increase our facilities to provide the advice, assistance, information and support so desperately needed by people who have learning disabilities and by their families and helpers. I trust that in due course we shall receive that support from the Minister and his department.

983
I should like to spend my pennyworth on the complaints issue. Like other noble Lords, I accept that it is not proposed that the council should investigate and provide support or remedy for individual complaints. However, I would welcome the Minister's assurance—I have discussed it with him—that, notwithstanding Clause 44(4), the council may identify issues of wider importance that are raised in individual complaints, advertise its interest in the issue or issues, invite evidence from individuals or groups and recommend appropriate action on that issue or those issues. I believe that that would be a useful clarification of the council's capacity for being helpful by taking the initiative, and I look forward in due course to the Minister's response.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: My Lords, it is my experience that since the publication of the Bill and during the long vacation of this House professional advisers who advise businesses and lawyers have taken a very keen interest in what the Bill implies, particularly concerning employment. Therefore, I do not see them having much recourse to the NDC. They are interested in what is in the Bill and what its implications are. What bothers me slightly is the possibility that the NDC may be invited to give advice that ends up as part of a dispute in which the council's opinion is overruled. Where will it stand then?
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I believe that advice and information are vital if people are to understand the needs of the disabled. All noble Lords will know how varied and obscure some disabilities are. The needs of disabled people are as different as chalk and cheese. Unless correct information is forthcoming there will be fragmentation and different answers to similar questions. If useful advice is forthcoming, problems will be solved and money saved. It is remarkably unwise not to have this service in place when the legislation becomes operational.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hamilton of Dalzell makes a suggestion that is likely to be rather rare. I believe that the additional powers given to the National Disability Council by this amendment will be extremely useful. I suspect that it will reduce the amount of litigation that is likely to take place and therefore the costs to disabled people and others. My noble friend should take cognisance of the amendment. I hope that he will agree it, even if it requires further amendment in another place.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I agree entirely with the previous speaker and with two or three speakers before. A number of points have been made about how we who are able believe things should be run. The noble Baroness before me said that the disabled were not understood by the majority. I should like to give a few examples. A member of a club in South Devon, where I come from, who is in a wheelchair as a result of cerebral palsy, has found a job in an office. He has been asked not to use his wheelchair up and down the corridor because it scratches the doors. One would have thought that the people concerned would have heard of kicking plates. That may be the sort of small incident where one would not go to a solicitor but to the council.
984
We know very well—and I think it has to be emphasised again and again—that people with disabilities are six times less likely to be granted a job than able-bodied persons with the same kind of skills and qualifications. Employers as a whole discriminate against disabled people by not providing accessible premises. Many jobs are inaccessible to the disabled in terms of equipment. It may be that only slight modification is required to make them more suitable.
Another matter brought up at Second Reading was that the work routine could preclude a person in a wheelchair from performing easily, if at all. There are definite barriers raised to prevent people with disabilities from reaching senior positions. Only 12 per cent. of disabled people in employment are in professional positions compared with 21 per cent. of able-bodied people. It should be repeated that on average disabled employees earn 25 per cent. less than their able-bodied peers. Promotion prospects are also limited.
The present system operated by jobcentres through their disability employment advisers fails to encourage a disabled person to maximise his or her employment potential. Instead, it tends to guide the applicant towards a job in a sheltered workshop or to low-paid, low-status, menial, repetitive and uninteresting types of work.
I give another example. A civil engineer in the south west whose speciality is bridge design has been told that if he were to apply today for a job with his present employers he would not be considered if there was an able-bodied applicant on the basis that an able-bodied person could do more than someone in a wheelchair. But that has been disproved on a daily basis in that office. That person has never asked anybody else to take a task from him because he can cope. That is where the council could help and give advice to the Secretary of State.
Disabled people are discriminated against in terms of public transport. That point will come up again later. Take British Rail, for example. The able-bodied traveller just goes to the station, purchases a ticket and gets on the next train, whereas the disabled passenger has to give notice of his intended journey at least several hours before he wishes to travel. I remember that at Second Reading I spoke about how disabled people, as well as well as elderly people, were discriminated against by the car hire companies when they travelled from, let us say, Paddington to Scotland. Again, such issues can be put forward to the council.
Disabled people suffer further discrimination because of poor access to buildings. In many buildings they have to go around the back and use the goods entrance or similar entry. Many buildings do not have means of disabled access to any other than the ground floor.
Perhaps I may tell your Lordships of an interesting situation that arose at a wedding which took place in Torquay. One of the guests happened to be in a wheelchair and was, to put it colloquially, caught short. The guest happened to be female. She could not get into the ladies loo and had to go into the gents. Before she did so, she had to return to the gathering, and speak to someone who was involved with disabled people, saying, "Please can you take me to the gents and stand

985
outside the door while I am inside?" He had to tell the gentlemen that they could not go into the gents because there was a girl inside. That is the type of embarrassing situation which will be brought forward to the council.
We are all aware that at some stage or another we shall die. Crematoria throughout the country suffer abysmally from inefficient access for wheelchairs. They are, so to speak, not wheelchair-friendly. Very often disabled people who go to the crematoria are left outside. Many undertakers simply do not know how to deal with that sort of thing. There may he, by the way, a lighter side. A lot of people go to weddings and many churches have steps. If the mother of the bride-to-be happens to be in a wheelchair, how will she get up the steps?
It is important to recognise that the Bill is a very sound one on the whole. It has been applauded by many people, including myself. One can lead a horse to water but one cannot make it drink. We are trying now to make things easier and more attractive to do. It is important to understand that, if we do not have a reasonable programme for implementing this Bill, smaller businesses involved with leisure or other matters will close the door to it. They simply cannot afford to implement it. That is where the Government might consider giving a little more support. The same goes for slightly larger businesses too.
In one way or another we are all to a degree disabled. Those who are classified as disabled recognise it and accept their disability. Those who are without physical or mental impairment are prone to overreact or avoid the disabled. Society is geared to the majority and the majority do not have a disability. It is to be hoped that this Bill will enlighten, make aware and broaden the minds of those who have not been traumatised by disability, who are the majority.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like briefly to add my support for this amendment. The points have all been very well made. It is, after all, a pretty moderate and sensible amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said in what I thought was a very compelling opening speech, it responds to the strong feeling on all sides of the House expressed in Committee and on Report that there is a need for clear and accurate advice and that the advice should be of a uniformly high quality.
We all want the Bill to work. I know that the Government very much want the Bill to work. If they could accept this amendment, I feel that it would ensure that the Bill worked well.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have had a short and interesting debate which in many ways has been a subset of the debate that we had just before we rose for the summer holidays. I do not want to repeat many of the arguments that I used that day. However, as it was a little time ago, those of your Lordships who remember those arguments will perhaps forgive me if I rehearse at least some of them.
986
Perhaps I may start with Amendment No. 2, which amends Clause 3. Clause 3 enables the Secretary of State to issue guidance, after consultation, on the definition of disability. That is not intended to be a consultation on new policies or legislation, nor an attempt to open up interpretation of the law to a kind of popular vote. The purpose of the consultation is to enable the preparation of a useful and practical document.
We shall consider and take into account any relevant comments and make an analysis public. But we do not intend to publicise details of all the responses received. Individual organisations and people will be free to make their responses public, if they wish. Bearing in mind that the guidance will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Perhaps I may move on to the more substantive amendment, which would have been dealt with later in the afternoon if it had not been linked to this one. I am afraid that I cannot support that amendment for three important reasons.
The first reason is because it would undermine one of our fundamental objectives in setting up the National Disability Council; namely, that it should be an influential and credible body able to give independent advice to government on the operation of, and the provisions made under, the Act. I believe that its ability to do that would be hampered considerably if this amendment were accepted.
The second reason is because we have already made provision elsewhere in the Act for the Secretary of State to provide an advice and assistance service. The Prime Minister himself has already said that we shall be consulting the National Disability Council on how that could best be achieved.
Thirdly, this amendment is far too inflexible. To ensure easy access to information about the Act, we shall be setting up a telephone helpline. A joint initiative is about to be undertaken by my department and the department of my noble friend Lord Henley to consider how best to provide that information service. If, after further consultation, we conclude that the helpline should be linked to the dispute resolution mechanisms under Clause 24, or should cover specific employment issues, the amendment before your Lordships' House this afternoon would prove far too restrictive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, gave a list of examples explaining why she believed that her amendment was necessary. Interestingly, however, none of the examples that she gave would be covered by the amendment that is before the House this afternoon, because subsection (2C) of the amendment puts Part II of the Bill—the part relating to employment issues—off limits. There is no suggestion of advice to employers on employment matters. I rather fear that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, in his intervention argued a case based on the assumption that the amendment covered employment issues as well as goods and service provision. It is actually the provision of goods and services that the amendment addresses, as does the National Disability Council.

987
Turning to the National Disability Council, as I explained in July, we envisage the council with a very important role. As well as specific duties linked to the operation of the Bill, we expect it to work with industry on issues which cannot be dealt with under rights-based legislation such as the design and labelling of products. It would also be within the scope of the NDC's duties to consider other legislation which had a constraining effect on the spirit of this legislation if it chose to do so. We have also said that we will be consulting the NDC on the setting up of the advice and assistance service under Clause 24, on the information to be provided to support the implementation of this legislation, and the regulations to be made relating to the right of access to goods and services. We illustrated how the NDC could obtain information to help it undertake its duties. For example, it could ask the Secretary of State to commission research on its behalf; it would have access to collated information from the advice and assistance service, and could draw from other sources in forming conclusions as to how the Act is operating.
Turning to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I can confirm today, as I did when we met in the summer, that the NDC would be able to invite individuals, voluntary organisations and business to put forward evidence on general issues under consideration. We do not intend that the NDC should be the recipient of individual complaints. However, the council could take evidence from individuals if it thought that would he helpful in the context of exploring a general problem, provided it made clear that the purpose of inviting the evidence was to help resolve the general issue, not to give the individual assistance. It would be open to the council to make public its area of interest—for example, by issuing a press release.
The council will have a challenging workload. Its advice will be influential and to be so it must have credibility and be independent. It must be able to praise—which I hope it will be able to do when it sees what the Government are doing in this field—to endorse or criticise as it sees fit.
I can assure your Lordships' House and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in particular, that we are committed to providing both disabled people and business with the advice and assistance they will need for the legislation to be effective. As I said before, my colleagues and I have not spent many hours on this issue without the determination to ensure that the labours we bring forward will be effective. We have learnt lessons from other countries on this point and do not wish to reproduce some of their mistakes.
Perhaps I can briefly explain our intentions regarding the provision of advice and assistance for resolving disputes under Clause 4. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham asked how disabled people and service providers will find out about their obligations. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy wisely spotted, this part of my speech interfaces with the contribution I shall make in response to my noble friend Lady O'Cathain when she introduces her amendment later. I shall try not to repeat myself and keep some of my explanation "dry" until we come to that amendment.
988
The main elements we envisage are the provision of a second tier advice and assistance service which will be available to local agencies providing advice to disabled people and small businesses, such as the citizens advice bureaux services or DIAL, and in certain circumstances, directly to larger businesses, perhaps where their customer complaints departments have been unable to resolve a particularly tricky problem. I would emphasise that in developing this advice and assistance service we are looking to build on, not compete with, existing structures and that we have given our commitment to consult with business, disabled people and the National Disability Council on this matter. The Government's approach of working with the grain of existing provisions and building on their valuable work is the best way of securing the help that disabled people will need, while the second tier advice and assistance service will ensure that consistent and authoritative advice on disputes under Part III is available at a local level and to bigger businesses. We fully expect the NDC to take considerable interest in the types of cases coming to the advice service so that it can build up an overall picture of how the Act is operating.
Turning to the need to provide basic information and more general advice, as I said earlier, officials in my department and the department of my noble friend, are already working together on developing the information that will be needed to support the implementation of the Bill. We will he setting up a telephone helpline to provide general information about the provisions in the Bill. This will provide a central information point for business and disabled people. We will be considering, after further consultation, the scope and construction of the telephone service. We will need to consider the type and range of questions that it should aim to deal with and whether it should be linked to the second tier advice and assistance service. Should we conclude that this is the best way forward, this amendment would prove to be far too restrictive.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, suggested that not all disabled people can use the phone. I suggest that the great majority of disabled people can use telephones and probably have them in their homes. In relation to deaf people, I hope I can put his fears at rest when I say that any services of this kind will be equipped with minicoms or other technical devices to allow access for deaf people. For those unable to use the telephone, through fear or whatever, other measures will be needed. That is why the provision of advice by local advice services will be so important. People then may not need to use the telephone; the services can be available for disabled people or their friends to call on to obtain advice. We hope that all the information and guidance that we will make available will be available locally where people will look for it. A centralised commission of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, would prefer, would not be much use to deaf people either if they could not use the telephone. The way in which we communicate advice is a problem that we must try to resolve and I believe we can.
I hope I have reassured your Lordships that the Government recognise the importance of providing advice, assistance and information to business and

989
disabled people in order to implement the Act effectively. I hope also that your Lordships agree with me that the NDC should not be diverted from its primary task of providing independent advice to government, and that it is right that we intend to use the NDC's expertise in helping us to determine how best to set up the service in the first place and to review the service should this become necessary rather than asking it to manage the service itself.
In the light of that explanation I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment, having heard how we propose to bring the Bill into effect. I shall be returning to the point later this afternoon, as I said, and perhaps making additional points. I hope for the moment that I have been able to persuade her to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. There were around 10 contributions and, with the exception of the Minister, the voices of your Lordships' House were behind the spirit if not the precise wording of the amendment.
What is the Government's argument? They have offered us three arguments, none of which are valid. The first is that the role of the NDC is to be an influential and credible body giving advice to government. Would not that advice be that much more enriched and effective if the NDC was also receiving the texture of complaints and issues arising from the fact that it was an advice and information service to employers, disability organisations and disabled people? Would it not be a more effective guide to the Secretary of State precisely because it was rooted in the hands-on experience of advice and information? We believe it would be.
The second argument put forward by the Government was that the advice and information, which the Minister recognises need to be delivered, would more appropriately be delivered by another agency. Why? Why invent another organisation to proffer a helpline when the NDC is in place and disability organisations and, in their briefing material, the CBI on behalf of employers, would like to see the NDC do it? Why are the Government inventing more bureaucracy at public cost and adding to public confusion?
The third argument that the Government gave is that the amendment applied only to the goods and services clause of the Bill and therefore the instances I gave of difficult cases where advice and guidance should be consistent, coherent and authoritative would not fall within the council's remit. That is true, except of course that the Government have indicated to us—I do not think I am putting words into the Minister's mouth—that over the next 12 to 18 months the existing body, the National Advisory Council on Employment of Disabled People, which guides the Government on employment matters, is quite likely to be conjoined, amalgamated and subsumed within the NDC. Therefore, the Minister's point, in so far as that point is valid, is inappropriate. We all believe and expect that within two years of the Act coming into operation the NDC will
990
have a remit of the total field. Therefore, I believe that all three of the points which the Government have sought to make are not valid.
What does the amendment do? What the amendment does not do is ask the NDC to campaign, to inquire, to investigate or to advocate. What it will do is reduce the amount of litigation, the number of test cases, recourse to tribunals and conflicting advice. It will only give advice and assistance. The point of that is that in the eyes of employers and disabled people alike it will help to make the Bill work. I do not believe that there is a Member of your Lordships' House who does not want the Bill to be effective. We all want it to work, do we not? I simply ask noble Lords to consider this question. Is the Bill more likely to work if the NDC has the capacity to give advice and information to those most affected by it? If we will the ends, should we not will the means? Would it not be a better Bill, because it would be a more effective Bill, if your Lordships were to approve the amendment? I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 124; Not-Contents, 159.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Glenamara, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B

Archer of Sandwell. L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Grey, E.

Avebury, L.

Hamwee, B.

Barnett, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bath, M.

Haskel, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Birk, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Birmingham, Bp.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hooson, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Howell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hughes, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hylton, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Inchyra, L.

Carter, L.

Jay, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jeger, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kennet, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Kintore, E.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Kirkhill, L.

David, B.

Kirkwood, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kissin, L.

Desai, L.

Lawrence, L.

Diamond, L.

Leigh, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Donoughue, L.

Lockwood, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Longford, E.

Dubs, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

McCarthy, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

McConnell, L.

Falkender, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Gallacher, L.

Mayhew, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Meston, L.

991

Molloy, L.

Stallard, L.

Monkswell, L.

Stedman, B.

Monson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Nelson, E.

Strafford, E.

Nicol, B.

Swinfen, L.

Ogmore, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Peston, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Tenby, V.

Rea, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Richard, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Tope, L.

Rix, L.

Tordoff, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Rochester, L.

Varley, L.

Russell, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L

Sandwich, E.

Whaddon, L.

Scanlon, L.

Wharton, B.

Seear, B.

White, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Serota, B.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Shepherd, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Simon, V.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Addison, V.

Elles, B.

Ailsa, M.

Faithfull, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Ferrers, E

Annaly, L.

Foley, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Forbes, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Astor, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Balfour, E

Geddes, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Goschen, V.

Beloff, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blaker, L.

Gridley, L.

Blatch, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Boardman, L.

Haddington, E.

Borthwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Cadman, L.

Harrowby, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Henley, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Holderness, L

Carnock, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hood, v.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hothfield, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Howe, E.

Chorley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Clark of Kempston, L

Kenyon, L.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Keyes, L.

Courtown, E.

Kimberley, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Kingsdown, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Kingsland, L.

Davidson, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Knollys, V.

Denham, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Derwent, L.

Lauderdale, E

Dixon-Smith, L.

Lindsay, E

Dormer, L.

Liverpool, E.

Downshire, M.

Long, V.

Dundonald, E.

Lucas, L.

Dunrossil, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Lyell, L.

Elibank, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

992

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Rankeillour, L.

Rawlings, B.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Reay, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Renton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Merrivale, L.

Salisbury, M.

Middleton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Sharples, B.

Milverton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Mottistone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mountevans, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Munster, E.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Norfolk, D.

Sudeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Swansea, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Swinton, E.

Onslow, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orkney, E.

Torphichen, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Ullswater, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vinson, L.

Pender, L.

Vivian, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Westbury, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Wolfson, L.

Prentice, L.

Wynford, L.

Pym, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.41 p.m.
Clause 5 [Meaning of "discrimination"]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 18, after ("fails") insert ("without justification").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 3, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 26, 27, 51, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 72, 73, 76 and 77. I believe that that concludes the list. I apologise for putting such a large group of amendments before the House, but since some were tabled on Friday—I believe that many were tabled before that—it behoves me to give a brief explanation of them. I assure the House that they are all relatively minor and technical.
Amendment No. 3 is a technical amendment which seeks to ensure that an employer is not liable for justifiable non-performance of a duty to make reasonable adjustments under Clause 6. Such a failure is not unlawful if it can be justified. That comes under Clause 5(2). Amendment No. 16 does the same in relation to trade organisations under Clause 14.
Amendments Nos. 5, 17, 26, 59, 60 and 61 are consequential amendments which move the meanings of "section 6 duty", "section 15 duty" and "section 18 duty" from Clauses 5, 14 and 17 to the main clause dealing with interpretation in the Bill. This is necessary because they are referred to in other clauses.
Amendments Nos. 6 and 18 ensure that the references to "arrangements" in Clauses 6 and 15 do not inadvertently imply that this word has a restricted meaning elsewhere in the Bill.
On Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10, Section 6(6)(a) provides that an employer has no duty of reasonable adjustment if he does not know and could not reasonably be expected to know that the disabled person had applied or might apply for a job with him. Amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 prevent any mistaken impression being given that the condition applies in the case of duties owed to an employee.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 extend the exemption for charities in Clause 10(1) to include charities in England and Wales which are not registered, and ensure that "charity" in this Bill has the same meaning as in the Charities Act 1993. (There is no registration in Scotland or Northern Ireland). With these amendments, all charities would be similarly treated in the Bill.
Amendment No. 27 clarifies Clause 23(3), which relates to the power of a court to modify an agreement where one of its terms is void under this section.
On Amendment No. 51, Clauses 47 and 48 provide for the Secretary of State to draw up and issue a code of practice to support the employment rights given in Part II of the Bill. Clause 47(9) enables the code to cover the position of contract workers. Amendment No. 51 is a drafting amendment to make clear that references in Clause 47(3) to "employment", "employer" and "employees" also extend to contract work.
On Amendment No. 52, Clause 50 makes provision for what has become known in the context of the other anti-discrimination legislation as the "questionnaire procedure". It is a procedure to assist a person who considers he may have been discriminated against contrary to Part II of the Bill to decide whether to institute proceedings and, if he does, to formulate and present his case in the most effective manner. Amendment No. 52 is a drafting amendment to ensure that the definition of "respondent" reflects the fact that the procedure may be used either before or after actual proceedings have been commenced.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 58 and 62 is to define the meanings of the terms "profession" and "trade" for the purposes of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 72, 73, 76 and 77 will ensure that the drafting in paragraphs 4 and 8 of this schedule is consistent with that in Clause 53(1), to which those paragraphs relate. Amendment No. 57 defines the meaning of the term "premises" for the purpose of the Bill and ensures that it includes land of any description.
I apologise for that lengthy explanation of an even lengthier group of amendments, but it was important to get it on the record. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, now that we understand this—if indeed we do—we fully understand that the noble Lord is saying that all of these amendments are unimportant; that they represent minor changes and merely bits and pieces, but given that, what is amazing is that they could not all have been effected before. We are talking about 25 amendments. Has this happened because the work was contracted out or privatised? What has happened is not normal.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I share the noble Lord's concern about the surprising number of amendments being tabled at this stage. However, I congratulate the Government on giving us some briefing papers when we finally got the amendments. If they could do that in the future, it might make life a little easier. It would also help us if we had rather more time to read the briefings.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I take the point. As regards the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I am afraid that it was a bad point. I have apologised for the fact that some of the amendments were tabled late, but many were tabled at quite an early stage, providing time for noble Lords to examine them in some detail. As the noble Lord well knows, one of the purposes of Third Reading is to allow us an opportunity to table a number of amendments in order to tidy up the Bill. It would be wrong to send it back to another place imperfectly drafted. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will welcome the amendments, which I commend to the House.
On Question. amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) Regulations under subsection (6) may, in particular—

(a) make provision by reference to the cost of affording any benefit; and

(b) in relation to benefits under occupational pension schemes, make provision with a view to enabling uniform rates of contributions to be maintained.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 4, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 11, 20; 21 and 56.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood said in Committee stage that he had received representations about the Bill's coverage of occupational pensions and the important issues that may be involved. He said that the Government would be considering the whole matter carefully, including when occupational pension benefits of a disabled person might justifiably be less than those for a non-disabled person. The House will recall that I was able to set out the Government's initial view during the Report stage of the Bill and we have been giving careful consideration to this difficult and complex area.
Clause 4 in its present form will cover the actions of an employer in providing opportunities to employees for pensions and insurance benefits. These will fall within the existing wording of subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 4. However, there is no bar at present to an employer actually setting up an occupational pension scheme which contains discriminatory rules—although we are not aware of evidence that this is widespread. Trustees and managers of the scheme would not be prevented from discriminating by Part II of the Bill because they are not the employer. New Clause 20 will imply a rule of non-discrimination against disabled people into the rules of occupational pension schemes. This means that any discriminatory decision taken by trustees will be contrary to the rules of the scheme. A disabled person who is affected will be able to seek redress through the dispute resolution mechanisms which already exist for pensions schemes.
However, where a disabled applicant has a pre-existing medical condition which is likely to increase the risk of ill-health retirement or death in service it is important that employers should be able to take just as much account of that as they would if the person were not disabled. However, employers will want to ensure that their decisions are based on sound evidence; for example, actuarial or medical advice. Many disabled people have disabilities which do not affect their life expectancy or likelihood of ill-health retirement and these amendments will make sure they can no longer be unfairly denied access to an employer's pension scheme.
Subsections (1) and (2) in Amendment No. 20 set out the overriding rule of non-discrimination. This makes it a breach of the rules of a scheme for the trustees to discriminate in connection with the provision of a pension scheme to employees. Subsections (3) and (4) have the effect that the various powers to make regulations relating to the position of employers under Part II include power to make different provision for trustees of pension schemes.
Amendment No. 4 makes it clear that the regulations under Clause 5(6) dealing with justification for less favourable treatment may stipulate that additional cost is a valid ground of justification. The second regulation-making power ensures that regulations can enable uniform rates of contributions to be maintained. We intend to consult on the use of those powers; for example, on what might be the kind of additional cost that could justify less favourable treatment.
Amendment No. 11 disapplies the duty of reasonable adjustment for occupational pensions and certain other similar benefits and provides a regulation-making power to prescribe additional scheme benefits to be covered by that exclusion. Again, we shall consult on the use of that power; for example, as to whether the list of benefits is felt to be complete.
Occupational pension schemes are not the only means whereby employers can make provision for their employees' future. There are other insurance benefits and the new clause provided by Amendment No. 21 covers the situation where an employer makes arrangements with an insurance company for insurance benefits, such as private health insurance, or the opportunity for such benefits, to be received by the employer's employees.
The insurance company will act unlawfully against a disabled person under the new clause if it treats him in a way which would be an act of discrimination under Part III if done by the company with regard to a member of the public. That means that refusal to insure a disabled employee, or levying a higher premium, will be unlawful unless it is justified; for example, where there are reasonable grounds for supposing that the disabled person represents a higher risk than normal.
A disabled person would be able to take a complaint against an insurance company and the employer, at the same time if necessary, and an industrial tribunal would decide whether there was discrimination by either of them on the basis of a full view of the evidence.
Amendment No. 56 defines "occupational pension scheme" as used in the Bill as having the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993.
Any of your Lordships who may have come into the Chamber in the past minute or two might ask whether this is the pension Bill being re-rehearsed. For that I apologise. Clearly the impact of pensions and other benefits for disabled people in the workplace is an important matter. We believe that the amendments provide the right balance between meeting the needs of disabled people and non-disabled people in occupational pension schemes and that they place the necessary requirements on employers. They achieve our objectives which I mentioned earlier, as did my noble friend Lord Inglewood. I hope that they will also achieve the support of the House. I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to raise a point on the first amendment only. Other Members on this side of the House may want to take the Government into the details of Amendments Nos. 11, 20, 21, and 56. The first amendment, Amendment No. 4, amends Clause 5. The Government are concerned with the grounds upon which an employer is justified in discriminating. Many grounds are given in the Bill, as it is, upon which an employer can avoid the effects of the Bill because the discrimination is justified.
The amendment proposes to add to those circumstances. In effect the amendment says that the Government should provide regulations which,
"may, in particular, make provision by reference to the cost of affording any benefit".
Why do we need that at this point in the Bill? Should we not be rather concerned to see it there, because on this occasion, unlike the 25 amendments we have recently had put before us, the Government were good enough and kind enough to give us some notes to the clause itself and the amendments to the clause. I am reading from the note which was sent to us. It says that the first power—that is to say, the one that I am discussing—enables regulations under Clause 5 dealing with justification for less favourable treatment to stipulate that additional cost is a valid ground of justification.
Does that mean that any additional cost is a valid ground? Is this an attempt to increase the circumstances in which an allegation or assertion of costs becomes an automatic ground for getting around the effects of the Bill? I say that because, of course, it is unnecessary in the sense that in other parts of the clause and in Clause 6 the Government have quite a lot on the face of the Bill about costs. Clause 6(4) provides:
"In determining whether it is reasonable for an employer to have to take a particular step in order to comply with subsection (1), regard shall be had, in particular, to the financial and other costs which would be incurred by the employer in taking the step and the extent to which taking it would disrupt any of his activities".
It continues:
"the extent of the employer's and other financial resources; the availability to the employer on financial of other assistance",
and so on. We have that on the face of the Bill. We have reference to financial considerations on the face of the Bill. So why, at this last stage, do we have this round

997
claim that we shall have regulations which, in particular, will make provision by reference to cost of affording any benefit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may add to the worries. We are all in some difficulty in discussing this provision on the Disability Discrimination Bill. The Minister says that in some ways we should be discussing it on a pensions Bill. Even more to the point, we should be discussing, not on Report, let alone on Third Reading, but in Committee in order to extract from the Minister the full implications of what we suspect are major clauses which we cannot discuss but which may have significant repercussions on the poverty of, or well being of, disabled people after retirement. We are all handicapped in this.
With the leave of the House many of us would welcome the Minister being able to add to the discussion so that we can return to these matters. We have before us extremely important, technical and late amendments to the Bill which perhaps should have been covered elsewhere. We hope and believe that the amendments on pensions are benign, but we have some worries. We just do not know how to extract answers from the Minister so that we can come back to him and pursue him further. The amendments have come so late, and improperly late, that we cannot use the procedures of the House in an appropriate and acceptable way.
The Government, I am sure, are right in their belief that disabled people may experience discrimination in the field of pensions. I refer in particular to Amendments Nos. 11 and 20. The Government need to make clear the rights of disabled people. We obviously welcome and support that. Behind that, of course, is the belief that disabled people are sick more often and therefore more costly to employ. As the Minister will know, because the research from his own department makes it clear, 44 per cent. of employers said that they found no difference in sickness absence, and 32 per cent. said that their disabled staff were off sick less often than non-disabled people. Similarly, the 1990 Devon Carers Study concluded that 93 per cent. of employers found their disabled staff had a better attendance record than the non-disabled. Therefore, the Government are right to appreciate the gap between the reality and people's perceptions of the problem.
However, we are handicapped because we cannot use a Committee-style approach to these difficult amendments. Our worries include the following problems and perhaps the Minister will help us. The amendments appear to exempt employers from having to make reasonable adjustments in the pension field. The Government have given us helpful notes but not helpful examples. Will the Minister be so kind as to give us examples?
Secondly, will the Minister tell us more about the conditions under which disabled people might be prevented from joining a pension scheme? For example, they may have diabetes, but the illnesses associated with that condition may develop late. What would happen, for example, if on joining a company a disabled person did not join an occupational scheme but subsequently wished to do so and the trustees sought to reject the
998
application? What would be the position in that case, remembering throughout that a pension is deferred pay and not a charity, as the European Commission has insisted?
It appears, too, as though occupational pension schemes, and therefore trustees guided by actuaries and accountants, will be able to weight contributions according to risk. Will the Minister clarify that area? I understand that at present it would not be appropriate for an occupational pension scheme to load heavier contributions on someone who was, say, a smoker, even though, in terms of absence from work and subsequent sickness and dependency, his or her health record might be more serious than that of a disabled person. Will the Minister explain why such discrimination might apply to disabled people?
We have a whole series of questions on which we should like to push the Minister. If he is unable to answer them all or if we feel unhappy about his answers perhaps we may, with the leave of the House, seek permission to question him further during the course of this debate.
5 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it is a little unusual for the three of us to have to come to the Dispatch Box but it is entirely the Government's fault. These amendments were tabled late and we are having to have, in a sense, a mini-Committee stage.
As regards occupational pensions, will the Minister confirm that the self-employed retirement annuities, the personal pension schemes and so forth, which are not occupational pension schemes but are still pensions, are caught by Clause 16(3), which states that the examples of service include:
"facilities by way of banking or insurance or for grants, loans, credit or finance"?
I assume that means that all other pension schemes, apart from occupational pension schemes—that is, a self-employed retirement annuity or whatever—would not be able to discriminate against a disabled self-employed person. When amendments are tabled late one must ask such questions.
I turn to the point that was made extremely well by my noble friend Lady Hollis but from a different direction. The Minister may have seen an excellent report entitled "There may be trouble ahead". It is not about the future of the Conservative Government but about occupational pensions and permanent health insurance. It is produced as a result of a joint study by the Disability Alliance and the Disablement Income Group. They clearly make points about which we are all aware: that disabled people are the least likely to belong to an occupational pension scheme; that people with a pre-retirement disability tend to receive less occupational pension than non-disabled colleagues; that an occupational pension can be paid only to someone who has retired from work permanently; and that payments to people who have not retired can be made only under an occupational sick pay scheme.
The same point is made in a different way when the report states:

999
"Our study of the evidence suggests that disabled people are less likely to be covered by occupational schemes than non-disabled people. It also shows that manual workers are less likely to be covered by occupational schemes than non-manual workers. The DSS's own research highlights that men claiming Invalidity Benefit were far more likely to have backgrounds in manual work".
All that is background to the extremely interesting figures in the report. The reason for my intervention is to ascertain whether the Government believe that the changes that they are making will help to correct the present situation.
The figures for men as regards the pre-retirement disability and average income from occupational pension for people receiving occupational pensions show that those who have a pre-retirement disability receive, to the nearest pound, an average income from occupational pensions of £46 per week, but with no pre-retirement disability it is £67 per week. There is a difference of £21 per week between those without a pre-retirement disability and those with. As regards women, the figures are £26 with a pre-retirement disability and £31 without. That is a difference of £5. Will any of the changes that the Government are now making help to correct that situation or will the amendments affect only future benefits?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am happy to respond to the points that have been made. I believe that noble Lords opposite will realise that these are important amendments which they can support. If I am unable to give them all the answers that they would like, I shall certainly write to them about the matter. I certainly appreciate that we have had to deal with the issue at Third Reading for the simple reason that we had to consider it most carefully in order to ensure that pensions and similar benefits were being properly treated. Those of us who spent many happy hours debating the Pensions Bill will know that certain considerations involve actuarial calculations and the like. People are making a decision on each and every one of us as to what our risks are or are not when deciding whether they will insure us and the amount of premium they will charge for doing so. These provisions are part and parcel of the difficulties of actuarial work which enables pension funds and insurance companies to take people on and to deliver the benefits that they have promised.
I shall try to deal as best as I can with the points that were made by the troika which came at me from the Opposition Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, no doubt appreciates the fact that the whole Bill breaks new ground. We have had to tackle some difficult issues and translate them from hopes and expectations into a legislative framework which will work. I accept that, as a result of such factors, I am putting these proposals forward rather late.
The noble Lord asked about costs, referring to Amendment No. 4 in particular. I can do no better than refer him to what I said in my main speech. I tried to speak fairly slowly because I realised that the issue is complicated but I shall repeat it. As regards costs, noble Lords will see that in Amendment No. 4 we are saying that we shall consult on the use of these powers. The example that I gave was the additional cost which could justify less favourable treatment. Therefore, we will be
1000
consulting on that matter. In order to help the noble Lord, perhaps I may put on the record the fact that we have solutely no intention of legislating for what might be trivial costs. We are looking at serious costs which will fall under those powers—
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to say that in the regulations there will be reference to "significant" or "substantial" costs and not "insignificant" costs?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure that the regulations will be so vague. I suspect that they will be a little more detailed and will not use words such as "substantial" and so forth. I believe that the idea will be to attempt to show the kind of figures—perhaps not the exact figures—which may be encompassed. However, I shall check the detail of that and ensure that I am right in my appreciation of this complicated issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, asked me a number of questions. First, she asked whether it was intended that contributions should be weighted according to risk for disabled people. The answer is not more so than for anyone else. We are preventing the weighting of risk on grounds of disability but retaining it for health, which has always been the case. In my main speech I tried to make the point that, looking at the whole provision, it would be illegal for someone to discriminate solely on the ground of disability as regards pensions. However, if there are actuarial reasons and justifications for that discrimination, that is accepted. As I said in my speech, the disabled person may not have a disability that is in any way life threatening or suggests that he may have to retire early or to take sick pay. The noble Baroness rightly pointed out that many disabled people have good attendance records. If that is the kind of person that we are talking about, it would be unfair discrimination if he were refused access to the pension scheme. It is only if there are actuarial reasons and the like to justify the decision to exclude that it would not be discrimination. I hope that that is helpful.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, many of our amendments at previous stages of the Bill dealt with the issue of perceived disability which was not well-rooted; in other words, when a condition of disability was believed—perhaps falsely and probably falsely—to give rise to an actuarial risk which did not exist. The Minister has made a distinction which we understand between disability and health. But given that he would not accept a previous amendment dealing with mis-information, how can he sustain that distinction, if accountants or actuaries give contrary advice to trustees?
Equally the Minister says that he is consulting. Will he set up a forum on those issues, as recommended by the Disability Alliance and the Disability Income Group, so that we can ensure further that accountants and actuaries do not confuse the issues of disability and health to the disadvantage of disabled people?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not believe that actuaries would confuse those issues because it is their business to be very clear about what are the risks and what each individual situation is,

1001
especially as regards insurance claims and pensions. Therefore, I believe that the noble Baroness is being a little more than unfair to actuaries when she thinks that they may make their decisions for flippant reasons.
But if they do that, there is the backstop, which I mentioned, that the person may test that and the evidence will have to go before a tribunal. But I believe that actuaries usually take their decisions based on facts and not on prejudice. However, there is the backstop that if a person feels that the actuarial reasons are not justified, he may have that tested before a tribunal.
As regards why I cannot rest my case on "reasonable adjustments" without coming forward with this series of amendments dealing with pensions, the proposed amendments will not confer a duty on employers to make a reasonable adjustment in respect of occupational pensions. Where a disabled person has been lawfully refused access to part of an occupational pension scheme—for example, based on a reasonable belief that his health condition presents an unreasonable risk—the employer will not have to consider ways in which his overall remuneration package can be brought up to the level enjoyed by other employees; for example, by increasing his salary.
Even if we accepted that reasonable adjustments were required, any calculation would be an additional burden on employers with considerable scope for disagreement. Also, the duty of reasonable adjustment was never intended to provide income for disabled people that was not as a result of the output of their employment. Therefore, we believe that pension provision raises some difficult points which need to be addressed separately, quite separate from the general position of making alterations or changes in the workplace and work procedures and so on in order to allow a disabled person to take a job.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me about self-employed people, personal pensions and so on. Any service offered by an insurance company to members of the public is covered by Part III. Therefore, for these purposes, self-employed businessmen who are disabled cannot be discriminated against unreasonably. As I have tried to explain to the House, we shall introduce regulations stipulating the circumstances in which it will or will not be reasonable for an insurance company to refuse a service to a disabled person.
I return to the point that I made at the beginning that there are actuarial considerations to be taken into account. At the risk of straying back to the Pensions Act, the last thing that we want to do is to make the provision of pension arrangements for the generality of people so difficult and expensive that employers decide to back away from making such provision. That would serve nobody.
However, I wish to make clear that there are many disabled people whose disability will not represent a risk to the pension trustees and the pension fund. Any disabled person in the category will, ought to and must, under this legislation, be received into the pension fund. The out—if I can call it that—is an out which can be exercised only on serious and justifiable grounds which will largely come from actuarial considerations.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, perhaps I may intervene in this debate because this is a serious matter. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, referred to perceived disability. The Government may choose to leave the issue of perceived disability in the Bill. But if they remove it in the other place and a person with a perceived disability is then not covered by the Disability Discrimination Bill, will a person who feels that he is being discriminated against be covered by other legislation if he wishes to appeal about a matter in relation to pensions? Will he be covered by this Bill or by other legislation?
5.15 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think that I follow the question. At previous stages, we have discussed at some length the whole question of somebody who is not disabled, but is, for whatever reason, perceived to be disabled. I believe that I have made my position clear on a number of occasions. This Bill is designed to deal with people who are disabled and I believe that the inclusion of such factors as perceptions will cloud the issue to the disadvantage of the disabled.
People whose disability is only perceived will not be protected in this part of the Bill any more than they are elsewhere in the Bill. I return to the point that if a pension fund, pension trustees or an insurance company will not take somebody on board, that will have to be justified for actuarial reasons. As I said earlier, if that is not justified, the matter can be taken to an industrial tribunal. Having spent many hours dealing with pensions, I find it extremely difficult to imagine circumstances in which actuaries and pension funds would act on a perception of disability. I think that that is very unlikely.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 30, leave out subsection (7)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when moving Amendment No.3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Duty of employer to make adjustments]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 43, leave out ("other").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Masham of Ilion Baroness Masham of Ilion.moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) providing dedicated parking spaces within existing car parks on the premises of the employer;
( ) providing reasonable assistance from such spaces to the place of work.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as president of the Spinal Injuries Association, I know only too well of the many accidents or illnesses which leave many people, who are mostly young and of working age, paralysed and having to use a heelchair. This amendment just adds one more suggestion to the list already in the Bill.
Parking and a little help may be vital if a person is to obtain a job. It is better for employers to be aware of those needs before they take on someone. I was a member of the board of visitors of a young offenders' institution for nearly 30 years. Suitable parking was always made available; otherwise I could not have done the job. Similarly, I have been a member of various health authorities over the years. Parking and help, if I needed it, were always made available. The amendment is practical. If left out of the legislation, some people may not be aware that parking for people who cannot use public transport and can only use a car is a priority.
The amendment has had a great deal of support in your Lordships' House, but it has been tabled again because the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, was concerned at the last stage that it would be too difficult to implement. The wording has now been changed to specify "existing car parks". I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, this is our old friend, the dedicated parking space. We have marched with the amendment in various forms through the Committee and Report stages. As the noble Baroness said, we have had a great deal of sympathy and understanding but no comfort at all from the Government.
We have tried to meet the arguments that were put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on the last occasion. As I understand it, he made three major points. The noble Lord said the purpose of the clause was to list examples of the things which employers should take into account and would be expected to adjust. He said that the list was not exhaustive but exemplary. He asked why we needed to add another example. As the noble Baroness said, we need to add this very important example relating to the kind of thing that we believe needs to be adjusted. It is most important to a large number of people and, indeed, I would have said more important than some of the examples given by the Government. That is the first point.
Secondly, the noble Lord said that we must not go into precise details with our amendments because they were just examples. Well, we have sought to simplify them. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment could now be said to be detailed. It is 23 words long; it is illustrative and exemplary of a very important consideration. Thirdly, the noble Lord asked whether it would not be better to put such a provision in the code of practice. He asked whether we wanted or needed such a provision and, indeed, whether we should have it on the face of the Bill.
When the latter was advanced by the noble Lord as an argument against the amendment on Report, I asked him whether he would promise that it would be included in the code of practice and whether the latter would also include the provision about dedicated parking spaces as an example. As I understood the Minister, he said that he could not make that promise and that it would only be an issue that the Government would address. Well, perhaps they have addressed it; and, indeed, perhaps they will tell us so. I hope so. But, first of all, I hope that they will allow us to have the amendment.
As the noble Baroness said, the only real objection to the amendment was put forward on the last occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. He was concerned about
1004
the employer who had no car-park on his site. That was a very persuasive and influential objection which we took on board. We have also managed to get the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, to put his name to the amendment and, if noble Lords read the amendment, it will be seen that the position is covered. I recommend it.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I should like briefly to support my noble friend's amendment and the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. As my noble friend said, the current amendment has taken account of the previous objections about the feasibility of parking and the amount of help needed. My points are much the same as those made by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. On Report the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said that he had considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendments but felt they were matters for the code of practice. I, too, would be much more convinced by that argument if there were not already 12 examples in the clause.
On Report the Minister said that subsection (3),
"only sets out examples of steps and at a level of generality which will be most of benefit to people seeking to interpret and understand the duty".—[Official Report, 18/7/95; col. 209.]
Surely that perfectly describes my noble friend's amendment. At present, subsection (3) of Clause 6 relates to "making adjustments to premises". If arrangements are not made to enable the employee to arrive at and to enter the premises, as in my noble friend's amendment, the help listed in paragraphs (b) to (1) will be of little use to those with mobility problems. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will now feel able to accept the amendment in its present form.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my name has been mentioned fairly often in the debate. Although I supported the principle behind the amendment of the noble Baroness on the two previous stages of the Bill, I thought that it was impractical and that employers might have to provide parking space which was not on their own property. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for altering the amendment to take account of my concerns.
I hope that the Government will now have no difficulty whatever in accepting the amendment. I know that the list of examples in the Bill is not exhaustive but—and it is a very big "but"—employers are likely to look at the legislation when it is passed and say, "This is all we need to take into account". I know that it is not all that they need to take into account, but what is there in black and white is very persuasive. Once they have gone through the list from (a) to (1) they will go no further.
We have before us an extremely practical suggestion to put in the Bill which could well help a number of disabled people to obtain work, especially young disabled people. I say that because it is very often the young who suffer spinal injuries because of their activities either in riding or motor cycling and so on. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept the amendment without demur.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I encourage the Government to take on board the amendment for the simple reason that it may do some good; indeed, it cannot

1005
possibly do any harm. The only reason that I can think of for rejecting the amendment is that it would become the 13th example and the Government may be superstitious.
Lord Henley: My Lords, we discussed broadly similar amendments at earlier stages of the Bill. I believe that my noble friend Lord Inglewood dealt with them in Committee, while I dealt with them on Report. I remember that we had two similar amendments tabled on Report over which there was some degree of disagreement about the wording. I congratulate noble Lords on coming to an agreement which has enabled them to table a single amendment which achieves broad support from all those moving it.
As I said on Report, I must stress that I have considerable sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. However, for the reasons that I intend to set out, I am still convinced that the code of practice, with which I shall deal shortly, is the best place for examples which go into such detail. I believe that it is a greater level of detail than that contained in the 12 examples that we already have in Clause 6(3).
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, said on Report that such an amendment would, quite rightly, remind employers that there may be a need to provide parking space and some assistance. I believe that an Act of Parliament is not necessarily the first place that an employer may look to learn or be reminded of his duties. In such matters I believe that he is much more likely to consult practical guidance, and that will be provided to enable him to comply with the law. That is exactly what the code of practice is intended to be.
Noble Lords may argue that the code is not the law and that it is the law that must be clear on the issue. I have to reply that, even without the list of examples, the duty of reasonable adjustment would still apply to all employers. Indeed, in that respect we only have to look at Clause 6(3)(a) which deals with the reasonable adjustment to premises. It is that duty which is the law. I believe that everyone accepts that the list of examples could not cover all possible adjustments. I am sure that everyone would be in agreement on that: the list is purely of examples.
It is possible to argue that if some of the examples put down are too specific—and I would say that that is arguable with this amendment—the inclusion of such over-specific examples could even exclude other examples which are not listed. Therefore, one wants to keep all the examples that we have in Clause 6 as general as possible.
I fully accept that circumstances could arise where one or other of those examples might be a reasonable step. The list consists only of examples that might be reasonable in any given circumstances. Most would not be. Much more helpful for employers would be guidance on how the duty of reasonable adjustment would work in practice.
I understand that most noble Lords will not have seen the code, even in draft form, at this stage. It will not even be a public document until we publish it in draft form in December this year when we intend to institute a consultation process, which will continue through until some time in March. There will be about three months of consultation. I shall be interested in any comments which noble Lords and others may have.
1006
I can say at this stage that officials in my department have been involved in informal discussions on the draft of the draft with a number of organisations which have been helping to prepare that possible draft for consultation. That draft of the draft was recently put to my own department's National Advisory Council on Employment of People with Disabilities. The council will give its views, which will be fed through to me and my colleagues in the department in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, asked, quite rightly, whether the code would include words of this kind. Since I am talking about a consultation process it would be wrong to give a firm guarantee of that kind. However, I note what the noble Lord said, and what everyone else had to say. If the draft does not include the appropriate words I imagine that the noble Baroness will be one of the first to come forward with suggestions when the formal consultation process starts.
I can say that as an example of a possible reasonable adjustment the current draft of the draft states that where an employer provides dedicated car parking spaces near the place of work it might be reasonable to allocate one of those spaces to a disabled person who has difficulty in walking for other than short distances.
5.30 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to get this right. I think that I heard the noble Lord say "Where the employer provides dedicated car parking spaces". Suppose the employer provides only car park spaces. Could he dedicate one of those without dedicating others?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point, but it is not necessarily a good point to make at Third Reading. It is the kind of point that I should like to hear from the noble Lord when we reach the consultation process. No doubt the noble Lord will feed in his ideas as to exactly what we have to do. I am glad that he has flagged them at this stage. I am arguing that it is important that the code is used as the vehicle rather than legislation.
Perhaps I may also repeat the assurance given at Report stage that the code will cover the general issue of parking. As I said, I am not going to commit myself to the precise form of words which will appear in the draft code. There is little point in having drafts, and drafts of drafts, and a consultation process if I guarantee that such and such a set of words will appear. However, I can say that it is obvious that this is a matter which has to be addressed, in a form similar to the manner in which it has been raised this afternoon. I hope, therefore, that in the light of what I have said the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and supported the amendment. I was rather disappointed with the woolly reply given by the Minister. I thought the arguments of the House were much better than the explanation given by the Government. If you cannot use public transport and have to use a car, and you cannot get into a building, you cannot have a job.

1007
Some of the items listed in the Bill such as
"modifying instructions or reference manuals"
and
"modifying procedures for testing or assessment",
are much more specific than being able to park your car.
I wish the Minister had been able to give us a more definite assurance. Because I feel so strongly about the matter, and because I know so well young men who have broken their necks or their backs, I shall ask the House for its view.
5.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 103; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Kennet, L.

Airedale, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kirkwood, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Lawrence, L.

Barnett, L.

Bath, M.

Leigh, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Longford, E.

Birk, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Cross, V.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

David, B.

Molloy, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Monkswell, L.

Desai, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nicol, B.

Donoughue, L.

Ogmore, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Richard, L.

Erroll, E.

Richardson, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Falkland, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rix, L.

Geraint, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Glenamara, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Russell, E

Greenway, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Gregson, L.

Serota,B.

Grey, E

Hamwee, B.

Shannon, E.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L.

Haskel, L.

Simon, V.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Holdemess, L.

Strafford, E.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Swinfen, L. [Teller.]

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Howell, L.

Tenby, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hughes, L.

Hylton, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tope, L.

Inchyra, L.

Tordoff, L.

Jeger, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Varley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

1008

Whaddon, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Wharton, B.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Kingsland, L.

Ailsa, M.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Annaly, L.

Lauderdale, E

Ashbourne, L.

Lindsay, E

Astor, V.

Liverpool, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Long, V.

Balfour, E

Lucas, L.

Barber, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Lyell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Beloff, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blaker, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Boardman, L.

Borthwick, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Brigstocke, B.

Middleton, L.

Burnham, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Butterworth, L.

Milverton, L.

Byron, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cadman, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mottistone, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Mountevans, L.

Carnock, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Munster, E

Clanwilliam, E

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

clark of Kempston, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Northesk, E.

Courtown, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pender, L.

Denham, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Plummer of SL Marylebone, L.

Dormer, L.

Prentice, L.

Downshire, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rawlings, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Reay, L.

Elles, B.

Rennell, L.

Elton, L.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Forbes, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gage, V.

Seccombe, B.

Geddes, L.

Sharples, B.

Goschen, V.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gridley, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sudeley, L

Harmsworth, L.

Swansea, L.

Harrowby, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Torphichen, L.

Henley, L.

Torrington, V.

Hogg, B.

Trumpington, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Hothfield, L.

Ullswater, V.

Howe, E.

Vinson, L.

Inglewood, L.

Vivian, L.

Kenyon, L.

Westbury, L.

Keyes, L

Wynford, L.

Kimball, L

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.43 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 8 to 10:
Page 5, line 43, leave out ("that the disabled person concerned").
Page 5, line 44, at beginning insert ("in the case of an applicant or potential applicant, that the disabled person concerned").
Page 5, line 45, at beginning insert ("in any case, that that person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) This section does not apply in relation to any benefit under an occupational pension scheme or any other benefit payable in money or money's worth under a scheme or arrangement for the benefit of employees in respect of—

(a) termination of service;

(b) retirement, old age or death;

(c) accident, injury, sickness or invalidity; or

(d) any other prescribed matter.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when I moved to Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Exemption for small businesses]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 40 and insert ("Before making any order under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as currently drafted, the Bill ensures that a review of the threshold number in Clause 7 would precede any order proposing a change to the threshold before the fourth anniversary of the clause coming into force. Any proposed changes to the threshold after the fourth anniversary would not be subject to such a review.
The House will recall that at Report stage of the Bill last July, my noble friend Lady O'Cathain raised the issue of whether there should be a review before any change in the threshold, whenever it was proposed. I agreed during the debate to consider the matter further and return with any necessary amendment at this stage.
I said then that I believed the Government should always hold a review before deciding to change the threshold. Amendment No. 12 shows that I have not changed my mind. It will ensure that the Secretary of State will hold a review, whether the order is to be made within the first four years of the operation of the section or at any later time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
Clause 10 [Charities and support for particular groups of persons]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 13 and 14:
Page 9, line 19, leave out ("registered").
Page 9, line 34, at end insert—
1010
(""charity" has the same meaning as in the Charities Act 1993;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 9, line 46, at end insert—
("( ) Local authorities and parish and community councils in England and Wales and local authorities in Scotland which adopt positive measures to redress under-representation of disabled people within the workforce shall be held to be acting in compliance with section 7 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to allow local authorities to discriminate in favour of disabled people; to discriminate positively for disabled people as local authorities have done for many years through the quota system. There is nothing new about local authorities doing that.
However, as the Bill stands, it prevents local authorities from discriminating positively in favour of disabled people. I should have thought that any Bill which prevents local authorities from discriminating positively must be an absurdity, especially when we are supposed to be legislating against discrimination.
It is all too easy to speak of choosing people on "merit". But we all know that prejudice and false assessments of disability distort the concept of merit. Positive discrimination is the only possible way to combat that. I do not suggest that we should have positive discrimination for ever. However, we need positive discrimination at least in the short term so that disabled people can have an opportunity when they obtain jobs to show their capability—to show what they are able to do.
It is also absurd that private employers can discriminate positively in favour of disabled people but local authorities cannot. On the grounds of equity and fairness, private firms and local authorities should be in exactly the same position.
Local authorities are particularly important because of the number and wide range of jobs which they cover. Their example is important. They can set a lead to many organisations. They have an important role in showing what can be done with positive discrimination. The amendment allows local authorities to do that. I hope that it will win support from both sides of the House. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as the House will know, for some years I have been pointing out that the quota system needed to be replaced. It had outlasted its usefulness, although in the first 25 years or so after 1944 it had served a very good purpose. The reason was that the registration of disabled people was less than 3 per cent. of the workforce. Therefore it became mathematically impossible for employers and organisations to reach a quota of 3 per cent. We have been through this issue before. I believe that most noble Lords are in agreement about the system being replaced and this Bill presenting the opportunity.
Local authorities were among those unable to meet the 3 per cent. Some of the figures with which the TUC has provided me indicate the very low percentages

1011
reached. But that is not the fault of the TUC any more than that of other employers. It is because of the registration system being defective and disabled people simply not registering.
I do not know whether the amendment will be acceptable to the Government; I suspect that probably it will not be. All I say at this stage is that with the quota system going and with parts of the Bill taking its place, we need something to replace the aim of the quota system, even though the way in which it developed became unsatisfactory in the last 25 years of its life.
I should remind noble Lords that Labour Government Ministers had to give answers 20 years ago or more to questions and criticisms about various establishments not being able to reach the 3 per cent. figure. This has been going on for a long time. I hope that the Government will be able to explain how the aim of the old quota system, which is now to disappear, can be replaced satisfactorily either in the terms of the Bill or through additional measures.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, most of the points have already been made about the amendment. The main one to which I wish to draw the House's attention is that this is an amendment to Clause 10. That clause contains exemptions from the employment provisions allowing for positive action in some specified cases. So the Government envisage positive action which is not unlawful. Charities and persons who provided support and employment under the provisions of the 1944 Act are permitted, under Clause 10, to continue with positive discrimination and to take positive action.
All the amendment proposes is that if we are to put institutions in such a position, then why should we not do so with local authorities? As has been said, there is a particular reason to do that as the authorities are in an anomalous position because of the provisions of the local government Act relating to selection on merit. Unless there is a specific provision to exempt authorities from the consequences of the local government Act, they would be less able to deal with and avoid discrimination than any other institution, public or private.
Lord Rix: My Lords, noble Lords will know that in the past, during the passage of the Bill through the House, I have regretted the passing of the quota system as it applied to people with learning disabilities. Even though it perhaps did not apply effectively to the general working population over the past 20 years, it has applied in regard to people with learning disability, particularly in local councils. Many people who have a mental handicap or learning disability have been able to work in parks and gardens. I believe that in Edinburgh that has taken place over the past 20 years. The work has been satisfactory in nature and has met the quota requirement because people with a learning disability are, sine qua non, already registered disabled without any let or hindrance. Therefore I support the amendment. I realise that I am making a last dying plea for a return to the quota system in a lateral way, but even so I hope that the amendment will commend itself to your Lordships' House.
Lord Henley: My Lords, Amendment No. 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, would enable local authorities and parish and community councils in England and Wales to operate positive discrimination, as he put it, in favour of disabled people when employing staff, notwithstanding the principle in Section 7 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, to which the noble Lord referred, which requires such bodies to appoint staff on merit.
Perhaps I may briefly say a word about quota because it was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy who welcomed its departure. It was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who regretted that. The concern was expressed that local authorities will lose the ability to give preferential treatment to disabled people. I believe that the arguments for the abolition of the system are well rehearsed and I do not intend to repeat them. The simple fact is that the quota is not working, very much for the reasons which my noble friend mentioned. That applied to local authorities just as to other employers.
While I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, I do not believe that the approach he suggests is the best way to ensure that disabled people are able to take up and keep their jobs. That is certainly not the spirit behind the Bill. Disabled people want so far as possible to be treated on the basis of their abilities. That is the emphasis and the spirit behind the Bill which is about ensuring that that is exactly what happens. By the same token, employers should be free to appoint the people they consider best able to do the job. The Bill ensures that disabled people have a fair chance to get jobs, competing with other people. However, I believe that they do not wish to be patronised and I fear that, however well intentioned, the amendment which the noble Lord is proposing would have just that effect. Grouped with the two amendments—
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me to intervene, perhaps I may ask him this. If that is his view, why have Clause 10 at all? It exempts registered charities and recognised bodies in pursuit of their charitable purposes, it says that they can positively discriminate and take positive action. If we took the noble Lord's view, we would not have Clause 10.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I believe that registered charities under Clause 10(1) are in a different position. With a registered charity for the blind, I see positive merits in it wishing to employ a large number of blind people. The same might be true of other organisations and I can think of one which I know quite well in my own home town, a charity for the deaf which employs a number of deaf people; it would wish positively to look for them.
As the noble Lord will recognise, the second part relates to supported employment which is completely and utterly different. It is funded by both local authorities and the Government. In the Department for Education and Employment, we spend of the order of £150 million to £160 million per annum on providing places for disabled people under the supported employment programme, whether through Remploy or another organisation. I do not believe that their inclusion

1013
in Clause 10((2) in any way negates the arguments that I was addressing in relation to concerns regarding local authorities.
Perhaps I may say a word or two about the two government amendments grouped with that of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, if he will allow me, in order to save me speaking to them at a later stage. Section 7 of the 1989 Act enshrines the principle of "merit" in local authorities' employment practice. What we intend to do—and what government Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 clarify—is to ensure that there is no conflict between the requirement that appointments are made on merit and the duty of reasonable adjustment under the Bill. In other words, an authority will continue to have to appoint on merit but it will first have to consider whether a reasonable adjustment could help a disabled person achieve that state of merit.
At the moment, local authorities do not have to make any adjustments at all. Like other employers, they will have to consider a wider range of disabled people as applicants and to retain a wider range of disabled employees because they will have to consider whether a reasonable adjustment will make the disabled person the best person for the job. This seems to the Government to be a much more positive and effective way forward than the noble Lord's amendment. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able on this occasion—as it is the final one—to withdraw his amendment and that in due course he will welcome the Government's Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 when we reach them.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, it is a great pity that we cannot debate this on a free vote and see where we get. The Government have no case whatever. I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments about the quota system, but it is a fact that the system served a purpose. Any shortcomings were the fault of the Government because they failed to support the quota. That is why disabled people did not register. There was nothing wrong with the registration system but people derived no benefit from it because the Government were at fault. I do not wish to bore the House with the old arguments.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I do not wish to prolong the debate, but the noble Lord will remember that in earlier debates I referred to Commons Hansard in the 1970s, when the noble Lord made exactly the same criticism of the last Government. The Minister replied to his question about the quota system in exactly the same way as did my noble friend. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for whom I have the greatest respect—and he certainly acknowledged the fact then— recognised that, if it is the fault of government, it has been the fault of governments of all persuasions over at least 30 years.
6 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Lord knows quite well that I am on record as criticising the Labour Government as well as the Conservative Government. One or two individuals and the All Party
1014
Disablement Group have fought off successive governments all these years. They caused every government to back away from ending the quota because they knew that all disabled people and organisations—this was expressed particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Rix—were in favour of the quota. Because of its importance they backed off. Now this Government are abolishing it. I regret that.
The principle in the quota system as relevant to this amendment is that it allowed local authorities to discriminate in favour of disabled people. Admittedly, some local authorities did not take advantage of that power but they did have the capacity to discriminate in their favour.
With the change now being introduced there is to be no quota. Because of the provisions of this Bill (it does not matter that the Minister could not remember the year; I have it somewhere in my notes but I shall not spend time looking for it) local authorities cannot now discriminate in favour of disabled people. That must be wrong. The Government cannot deprive local authorities of the power to help disabled people and then say: we, the Government, are bringing forward a marvellous anti-discrimination Bill which will outlaw discrimination against disabled people. That is absolute nonsense. It does not work. It is illogical. The Minister is on a very sticky wicket.
The Minister refers to the spirit of the Bill and to giving a fair chance to disabled people. The spirit of the Bill, as I understand it, is to outlaw discrimination. Yet if he refuses this amendment, he will prevent local authorities from combating discrimination. I find that very disturbing.
The Minister made a point about disabled people not wanting to be patronised. He is taking us back 13 years. Thirteen years ago a Member in the other place put forward the first Bill outlawing discrimination against disabled people. He was replied to then by a Tory Minister, who stated that there was no evidence of discrimination. Now the Minister is implying that there is no evidence of discrimination in jobs when he says that we want a fair spirit, a fair chance, for disabled people.
We know very well that they do not get a fair chance. All the research from voluntary organisations shows that if disabled people apply for jobs and state that they are disabled, they get no reply. That is the result of discrimination against them. The Minister stands up and says: we want to give them a fair chance. I want to give them a fair chance. The way to do that is to change this Bill to allow local authorities to discriminate in their favour. It is as plain, as simple and as logical as that.
Regretfully, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, because of the Whips!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [Meaning of "discrimination" in relation to trade organisations]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
Page 12, line 3, after ("fails") insert ("without justification").
Page 12, line 14, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15 [Duty of trade organisation to make adjustments]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 12, line 28, leave out ("other").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—

Disability Discrimination Bill

  ALTERATIONS TO PREMISES OCCUPIED UNDER LEASES
  (".—(1) This section applies where—

  (a) an employer or trade organisation ("the occupier") occupies premises under a lease;

  (b) but for this section, the occupier would not be entitled to make a particular alteration to the premises; and

  (c) the alteration is one which the occupier proposes to make in order to comply with a section 6 duty or section 15 duty.

  (2) Except to the extent to which it expressly so provides, the lease shall have effect by virtue of this subsection as if it provided—

  (a) for the occupier to be entitled to make the alteration with the written consent of the lessor;

  (b) for the occupier to have to make a written application to the lessor for consent if he wishes to make the alteration;

  (c) if such an application is made, for the lessor not to withhold his consent unreasonably; and

  (d) for the lessor to be entitled to make his consent subject to reasonable conditions.

  (3) In this section—
  "lease" includes a tenancy, sub-lease or sub-tenancy and an agreement for a lease, tenancy, sub-lease or sub-tenancy; and
  "sub-lease" and "sub-tenancy" have such meaning as may be prescribed.
  (4) If the terms and conditions of a lease—

  (a) impose conditions which are to apply if the occupier alters the premises, or

  (b) entitle the lessor to impose conditions when consenting to the occupier's altering the premises,

  the occupier is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) as not being entitled to make the alteration.
  (5) Part I of Schedule (Premises occupied under leases) supplements the provisions of this section.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 28 and 78. In doing so, I apologise for their length and degree of complexity. I am sure that it is within the grasp of noble Lords opposite.
  The House will recall that we touched on this matter during Report stage when I mentioned the issue of employers who lease their premises and the implications for the duty of reasonable adjustment. The status of terms and covenants in leases is an important matter. I said that we would be giving the matter our careful consideration and make our position clear at Third Reading, when we would table any necessary amendments.
  There are obligations on employers under Part II to make reasonable adjustments. There can also be obligations in leases which for entirely non-discriminatory reasons prevent or restrict alterations
  1016
  to the premises. As the Bill stands, the relationship between these obligations is very uncertain. It is unclear whether Clause 9 would render void a term in a lease, and if so when and to what extent; or whether the prohibition in the lease would prevail by rendering the adjustment "not reasonable". An employer in his own premises would have to make reasonable adjustment to those premises where appropriate, but the position of an employer who leases the premises is not obvious.
  It would be inappropriate to leave this position as it stands. These three amendments make the Government's policy intention clear. We propose through these amendments that, where the employer-tenant would be under a duty to alter the premises but would be prevented from doing so by the lease, he would be under a duty to seek the consent of the landlord. The landlord would be under a duty not to withhold consent unreasonably. This approach would ensure that the lease will not operate to frustrate the duty of adjustment. It also has the advantage of protecting the landlord where he has a legitimate objection to allowing an alteration to premises. Amendment No. 78 deals with circumstances in which it would and would not be reasonable for a landlord to consent to adjustments. These would need to be established by use of a regulation-making power, including any conditions which the landlord might attach to his consent. We will consult on the use of such power. Provision is made for enforcement of the duty through industrial tribunals. The provisions that I have mentioned will also apply to trade organisations covered by Part II of the Bill.
  The same approach will be taken under the right of access to goods and services in Part III of the Bill. Service providers will be under the same duty as employers to seek their landlord's consent before making any adjustments to their premises. Landlords will be under the same duty not to withhold it unreasonably.
  Perhaps I ought to add that the new provisions do not cover the clauses that deal with the sale or letting of premises to disabled people themselves. These provisions are aimed mainly at the rented accommodation sector and will largely involve similar landlords; for example, one letting a number of flats in a shared house. In case there is any doubt, let me reiterate that there will be no duty on a landlord to make or consent to changes to his property when a disabled person is seeking to become his tenant. However, the Bill (at Clause 23) will ensure that any prejudicial term within an agreement which, for example, sought to prevent the sub-letting of a property to disabled people, would be unlawful and therefore made void.
  These amendments clarify the relationship between the duty of reasonable adjustment on employers and the implications for landlords. As I have said, these amendments provide a fair balance between the needs of disabled people and the requirements on employers and landlords. And, we will ensure that disabled people, employers and landlords are among those consulted on the regulations. I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we welcome these amendments. They are a very useful clarification of the law. The Government are quite rightly looking at the situation where an employer or a user of premises has behind him a landlord, and therefore where the duty, obligation and responsibility of making an adjustment might fall when there is a clash of contractual loyalties and responsibilities.
  Does this not put into context the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Carter at the start of our debates today? Is this not the mirror opposite of the situation that he outlined; namely, a disability organisation might wish to rent or lease a property on behalf of disabled people and there was that third party, exactly as in the amendments outlined by the Minister a few minutes ago? The Government nonetheless rejected that amendment while proposing this. Will the Minister comment on that inconsistency?
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I find the logic of the noble Baroness extraordinarily tortuous. I do not believe that there is any connection whatsoever. However, if she wishes to make sophist-like points of that kind that is entirely open to her, although this is Third Reading. I am glad that in general she welcomes these amendments. I apologise for their length. As those of us who once studied law will know, land law is necessarily complicated. The noble Baroness will understand that the purpose behind the amendments is relatively simple.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I was about to make the same point as my noble friend. It is not sophistry but an interesting example of the Government facing both ways. These amendments, which we welcome, raise an interesting point that I should like to have clarified. In Committee I mentioned a situation in which I was involved. We have an office which employs disabled people. At the time we took the lease one of the conditions was that the landlord, the owner of the building, should provide an access ramp, which he was willing to do. However, the local highways authority created certain difficulties. The point which arose in the debate, which was answered by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was that in that case, broadly speaking, the planning Acts would take precedence over the requirements of this Bill. If I have it right, it now appears that in view of these clauses the Bill will take precedence over the normal law of property. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm my understanding of the situation.
  My final question is whether, if the building is listed, that is a sufficient or reasonable ground to refuse consent.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, yes.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to ask a question for clarification which is related to paragraph 3 of Amendment No. 78. That deals with regulations that may make provision as to circumstances in which a landlord is deemed to have withheld his consent, withheld his consent unreasonably or acted reasonably in withholding his consent. Can the Minister say what is likely to be in those regulations?
  Lord Henley: My Lords, to deal with the latter point last, I prefer to write to the noble Earl in detail on those regulations. However, I can assure him that we intend to consult all of the relevant people in due course because we want to ensure that they are right.
  I go back to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. Obviously, if the building was listed and there were concerns about making alterations, it would be perfectly reasonable to refuse consent on those grounds. As to the planning point, I believe that that goes very wide of the amendments that we are discussing. The planning controls will still apply. I believe that in the example which the noble Lord put to me at an earlier stage, or perhaps outside the Chamber, the landlord, tenant and employees were at one in what they could do but there were problems caused by the local authority as both owner of the pavement and planning authority. Obviously, the planning regulations would have to apply. In a case of that kind one would have to continue to put pressure on the local planning authority to deal with these matters in planning terms. I hear the noble Baroness say that I am exactly right. It is gratifying to be told by the noble Baroness that I am correct. I thought that there were others who advised me on these matters, but I take no point.
  I believe that I have taken enough interventions on this amendment. We are considering this matter at Third Reading. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 20:
  After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—

  OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES
  (".—(1) Every occupational pension scheme shall be taken to include a provision ("a non-discrimination rule")—

  (a) relating to the terms on which—

  (i) persons become members of the scheme; and

  (ii) members of the scheme are treated; and

  (b) requiring the trustees or managers of the scheme to refrain from any act or omission which, if done in relation to a person by an employer, would amount to unlawful discrimination against that person for the purposes of this Part.

  (2) The other provisions of the scheme are to have effect subject to the non-discrimination rule.
  (3) Without prejudice to section 59, regulations under this Part may—

  (a) with respect to trustees or managers of occupational pension schemes make different provision from that made with respect to employers; or

  (b) make provision modifying the application to such trustees or managers of any regulations made under this Part, or of any provisions of this Part so far as they apply to employers.

  (4) In determining, for the purposes of this section, whether an act or omission would amount to unlawful discrimination if done by an employer, any provision made under subsection (3) shall be applied as if it applied in relation to the notional employer.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 20 and also Amendment No. 21 with Amendment No. 4. I would wish to move Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the Minister would care to move Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 separately given the difficulties of handling such amendments at Third Reading.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am content to do what the noble Baroness suggests. I beg to move Amendment No. 20.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 21:
  After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—

  INSURANCE BENEFITS
  (".—(1) This section applies where a provider of insurance services ("the insurer") enters into arrangements with an employer under which the employer's employees, or a class of his employees—

  (a) receive insurance services provided by the insurer; or

  (b) are given an opportunity to receive such services.

  (2) The insurer is to be taken, for the purposes of this Part, to discriminate unlawfully against a disabled person who is a relevant employee if he acts in relation to that employee in a way which would be unlawful discrimination for the purposes of Part III if—

  (a) he were providing the service in question to members of the public; and

  (b) the employee was provided with, or was trying to secure the provision of, that service as a member of the public.

  (3) In this section—
  "insurance services" means services of a prescribed description for the provision of benefits in respect of—

  (a) termination of service;

  (b) retirement, old age or death;

  (c) accident, injury, sickness or invalidity; or

  (d) any other prescribed matter; and

  "relevant employee" means—

  (a) in the case of an arrangement which applies to employees of the employer in question, an employee of his;

  (b) in the case of an arrangement which applies to a class of employees of the employer, an employee who is in that class.

  (4) For the purposes of the definition of "relevant employee" in subsection (3), "employee", in relation to an employer, includes a person who has applied for, or is contemplating applying for, employment by that employer or (as the case may be) employment by him in the class in question.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for breaking down that grouping. With the leave of the House, I should like to ask some questions on Amendment No. 21. I realise that we had a more general discussion on the first of these amendments, but we warned the House that we would need some indulgence to deal with quite technical amendments.
  I should like to ask a general question followed by two specific ones. Under group permanent health insurance schemes where employers arrange long-term sickness payments with insurance companies, many insurers will not quote for blue-collar workers or exclude certain types of employee, such as part-time or temporary workers. Insurance companies can also load an employer's premium depending on the type of workforce. For example, an employer with a high
  1020
  proportion of manual workers, women or older people may have to pay a higher premium. Most companies exclude cover for HIV or Aids. Already some schemes require evidence of good health before an individual is covered, and cover may only be available for those who have a certain length of service, say five years. Can the Minister confirm that those practices will be lawful under the amendments? For example, will insurance companies be able to refuse to quote for a perceived high risk employer and screen employees before cover is offered?
  The specific question refers to subsection (3)(a) to (e) within Amendment No. 21. Can the Minister tell us what "termination of service" means in (a)? Does it mean that employers or insurers can reduce redundancy payments to disabled people? If so, what is the actuarial basis? What would be included under (3)(d)? What is the Government's intent behind "any other prescribed matter"?
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the new clause relates to insurance services provided under a group scheme which has been established by an employer through the medium of an insurance company. The noble Baroness asked me about termination of service. That is one of the risks to which this clause applies. It deals with insurance companies which provide group schemes on a wide range of risks that may relate to dismissal or resignation. It is not limited to redundancy. The effect is that an insurance company may not discriminate against employees any more than it can against a disabled member of the public. We come back to the point that when they are grouped they cannot treat them differently from the way they would treat a disabled member of the public separately under, I assume, Part III.
  The words "any other prescribed matter" tend to mean what they say. That gives us the power to add additional risks by regulation. I would say to the noble Baroness that if I had some examples I might put them on the face of the Bill with the others. However, as this is a fairly new field, we wish to be able, following consultation, to catch all the problems that may arise.
  As I understand the first question, I come back to the "actuarial" point. Would an insurance company be able to refuse to quote for a high risk employee?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, employer.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I imagine that they can do that at the moment. A company can chose to do business with an employer or not, if it is as general as that. However, the point is that this Bill is directed at disabled people. I am not sure that the noble Baroness is not asking me about discrimination on a rather wider basis than just disability. After all, that is one of the activities of insurance companies. They make decisions about the risks involved in taking on an individual, or groups of individuals, and the premium that they should impose given what they see as the risks. I have indicated that nothing in the Bill would prevent that actuarial risk-taking decision being made. That is the whole basis of insurance. What we are trying to do in the present group of amendments is to ensure that

  1021
  insurance companies cannot discriminate against disabled people without justification just because they are disabled. There has to be far better reason than that.
  The noble Baroness referred to employers and asked me whether screening was allowed by insurance companies. Insurers can refuse to quote for business provided that they do not screen out potential. customers on the grounds of disability. If disability is used to justify a refusal to insure, there would have to be those reasonable grounds for believing that there is a genuine risk involved. We shall regulate on this matter. It is tied in with how insurance companies would behave to an individual under Part III. I hope that I have satisfactorily answered the noble Baroness's three questions.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he confirm that he will consult the disability organisations on any guidance that he will be issuing to that effect?
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, one thing I have learned in the Department of Social Security is that when we consult we do so quite widely. I can assure the noble Baroness that we shall be consulting disability organisations, insurance companies, pensions, etc.—I have no doubt—before we come to any conclusions.
  Lord Rix: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to say a few words for clarity's sake. There is already the charities consortium of 30 or so major charities which have clubbed together to deal with the problems that arise from insurance and banking procedures with regard to disabled people. I believe that it is already having a marked effect upon the efficacy and the broader church which is now adopted by insurance companies and indeed by banks.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. As this is Third Reading, on that final point I commend this amendment to the House.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 16 [Discrimination in relation to goods, facilities and services]:
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 22:
  Page 14, line 20, at end insert—
  ("(i) services or facilities used by a disabled child under the pre-education vouchers scheme, in any establishment, whether provided by a private, local or public authority.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also in support of Amendment No. 23.
  Amendment No. 22 seeks to add a further example of services to which this clause and Clauses 17 and 18 apply. Whatever reservations there may be—from these Benches there are many—about the Government's proposals for a nursery education voucher scheme, nevertheless it is extremely important that, if such a scheme is brought into being, it ought to protect the interests of children with disabilities and ensure that they are fully encompassed within the protection against discrimination.
  At the moment it is at the pilot scheme stage. It is understood that the Government's intention is to broaden the scheme gradually county by county throughout the United Kingdom, to encompass all areas of the country. Therefore, it is of paramount importance—not only to individual children with disabilities but also so that there can be a rigorous examination of the effects of a pilot scheme—that disabled children be included. Within many local authorities, such children are given priority under the current system of provision of nursery education.
  It is inevitably the case that in many, but not all, cases provision for such children is more expensive than the general provision for pre-school education. Therefore it is important that the implications of the proposed scheme of nursery vouchers should be rigorously tested for the impact that it has on the continuing provision of high quality services for all children. I beg to move.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I have to oppose the two amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness. Their intention is to secure that there is no discrimination in services for disabled four year-old pupils under the nursery education scheme announced early in summer, in July, by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I hope that the amendments possibly indicate a degree of support from the Benches opposite for that scheme. I live in hope.
  I can assure the House that the amendments are neither necessary nor desirable. Existing legislation is powerful and comprehensive and it ensures that full provision can be made for disabled four year-olds. In addition, despite the provision in Amendment No. 23, the measures would cut across the existing treatment of education within Clause 16(5) and would therefore cause immense confusion. Finally, we shall be bringing forward provisions later this year to enshrine the nursery voucher scheme in legislation. It is entirely inappropriate to have this single provision contained within this Bill.
  With your Lordships' permission, I shall expand briefly on some of the arguments. As I made clear, the voucher scheme is an exciting policy which will put power into parents' hands to choose the nursery placement for their four year-old that is right for the child and the parents' circumstances. But given that premise, I can assure the House that educational provision for individual disabled four year-olds will invariably be much more far-reaching and specific to their needs than the provision provided for the majority of that age group under the nursery voucher scheme. This is already the case under the Education Act 1993. Although the terminology of that Act speaks of children with special educational needs, this will encompass the disabled child who needs access to specialist facilities.
  In the great majority of such cases, the child will have a statement of special education needs maintained in law by his or her local education authority. That statement will be specific to the child, as a result of a careful and detailed assessment. It will denote the exact provision or facilities that the child needs and will name a suitable placement. In principle, the provision can be arranged in the reception class of a maintained primary school, in an LEA nursery school or class, in an independent

  1023
  school or sometimes in a playschool. The placement will of course be appropriate to the child's needs. A child with physical disability in a wheelchair or one with sensory impairment should gain access to the placement which best fits those needs.
  The voucher will therefore simply be a contribution towards the much greater cost of the placement; that is, the basic cost plus the specified provision documented within the statement, which ensures that the child has access to the facilities that he or she needs. In the majority of cases the placement will be full time.
  Moreover, the parental rights of preference under the 1993 Act will apply to the placement. LEAs have a qualified duty (under Section 160) to comply with that preference, provided that three conditions are met: the placement must be appropriate to the child's need; and it must he compatible with the interests of other children and with the efficient use of resources. Parents can appeal to the new SEN tribunal if they believe their preference to be unreasonably rejected by the LEA. If a four year-old child is being assessed to see whether a statement is necessary, it is normal practice for appropriate provision to be made in the meantime. The usual practice is for LEAs to give priority to such children in nursery classes or assessment centres or perhaps in the preferred placement, in anticipation of the completion of the statement.
  If a four year-old child has a disability which is not severe enough to warrant a statement, it is impossible to envisage a situation where the provisions of Part III of the Bill would need to be enforced. If a child needs specialist access, a statement should be produced.
  I can therefore see no reason why we should insert within this Bill a provision which specifies non-discrimination in goods and services to pre-school children. I believe that the existing legislation is more than sufficient.
  I come now to my second fundamental point. The amendments will be incompatible in principle with the Bill's treatment of education. As I stated, pre-school education can take place in maintained primary schools or independent schools. Indeed, we expect the majority of primary schools eventually to make such provision. These measures would, therefore, automatically cut across the carefully crafted provisions of Clause 16(5) and (6) by including establishments funded by LEAs, the funding agencies and voluntary bodies.
  I remind the House that extensive debate was given in another place to the education provisions of the Bill. The Government won the argument there on the questions of principle—for example, the fact that our existing legislation in special education is comprehensive and highly regarded. I will, if I may, stress one more point about resources, for these amendments would bring with them formidable financial implications
  The potential capital cost of making all mainstream primary schools accessible for disabled four year-olds is very high. It is at present unachievable given current constraints on all public expenditure. We do not want to see a situation, therefore, where an authority which has planned to use its capital resources where they will be most effective—both geographically and with an eye to
  1024
  where young pupils have the most pressing needs—has its plans thwarted. Under these amendments such an authority might well be forced into spreading its existing resources so thinly that fewer pupils benefit.
  Instead of being able to concentrate existing scarce resources to ensure that, in each area, there are primary schools or nursery classes each with excellent resources, able to take many pupils with a wide range of special needs, we might produce a situation with nearly all primary and pre-school provision with a few ramps, no lifts, and improved access for only a very small minority of pupils. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, before pursuing one point with the Minister, perhaps I can express my grave concern in regard to his reply in relation to the adaptation of primary school buildings. It is clearly the case that since 1979 the expenditure on school buildings and capital allocations for school buildings has been woefully inadequate. It is also the case that for several years the Government have refused to provide enough capital allocation for anything other than basic needs and roofs over heads. It is therefore a tragedy to hear the Government say that access at local level, with parental choice for children for whom adaptation is necessary, is one of the reasons for rejecting the amendment.
  Can the Minister explain a little further the difference between the protection under this legislation given to a three year-old child and that denied to a child of four? Is it the case that a child of four with a voucher will be exempt from the Act? Will it be lawful for an early years centre to discriminate against a disabled child with a voucher, but if a three year-old child with a disability attends an early years centre, in principle that child will be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act, as it will be?
  It is not clear whether a centre will be allowed to discriminate against a three year-old with a disability if it accepted a four year-old with vouchers. The issue is whether the receipt of vouchers makes an early years centre an educational establishment for all children or just for four year-olds, and whether in this instance the Act will apply to the establishment or to the child with the voucher.
  It is clearly the case that three and four year-old children ought to be protected from discrimination. It is equally clear that, with the exception of, in most cases, charitable institutions in the voluntary sector, the majority of provision for children with disabilities is made by local education authorities and that provision is more expensive than the amount that the Government have indicated the voucher scheme will be able to purchase. Is it the case that the local authority can or should be required to make that more expensive provision available? It is clear that it would be better for such children to be included specifically within the remit of this legislation so that any problems that occur during the pilot experiment can fully be taken into account, including the needs of children with disabilities.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness that we are at Third Reading. If we are to be criticised for bringing forward amendments later, I should say that to bring an amendment forward of this sort that was not discussed at an earlier stage makes life extremely difficult.
  As regards the first point made by the noble Baroness, I remind her of a point which does not seem to have caught on with those opposite. Resources are by their nature finite and there is no point in trying to spread them willy-nilly over everything. We must use them as best we can. In relation to the second point, children of whatever age are far better dealt with under the Education Act. To bring them within this legislation would cause added confusion. It is not necessary so to do and that is why I made it clear that I do not believe the amendments to be necessary.
  As regards the third point made by the noble Baroness in relation to vouchers, we shall have ample opportunity in the coming months to discuss this matter and I look forward to discussing it with the noble Baroness and others.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am disappointed with the reply given by the Minister. I do not feel that the points raised were answered adequately. It is because we are at such an early stage of becoming aware of the details of the Government's scheme and the trawling by the Government of local education authorities in order to provide a pilot scheme, that it was necessary to table this amendment at such a late stage. However, it is with regret that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
  Clause 17 [Meaning of "discrimination"]:
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 24:
  Page 16, line 10, leave out from ("which") to end of line 13 and insert ("—

  (a) it is reasonable for a provider of services to hold the opinion mentioned in subsection (3)(a);

  (b) it is not reasonable for a provider of services to hold that opinion.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 24, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 25.
  Amendment No. 24 is a clarifying amendment which restructures subsection (6) of Clause 17. The key element of a justifiable refusal to serve is not simply that one of the conditions set out in subsection (4) is met, but that it is reasonable for the service provider to hold that opinion. An example of this could be if a swimming instructor, taking an adult beginners class, has to focus most of his attention on a disabled person and cannot cover the programme for each class. Other members of the class might be put at risk. This amendment makes the clause consistent and coherent regarding the concept of reasonableness, and the part that that plays in any justifiable refusal to serve.
  I mentioned Amendment No. 25 earlier. It allows regulations to be made to provide that, where a disabled person is incapable of entering into an enforceable
  1026
  agreement, but there is someone acting on their behalf—for example under an enduring power of attorney—the service provider may not justifiably refuse to serve them. This amendment recognises the value of a power of attorney for people with mental incapacity and also fits in with other legislation on enduring powers of attorney. I am aware that anxiety has been expressed concerning this part of the Bill and that there has been some confusion. This amendment clarifies the intention of this provision. I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26:
  Page 16, line 13, at end insert—
  ("(6A) Regulations may make provision for subsection (4)(b) not to apply in prescribed circumstances where—

  (a) a person is acting for a disabled person under a power of attorney;

  (b) functions conferred by or under Part VII of the Mental Health Act 1983 are exercisable in relation to a disabled person's property or affairs; or

  (c) powers are exercisable in Scotland in relation to a disabled person's property or affairs in consequence of the appointment of a curator bonis, tutor or judicial factor.").

  Page 16, line 17, leave out subsection (8).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments have already been spoken to. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 23 [Validity and revision of certain agreements]:
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 27:
  Page 21, line 16, leave out from ("for") to end of line 17 and insert ("modifying the agreement to take account of the effect of subsection (1).").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 28:
  After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—

  ALTERATIONS TO PREMISES OCCUPIED UNDER LEASES
  (".—(1) This section applies where—

  (a) a provider of services ("the occupier") occupies premises under a lease;

  (b) but for this section, he would not be entitled to make a particular alteration to the premises; and

  (c) the alteration is one which the occupier proposes to make in order to comply with a section 18 duty.

  (2) Except to the extent to which it expressly so provides, the lease shall have effect by virtue of this subsection as if it provided—

  (a) for the occupier to be entitled to make the alteration with the written consent of the lessor;

  (b) for the occupier to have to make a written application to the lessor for consent if he wishes to make the alteration;

  (c) if such an application is made, for the lessor not to withhold his consent unreasonably; and

  (d) for the lessor to be entitled to make his consent subject to reasonable conditions.

  (3) In this section—
  "lease" includes a tenancy, sub-lease or sub-tenancy and an agreement for a lease, tenancy, sub-lease or sub-tenancy; and
  "sub-lease" and "sub-tenancy" have such meaning as may be prescribed.
  (4) If the terms and conditions of a lease—

  (a) impose conditions which are to apply if the occupier alters the premises, or

  (b) entitle the lessor to impose conditions when consenting to the occupier's altering the premises,

  the occupier is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (1) as not being entitled to make the alteration.
  (5) Part II of Schedule (Premises occupied under leases) supplements the provisions of this section.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 24 [Advice and assistance]:
  Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 21, line 25, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 29, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 74. Before I do so, I apologise to the House for my absence during the debate on Amendments Nos. 2 and 49, when I believe my noble friend made reference to the advice and assistance and dispute resolution detailed in the amendments to Clause 24.
  On Report I moved similar amendments which I withdrew for further consideration "with a warning". I return to this issue with an amendment to Clause 24 and its supporting Schedule 3 to elicit the Minister's full response and clarification of the Government's intention and proposals regarding the provision of advice and assistance. I am aware that in July the proposals were very much in genesis but I believe that since then some life has been breathed into the soul, so to speak, of Clause 24.
  First, I should like to be fully assured by the Minister that the interpretation of Clause 24 affords and effects equality of opportunity for disabled people and is not misinterpreted as a paternalistic measure. Secondly, my amendments seek also to clarify the law and gain a firm commitment that the Secretary of State will make arrangements for the provision of an equitable expert advice service and that such a service will be accessible to all affected parties and will promote and facilitate the settlement of disputes. Mechanisms which obviate a recourse to the courts are clearly in the best interests of disabled people, the business community and government expenditure. I beg to move.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, my name is attached to the amendment and I should like to support it. However, I wonder whether my noble friend can confirm and clarify that the advice and assistance provided will be open to all parties to a dispute—service providers as well as disabled people—and that persons as referred to on the face of the Bill include bodies corporate as well as individuals. Can my noble friend explain the different levels of advice and assistance that will be available under the access provisions? What is the structure envisaged for a mediation service? Can my noble friend clarify the procedures proposed for the settlement of disputes for smaller firms and larger organisations? Can he confirm when consultation on the mechanisms for settlement of disputes is likely to start? Can he also say something about the development of the Government's proposals for the helpline facility that was mentioned at the Report stage? Will the helpline be operational prior to implementation of the Bill? My noble friend has
  1028
  already said that he will be consulting with all parties prior to the start, but do the Government concur that the helpline will be the key to ensuring smooth implementation?
  My noble friend has been given advance notice of these questions. I hope that the answers will make it easier for the implementation of the Bill once it becomes an Act.
  Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I have not given the Minister advance notice of the points I intend to make. However, I should like to support the amendments and say that it is right that the Government should be required to provide conciliation on goods and services. The courts are far too costly and they are intimidating to disabled people. They tend to deter them, which is a very bad thing. The Government should also provide advice and assistance. We know now that the Government will not allow the National Disability Council to do that so the Government should take on that responsibility.
  The Bill should establish a continuous process—a continuum between disabled people and the conciliation and advice. The disabled person should get advice in order to establish whether he has a case. Then there could be conciliation, which would remove the grievance quickly and easily. Each of those stages hinges upon the other. If there is no advice, the disabled person will not know whether he has a legitimate grievance and the conciliation will be unused. If there is no conciliation the grievance will remain because people will be fearful of the courts. One will not work without the other. We must have both—conciliation, and assistance and advice. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House on those basic points.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I support these amendments. As the Minister knows, I have said at previous stages of the Bill that advice should be available to all. One should avoid litigation at all costs. There is nothing more costly than going to court and many disabled people are among the poorest in the country.
  Lord Zouche of Haryngworth: My Lords, I support the amendment. The Confederation of British Industry has taken a very positive and healthy attitude towards the implementation of the Bill. It wants to make the Bill work. The CBI amendment seeks to ensure that any proposed mechanism for mediation is accessible to both disabled people and business. That will have many advantages. It will reduce the necessity for recourse to the courts. That is a terrible experience which no one needs, especially if one is disabled. It tends to polarise positions rather than help in working towards some sensible solution. I support the amendment.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Addington: My Lords, the aim of the amendments is to ensure that the widest possible amount of information is available in the most easily accessible manner. As has already been stated, the most consistent winners in a court case are the lawyers. We are trying to avoid that situation. An amendment along these lines

  1029
  should appear in the Bill. That would strengthen it. We have to make the secondary bodies as effective as possible. I believe that the noble Baroness has a very good set of amendments.
  Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support these very helpful amendments. I look forward to hearing the Minister's replies to the various questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I support the amendments entirely.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady O'Cathain for outlining her concerns and I am also grateful to other noble Lords who have spoken on the amendment. Those concerns centre around how the Bill will provide for the resolution of disputes which arise from the new right of access to goods and services. We touched on this area during our earlier consideration of Amendments Nos. 2 and 49. I shall try not to repeat some of the points I made then but I should like to take just a few minutes of your Lordships' time to explain how we envisage Clause 24 working. I hope that will reassure my noble friend.
  I imagine that some of your Lordships who were in the House at Report stage will remember that I said that it is disabled people who will generally be the more vulnerable party to a dispute arising out of the right of access and that our proposals for advice and assistance had been framed so that, where appropriate, they could receive a greater share of the amount of support on offer. I think my actual words were that it would be,
  "batting slightly more in favour of the disabled person".—[Official Report, 18/7/95; col. 276.]
  By that I meant that, while staying strictly within the confines of the law, the service would seek a resolution which ensured that the disabled person's rights were met. In my view, it is extremely important that Clause 24 retains the flexibility to allow us to do that. We would like a service which operates to serve the spirit in which the legislation was conceived: a desire to up the pace of the move to a more accessible environment for disabled people.
  I am not sure that my noble friend's amendment incorporates sufficient latitude to allow us to set up a scheme which might need to differ from existing dispute resolution mechanisms to take account of the very special and varied aspects of disability discrimination. However, we recognise that the primary source of advice and advocacy for disabled people will continue to be the multiplicity of advice agencies which already exist: whether generalist, like the citizens advice bureau service, or disability specific, like the disability information and advice line service or DIAL. We could not, and would not wish to, supersede or compete with those existing structures. Rather, it is more sensible to set up a complementary service which will help the existing disability advisers to do their jobs better. In other words, what is required is a secondary tier of advice to give help and assistance to those who have the day-to-day contact with disabled people: in essence a team of full-time disability advisers who, whether situated centrally or regionally, will together form a pool
  1030
  of expertise which can be utilised to stop disputes escalating to the point where court action is necessary. That would fall within the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who advised me to keep things clear of the lawyers. I entirely agree.
  We feel that a scheme along those lines is the best way to make use of the existing networks of advice and assistance. The agencies—local agencies, specialist agencies and the generalist agencies, such as the citizens advice bureaux, which provide services locally—will screen out the majority of cases of alleged discrimination. Some of those will be misconceived while others could be dealt with simply. Where the case is more complicated, or the parties in question cannot agree on what the solution should be, the guidance of the advisers could be sought. In very difficult cases, the case could be referred on to the advice service, which will in this way build up expertise in the more difficult types of case which it can then apply more generally.
  At each point in this process, it is likely that there will be some contact with the service provider in order to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution short of a court summons. To answer my noble friend Lord Swinfen, there will be nothing to stop a service provider using the system in exactly the same way. Many small shopkeepers, for example, will be quite happy to avail themselves of the services of local advice agencies. I can, however, appreciate that such a scheme will not always satisfy the requirements of larger business, and I understand why many feel that a more formal dispute resolution mechanism along the lines of ACAS is required for Part III of the Bill.
  I should emphasise that we have deliberately not set out to duplicate ACAS's role in the goods and services field. As your Lordships know, ACAS becomes involved in a dispute only when an application has been made to a tribunal. I note that the amendment also envisages that the Clause 24 arrangements will primarily be triggered once a complaint has been made to a court. Our intention is to set up a system which can resolve disputes before people even apply to the courts. That will be best for both business and disabled people.
  Further, there is no doubt in my mind that the disability advisers would be able to perform the mediation role which my noble friend seeks, if there existed some way of filtering out inquiries on more straightforward issues. There must be a number of bodies which, when it is a businessman who has a problem, could perform the same operation for the advisers as will be performed by the CAB and other groups when disabled people have a grievance. One could perhaps imagine a role for trades associations or chambers of commerce. Further, most large service sector companies will have an existing mechanism for dealing with complaints from members of the public who feel that their statutory rights have been infringed. Customer relations staff could work together with the disability advisers to resolve problems before they began to escalate. We could reinforce such mechanisms through the use of a code of practice which directed disabled people down a particular route as an initial step. This is clearly an area where we need to talk in more

  1031
  detail to both business and organisations of and for disabled people and we will be looking for an opportunity to do so over the coming months.
  Finally, I should like to emphasise that we recognise that business needs a lead-in period so it has time to equip itself to cope with the more stringent provisions of Part III of the Bill. That is why the various rights of access are to be phased in over a period of maybe as many as 10 years, starting with the simple duty on service providers not to refuse service to a disabled person unreasonably and ending with the duty to remove physical barriers if there is no other means of providing access. This phasing period will also give us time to assess whether our proposals for advice and assistance are going to prove sufficient. If it transpires that a more formal structure is necessary, the power remains within Clause 24 to provide one. This is almost certainly an issue on which we shall be asking the National Disability Council to review the existing arrangements and to make recommendations. We would then consider the arguments for change and weigh the perceived benefits against the potential costs, taking account of such possibilities as incorporating funding from the private sector. Here again, the amendment is probably too prescriptive to allow us to adapt whatever service is set up under Clause 24 to meet the needs which may arise over time.
  My noble friend Lord Swinfen asked me about the telephone helpline. I dealt with that point when we considered Amendment No. 2 and I do not think that I can usefully add anything to what I said then. I do not want to repeat myself, but I believe that I said then that we shall start to consult shortly after Royal Assent. We shall also do that in relation to the advice and assistance service. Officials from my department will be seeking to discuss those matters with organisations of and for disabled people as well as those representing service providers, to ascertain the best way forward.
  I am sorry that I have gone on at some length, but this is an important issue and I wanted to spell out how our thinking has developed since I spoke on Report. I hope that I have sufficiently reassured by noble friend to enable her to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for a very full and detailed explanation of the development of the Government's proposals. I do not complain that he went on "at some length" as he put it, because it is important for us to have as much clarification as possible of what he has in mind. Speaking from the business point of view, I like his approach in terms of having at stage one the specialist agencies and at stage two the team of experts. We must realise that we have to build up expertise. The proposals are therefore helpful, as were my noble friend's points about the lead-in period.
  I am satisfied that the Government's proposals are in line with the amendment as moved. Of course, they are not precisely the same: otherwise, the amendment would be agreed to. However, I am satisfied that that further explanation amply clarifies the law and is now on the record. It goes much of the way to secure the commitment which the business community is genuinely seeking.
  1032
  It seems to me that the mechanisms proposed for Clause 24 are the Government's insurance policy for the long-term investment in achieving equality of opportunity for disabled people. That is good for disabled people and for business. As my noble friend said, the last thing that we want to do is to create a situation where everybody is running off to lawyers and into court.
  I remind your Lordships that this legislation is a social reform and as such I guess that it cannot be too prescriptive. I was struck by my noble friend's comments on this point because the last thing that I want is for the provisions to be prescriptive. Being a social reform, the legislation will evolve. The lead-in period will help in that respect.
  I remind your Lordships also that all of us in this House and the business community are clearly united in the determination to end discrimination against disabled people. Sometimes during the passage of the Bill, which seems to have been for ever, being both long and tortuous, we have tended to lose sight of that and to have got into slightly confrontational situations. We are all on the same side in our determination to end such discrimination. I believe in all conscience that there is no division in this House either on the amendment or on the Minister's full response, which, I repeat, is now on the record. In the true spirit of this legislation, I pray in aid the CBI parliamentary brief which most noble Lords have received, to remind ourselves that,
  "working together to reach lasting solutions, rather than short term gains, will ensure that the end to discrimination against disabled people, becomes a reality".
  In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
  7 p.m.
  Clause 26 [Further and higher education of disabled persons]:
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 32:
  Page 22, line 28, leave out ("follows") and insert ("set out in subsections (2) to (6)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 34.
  In Committee and on Report noble Lords were, quite correctly, anxious to establish whether there was a clear division of duties between the further education funding councils and the local education authorities in order to satisfy themselves that the law had made provision for students with learning difficulties and disabilities. I believe that we have addressed that point. They were anxious to establish also that the courses provided by local education authorities enjoyed parity of esteem with those funded through the FEFCs. The Bill now includes amendments requiring further education institutions to provide "disability statements" about their provision of facilities for education for students with disabilities. Accordingly, on Report I undertook to consider whether I might bring forward an amendment placing a similar duty on LEAs.
  Taken with existing clauses, these amendments will ensure that disabled people are better informed of the full range of further education provision open to them,

  1033
  irrespective of whether it is funded by the FEFC or LEAs. LEA-funded further education centres as well as FE colleges will now have to provide useful and practical information for prospective disabled students to help them make informed decisions about their choice of education. Many LEAs already provide comprehensive information about their further education facilities for disabled persons; we aim, through this amendment, to make sure that all LEAs adhere to that good practice.
  These amendments, taken together with the other educational provisions in the Bill, will greatly increase the information available to pupils, students and parents when making choices about education, and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
  Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I welcome the amendment from the Government and the fact that discussions are taking place with the Department for Education and Employment, the FEFC and the LEAs. We hope that that will clarify in detail the respective responsibilities and duties with regard to course provision. I seek an assurance from the Minister that the form that the prescribed description will take will be the subject of consultation with the LEAs.
  Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I give the amendment a warm welcome and thank the Minister for a positive response to the concerns that we all voiced, first, about students falling between the two stools of the FE sector Schedule 2 provision and the LEA provision; and, secondly, about the quality and quantity of non-Schedule 2 provision.
  The new duty placed on LEAs to produce disability statements now brings them into line with the colleges. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, mentioned the other amendments brought forward at earlier stages of the Bill. I shall not take up the time of your Lordships on the Bill do now pass, so perhaps I may say briefly how welcome are all the amendments first heralded in the other place and then introduced in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It is good that education now figures in Part IV of the Bill. That does not of course mean that it is subject to anti-discrimination legislation, which I regret. SKILL, the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities, still feels that education should be included in Part III which outlaws discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services.
  However I accept, as does SKILL, that the Government genuinely believe that bringing education into Part III would be detrimental to their strategic plan to improve further and higher education provision for students with disabilities and learning difficulties. We therefore very much welcome the useful statements made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, on Report, first, about the complaints procedure for FE students; and, secondly, about the colleges' duty to meet the needs of disabled students whom they enrol. They will strengthen the strategic plan.
  I welcome also the commitment to look further into the question of transport to and from further education establishments which the noble Baroness has already mentioned.
  1034
  I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, for being willing to meet and discuss matters in the first place, and also the then Minister for Education in the other place, Tim Boswell; and I recognise the hours of hard work put in by officials of the DFEE and the staff of SKILL to arrive at a solution.
  Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for making the helpful statements on Report and for now coming forward with the amendment. I am grateful to the many noble Lords on all sides of the House who have given powerful and continued support. That is quite enough eulogistic chat from me, I think. I very much hope that the amendment will iron out the problems. If not, it may be necessary to consider in future bringing all communication and living skills under Schedule 2. For the moment however it is a welcome and positive step towards ensuring that students with severe learning difficulties learn to operate as effectively as possible in the adult world.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, for getting in her retaliation first, if I may put it that way, or, rather, for getting in her Bill do now pass speech in advance. I apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mackay that he had to miss part of it, but he will read it with enormous interest tomorrow when he has a chance. I take note of the points that the noble Baroness made.
  I also express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, for reminding the House that we have already started on consultation with the LEAs, and obviously that is important. I can give her an assurance that the form of LEA disability statement will obviously be the subject of consultation with the LEAs. As far as is possible, we shall try to find something that is satisfactory to all parties concerned. Obviously in advance of that consultative process, I do not believe that there is much more I can say about what form that will take.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 23, line 39, after ("of") insert ("physical or other support").
  The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 35 which is Amendment No. 33's Scottish cousin. There is, I understand, no difference save that of nationality between the two amendments.
  When I arrived here I was advised by my Whips that I could never declare an interest too often. Accordingly, in any university matter I do so. I should like also to thank the Ministers (both the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish) and through them their officials for a meeting which I hope may much shorten the length of my remarks.
  The amendment concerns these statements which universities are to be required to provide about facilities for those with disabilities. It seeks to insert the words "physical or other support" before "facilities". The concern is this. First, disabilities, as we all know, are extremely multifarious. So are academic courses. The task of matching every disability to every course would

  1035
  be a truly exhausting one. We should like an assurance that universities will not be asked to attempt that labour of total enumeration.
  The other point upon which we would hope to hear reassurance is that matters concerning admissions and curriculum are matters of academic judgment. While it is, I think, generally recognised that universities will and must make an effort to adapt to the needs of students with any particular disability wherever they can, it must remain a matter of academic judgment what adaptations can be made and what cannot.
  I should like to clarify that point very briefly, if I may. There is, I think, and should be, a duty on universities to try to help, especially when a student has been accepted. There is a duty to that student. Some obstacles can be overcome. Some are harder. Some cannot yet be. But I do remember that many obstacles which now can be overcome could not be overcome 30 years ago. But we cannot accept at present an obligation to open every course to people with every disability. There are some obstacles which have not yet been overcome.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), asked me on Report whether universities recognised an obligation to look for leeway in a course where there is something in it that creates an obstacle to people with disabilities. I can now clearly give her the answer yes to that question. We will look. The modularisation of courses will make it easier to look.
  There is a duty to respect the freedom of academic judgment but that carries with it a reciprocal duty to use that judgment to be as helpful as we can be. I hope that that clarifies the position a little. I beg to move.
  Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I very much hope that the Minister can reassure the noble Earl that disability statements will in no way affect the academic standards or criteria of an institution. I am grateful to the noble Earl for replying to the question that I asked on Report and saying that the universities would exercise leeway. SKILL states that it knows of no institution which applies different academic criteria to disabled students as regards admissions and examinations and I look forward to the Minister's reply.
  On Report (col. 278) I said that I thought that the words "physical and other support" seemed wide enough not to cause concern. I plead that it was 1 a.m. and I was not sufficiently informed as to what "other support" did or did not cover. I now know that it would not include important areas such as policies, for example, examination and admission policies; information provision, for example, what is put into a prospectus; and staffing arrangements, for example, whom disabled students can contact for advice.
  SKILL points out that if the clause were amended as the noble Earl suggests the higher education institutions would be providing less information in their disability statements than would FE institutions and now LEAs. The consistency of information available to students across post-16 education would be compromised. I am sure that that is not the noble Earl's intention. Although I understand his worries I hope that he will find they are groundless. I also hope that having heard the Minister's reply he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Earl speaks with a great deal of knowledge and experience of this matter and he has made the case extremely well. There is no need to add to it and we are pleased to support him from these Benches. I am surprised that with his great facility for the English language he introduced a word such as "modularisation" into the official record.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his point and I sympathise with him but it is the name by which it is known.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, we were pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy, even after her pre-emptive attempt at a Bill-do-now-pass speech. We hope to hear her many more times during the course of Third Reading. I believe, and I am sure that all noble Lords will agree, that there is scarcely a need for someone of the distinction of the noble Earl to declare an interest. He is far too well known and appreciated in higher education circles for that to be necessary. I echo what he said about our earlier meetings. I and my noble friend Lord Mackay were grateful to have an opportunity to discuss these matters outside the House—or rather inside the House but outside the Chamber—and for notice of his intention to table this amendment. The noble Earl, quite rightly, is seeking certain assurances on the effects of these clauses and I hope that my comments will be of assistance.
  The noble Earl is concerned that the clauses might constitute a threat to a university's academic autonomy. He is concerned, for example, that their effect might be to require a university to change its admissions arrangements, or modify its course structures, or alter its assessment programmes in order to meet the needs of disabled students. I am happy to state the Government's considered view that they are not meant to do so and that they do not do so. Nor is it the Government's intention that the disability statements should be used to put pressure on the universities or the higher education funding councils to change policies on the curriculum or admissions. Such matters are quite properly academic matters which are the responsibility of the institutions to determine. Naturally, we hope that universities will be as receptive as they can to the needs of disabled students, and we believe that the need to set out information about their policies will help focus their attention on this issue. But it will remain for universities to determine their own policies.
  The noble Earl is also concerned at the possible burden on universities of producing the disability statements. As he mentioned tonight and on Report, he envisages the possibility of very complex statements being required, which map every course in an institution against every possible disability of prospective students. I am happy to state the Government's considered view that we do not envisage disability statements being of that nature. I must temper that comment in one respect because, as the noble Earl is aware, it is not the responsibility of the Government to specify the information content of the statements. That is the responsibility of the higher education funding councils.
  I can, however, inform the House that the Higher Education Funding Council for England has already established a group to consider the nature of the

  1037
  information to be contained in disability statements, and it is clear that the group is not contemplating statements of that nature. The group believes that it will be able to specify information which will both be helpful to disabled students and the council but which will not impose an undue burden on universities. A representative of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, which has been in correspondence with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, is on the group, and I believe I am right in saying that the CVCP is working constructively with the group. Further, the HEFCE intends to consult institutions generally about the specification of information in disability statements, once they have the advice of their group.
  With those assurances, I hope the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that most helpful reply. I was aware of what was being done in the Higher Education Funding Council for England and, as the Minister said, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is not in any way dismayed by what is going on there.
  I am very grateful to him for his comments about the ability to avoid totally exhaustive and exhausting statements. I am particularly grateful to him for his comments about academic judgment and about the absence of any pressure on the funding councils to bring about change. What he says is very fair but he hopes that the universities will be as receptive as they can to the needs of disabled students. In return, I give the Minister that assurance with all good will, thank him very warmly and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 23, line 45, at end insert—
  ("(7) The Education Act 1944 is amended as set out in subsections (8) and (9).
  (8) In section 41 (functions of local education authorities in respect of further education), after-subsection (2) insert—
  "(2A) It shall be the duty of every local education authority to publish disability statements at such intervals as may be prescribed.
  (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A) above—

  "disability statement" means a statement containing information of a prescribed description about the provision of facilities for further education made by the local education authority in respect of persons who are disabled persons for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and

  "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State."

  (9) In section 41(7), (8) and (11), for "this section" substitute "subsections (1) and (6) above".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 32. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 27 [Further and higher education of disabled persons: Scotland]:
  [Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
  Clause 28 [Taxi accessibility regulations]:
  Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 36:
  Page 24, line 37, leave out ("and") and insert ("or while seated on a swivel seat:").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 36 I shall consider also Amendments Nos. 37 and 38. Clause 28 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the accessibility of disabled people to taxis. Perhaps I may briefly explain my amendments. The new provision is an enabling provision, making what in other circumstances are called "construction and use regulations". They will govern the way in which taxis must be built for carrying disabled people with or without wheelchairs and the way in which drivers of taxis are to help disabled people to use those taxis.
  The regulations do not specifically deal with disabled people travelling on a swivel seat, preferably next door to the driver, with the wheelchair to be folded up and put elsewhere in the vehicle. Therefore, I have provided for that to be done. The amendments are self-explanatory and noble Lords will see that I have added a new paragraph (c) to Clause 28(1) so that the regulations will provide:
  "for providing space elsewhere on the taxi for the wheelchairs of those disabled persons who decide to sit on swivel seats".
  I put forward these amendments in a spirit of compromise and in order to achieve that greater flexibility which everyone wants and which the Minister was kind enough to stress that the Government want. However, the Bill as it is drafted does not require that to be achieved. That is the sad thing about it.
  I should point out also that besides dealing with the construction of taxis in the future, the regulations will prescribe the ways in which drivers of taxis are to help disabled people to use the taxis. By a strange drafting method, to that extent Clause 28 overlaps with Clause 31. Clause 31 imposes similar duties on drivers of taxis carrying passengers in wheelchairs. But in doing so Clause 31 deals with those who choose to sit in the passenger seat instead of in a wheelchair and have the wheelchair carried in the taxi. That is very good.
  My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish kindly wrote to me yesterday as follows:
  "I fully appreciate your concerns about the needs of the large number of disabled people who do not need or wish to travel in a wheelchair. However, Clause 31(3)(c) already makes provision for the stowage of an unoccupied wheelchair and it is also our intention to address the needs of that group of passengers in the taxi accessibility regulations, which will specify a number of design features. Swivel seats are one important mobility aid we will be looking at".
  That is absolutely splendid but it is not part of the Bill and would not bind a Secretary of State in the years to come.
  It is a very strangely drafted collection of clauses. We must make absolutely sure that the obligations under Clause 28 whereby the Secretary of State is to make regulations are consistent with the provisions of Clause 31, which are more flexible. We do not want the construction and use regulations to defeat the purpose of Clause 31. That is why I thought it necessary to table these amendments.
  There is a further important point that nowhere in the Bill is there a duty to provide swivel seats. As far as I know, they are not mentioned at all in the Bill either for those taxis which are not black cabs but are saloon cars or for any taxis.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, surely swivel seats are mentioned in Clause 30(5) and (6).
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I apologise to the House. That is very negligent of me. Perhaps I may quickly read that. The trouble is that it is limited to those areas in which an exemption order is in force. That is the trouble about that. As I said at an earlier stage, this business of exemption orders introduces a sort of bureaucratic impediment to the flexibility which we all need because it requires a licensing authority to apply to the Secretary of State—that is, the Department of Transport—in order to be exempt from the other provisions which are stricter. We do not know on what grounds exemption orders will be granted, how far they will go and what flexibility they will introduce.
  I must confess that I had not observed that indirect way of introducing swivel seats, but it is not quite good enough. I should much rather see it written into the construction and use regulations that are to be made. That is why I have tabled the amendment.
  As I mentioned in earlier debates, my very severely handicapped daughter prefers to drive in a saloon car next to the driver instead of in a black cab taxi. She certainly hates being in a wheelchair for too long, although she has to spend most of her life sitting down. But when she is put in the ordinary back seat of a black cab, because she is very small she cannot see out. She happens to be cared for 100 miles from my home in Huntingdon and I am very anxious that she and others like her—and there are an enormous variety of cases of disabled people that we should envisage—will not be forced merely to sit in the back seat of a cab. I personally find that a swivel seat is desirable for getting my daughter seated, and that is why I mentioned that.
  Let us take stock of the position we have reached according to what the Government have told us and according to previous legislation. In London all taxis are to be black cabs but if a disabled person wants to travel in a saloon car, it seems to me that he will have to travel either in a private hire car or in a minicab, which is also a type of private hire car.
  The Department of Transport has said that it wants all taxis in England and Wales to be as in London. Clause 28 of the Bill seems to make that possible, in spite of what my noble friend wrote to me and in spite of what my noble friend has wisely said at each stage of the Bill about the need for flexibility.
  However, I believe that in Scotland real flexibility will be achieved as a result of Clause 33(3) which states that the regulations may provide the circumstances in which an exemption from wheelchair provisions may be granted. That is a better kind of exemption because it is an exemption stated in advance instead of each licensing authority having to apply to the people in Whitehall.
  In rural areas of England, Wales and Scotland there are simply not enough minicabs or hire cars. If nearly all taxis are to be black cabs, built specifically for carrying
  1040
  wheelchairs at very great cost, there will be fewer taxis and disabled people will suffer from that. Therefore, the effect of these clauses of the Bill as drafted, far from preventing discrimination against disabled people, will cause discrimination against them.
  Perhaps I may say before I go further that my noble friend Lord Holderness, who is very severely disabled, has asked me to say that he supports my amendments and regrets that he cannot be here this evening.
  I suggest that my amendments to Clause 28 are necessary, especially to achieve consistency with Clause 31(3). I beg to move.
  Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. As I understand the Bill as drafted, when the regulations come into effect it will be necessary for all taxi services in England and Wales effectively to have London cabs; that is, cabs which are specially constructed with a view to make it possible for them to carry persons sitting in a wheelchair. That may well be reasonable for London, but I would suggest that it is not reasonable for rural communities for two reasons. First, it would significantly increase the cost of rural taxi services because the capital cost of the kind of cab about which we are talking is some four or five times that of another suitable vehicle and the running costs are very much higher. The rural population in many areas are not now served by public transport. Therefore, without public services, this could be a crippling blow for those who do not have a car of their own.
  Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, London taxis are uncomfortable and unsuitable for long journeys, especially for the disabled. I cannot understand why it would not be sufficient for taxi services to be required to have in every fleet a percentage of taxis which are suitable for carrying persons in wheelchairs who, incidentally, represent less than half of 1 per cent. of taxi users at present. If discrimination against disabled people can only be removed at the cost of discrimination against the rural poor, I suggest that the provision in the Bill as it stands needs revision. I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
  7.30 p.m.
  Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, when he has heard the Minister's response, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I do not wish to repeat at length what I said at earlier stages about how having a taxi accessible to me while remaining in my wheelchair has revolutionised my life in terms of liberation and independence. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, when such taxis first became accessible we actually had to book them three days ahead. But now that the fleet is run on a half-and-half basis, one can almost hail them off the street, although one still cannot be certain to find one.
  I understand the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the reasons for his amendment. But, as I understand it, the new breed of accessible taxi about which we are talking—that is, the taxi that will be accessible to all those in wheelchairs, to the ambulant

  1041
  disabled, to people with guide dogs, to people with arthritic hips, and so on—will be a different sort of vehicle from the one that we and the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, are thinking about. Indeed, there will be various models. However, let us think of something like a Renault Espace but at a lower level with a swivel seat by the driver into which one could also get one's wheelchair. The noble Lord's daughter could in fact transfer to the swivel seat and look out of the window as she travels while sitting next to the driver, which she likes to do. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the noble Lord and that he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), I also hope that the Government will resist the amendments. I am sorry that I am unable to support the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who has carried out such admirable work for and on behalf of the disabled, both in the parliamentary group and in this House. However, on this occasion, I believe that his emphasis is wrong and I should like to make just a few points.
  First, although there may be a limited number of people—some 75,000 or so, I believe—who are permanent wheelchair users, something like 600,000 people are wheelchair users at some point in their lives. Even someone like myself was in a wheelchair for a few months when I was foolish enough to destroy an Achilles tendon by running in a relay race, passing hot dogs to celebrate the Queen's Jubilee. The consequence was that I learnt firsthand how the cambers of the roads in Norwich worked.
  The point about the Government's proposals—and this is why we welcome them—is that they seem to balance correctly the rights of disabled people to have full access with the need for flexibility in local circumstances. If a local authority is satisfied that there is no unmet need for wheelchair accessible vehicles, it may apply for exemption in exactly the same way as now, for example, a local authority which is satisfied that there is no unmet need for, say, gypsy caravan sites can apply for a designation certificate and not be required to make further provision. If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the local authority's case is well argued, the local authority may then go on to permit taxis not to be wheelchair accessible but merely to have swivel seats. That is the first point.
  My second point has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), but it does perhaps need re-emphasising. Too much is sometimes made of the cost argument. The second-hand cost of the Metro cabs and the Fairways, and so on, is—certainly in my city—around £12,000. That still gives another 10 years or so of useful life at the very least to that vehicle. It seems to me that that is a perfectly acceptable cost when compared with the cost of a new saloon car or Cortina to join the taxi fleet. It would professionalise the trade, because it means that people whose only skill is car driving, who come into the trade to cream off the public before Christmas and then go out again, are not able to enter into and go out of the trade as is possible if they can turn their own private domestic car
  1042
  temporarily into a taxi. By requiring them to invest in a professional vehicle we will keep out the cowboys, professionalise the quality of driving and build up an expertise upon which people can properly rely.
  Thirdly, we have talked throughout about taxis, but there are at least as many cars outside London—and rather more in London—which are private hire vehicles that are not required to be wheelchair accessible. Indeed, they can be fitted with swivel seats and the like. It is entirely open to the family of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to telephone for a car which meets the comfort and other requirements of his daughter from a private car hire company. That will remain acceptable. As a result of the provisions, I hope that users of such vehicles will continue to have choice, that the cost will be acceptable and that proper rights for disabled people will be ensured consistent with the needs of local circumstances. I hope that the Government resist the amendments.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have had some interesting debates on the subject of taxis during previous stages of the Bill. I have had correspondence with my noble friend, so I entirely understand the reasons behind his amendments. He is concerned—as I am sure we all are—that the new generations of taxis should be easily usable by all disabled people, including those who are not wheelchair users and who prefer to transfer from their wheelchairs into a car seat when travelling.
  I should like to try to help my noble friend who seems to see some internal inconsistency between Clauses 28 and 31. Indeed, I am not sure whether that is the basis of his concern. Clause 28 deals with the vehicle itself. It deals with the construction requirements of the vehicle about which we shall be consulting. As we see it, the vehicles that emerge will not necessarily be London taxis. I thought I made that rather clear on Report. I said that it was not mandating London taxis throughout the country. In fact, I believe that I gave an assurance that we would see to it that the regulations did not say so. Of course, London taxis which are accessible at present will come within the regulations, but the regulations will be a good deal wider and cover not just London taxis.
  As I said, Clause 28 deals with the vehicle itself—that is, the construction requirements, and so on. Indeed, some of them are mentioned in subsection (2). Clause 31 deals with the driver. It is one thing to have the taxi meeting the construction regulations, but, the driver may not choose to carry a disabled person and to use the facilities that are available in his taxi. That is another problem which we have addressed in Clause 31. Therefore, there is no internal inconsistency between Clauses 28 and 31. They address different parts of the problem: one addresses the vehicle itself; and the other addresses the driver, especially when he is driving a vehicle which obeys the kind of construction requirements which are set out under Clause 28.
  The powers to make taxi-accessible regulations under Clause 28 are sufficient to enable us to cover a wide range of features in a taxi to ensure safe access and egress by disabled people. One of the features about which we will be consulting will be the provision of swivel seats. The list in Clause 28(2) is not prescriptive.

  1043
  Swivel seats could, and most probably will, be included in the context of those provisions. As my noble friend pointed out, Clause 31(3)(c) would place an obligation on a driver of a regulated taxi to carry a disabled person's wheelchair if he or she chooses to sit in the passenger seat. I believe that it would be wrong to specify either swivel seats or any other feature, other than the limited features we have included, on the face of the Bill. We want to retain the flexibility which regulations give us to respond to changes and developments over time in vehicle design. I suspect that if we had had this debate 15 years ago people would have said that it was technically impossible to design a car to meet some of these requirements. However, we know that it is not. Some of the new cars coming on to the market appear to me, as a layman, to be suited to easy adaptation to carry a wheelchair, either with a person in the wheelchair or with the wheelchair in the boot or elsewhere in the vehicle.
  I do not believe that it would be helpful to manufacturers or the operators of taxis if the legislative framework were created in such a way that it was unresponsive and inflexible. The Department of Transport is already holding detailed discussions with all sides of industry and with disabled people on the shape and content of the regulations arising from Clause 28. I believe that that is the most appropriate way to deal with important issues such as swivel seats.
  My noble friend commented on the flexibility of the taxi law in Scotland as compared with that in England and Wales. I am inclined to say that that is not surprising, as the law in Scotland is in many ways superior. However, there is another reason for that. The law relating to Scotland dates only from 1982, as your Lordships will see from the appropriate clause, whereas the law in England and Wales belongs largely to the last century. The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 come to my eye in the Bill. That is why the provision for taxi accessibility regulations in the Bill for England and Wales is different from the provision for Scotland.
  I can reassure my noble friend that the Department of Transport will be working closely with the Scottish Office over the provisions of the taxi accessibility regulations and how the regime will work. It is our intention that the two sets of regulations, based as I said on two Acts almost a hundred years apart, will as far as possible and appropriate have the same effect and work in exactly the same way.
  I should also like to remind your Lordships that we intend to ensure that the taxi accessibility regulations reflect only what is technically and commercially practical. We do not want to see all taxis disappear because the accessibility regulations are either too onerous or too expensive to implement. I have made that clear in the past.
  I hope my noble friend will accept that, in addition to swivel seat requirements that will be contained in regulations, Clause 30(5) and (6) also provide for regulations requiring the fitting of swivel seats to be made in respect of taxis which would otherwise be exempt from the taxi accessibility regulations.
  1044
  I hope that that explanation and my assurance that we can already require swivel seats in taxis under the powers contained in the Bill, and the fact that there will not really be a difference between the position in Scotland and that in England and Wales, will reassure my noble friend and that he can withdraw his amendment.
  7.45 p.m.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken on the amendments, especially the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who was the only speaker who supported them.
  To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, the regulations could achieve the flexibility that we all want. However, from conversations that I had with Mr. Steven Norris earlier this year, I was very much afraid—and that is partly why I tabled the amendments—that it was his original intention that all cabs throughout England and Wales should be black cabs and that that would be the basis for the regulations. They are also construction and use regulations.
  Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that she is misinformed on the question of private hire cars being freely available in rural areas. Certainly in the rural area where I live they are not. Rural areas vary. Norwich is a large city, and in outlying areas private hire cars are no doubt available, as well as some taxis. However, living five miles from Huntingdon, having consulted the Yellow Pages and made other inquiries, I find that there are very few hire cars with a driver. To declare an interest, at the age of 87 I am anxious as to what will happen when I can no longer drive my car. If I can hire a driver and a car that will be helpful, but it will not always be possible.
  I now turn to the speech of my noble friend Lord Mackay. The best thing about the debate is that there is now recorded in Hansard the way in which this Government intend to use the powers in the regulations. They obviously intend to use them much more widely and sensibly than I was given to understand some months ago by the Minister for Transport. I say that deliberately, and hopefully.
  I am grateful to my noble friend for his full explanation and for the commitments that he repeated. In all those circumstances, I feel that it would be reasonably safe for me to withdraw my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
  Clause 29 [New licences conditional on compliance with taxi accessibility regulations]:
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 25, line 30, leave out ("in an area").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 39, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 to 48. These amendments are also related to transport. Most of them are intended simply to tidy up the wording of various clauses. However, Amendment No. 41 introduces a new clause.
  The Bill includes a requirement in Clause 31 that taxi drivers shall assist disabled people who have to use wheelchairs into and out of their taxis, and to load and unload their luggage. There is another provision in Clause 32 that would require taxi drivers to carry guide dogs or hearing dogs if requested.
  We realised that in both cases those provisions would give a minority of taxi drivers problems because of medical or physical conditions. For example, the driver may be disabled himself or be seriously allergic to dogs. Consequently, provision was made in those clauses for licensing authorities to issue exemption certificates to taxi drivers who would be unable to carry out those duties.
  Representations have been made to us by the taxi trade that there ought to be an appeals mechanism against a decision of a licensing authority to refuse an exemption certificate. That might, for example, be a borderline medical case, or where an authority has a policy that all taxi drivers they license shall be able to assist disabled passengers, or simply a bad decision. After all, there are 360 licensing authorities.
  It is government policy that there should be an appropriate appeals mechanism to protect people against unreasonable acts by enforcement authorities. The amendment would provide for an appeal within 28 days to the local magistrates' court, which is the traditional appeals mechanism for taxi licensing matters. This is a small but important change which I believe will be welcomed by the taxi trade.
  Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44 are amendments to Clause 33. They provide for equivalent regulation-making powers for Scotland to those already contained in Clause 32(9) for England and Wales. Both will provide for other categories of dog other than hearing or guide dogs to be prescribed which must be carried in taxis if they accompany and are trained to assist disabled people.
  Amendment No. 39 is intended to avoid ambiguity in the meaning of Clause 29 by deleting the words "in an area", which serve no useful purpose. The other amendments may be categorised as housekeeping amendments which bring the wording of PSV and rail clauses into line with the equivalent taxi clause. They simply allow for the making of regulations under the Bill which cover a range of areas, including the construction, use and maintenance of vehicles. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may say how important these amendments are and how glad I am to see them. I give an example. My daughter went to the help of a man who was trying to hire a taxi. She stopped a taxi and helped him in. He told her that he had been waiting two hours for a taxi to stop. I believe that the amendments are necessary.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Gladwin of Clee Lord Gladwin of Clee moved Amendment No. 40:
  After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—

  ADMISSION OF WHEELCHAIR ACCESSIBLE TAXIS TO STATION ETC
  (".—(1) The owner of a transport facility shall be under a duty
  1046
  to admit regulated taxis to that transport facility for the purpose of taking up or setting down persons who have hired or may wish to hire such taxis.
  (2) Subsection (1) shall only apply to the extent that a transport facility is suitable for use by motor vehicles and at such times as it is ordinarily open to persons travelling to or from it otherwise than by taxi.
  (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a transport facility which is situated in the area of a licensing authority in respect of which an exemption order made in accordance with section 30 is in force.
  (4) Subsection (1) does not apply to a transport facility where, prior to the passing of this Act, the owner has entered into a contract or agreement granting another person the exclusive right to provide taxi or private hire car services at that transport facility.
  (5) The Secretary of State may by order provide for subsection (4) to cease to have effect on such date as may be specified in the order.
  (6) Separate orders may be made under subsection (5) with respect to different areas or localities or transport facilities.
  (7) Where taxis are admitted to a transport facility in accordance with subsection (1) the owner may:

  (a) charge such fees for their admission as may be authorised by the Secretary of State;

  (b) designate places at that transport facility at which persons may be taken up by or set down from taxis; and

  (c) impose such conditions for the maintenance of safety or the control of traffic at that transport facility as in all the circumstances are reasonable.

  (8) Nothing in this section shall be taken to authorise a taxi to ply for hire outside of the area for which it is licensed.
  (9) In this section—
  "owner" means a person who—

  (a) is the owner of, or who has any right over, or interest in, a transport facility, and

  (b) whose consent is needed for taxis to be admitted to that transport facility;

  "private hire car" means a vehicle used for the carriage of passengers for reward, whether or not licensed as such, other than a taxi or public service vehicle;
  "public service vehicle" has the same meaning as in Part II of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981; and
  "transport facility" means any land which forms part of any port, airport, railway station or bus station including the forecourt or roadways of or approaches to any such facility.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to close a loophole in the Bill which in my opinion and that of RADAR would allow discrimination against disabled passengers, in particular those in wheelchairs, when they arrive at airports, seaports, railway stations or bus stations and then require a taxi to complete their journey.
  Noble Lords may recall that I raised this anxiety at Committee and Report stages of the Bill when I sought assurances from the Minister but, regrettably, without success. I therefore must apologise to the House for going back over old ground.
  Briefly, the story starts with the Department of Transport's 1993 Green Paper on Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles when views were specifically invited on the desirability of requiring all vehicles plying for hire at airports and stations to be wheelchair accessible.
  We then move to March 1994 and the House of Commons Transport Committee Report on Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles. In paragraph 148 the committee stated:

  1047
  "Land, including roads, at airports and stations is usually privately owned and can be controlled by the airport operator or station owner. This gives them the right to regulate the use of their premises by taxis and PHVs and, in some cases, to levy charges. Sometimes, … the concession is granted to a single taxi or PHV company. While we note that the Government is 'not entirely convinced' of the merits of granting this type of concession, as opposed to allowing any locally licensed taxis to operate at such premises, there may on occasion be arguments for such an arrangement, for example in order to avoid congestion. Sole concessions should only be awarded after an open competition, which should give preference to companies which undertake to provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles".
  However, the Government's response to this recommendation, published in February of this year, was that while they appreciated the sentiment behind the recommendation it would not seem appropriate to control the situation by regulation. The Secretary of State for Transport stated:
  "Hire vehicles at airports and stations (taxis and private hire vehicles) are there to make access to and from the station or airport attractive to passengers. It is therefore in the interest of the owning authority or company to ensure that appropriate facilities are provided".
  That is quite right. Obviously the owner of a transport facility will wish to make it as attractive as possible to passengers. But what if he decides that it would be in the best interests of the majority of his passengers to enter into a contract with a private hire company to provide a taxi service from his station, airport or seaport? Those taxis would not be covered by this legislation.
  Therefore a disabled passenger in a wheelchair, having travelled in an accessible train, bus, aeroplane or ship, arriving at the station or port, and wishing to complete his journey by taxi, will not have the same freedom to do so as an able-bodied passenger; and that is discrimination. It really is not good enough for the owner of a transport facility who has entered into an exclusive contract with a private hire company simply to exhibit a notice stating how an accessible taxi can be obtained—probably by telephoning some other taxi company in the next town—or to say to a disabled passenger in a wheelchair (and I know that it is said), "It's a pity you didn't warn us in advance because we could have had an accessible taxi waiting for you".
  The amendment would not prevent the owners of transport facilities from entering into exclusive contracts with providers of taxi services. However, it would ensure that such services did not discriminate in any way against disabled passengers, in particular those in wheelchairs.
  Subsection (1) of the new clause achieves that end. Subsection (2) limits the time that taxis were admitted to the facility to the times that it was normally open to the travelling public. Subsection (3) states that if the station or port is in a town which has an exemption order in force then the owner of the transport facility involved would not be required to provide accessible taxis. Subsection (4) allows current exclusive contracts to continue until their expiry date, but new ones would have to abide by the provisions of subsection (1). If there were any long-term contracts, subsection (5) allows the Secretary of State to set a date when they should come to an end. I hope that the remainder of the clause is self-explanatory and that the amendment is not
  1048
  technically flawed. My final hope is that the Minister will recognise that the problem exists and will agree that the amendment is the way to solve it.
  Perhaps I may remind the Minister that during the debate at Report stage on 20th July he stated in a slightly different context, in answer to a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Renton:
  "We want to make sure that disabled people can have exactly the same freedom to travel and to get a taxi as able-bodied people".—(Official Report, 20/7/95; col. 452.]
  Without this new clause we shall not achieve that aim. I beg to move.
  Lord Finsberg: My Lords, several years ago I was the adviser to the LTDA, the major taxi organisation in greater London. Whether I should still declare that interest, I do not know. However, the amendment moved by the noble Lord deserves careful consideration in particular from this side of the House. All my political life I have believed in choice and in not allowing monopolies to exist. Yet in many areas there is no choice of a taxi and there is a monopoly. I should need to be convinced by my noble friend that there is merit in rejecting the amendment.
  It is almost certainly flawed. Over the years those of us who sought to move amendments have been told that they are technically incorrect. I always used to say, "Fine, let us accept a technically flawed amendment and then invite the Government to put it right through their highly skilled parliamentary draftsmen at a later stage". As the Bill has to go back with amendments to another place, that could be done. My noble friend may have answers that will convince me, but on the face of it I believe that a case has been made out for further consideration of the point.
  Lord Rochester: My Lords, I support the amendment. One may ask: what is the point of making all licensed taxis in England and Wales fully accessible to wheelchairs if they cannot then be guaranteed free access to bus termini, railway stations and airports, all of which are major delivery points for wheelchair bound people? I hope that on this occasion the Government will look more sympathetically on the amendment than they have done at earlier stages of the Bill.
  Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, said, it is a serious loophole. As the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said, it seems a great pity if after all the splendid amendments that we have discussed we do not ensure that wheelchair accessible taxis are available at termini. It is the one hiccup in what could eventually be a completely trouble-free journey on other forms of transport for someone in a wheelchair. I thoroughly support the amendment.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister a question. If there are no wheelchair-accessible taxis for people using wheelchairs at places such as Gatwick Airport, would that not be discrimination against disabled people now that such taxis are available?
  Last Friday I travelled up to Doncaster from London by train to attend a charity race day. When I arrived at the station I found two taxis waiting for hire and both

  1049
  were accessible. That was a pleasant surprise and very welcome, especially as I was travelling with a steward of the racecourse and we did not have to wait; we went straight to the course. I believe that is what everyone wants and I support the amendment.
  8 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I can see that your Lordships very much appreciate the aim of the amendment. It is clearly not in the interests of disabled people, particularly those in wheelchairs, to arrive at a station, airport or seaport and then find that they can go no further without a long wait or without other problems in obtaining suitable transport.
  Equally, I emphasise that it is very much in the interests of the owner of the facility or those who provide public transport to or from it to provide for disabled people. I have said it before: one thing that we must ensure in addition to the legislation is that we change the culture—and we hope that the legislation will help—so that it is the automatic response of a transport facility owner or operator to ensure that adequate, accessible transport is provided for all passengers' needs.
  At the Report stage we heard a great deal about Gatwick. I have looked into the situation there and passengers are normally provided with a saloon car or an estate car. Anyone wishing to travel in a wheelchair can have a suitable vehicle provided, either a taxi sent from Crawley or a vehicle from a specialised firm with premises on the perimeter of the airport.
  In practice, people who use wheelchairs do not fly into Gatwick totally unannounced, any more than anyone else does. Therefore, arrangements can be made for them in advance. Gatwick is by no means unique in that regard, although the reason is different from other airports. For example, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Birmingham—through which I flew the other day—are not in the licensing area of the city. The city may have wheelchair-accessible taxis, but the area outside, where the airport is situated, may not. At Glasgow airport—Renfrew, which I know well—the taxis that are lined up are essentially private hire cars. Glasgow taxis, a portion of which at least are wheelchair accessible, may drop passengers off but they are not allowed to pick them up because of the licensing regulations. So there someone who needs help has to make arrangements in advance. That is provided for. The airport has a system which works perfectly well to ensure that if someone flying in gives notice in advance, a wheelchair-accessible taxi will be available.
  Returning to Gatwick—as my noble friend Lord Goschen is here as Minister in the Department of Transport I had better put a plug in for transport—anyone coming from Gatwick to London would prefer to use the Gatwick Express, which I am assured is completely wheelchair accessible, as is a similar service from Stansted airport by rail.
  As to the amendment, subsection (4) would mean that there would be a requirement to admit regulated taxis. That would have to apply to areas where there was already an exclusive agreement with a person to provide
  1050
  taxi or private hire vehicle services; and that would mean that nothing would change at Gatwick. The amendment looks forward, and I appreciate that looking back is not usually the way in which we frame legislation.
  It is worth saying that the great advantage of using contracts to provide taxi or private hire services is that they give the facility owner a degree of control over the fares charged for all journeys and the contract can insist that the passenger be taken where he wishes. That is particularly important at airports. As I mentioned, most airports are outside the area of the city and your Lordships will probably know that sometimes taxi drivers are either not keen to take people across boundaries or are fairly hard in their extra charging if they do. Cross-boundary charging is something of a controversy in certain parts of the country where people cross boundaries quite considerably.
  A contract with the owner of the airport can get round that problem because it can insist that passengers be taken anywhere, even outside the area of the licensing authority. The facility owner should have some control over the fares charged. It ought to be pointed out that that is an advantage. It helps disabled people as well because they may want to travel across boundaries and they would wish to know that there is a degree of control over the fares charged for such journeys.
  The amendment would give any driver of a regulated taxi—that is, an accessible taxi—the right to enter a transport facility on the payment of an entrance fee in order to ply for hire without any contract. Not that he would be required to confine his attention to disabled passengers; he could pick up anyone who hailed him. If accepted, the amendment would not necessarily benefit disabled passengers, but it would certainly benefit those taxis that are not involved in the contract. They would be able to go in and pick up passengers, not necessarily disabled passengers.
  There is a problem with allowing taxis into a transport facility without imposing a contract. Taxis only have to charge what is on the meter for the journey within the area for which they are licensed. Once they go outside that area, first, they are not compelled to take passengers and, secondly, they can charge what they like, often on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Many airports are situated outside the area where the majority of the public wish to go, unlike Heathrow which is situated in London.
  There is no reason why taxi or private hire vehicle owners winning a contract for a transport facility, should not be operators of a fully accessible service or a mixed taxi or private hire fleet, which are quite common outside London. There is every reason for a contract of this kind to make provision for vehicles suitable for carrying disabled passengers to be made available quickly.
  I do not see why government should be required to interfere in commercial negotiations between facility owners and taxi private hire vehicle operators. The owners and operators of facilities should be free to make the arrangements appropriate for the facility without recourse to the Secretary of State, as the amendment proposes.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way but I wish to press him on the point. He said that he saw no reason why the Government should intervene in what was essentially a commercial transaction between a transport facility and the station to which it applied or wherever it was. Does he accept that transport vehicles—taxis, private hire car vehicles or hackney carriages—are part of public transport? They are, therefore, part of the public service vehicle facility at such stations. Even if my noble friend's amendment may need further amendment in the Commons, nonetheless the point that has been established is that when entering a station or airport one is entitled to expect that those vehicles should act as public service vehicles to which the Bill should apply.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure whether private hire vehicles could be so considered. I have made my point as to why there are considerable advantages to the travelling public who may wish to use the taxis for a facility owner to have a special arrangement with certain operators, or even one operator, in order to ensure that passengers coming in can take a taxi and cross a licensing authority boundary. They should be able to do so without prohibitive additional pricing. One must bear that in mind.
  As I have mentioned, there is a backstop and I have checked on it: if a disabled person flies into Gatwick, Glasgow or any other airport, it is not unannounced and unknown to him. At those airports there is in place a facility for ensuring that the taxi is there, just as that disabled person may have had to make arrangements with the airline and even the airport itself to be met with a wheelchair or to be helped to and from the aircraft. A disabled person in a wheelchair, when travelling by air, already has to make plans and make provision with the airline and the airport. My point is that as provision has to be made, any plans for using the taxi service also need to be made in advance.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on that point. I often take flights into Gatwick airport. Obviously one has to make arrangements with the airline because one has to be lifted on and off the plane. But the aircraft is often very late, and the process takes time. Any taxi might have to wait two or three hours. It would be important to have a fleet at the airport.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes. However, my experience of airline travel is that a reasonable timetable is kept to, except perhaps in the case of transatlantic flights where there are technical problems with the windage up high—
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The Minister is really scraping the barrel.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suspect that I travel in aircraft rather more often than do some noble Lords who are having a little jest at my expense. They travel remarkably well to time, given all the factors that are involved in flying.
  1052
  The key step forward in this Bill in relation to taxis is that we look to requiring that all taxis that ply for hire on the street should be wheelchair accessible. That is the measure in the Bill. That is different from the situation at an airport, where various facilities to help passengers will be available.
  I suggest that the vital provision being made in this Bill is—as I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) mentioned earlier—that disabled people should be able to hire a taxi on the street, making a journey decision as and when they wish, just as the rest of us do. I believe that airline travel is a little different. I at least plan my airline travel a short time in advance. That way I find that I get onto the aeroplane and have a seat waiting for me. We do want to continue—
  Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, it is not only on airlines.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I also plan somewhat in advance the transport that is to meet me at the other end. Clearly I live in a more planned environment than do some noble Lords. I do not want to continue with this discussion. This is Third Reading and we are beginning to behave as though it were Committee.
  As I said on Report, we intend to continue to encourage the provision of appropriate facilities for disabled people in the places that this Bill does not reach. Overall, this amendment is likely to cause more problems than it solves and does not address the problem that arises at many airports in the country because of the needs and demands of different licensing authorities.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We are shocked!
  Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I am speechless! We have moved backwards. I really cannot understand the Minister's response. As I said in my remarks, one can well understand why the owner of a transport facility would want to reach a contract, an understanding, an agreement. It is in the interests of his passengers, for the reasons that the Minister gave this evening.
  Why should a disabled person in a wheelchair be discriminated against? The pressure is for the owner of the facility and the provider of the services to come to the best economic agreement. The best agreement will be with drivers and owners of saloon cars. As the Minister told us earlier in the debate, a disabled person in a wheelchair who wants to go to Glasgow airport can get a cab to take him or her there. That is not the problem. The problem occurs when you arrive. I spoke to people at Glasgow airport a few days ago and was told: it would be much better if you would tell us in advance that you are coming; then we could ensure that a taxi was there. That is discriminatory. It must be. If the Government's position is that a person in a wheelchair can go out onto the street, hail a taxi and get a taxi, I see no reason why that should not be so on arriving at a railway station. On arriving at my railway station you cannot get a taxi with wheelchair access because there is none there. I asked this morning what would happen and was told that none is available.

  1053
  The Minister's response is most unsatisfactory. My noble friend referred earlier to a hole in the Bill. I do not suggest that there is a hole, but this is surely a loophole. Let us forget about travelling by air. We shall face a situation at railway stations whereby people arrive on an adapted train in a wheelchair, go to the taxi rank outside the station and find no wheelchair accessible taxis. What do they do? They ask questions and the reply is: "We do not have one. We will ring somebody up and see whether we can get one for you". I am sorry, but the Minister's response is most unsatisfactory. I thought that we should get a little further. I have no choice but to divide the House.
  8.15 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 40) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 33; Not-Contents, 60.

  Division No. 4

  CONTENTS

  Addington, L.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L

  Airedale, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Birmingham, Bp.

  McCarthy, L.

  Carter, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  McNair, L.

  Darcy (de Knayth), B.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Elis-Thomas, L.

  Rea, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.[Teller]

  Robson of Kiddington, B.

  Rochester, L.

  Gladwin of Clee, L. [Teller.]

  Russell, E

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Grey, E.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Tordoff, L

  Hylton, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Jeger, B.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Addison, V.

  Hemphill, L.

  Annaly, L.

  Henley, L.

  Balfour, E.

  Kenilworth, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  3 rain, L.

  Lane of Horsell, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Long, V. [Teller]

  Brougham and Vaux, L

  Lucas, L.

  Burnham, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Cadman, L.

  McConnell, L.

  Camegy of Lour, B.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

  Carnock, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

  Chesham, L. [Teller.]

  Cochrane of Culls, L.

  Macleod of Borve, B.

  Courtown, E.

  Marlesford, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Orr-Ewing, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Dormer, L.

  Renton, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

  Flather, B.

  St Davids, V.

  Goschen, V.

  Seccombe, B.

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  1054

  Torphichen, L.

  Vinson, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Vivian, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  8.22 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 41:
  After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—

  APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL OF EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE
  (".—(1) Any person who is aggrieved by the refusal of a licensing authority to issue an exemption certificate under section 31 or 32 may appeal to the appropriate court before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the refusal.
  (2) On an appeal to it under this section, the court may direct the licensing authority concerned to issue the appropriate certificate of exemption to have effect for such period as may be specified in the direction.
  (3) "Appropriate court" means the magistrates' court for the petty sessions area in which the licensing authority has its principal office.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 41 to 48. I beg to move Amendment No. 41.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 33 [Requirements as to disabled passengers in Scotland]:
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 42 to 44:
  Page 29, leave out line 10 and insert (", hearing dogs and other categories of dog;").
  Page 29, line 18, leave out ("and").
  Page 29, line 20, at end insert ("; and
  "other categories of dog" means such other categories of dog as the Secretary of State may prescribe, trained to assist disabled persons who have disabilities of such kinds as he may prescribe.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 42 to 44 en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 34 [PSV accessibility regulations]:
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:
  Page 29, line 30, after ("may") insert (", in particular,").
  Page 29, line 32, leave out (", in particular,").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 45 and 46.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 40 [Rail vehicle accessibility regulations]:
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 47 and 48:
  Page 33, line 3, after ("may") insert (", in particular,").
  Page 33, line 4, leave out (", in particular,").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 47 and 48.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 44 [The National Disability Council]:
  [Amendment No. 49 not moved.]
  Lord McCarthy Lord McCarthy moved Amendment No. 50:
  After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—

  RESTRICTION OF PUBLICITY
  ("—.( ) Paragraph I of Schedule 9 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 (regulations for industrial tribunals) shall be amended as follows.
  ( ) After sub-paragraph (5A) there shall be inserted—
  "(5B) The regulations may include provision—

  (a) for cases involving allegations of the commission of discrimination offences against disabled persons, for securing that the registration or other making available of documents or decisions shall be so effected as to prevent the identification of any person affected by or making the allegation;

  (b) for cases involving allegations of such offences, enabling an industrial tribunal or the Employment Appeal Tribunal, on the application of any party to proceedings before it or its own motion, to make a restricted reporting order having effect (if not revoked earlier) until the promulgation of the decision of the tribunal or Employment Appeal Tribunal.

  In this sub-paragraph—
  "discrimination offences against disabled persons" means those prescribed in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995." ").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 50 has been grouped with Amendments Nos. 54 and 55. They are government amendments. This amendment is exactly the same as that which we moved at Report. Its object is to ensure that there will be some restriction on publicity for anyone involved in an alleged disability case before an industrial tribunal, at least up to the moment when the tribunal announces its decision. At Report stage the Government showed considerable support for the idea. As a result, we withdrew our amendment.
  On the Marshalled List today we have Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 which we take to be the Government's sincere attempt to replace our amendment. I fully appreciate that there is not much chance of my amendment standing and being passed in the face of the Government's two amendments. I would, however, like to make one or two points on the contrast between them and see what the Government say. First, we have sought to protect our alleged disabilities. For reasons about which I am not quite clear the Government want to protect not disabilities but considerations of a personal nature. It is said that evidence of a personal nature may be subject to the restriction on publicity. I am not quite certain what evidence of a personal nature is and why we cannot have disabilities on the face of the Bill.
  Secondly, the Government have a long list of defences. It is a defence if the newspaper, radio station or whoever reports the case is not aware, does not suspect or have any reason to suspect. We have taken our words substantially from Schedule 9 to the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 where it applies to sex discrimination. We do not see why those words should be put on the face of the Bill. Thirdly, it is at least five times as long as our amendment. I am not quite certain why it should be so long. Nevertheless, I will be very interested to hear what the Government say about their amendments and our amendment. I beg to move.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, having sat as a lay member of an industrial tribunal for over 20 years, I should like to have answers to one or two questions. These amendments seem to cover the position up to the announcement of the decision of the industrial tribunal. There appears to be a separate provision to cover the Employment Appeal Tribunal procedure. But there is a period between these two when the person decides whether or not to appeal. I wonder whether or not that period is also automatically covered by the amendments. I should like to be reassured that this is so.
  I refer to Amendment No. 54 in particular and also to Amendment No. 50. In each case there is power to make regulations. I wonder why power cannot simply be given directly to the tribunal. The wording is that it may do it of its own motion or at the request of other parties. I wonder why it has to be done just by regulation. There may be a simple answer. I am pleased to see that one matter is being taken into consideration. I refer particularly to those who have been infected with HIV. If it was known that that was the position, future employment prospects might be greatly prejudiced.
  Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, has said, we discussed this matter at Report stage. I believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Lord is designed to address that problem, just as the Government's Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are designed for that purpose. It will come as no surprise to the noble Lord if I say that I prefer the Government's amendments to his, despite the fact that I normally prefer the briefer of the two. His amendments, whatever other defects they suffer from, have the advantage over mine of brevity. Though mine are four or five times longer, they cover both the Employment Appeal Tribunal and industrial tribunals. I am not quite sure whether his would do so. But I do not feel that there is much between us in terms of what we are trying to achieve. It might help possibly if I were to explain what we are about.
  As noble Lords will remember, my noble friend gave an undertaking at Report stage that the Government would consult publicly on the possibility of an extension of the industrial tribunals' power to issue restrictive reporting orders (hitherto confined to sexual misconduct cases) to cases involving medical or other sensitive personal evidence. I do not believe that that needs any explanation. It is fairly self-explanatory of what might be of a personal nature. At any rate, that is something which could be covered in regulations. We can deal with it after further consultations. My noble friend also made clear that the Government would bring forward their own amendments on that point, if that were appropriate, and that is what we have done.
  Following that, a consultation exercise was carried out by officials at the Department of Trade and Industry. It was publicised by way of a press notice and for the specialist media there was a pre-briefing session. A total of 76 copies of the consultation paper were issued and 38 responses were received.
  Support for the extension of the restricted reporting order power to disability discrimination cases was very strong: some 27 responses in favour and six against. Those who opposed it did so on the grounds that such a

  1057
  step would be an unwelcome departure from the general principle, which I think we all accept, of open justice. Obviously, the Government recognise the importance of that principle. On balance, though, we consider that the weight of argument in favour of a limited extension of the restricted reporting order powers to cover disability discrimination cases is overwhelming.
  I should emphasise that the making of an order would not prevent all media coverage of a case. The press would still be free to report all the evidence and other details of the proceedings. The only thing that they would be prevented from doing would be revealing the identity of the applicant and any other individual specified in the order. Tribunal hearings will still, of course, be held in public.
  The noble Lord's amendment takes an approach similar to that of the Government in relation to restricted reporting orders. But it contains an additional element, whether or not by design, I know not. This provides for the industrial tribunal's decision and other public documents to be effected in such a way as to prevent identification of the applicant in a disability discrimination case. I have to say that I feel that that additional element is neither necessary nor justified.
  As the noble Lord made clear, he based his amendment on the measures that the Government introduced in 1993 in relation to sexual misconduct cases. Those measures comprised, similarly, two elements. They provided for the making of restricted reporting orders in sexual misconduct cases and they provided for the removal of the applicant's name from public documents in cases involving allegations of sexual offences. I must stress the difference between sexual misconduct cases and allegations of sexual offences. It is a very important distinction to make.
  The provisions in relation to sexual offences were broad in nature and introduced in order to ensure that the tribunals could comply with the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992, which requires permanent protection of a victim's identity in sexual offences cases. The appropriate analogy here is that of sexual misconduct cases not involving offences where the restricted reporting order provisions provide, we believe, sufficient protection.
  The Government consider that the media should be free to report an applicant's identity after the promulgation of the tribunal's decision, just as it can in cases of sexual misconduct not involving offences. It seems to us that the kind of exposure from which we are trying to protect disabled individuals would generally arise from the detailed medical and personal evidence given at the hearings rather than from the basic facts of the case set out in the tribunal's decision. We also wish to strike a balance between protecting the interests of individuals who have suffered discrimination and, just as important, exposing employers who have been guilty of it. Such exposure could have a powerful deterrent effect.
  My noble friend Lady Gardner asked two questions. First, she asked about the position between the industrial tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Perhaps
  1058
  I may refer her to the definition subsection in Amendment No. 54, subsection (7), where it talks about promulgation:
  "'promulgation' has such meaning as may be prescribed by the regulations".
  I believe that that is a matter that may be addressed at that point. If that is not the case, I shall certainly let my noble friend know how we deal with that particular problem. I hope that by answering that question first I have to some extent dealt with her second point about why there should be regulations and why not set the matter out. I believe that further regulations are necessary. I think that we should like to consider that and if appropriate consult on. I hope that that deals with the questions from my noble friend.
  I hope too that the earlier comments that I made will be sufficient to enable the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, to accept that his amendment, wonderful and brief though it is, for once is not so good as what the Government put forward. I hope therefore that he will be content to withdraw his amendment and accept the Government's Amendments Nos. 54 and 55.
  Lord McCarthy: My Lords, it is a case of force majeure, is it not? It is a case of half a loaf. Funnily, this half a loaf is so much bigger than my full loaf. But never mind. I am very pleased that we have made some advance. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  8.30 p.m.
  Clause 47 [Codes of practice prepared by the Secretary of State]:
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 51:
  Page 38, line 44, leave out ("subsection (1)(b)") and insert ("subsections (1)(b) and (3)").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 50 [Help for persons suffering discrimination]:
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 52:
  Page 40, line 12, after ("make") insert (", or has made,").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 54 and 55:
  After Clause 55, insert the following new clause—

  RESTRICTION OF PUBLICITY: INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALS
  (".—(1) This section applies to proceedings on a complaint under section 8 in which evidence of a personal nature is likely to be heard by the industrial tribunal hearing the complaint.
  (2) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations with respect to the procedure of industrial tribunals includes power to make provision in relation to proceedings to which this section applies for—

  (a) enabling an industrial tribunal, on the application of the complainant or of its own motion, to make a restricted reporting order having effect (if not revoked earlier) until the promulgation of the tribunal's decision; and

  1059

  (b) where a restricted reporting order is made in relation to a complaint which is being dealt with by the tribunal together with any other proceedings, enabling the tribunal to direct that the order is to apply also in relation to those other proceedings or such part of them as the tribunal may direct.

  (3) If any identifying matter is published or included in a relevant programme in contravention of a restricted reporting order—

  (a) in the case of publication in a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical,

  (b) in the case of publication in any other form, the person publishing the matter, and

  (c) in the case of matter included in a relevant programme—

  (i) any body corporate engaged in providing the service in which the programme is included, and

  (ii) any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper,

  shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
  (4) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (3), it is a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged offence—

  (a) he was not aware, and

  (b) he neither suspected nor had reason to suspect,

  that the publication or programme in question was of, or included, the matter in question.
  (5) Where an offence under subsection (3) committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

  (a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or

  (b) a person purporting to act in any such capacity,

  he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
  (6) In relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members "director", in subsection (5), means a member of the body corporate.
  (7) In this section—

  "evidence of a personal nature" means any evidence of a medical, or other intimate, nature which might reasonably be assumed to be likely to cause significant embarrassment to the complainant if reported;

  "identifying matter" means any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify the complainant or such other persons (if any) as may be named in the order;

  "promulgation" has such meaning as may be prescribed by the regulations;

  "relevant programme" means a programme included in a programme service, within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act 1990;

  "restricted reporting order" means an order—

  (a) made in exercise of the power conferred by regulations made by virtue of this section; and

  (b) prohibiting the publication in Great Britain of identifying matter in a written publication available to the public or its inclusion in a relevant programme for reception in Great Britain; and

  "written publication" includes a film, a sound track and any other record in permanent form but does not include an indictment or other document prepared for use in particular legal proceedings.").
  Insert the following new clause—

  RESTRICTION OF PUBLICITY: EMPLOYMENT APPEALS TRIBUNAL
  (".—(1) This section applies to proceedings—

  (a) on an appeal against a decision of an industrial tribunal to make, or not to make, a restricted reporting order, or

  1060

  (b) on an appeal against any interlocutory decision of an industrial tribunal in proceedings in which the industrial tribunal has made a restricted reporting order which it has not revoked.

  (2) The power of the Lord Chancellor to make rules with respect to the procedure of the Employment Appeal Tribunal includes power to make provision in relation to proceedings to which this section applies for—

  (a) enabling the Tribunal, on the application of the complainant or of its own motion, to make a restricted reporting order having effect (if not revoked earlier) until the promulgation of the Tribunal's decision; and

  (b) where a restricted reporting order is made in relation to an appeal which is being dealt with by the Tribunal together with any other proceedings, enabling the Tribunal to direct that the order is to apply also in relation to those other proceedings or such part of them as the Tribunal may direct.

  (3) Subsections (3) to (6) of section (Restrictions of publicity: industrial tribunals) apply in relation to a restricted reporting order made by the Tribunal as they apply in relation to one made by an industrial tribunal.
  (4) In subsection (1), "restricted reporting order" means an order which is a restricted reporting order for the purposes of section (Restriction of publicity: industrial tribunals).
  (5) In subsection (2), "restricted reporting order" means an order—

  (a) made in exercise of the power conferred by rules made by virtue of this section; and

  (b) prohibiting the publication in Great Britain of identifying matter in a written publication available to the public or its inclusion in a relevant programme for reception in Great Britain.

  (6) In this section—

  "complainant" means the person who made the complaint to which the proceedings before the Tribunal relate;

  "identifying matter", "written publication" and "relevant programme" have the same meaning as in section (Restriction of publicity: industrial tribunals); and

  "promulgation" has such meaning as may be prescribed by the rules.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 with Amendment No. 50. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 60 [Interpretation]:
  Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendments Nos. 56 to 62:
  Page 47, line 28, at end insert—
  (""occupational pension scheme" has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993;").
  Page 47, line 28, at end insert—
  (""premises" includes land of any description;").
  Page 47, line 29, at end insert—
  (""profession" includes any vocation or occupation;").
  Page 47, line 39, at end insert—
  (""section 6 duty" means any duty imposed by or under section 6;").
  Page 47, line 39, at end insert—
  ('"'section 15 duty" means any duty imposed by or under section 15;").
  Page 47, line 39, at end insert—
  (""section 18 duty" means any duty imposed by or under section 18;").
  Page 47, line 44, at end insert—
  (""trade" includes any business;").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend spoke to Amendment No. 56 with Amendment No. 4. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 57 to 62 with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 56 to 62 en bloc.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Provisions Supplementing Section 1]:
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 63:
  Page 49, line 6, leave out ("it") and insert ("the illness").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 and 71. These are all amendments to Schedule 1.
  As your Lordships will know, Schedule 1 makes provisions which supplement Clause 1 of the Bill, which relates to the definition of disability. Those of your Lordships who were present at Report stage will remember that I undertook to put HIV on the face of the Bill as an example of a progressive condition in response to speeches made by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes and other noble Lords. I now return to the House with Amendment No. 70, which fulfils that commitment. It refers to:
  "infection by the human immunodeficiency virus".
  The effect of the amendment is to make clear on the face of the Bill that HIV infection is a progressive condition. The way in which paragraph 8 operates is that a person with a progressive condition will be regarded as a disabled person under the Bill from the time when the condition first has an effect (even if it is not substantial) provided that substantial effects are likely in the future—as, indeed, unfortunately is normal with such conditions. As with other progressive conditions, a person with HIV would be a disabled person under the Bill when the infection reaches the symptomatic stage. We have always made clear that people with asymptomatic conditions, including those with asymptomatic HIV, will not be regarded as disabled under the Bill.
  In addition to that amendment, which responds to an undertaking that I gave earlier, there are a number of very minor amendments in this group relating to the definition which clarify the position. Amendment No. 63 corrects a minor ambiguity by making clear in paragraph 1(1) that the term "mental impairment" includes a mental illness only if that mental illness is one which is clinically well recognised.
  Schedule 1, paragraphs 2 and 8 require that a judgment be made about the future course of an impairment. Amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 71 will standardise the drafting in each case.
  Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 are designed to simplify the rule that people with a condition where the substantial effects are masked by treatment are to be regarded for the purposes of the definition as having those substantial effects. For example, a person with diabetes which has been stabilised with insulin injections or people who are hearing-impaired whose hearing is enhanced by a hearing aid will still be covered by the Bill. Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 provide
  1062
  clarification that people who were on the register on 12th January 1995 and the date when the employment provisions take effect will continue to be deemed to have been disabled during the initial period, even after that period is over.
  Together this group of amendments serves to clarify the Government's position and fulfil our commitments. I beg to move.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I welcome these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 70, and thank my noble friend for bringing them forward.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank the Minister on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS for including infection by the human immuno-deficiency virus. The Government listened and we are all very grateful.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it gives us unexpected but nonetheless real pleasure to welcome these amendments from the Government. We are delighted that at least on this one issue the Government's open-mindedness has been so well exhibited.
  Lord Addington: My Lords, from all corners of the House we are glad to see these amendments.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 71:
  Page 49, line 17, leave out ("can reasonably be expected") and insert ("is likely").
  Page 49, line 19, leave out ("can reasonably be expected") and insert ("is likely").
  Page 50, line 23, leave out from ("which") to end of line 28 and insert ("would be likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities, but for the fact that measures are being taken to treat or correct it, is to be treated as having that effect.
  (2) In sub-paragraph (1) "measures" includes, in particular, medical treatment and the use of a prosthesis or other aid.").
  Page 50, line 29, leave out ("(1)(b)") and insert ("(1)").
  Page 50, line 36, at beginning insert ("Sub-paragraph (2) applies to").
  Page 50, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert—

  ("(2) That person is to be deemed—

  (a) during the initial period, to have a disability, and hence to be a disabled person; and

  (b) afterwards, to have had a disability and hence to have been a disabled person during that period.").

  Page 51, line 16, after ("dystrophy") insert ("or infection by the human immunodeficiency virus").
  Page 51, line 21, leave out ("expected") and insert ("likely").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to these amendments already. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Enforcement and Procedure]:
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 72 and 73:
  Page 53, line 7, leave out ("arrangements or conditions") and insert ("conditions or requirements").
  Page 53, line 8, leave out ("made, approved or").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 72 and 73. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
  Lord Carter Lord Carter moved Amendment No. 75:
  Page 54, leave out lines I to 3.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of Amendment No. 75 is to remove the limit on the damages available for the injury to the feelings of disabled people caused by discrimination on the part of providers of goods and services. Although this may seem to be a technical issue, it is likely to be extremely important in determining how successful this law is in tackling discrimination in this area.
  The element of damages which produces really large awards is compensation for financial loss; that will rarely apply to service providers. The compensation awarded in these cases is likely to be almost entirely made up of damages for the pain caused by discrimination—the knowledge that one has been held up to, "hatred, ridicule or contempt", as one judge expressed it.
  Damages serve two purposes. First, it is compensation to the individual; secondly, it is a deterrent to potential discriminators. Damages awards which are too low will serve neither function. Judges have recognised that damages for injury to feelings, humiliation and insult due to discrimination should not be minimal since that would tend to trivialise or diminish respect for public policy and may leave the complainant feeling that a legal insult had been added to the initial injury.
  The absence of a commission with powers, which we would like, and the lack of legal aid for claims under £1,000 means that individuals will have to pay for the cases themselves. It will mean that even fewer people will feel able to contest the issue if the level of compensation is low.
  In other areas of equality legislation the trend is in the opposite direction, with the limits which previously applied to damages for sex and race discrimination having been removed over the past few years. We ask the Government to explain why disabled people should be treated differently in this one specific area. Discrimination in areas of social life can be just as wounding and humiliating as in someone's working life and yet there is no limit on the damages available for injury to feelings in the employment provisions of this Bill.
  The Bill as drafted is not a sufficient deterrent against discrimination in this area. It devalues the process compared with damages for sex and racial discrimination, the limits which previously applied having been removed. We urge the Government to accept the argument that, as drafted, the Bill does not give sufficient weight to the necessary deterrent effect. I beg to move.
  8.45 p.m.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, in responding to the amendment, perhaps my noble friend would indicate what the prescribed amount is likely to be.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I hope that the Government will not accept the amendment. There may be a case for awarding modest damages to victims of discrimination over and above the damages awarded under other headings, but there is no case whatever for the preposterously high damages awarded by some politically correct industrial tribunals in certain race relations and sex discrimination cases. One thinks of the £15,000 additional damages awarded for injury to feelings to an ex-servicewoman who became pregnant despite the fact that she knew perfectly well what the rules of the game were when she enlisted; worse still, the £29,000 damages awarded to someone who had been called an "Irish prat" on a handful of occasions by his workmates.
  Those of us who were at boarding school in the harsher climate of 40 or more years ago will have been the butt of far more vigorous insults month after month, possibly even week after week, unless one happened to be as powerfully built as the noble Lord, Lord Addington. If we had been awarded tens of thousands of pounds every time our feelings were hurt, we would all be multi-billionaires.
  I agree that there is a case in logic and equity for damages for injury to feelings being harmonised across the range of discrimination legislation, but the convergence should be in the direction of the upper limit provided in this Bill rather than the other way round.
  Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is absolutely right in his approach. We are talking about goods and services employers. Let us hit those who are offending where it really hurts; that is, in the pocket. If we make sure that people will pay literally in cash, it will concentrate the mind wonderfully.
  I am sorry to inform the noble Lord that as a small, fat, dyslexic schoolboy I suffered rather heavily from bullying and one does not always have shoulders when one is only five years old.
  Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, the noble Lord used the word "preposterous" and was quite right to do so; but he hit the wrong target. What is preposterous is the provision in the Bill which places a cap on the damages which can be awarded.
  No one is suggesting, and certainly not my noble friend, that there should be outrageous damages. They would not be awarded in any case because people's attitude to disability is far too conservative. However, disabled people are insulted if their damages can be capped whereas for sexual and racial discrimination there is no limit. Why should there be a difference of that kind? Does it not matter if the reputation of a disabled person is damaged? Of course it matters. If people who suffer from racial or sexual discrimination can be awarded damages with no cap, the same should apply to disabled people. In logic and in reason the amendment should be accepted and I hope the Minister will have better excuses than he had on the previous amendment.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I might point out to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that the previous amendment was accepted by your Lordships with your Lordships' equivalent of applause. Clearly I will not have the same success here.
  Amendment No. 72 will delete paragraph 7 from the schedule and thus remove the provision allowing for a limit to be set on the amount of damages payable in compensation for injury to feelings. A similar amendment was moved during Committee stage by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, and I explained the reasons then why I did not agree that the power to set such a limit should be removed. I have not heard anything this evening to persuade me to change my mind.
  Perhaps I may refer back to a debate we had earlier when I responded to amendments from my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. We want to ensure that as many cases as possible can be resolved without recourse to the court system. However, where that becomes inevitable, we want the system for redress to be as informal and easy to use as possible. We have made it clear that we believe that there should be a financial limit on the amount of compensation payable for injured feelings when a disabled person has been discriminated against in access to goods and services. I explained before that we wish to set the limit on the amount payable for injured feelings so as to help ensure that the vast majority of cases can be dealt with under the small claims procedure, with its advantages of cheap and informal resolution. There will, of course, be no limit set on the amount of damages payable for financial loss incurred in a case of discrimination.
  I believe that it is in everyone's interest for the procedures for redress to be effective and, wherever possible, to be informal so as to avoid expensive and lengthy litigation. The inclusion of this provision does not mean that we do not place as high value on the feelings of disabled people as we do on other groups. What the provision does mean is that we want to see a chance for practical solutions to be available to disabled people when they have been discriminated against.
  I should stress, as I said before, that there is no bar on a disabled person going to the county court if there is more at issue than injured feelings. If he has lost money because a service provider has discriminated, a disabled person would be able to complain to the county court and there would, of course, be no ceiling on the level of damages which the court could award. The advice and support service will also help disabled people to obtain advice and promote the resolution of disputes arising under the right of access without the need for legal proceedings. Where litigation does become necessary, the provision in the Bill currently will help to ensure that disabled people can obtain redress quickly and effectively and there is not the additional factor of the possibility of large amounts of money changing hands.
  I think it is in the interests of those of us who want to see the Bill work with as little trouble as possible, and certainly with as little recourse to the law as possible, to have this provision in the Bill. I therefore hope that, having listened to my explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for very long. The Minister said that he wants the system of redress to be informal. But relying on the small claims court for injuries to feelings is insulting to disabled people and builds discrimination into the Bill. The Minister did not deal with the deterrent effect which I mentioned. However, it is clear that the Government cannot be persuaded. I feel that disabled people and their organisations will feel insulted by the Government's answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 76:
  Page 54, line 7, leave out ("arrangements or conditions") and insert ("conditions or requirements").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 76 to 80. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 77:
  Page 54, line 8, leave out ("made, approved or").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 78:
  After Schedule 3, insert the following new schedule—

  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 15 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.

  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 18 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 22
  7.—(1) In any proceedings on a claim under section 22, 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.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 5 [Consequential Amendments]:
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 79 and 80:
  Page 56, line 38, leave out ("section 5") and insert ("sections 5 and 6").
  Page 56, line 38, leave out from ("1995") to end of line 41 and insert ("(duty to make adjustments and circumstances in which less favourable treatment or failure to comply with the duty is justified).").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 7 [Modifications of this Act in its Application to Northern Ireland]:
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendments Nos. 81 to 103:
  Page 57, leave out lines 35 to 39 and insert—
  ("2.—(1) In section 3(1) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department".

  (2) In section 3 for subsections (4) to (12) substitute—

  "(4) In preparing a draft of any guidance, the Department shall consult such persons as it considers appropriate.

  (5) Where the Department proposes to issue any guidance, the Department shall publish a draft of it, consider any representations that are made to the Department about the draft and, if the Department thinks it appropriate, modify its proposals in the light of any of those representations.

  (6) If the Department decides to proceed with any proposed guidance, the Department shall lay a draft of it before the Assembly.

  (7) If, within the statutory period, the Assembly resolves not to approve the draft, the Department shall take no further steps in relation to the proposed guidance.

  (8) If no such resolution is made within the statutory period, the Department shall issue the guidance in the form of its draft.

  (9) The guidance shall come into force on such date as the Department may by order appoint.

  (10) Subsection (7) does not prevent a new draft of the proposed guidance being laid before the Assembly.

  (11) The Department may—

  (a) from time to time revise the whole or any part of any guidance and re-issue it;

  (b) by order revoke any guidance.

  (12) In this section—

  "the Department" means the Department of Economic Development;

  1069

  "guidance" means guidance issued by the Department under this section and includes guidance which has been revised and re-issued;

  "statutory period" has the meaning assigned to it by section 41(2) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954."").

  Page 58, line 17, after ("10(3)") insert ("in the definition of "charity" for "1993" substitute "(Northern Ireland) 1964",").
  Page 58, line 22, at end insert—
  (". In section 12(5) for "Great Britain" where it twice occurs substitute "Northern Ireland".").
  Page 58, line 38, at end insert—
  (". In section I7(6A)(b) for "Part VII of the Mental Health Act 1983" substitute "Part VIII of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986".").
  Page 59, line 19, leave out from ("if") to end of line 21 and insert ("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.").
  Page 59, line 31, at end insert—
  (".—(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.").

  Page 60, line 17, at end insert—
  ("(3) In section 39(4) for "he" substitute "it".").
  Page 64, line 22, at end insert—
  (".—(1) In section (Restriction of publicity: industrial tribunals)(2) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of Economic Development".
  (2) In section (Restriction of publicity: industrial tribunals)(7) for "Great Britain" where it twice occurs substitute "Northern Ireland".
  . Omit section (Restriction of publicity: Employment Appeal Tribunal).").
  Page 64, line 41, at end insert ("or who is a prison custody officer within the meaning of Chapter III of Part VIII of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994").
  Page 65, line 3, at end insert ("or localities").
  Page 65, line 15, after ("section") insert ("3(9),").
  Page 65, line 37, at end insert—
  (""benefits", in Part II, has the meaning given in section 4(4);").
  Page 66, line 5 at end insert—
  (""occupational pension scheme" has the same meaning as in the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993;
  "premises" includes land of any description;").
  Page 66, line 6, at end insert—
  (""profession" includes any vocation or occupation;").
  Page 66, line 17, leave out ("Part II") and insert ("Parts I and II").
  Page 66, line 24, at end insert—
  (""section 6 duty" means any duty imposed by or under section 6;
  "section 15 duty" means any duty imposed by or under section 15;
  "section 18 duty" means any duty imposed by or under section 18;").
  Page 66, line 27, at end insert—
  (""trade" includes any business;
  "trade organisation" has the meaning given in section 13;").
  Page 66, leave out line 33.
  Page 66, line 50, leave out ("arrangement or conditions") and insert ("conditions or requirements").
  Page 66, line 50, leave out ("made, approved, or").
  Page 67, line 14, leave out ("arrangement or conditions") and insert ("conditions or requirements").
  Page 67, line 14, leave out ("made, approved, or").
  Page 67, line 21, at end insert—
  (".—(1) In Schedule 3A in paragraphs 2(1) and (5) and 7(1) and (5) omit "or sisted".
  (2) In Schedule 3A in paragraph 4 for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of Economic Development".
  (3) In Schedule 3A in paragraph 6(1) omit "or, in Scotland, to the sheriff'.
  (4) In Schedule 3A omit paragraph 6(2).
  (5) In Schedule 3A in paragraph 9 for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of Health and Social Services".").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that Northern Ireland has its own separate body of legislation and administrative structures. Modifications to the provisions of the Bill in order that they fit in with the existing Northern Ireland legislation and structures are set out in Schedule 7. Further modifications to Schedule 7 are contained in these amendments to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are implemented in Northern Ireland as in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am certain that my final series of amendments will be widely welcomed in your Lordships' House.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  8.55 p.m.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. Before I let that last event of the Bill happen perhaps I may say a few words. It has taken us moderately into the evening to conclude our deliberations on the Bill. Overall, the Bill has tested our stamina, but I should like to think that the effort has been well worth while. The debates have been constructive and there has been a great deal of knowledge of the various aspects of the subject matter in your Lordships' contributions, as, of course, I have come to expect. Those have reflected the immense concern which the House reserves for the question of disability discrimination and the knowledge and experience which so many of your Lordships have.
  I believe that we can be proud of our efforts. I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that we will be sending a greatly improved Bill back to the other place. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, was kind enough on a number of occasions to describe it as a good Bill, although this afternoon I noticed that she said "so nearly a good Bill". However, I feel that this evening I am justified in being a little more effusive.
  As I have said before, we in government set ourselves a very tough task when we announced that we intended to eliminate discrimination against disabled people. The Disability Discrimination Bill represents a huge step forward towards this goal. It has been said elsewhere that it is the most visible landmark yet on the road to a more accessible society and a Bill which marks the United Kingdom out as a world leader in the crusade against discrimination. Those of your Lordships who have worked particularly assiduously over many years on behalf of disabled people realise more than the rest

  1071
  of us how hard disabled people and their representatives have worked for this moment and how the Bill stands as much as an achievement of theirs as anyone's.
  It would be wrong for me not to note the debt of gratitude that they and we owe to those of your Lordships who have worked so hard for disabled people and who, despite the reservations some might feel about the detail of the legislation, must be particularly proud this evening. I shall not read out a long list, although I think I shall proceed to do that, for fear of missing someone off it. However, perhaps I may in particular—I am sure other noble Lords will appreciate why I select them—pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Ashley and Lord Rix, the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, who I sometimes find a little troublesome, if I may say so, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and many other noble Lords on both sides of the House. I should like also to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and their colleagues on the Front Benches for the helpful and perspicacious way in which they have addressed our proposals.
  Our deliberations have been almost entirely convivial and the fact that the legislation has been so thoroughly considered and reconsidered bears witness to the constructive spirit in which we have all entered into these debates. I should also like to thank the officials who have helped me through this Bill. It has been a wide-ranging Bill. I am grateful to them. Indeed, I am sure that everyone is grateful, perhaps especially the Opposition parties, to those outside organisations which have given a good deal of briefing to your Lordships and to Ministers. I am grateful to those outside organisations which have come to meet me and have had many discussions with my officials.
  Perhaps I may make one other point slightly away from the subject. This represents the end point of the fourth social security Bill of this Session. I understand that there is to be a painting of your Lordships' House. I indicated to someone that if it was for this year it should certainly have me standing at the Dispatch Box; but it should also probably have the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, standing at the Opposition Dispatch Box, although, as we cannot stand up at the same time, I suppose that there might be some problems. The noble Baroness has dealt, as I have, with four Bills. She has orchestrated her team, but basically, as would be said in the electricity industry, she has carried the base load. I should like to pay tribute to her for all the work that she has put in. I am sure that her colleagues will feel the same. Indeed, they are probably relieved that the noble Baroness has been available to put in all that work and thus to save the finger being pointed at them.
  Returning to the Bill, before the measure leaves us I should like to place on the record the scale of its achievements. Taken together, the provisions in the Bill amount to the most radical set of measures taken by any government to tackle discrimination against disabled people. It will be unlawful for employers to treat a disabled person less fairly. Disabled people will have a right not to be denied access to goods and services solely on the grounds of their disability. The Government will have the power to set minimum
  1072
  standards of accessibility for public transport vehicles. The Bill will ensure that students, pupils and their parents will be better informed about the facilities available when choosing schools, colleges and universities. The National Disability Council will be established to keep the issue of discrimination under review and to advise the Government. The very extent of the endeavour is a little breathtaking and not a little daunting.
  This is a Bill with which I am proud to have been associated. I know that it will be welcomed by all those who care about the creation of a fairer society and that it will be of immense significance for present and future generations of disabled people. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, at this stage of a Bill's passage noble Lords usually say two things: that the Bill is better than when it started and they then thank each other generously for making it so. As the Minister said, this is now a better Bill. That is largely, although not entirely, due to the Government. We suspect that their original intention was to thwart civil rights legislation by a pale pastel version of their own, but the Government then found that they had opened a Pandora's box. The inherent logic and good sense of the arguments pressed by the disability organisations and the all-party parliamentary group—I refer to organisations such as RADAR, the Disability Alliance, Scope, MENCAP, MIND, the RNIB and the Deaf Alliance—as well as other voluntary organisations made the case so compellingly to the Government, Ministers and their advisers that I suspect that the Bill went far further than the Government originally intended. We all appreciate that very much.
  We on these Benches are delighted that the Government either brought forward or accepted amendments on transport and taxis. We should congratulate the Department of Transport on its initiatives on that score which will transform accessibility to public transport—and not before time. Amendments were also accepted on education and on the nature of disability, especially HIV infection. That amendment was ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. The Government accepted amendments on the past history of disability and showed a willingness to institute a review of small employers after five years. We also won an amendment against the Government on the perception of disability with regard to goods and services. We very much hope that in the Commons the Government will not seek to overturn that amendment. That would be churlish as well as deeply undesirable. It would be sad if the Government's final act on such a landmark Bill was pettily to seek to overturn a verdict or judgment of your Lordships' House.
  The Bill started as a fairly good Bill. It became much better. However, from these Benches we have to say—the Minister suspected that we would say this—that this is not a good enough Bill. I say that for one very simple reason which we visited earlier this afternoon. We do not believe that at the core of the Bill there is a

  1073
  sufficiently effective mechanism to make it work. The Bill lacks a single authoritative central body which could give advice and assistance, and which could review, conciliate and act to ensure that the intentions behind the Bill are delivered. The Government's National Disability Council remains an inward-looking body, responsible to and advising only the Secretary of State when it should look outwards to the people to whom the Bill belongs. All the history of social legislation shows that good intentions are not enough—and never more so than when dealing with a Bill which seeks to give rights and opportunities to disabled people who are not always very strong, not always very confident, not always particularly affluent and not always particularly assertive on their own behalf. Disabled people are entitled to have a disability commission, as are employers who need to know what the law is and that it will be imposed on the recalcitrant if all else fails.
  Twenty-five years after the landmark 1970 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, disabled people deserve more—and they are entitled to more than we have so far achieved in this Bill, good though it is in many ways. I think that the Government and their advisers will come to regret their obstructiveness on this issue. We shall certainly do our best to make them regret it. The Bill as it stands fortunately lends itself to further development. Re-reading the Bill at the weekend I was almost persuaded of the virtue of statutory instruments which would allow the next government to build on this Bill and to take it further forward to deliver the rights and opportunities that every disabled person should enjoy.
  The Bill is a good Bill. It has become a better Bill, but it is still not good enough because it lacks a central authoritative body to make it effective. I fear—I shall not be happy if I am proved right—that we shall see that as the next two years unfold.
  Having said that, however, like the Minister I should like to offer my thanks. I thank first my noble friends Lord McCarthy and Lady Dean who dealt with employment issues. I thank also my noble friend Lady Lockwood who dealt with issues relating to the commission; my noble friend Lady Farrington who dealt with education; my noble friend Lord Gladwyn who dealt with taxis; and my noble friend Lady Jay who covered HIV and medical issues.
  It will not surprise noble Lords that I should like to express special thanks to two of my noble friends. I refer first to my noble friend and colleague Lord Carter who is always industrious, stalwart, loyal, hardworking and expert in ways that the House will understand and appreciate. Finally, I should like to say a special "thank you" to someone on our side of the House whose name has been so identified with disability issues over the years. I refer to my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke. I am grateful to the Minister for singling him out. My noble friend has always been the most stalwart of campaigners. If the Bill is not good enough, it is through no fault of my noble friend. Disabled people and your Lordships' House are very much in his debt.
  1074
  It also gives me very great pleasure to thank the spokespeople from the Liberal Democrat Benches, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who has fought so assiduously for the Bill on behalf of disabled people, often aided by the expertise of his noble friend Lady Seear. Together they have the gift of penetrating to the core of an issue, delivering it with speed and effectiveness.
  On an issue such as disability, we are all greatly indebted to the Cross Benches in particular. Their Members were led by the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady Masham, aided by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. They have the expertise that few of us on our Benches can match. They contributed and worked in such a way that we would expect nothing less.
  The Bishops' Bench has done its best, despite its crowded diary, always to take part and to show that issues of disability are issues of moral citizenship, raising issues of ethics as well as expediency at each and every step of the way. That is something of which we well need to be reminded. We ought also to thank the other opposition—the opposition behind the Treasury Bench—led by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, with tenacity and courage, aided, sometimes, although not as much as we should have liked, by his noble friends. Of that we are very appreciative.
  Finally, we should like to give our especial thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and his ministerial colleagues. He is always a pleasure to oppose. He is an even greater pleasure—very occasionally—to defeat. He is always generous in victory, graceful in retreat, but, alas, we have not seen enough of him in defeat to know how he will take it. He has always been amiable, courteous, well-informed and up to speed. Like him, having come through a gruelling four Bills, the robustness and resilience with which he has handled this afternoon's proceedings is a tribute to the Government Benches.
  I have one very last thank you. It is to the disability organisations and disabled people themselves. At the end of the day, it is disabled people and their organisations that have put disability issues so insistently on the map, so that whether the Government wished to or not, they had to address those issues. We should congratulate them.
  The Minister said—I am not sure whether he realised the full import of his remarks, although I hope and believe that he did—that he did not believe this Bill would be the final word on this issue. He has said many true things today, but that is perhaps the truest. I can assure him that the next government will take the greatest of pleasure in using the statutory instruments in the first place, and then going on to build on the Bill, to ensure that disabled people enjoy the rights and can exercise the opportunities that they as disabled people are entitled to have.
  Lord Addington: My Lords, it falls to me from these Benches to wish the Bill well, and we do wish the Bill well. It is not the Bill we wanted. We wanted a general anti-discrimination Bill for the disabled. However, the present Bill is better than the one with which we started.

  1075
  It has the capacity to achieve good. We may not have chosen the most direct route. It winds around the foothills rather than go straight up the mountain, but at least it is there.
  I thank the Minister for the way that he has handled the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has just said, he has at all time remained as even-tempered as one could possibly expect, as has his team. I should like to thank also the noble Baroness and her team on the Benches to my left. We have been able to co-operate to try to achieve a common goal. It is a pity we cannot do that with everything, but on this Bill I am glad we have been able to do so.
  Other noble Lords have been mentioned. The noble Baronesses sitting beside the Hansard Table have weighed in heavily throughout the Bill's proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has made himself felt throughout the debate, as indeed have the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady O' Caithain.
  As I said, the Bill is not the one that many of us wanted. We wanted a general anti-discrimination Bill. The Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, said, does not have what we regard as the driving force—a mission which is outstanding and campaigning. The Bill's long title is not designed to take on all disability issues. That is the main problem that we on these Benches have with it. I believe that is true in other parts of the House. If we can look at it as a first step, it may well be useful. Indeed one hopes that it will be. One can but wish the legislation well and hope that it is the start of many other pieces of legislation which will attack and dispense with the type of discrimination from which disabled people have suffered from time immemorial.
  9.15 p.m.
  Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, my noble friend generously referred to some of us who for many years have been involved in Parliament on this subject. As we near the end of this Bill's passage through Parliament, I must express particular pleasure that it has been introduced by a government. It is the first time that a government have introduced a Bill of this kind.
  I was one of the first to introduce a Private Member's Bill in Parliament in 1968. I have always said since then that it would be best if a government did the legislating. I wish to thank and congratulate my noble friend Lord Mackay on his explanations and stamina. I would also like to congratulate Members of the Opposition Front Bench on their assiduity throughout the Bill. The Bill does not go as far as some would wish but it does make great strides in several areas of life. It is needed and it will, I hope, transform attitudes widely. It can be built on in the future by governments of both persuasions.
  In my case, another reason for pleasure is that I was an active Member in the Parliament of 1959 to 1964, before later parliamentary stalwarts became MPs. I go back a long time. Because I was a member of the government for three of those five years, my activities could not be translated into Motions, debates or Private Member's Bills. That came later. But in the early 1960s
  1076
  MPs took notice. I hope that noble Lords will therefore understand the satisfaction that I naturally feel at this stage.
  It is appropriate to refer to the 1970 Act almost 25 years after it became law, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. In 1969 the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Alf Morris, came first in the annual ballot in another place. As a result, he was able to get that Bill through Parliament. I must record that he received wide support, about which I was delighted. In May 1970 an early election was suddenly called before the Bill had been completed. I am glad to say that the Conservative Opposition made special agreement that it should not fall, as did most of the other legislation, with the dissolution of Parliament. The result was that Royal Assent was received early in the new Parliament of 1970, which was 25 years ago last week.
  That was a landmark. My main contribution in the other place was to arrange the amendments which extended the Bill to Scotland. The right honourable gentleman, Mr. Alf Morris, with the little time available to him, could secure drafting only for England and Wales. At the time we thought that he was receiving drafting help from the government of the day in 1969 and 1970. However, he has since recorded that the late Richard Grossman, then Secretary of State, was strongly opposed to his Bill and tried to get him to drop it. Full credit should go to Mr. Alf Morris for persevering and succeeding and using such help as he could find.
  As the Bill leaves us, I wish to draw attention to the wide variety of disabilities which exists. We must spread knowledge among the public. The figure of 6.5 million disabled people in the United Kingdom is much used at present. That figure came from the 1991 census, which was very valuable in giving us the latest information. It overlaps with the number of elderly people, because more than 5 million are people over working age, most of whom were not disabled before old age. There is, therefore, the possibility of the figure giving the wrong impressions. The constituent parts of the census explain the various categories and that a large proportion of the more than 1 million disabled people who are of working age are employed and economically active.
  About 0.5 million people of all ages are dependent upon wheelchairs; that is less than one-twelfth of the total. The symbol of a wheelchair has been most effective as a logo. However, I hope that the general public will not unconsciously treat it as a stereotype. The blind, the deaf, the mentally ill and those in the many other categories of disability, as well as those with combinations of disabilities must be kept fully in mind. When the Bill is enacted I hope that we will help to spread awareness of the wide range of disabilities and the considerations affecting them.
  Lord Rix: My Lords, the word "troika" has been bandied around your Lordships' House this afternoon. I apologise: I see we are now a coach-and-four occupying the Cross Benches—from which I should like to say a few words.
  The Minister must, like Mark Antony, feel an urge to murmur, "Unarm me. The long day's task is done and we must rest". I marginally misquote, for the original

  1077
  referred to "sleep" rather than "rest", but I vulgarise the text in case at this hour your Lordships' House might take amiss the reference to sleep.
  I have had cause to be grateful to the Minister and his hard-working team of officials for listening courteously even when not able to do quite what I wanted to be done. I also thank those who have argued along with me and who have allowed me to argue along with them.
  The Bill leaves your Lordships' House in moderately good heart. I hope that it will soon take its place alongside the Children Act, the 1970 Act, of which we have just heard, the 1970 Education (Handicapped Children) Act, which had such a dramatic effect on the lives of children with a learning disability, and the parts of the 1986 Act which made it to reality, as generally a good thing and in some respects, a very good thing. I use the 1066 And All That classification system.
  We lost on small employers. At this late stage I cannot resist expressing the hope that small employers being sent the code of good employment practice will at least be urged to make reasonable accommodation where they can and that they are pushed fairly vigorously towards not practising or advertising the practice of unfair discrimination where there are no costs at stake. If small employers are not to be subject to compulsory virtue, the least we can do is to say something fairly forthright about any of them who are minded to be bloody-minded for no reason. I am sure that the great majority will, as now, practise voluntary virtue.
  At one stage I had hoped for some mention in the Bill of what I might call incitement to Nimbyism as a form of unfair discrimination. I refer to the requirement to "consult" the neighbours about community care developments, even when there is no legal requirement so to do. I have had an opportunity to discuss that with the Minister and he has written to me. I accept the need for the change of use regulations. However, I hope that in line with the Minister's letter there will be firm guidance against the type of non-regulated consultation that we have seen, where personal details of prospective occupants are made available to neighbours, with the implication of a veto on people having a home of their own.
  Finally, I wish the Bill and the work that will now flow from it a fair wind and Godspeed.
  The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, from this Bench I salute the prospect of the passage of this Bill. I shall not repeat all the thanks and congratulations which have been offered by people better informed than myself. But it is clear that many people have worked extremely hard to bring matters so far and the passage of the Bill will be a notable achievement.
  It seems to me that there are two moral principles at issue. The first, plainly grounded in the Scriptures, is the duty of public authority to defend those who find themselves on unequal terms in defending themselves. In the Scriptures one reads about the duty of public authority—kings or whoever—to defend the widow, the orphan and, someone we rather forget these days, the stranger. It is good that that moral principle is being
  1078
  embodied in legislation today with respect to the disabled. So thank God for a piece of legislation with such an evident moral base to it.
  The second moral principle is that of the need to put aspirations into action, because at the end of the day we shall be judged not by our intentions but by our deeds; not by what we say we would like to have done but by the effects; if you like, not by policies but by operations.
  There has been a worry all through the discussions on this Bill—it has been evident even today—about whether aspirations will in fact be put into effect. Only today we heard the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, speak about his concern for effectiveness. That is precisely the concern which has motivated those who have expressed anxiety at various points. Members on this Bench, with others, remain concerned that adequate instruments for putting aspirations into effect may not yet be in place; that is, that disabled people have not received the support that they might have been given in securing the rights which are being in principle acknowledged. We hope that we are wrong. But if we are not, this is surely a matter to which Parliament will later have to return.
  We can certainly say that, with the passage of the Bill, something irreversible will have been done: it will never be possible to turn the clock back again. As many have said from all sides of the House, it is already clear that the passage of the Bill will turn out to be the beginning and not the end of a process.
  Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, it is very rare to hear a speech as gracious, as dignified and as realistic as that given by my noble friend Lady Hollis. She spoke for all of us when she summarised our appreciation of the situation with which we have been faced during our debates. It has been a great pleasure and privilege to work with my noble friend, with the rest of our Front Bench and, indeed, with our Back-Benchers. It has also been a particular pleasure to oppose the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and his colleagues. I believe that between us we have managed to show that vigorous debating can still be civilised debating. We can enjoy the clash of opinions while all seeking the same ends; namely, to protect disabled people from discrimination.
  I should like to thank my noble friend and her colleagues and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and his colleagues. I should also like to thank the many researchers on our side who helped us by drafting speeches and notes and providing facts. I refer to Caroline Gooding and all her colleagues. I am indebted to them, as indeed are all my colleagues, for the marvellous work that they did. We sometimes just become spokesmen and women for the people who do the devilling and the hard work. There are one or two people that I cannot mention, but I am indeed indebted to many people.
  Perhaps I may describe the Bill as a limited advance. After the Minister's very kind words, it is hard to be realistic. However, we fail disabled people if we are not realistic. The fact is that the Bill has basic flaws; indeed, it has two basic flaws. First, it fails to cover a large number of severely disabled people—for example, workers in small firms. When the Bill is enacted it will still be perfectly legal to discriminate against them. So how can

  1079
  we say that it is a marvellous Bill? We cannot. Moreover, as has been said, the Bill has no commission for enforcement, so how can we call it a marvellous Bill? We cannot. As I said, the Bill is flawed.
  I have two messages. The first is for the Minister and his colleagues. I believe that there will be yet another Bill coming forward from us, possibly in another place after the ballot in a few weeks' time, or indeed from this side of the House, seeking what we have been seeking all along during all these years. The second message is, I hope, from this House. It is for disabled people and it is a stark message: we still require hard pounding and vigorous campaigning to get comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation in Britain. I thank the noble Lord and my noble friends.
  Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend and his colleagues in the Government on bringing forward the Bill. As originally drafted, it was in my view a very much more practical Bill than the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, although that was devised on the right principles to end discrimination. No law will end discrimination.
  The Bill is really an encouragement to the education of the population and the people as a whole. If the country is not educated not to discriminate against people because of disabilities, or for any other reason, the legislation will fail. It is from that point of view that I have considered the Bill and have endeavoured in a small way to improve it. It is but a first step but, as Confucius said, a journey of a thousand miles starts with but a single step. We are moving in the right direction.
  I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, for her kind remarks about me. My noble friend on the Front Bench said that he sometimes found me a little troublesome. I take that as an accolade because it means that I have made him, and I trust other Members of your Lordships' House, think and have helped to produce the improved version of the Bill that we now have. I hope that it will benefit not only people with disabilities but the population as a whole. I wish the Bill well.
  Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, your Lordships will appreciate that I have to have the last word. Perhaps I may thank all noble Lords for their kind remarks about those of us who have sat on the Government Front Bench throughout the Bill and those outside who have worked on the Bill. I have no intention of revisiting some of the arguments of earlier stages. We should now look forward to the next stage, which is the implementation of the Bill and the work on the statutory instruments that go with it.
  I am particularly grateful to the right reverend Prelate for suggesting that I have been on a moral crusade. I have to say to your Lordships that occasionally when I was confronted with a mound of paper late into the night that was the furthest thing from my thoughts. However, I hope that the Bill will do what we all hope it will do and make a great change to the lives of disabled people.
  My last words are to thank my colleagues who have helped me with the Bill, my noble friends Lord Henley, Lord Inglewood and Lord Lucas. With those remarks, I trust that your Lordships will pass the Bill.
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

Medical (Professional Performance) Bill
9.31 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Professional performance]:
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Where in the course of inquiring into the case of a practitioner, it appears to the Committee on Professional Performance that his fitness to practise may be seriously impaired by reason of his physical or mental condition, the Committee may refer that question to the Health Committee for determination.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1 I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
I put down the amendments at the suggestion of my honourable friend Nigel Spearing MP who, as the noble Baroness is aware, has been since the time of his Private Member's Bill of 1984 one of the prime movers in the process which has finally taken shape in the Bill before the House today.
The three amendments provide for the transfer of a case under consideration from one to another of the statutory committees of the General Medical Council without having to go back to square one and allowing the doctor to continue to practise in the interim if it is felt by either the Professional Conduct Committee, the Health 'Committee or the new Committee on Professional Performance that a particular case would be more suitable for consideration by one of the other two committees.
Since I put down the amendments it has been drawn to my attention that paragraph 19 of the schedule to the Bill as it stands permits the transfer of cases from the Professional Conduct Committee, the Assessment Referral Committee or the Committee on Professional Performance to the Health Committee. However, as far as I can see, the Bill does not contain the provisions in my Amendments Nos. 2 or 3 which would allow referral from the Committee on Professional Performance to the more serious Professional Conduct Committee or, vice versa, from the Professional Conduct Committee downwards to the Committee on Professional Performance.
The case of Dr. Oliver Archer, whose patient Alfie Turner of Canning Town died in 1982 from meningitis, could well have been dealt with under Amendment No. 3. As it was, Dr. Archer was cleared of serious professional misconduct although he was fined for negligence. However, he was then allowed to continue practising. Only two years later, after a further incident, he was found unfit to practise after a referral to the Health Committee of the General Medical Council. On the face of it, although he was found unfit on health grounds, his actions in the first case would probably have been regarded as a serious failure of professional performance, if such an offence had then existed. This

1081
obviously dangerous and incompetent doctor was able to continue practising for two full years after the first incident.
It would not be appropriate for me to press the amendments tonight. I concede that Amendment No. 1 is not necessary. However, I shall be interested to hear the noble Baroness's comments on Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. It is clearly possible, in fact highly probable, that Dr. Archer was not the only doctor to have been cleared by the Professional Conduct Committee but whose standard of work was still seriously below an acceptable professional standard.
Amendment No. 3 allows the transfer of such a case directly to the new Committee on Professional Performance and does not allow such a doctor, who could well be a danger to the public, to return to practise.
Similarly, under Amendment No. 2, if during a hearing the Committee on Professional Performance—under the provisions of the Bill that committee can only suspend a doctor and not strike him off the register—were to find out during the hearing, for example, about conduct which was not initially reported but which it felt was so serious that the doctor should be removed from the register, it could immediately refer the doctor to the Committee on Professional Conduct which has the necessary powers to remove him.
As drafted, I do not think that the Bill allows the two forms of transfer as outlined in Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. However, I shall stand corrected if the noble Baroness can show me that it does. I beg to move.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I support the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment, in particular Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
On Amendment No. 3, if a person is found not guilty of serious professional misconduct, and is therefore allowed to return to practise, as the noble Lord demonstrated, that can cause great danger to the public. I hope the fact that the Bill sets up the Committee on Professional Performance means that that referral would be automatic. I look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, each of the fitness to practise procedures starts with a screening stage and may go on to committee stages if necessary. Transfers may occur at any stage, but it is only transfers to the Health Committee that we considered needed to be specified in primary legislation. That is already contained in the Bill—both transfers from the Assessment Referral Committee and the Committee on Professional Performance to the Health Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, acknowledged, it is in paragraph 19 of the schedule. In our view the amendment would serve only to duplicate the change to the Medical Act 1983 already made by the Bill.
With regard to the second amendment, in earlier proceedings on the Bill in another place, it was queried why there were no other transfers between committees in the Bill. The reason is that the Professional Conduct
1082
Committee and the Committee on Professional Performance will consider very different kinds of evidence. In conduct cases the committee considers evidence from witnesses on a basis akin to the criminal court. In performance cases, the committee will consider the results of an objective assessment relevant to the doctor's specialty. It will not therefore be appropriate to transfer cases directly from the Professional Conduct Committee to the Committee on Professional Performance or vice versa. The transfer will be to the relevant screener to initiate the collection of appropriate evidence. Transfers from a committee to screeners do not require a specific power in the Bill. The transfers will be dealt with in the GMC's rules of procedure. These rules, when made, are subject to approval by the Privy Council in the form of a statutory instrument and will be subject to the negative resolution procedures in either House of Parliament.
With regard to the third amendment, it is of a rather different order in that the amendment introduces a new clause which deals with a possible case where, as the noble Lord said, a doctor has been through the conduct proceedings, but has been found not guilty of serious professional misconduct, though the evidence throws doubt on the doctor's general performance. The GMC has a number of different routes open to handle allegations it receives about a doctor. The screeners will be very skilled in sifting the evidence and deciding which route is most appropriate. But sometimes, as a case proceeds and new evidence emerges, it will be apparent that another route might have been better.
Where there is prima facie evidence of misconduct, it must be right that the case is dealt with by the Professional Conduct Committee. But where the evidence, when carefully tested by due legal process, does not support a finding of serious professional misconduct, then that should be the outcome of that case. The committee must be fair to the doctor. It may nevertheless suspect that there is still a problem in the doctor's standard of professional performance. It is important to emphasise that it can have merely a suspicion—the evidence presented about one or more acts of possible professional misconduct is not the same as the evidence needed in an assessment of overall performance. The most the Professional Conduct Committee could do, in fairness, is to suggest that the performance screener should consider whether the doctor should be invited to undergo assessment under the professional performance procedures.
The performance screener would have available all the evidence already gathered by the GMC and the statements made by the doctor and any witnesses during the Professional Conduct Committee's hearing. We can be in no doubt that the screener would consider very seriously whether assessment would be in the doctor's interests and that of his patients. In an appropriate case, proceedings could begin quickly and would continue under the normal procedures set out in the Bill. The GMC would not have to wait for a new complaint to be made. It can, if you like, act on its own information.
I therefore ask your Lordships to reject the new clause. It suggests that the Professional Conduct Committee should have available a new type of

1083
Finding—"suspicion" of seriously deficient conduct—in cases where it has failed to find, in the evidence brought before it, guilt of serious professional misconduct. We do not consider it helpful to create a further category of offence. Nevertheless I appreciate the valid point which the noble Lord is making, endorsed in spirit by the noble Baroness, that sometimes further investigation is warranted of the professional performance of a doctor who has been found not guilty of serious professional misconduct. The GMC will have, under this Bill, all the powers it needs to initiate a fair assessment of such a doctor's performance.
We have agreed with the GMC that the transfers between the conduct and performance procedures should be covered in rules. The GMC has given me its assurance that the rules it makes will enable such transfers to take place. With these reassurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, perhaps we may take the case where someone has been found not guilty of professional misconduct but there is a suspicion that he is deficient in his performance and the screener examines the evidence that has been produced in the first trial. Does that mean that for that time he is allowed to go back and continue to practise?
Baroness Cumberlege: No, my Lords, as I understand it the process is still in being and therefore the doctor would be suspended.
9.45 p.m
Lord Rea: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for replying so fully to my- amendments, especially Amendment No. 3. However, I am not absolutely sure that she has completely put my mind at rest. I shall read her remarks very carefully in Hansard and have further discussions about these matters, possibly with the noble Baroness herself, before Third Reading. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
Baroness Cumberlege Baroness Cumberlege moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 12, leave out from beginning of line 26 to end of line 30 on page 13 and insert—
("National Health Service Act 1977
In section 29 of the National Health Service Act 1977 (arrangements and regulations for general medical services)—

(a) in subsection (8)(c), for the words "of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee of the Council under section 42(3)(b)" there shall be substituted the words "under section 42"; and

(b) after subsection (8) there shall be added—

"(9) Where the registration of a medical practitioner in the register of medical practitioners is suspended by a direction of the Committee on Professional Performance of the General Medical Council—

(a) under section 36A of the Medical Act 1983 (professional performance),

(b) under section 38(1) of that Act (order for immediate suspension), or

(c) under rules made by virtue of paragraph 5A(3) of Schedule 4 to that Act (procedure of committees),

1084
the suspension shall not, except in so far as is provided by or determined in accordance with regulations under subsection (2) above, terminate any arrangements made with him for the provision of general medical services; but he shall not provide such services in person during the suspension.".
National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978
In section 19 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 (arrangements and regulations for general medical services)—

(a) in subsection (7)(c), for the words "of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee of the Council under section 42(3)(b)" there shall be substituted the words "under section 42"; and

(b) after subsection (7) there shall be added—

"(7A) Where the registration of a medical practitioner in the register of medical practitioners is suspended by a direction of the Committee on Professional Performance of the General Medical Council—

(a) under section 36A of the Medical Act 1983 (professional performance),

(b) under section 38(1) of that Act (order for immediate suspension), or

(c) under rules made by virtue of paragraph 5A(3) of Schedule 4 to that Act (procedure of committees),

the suspension shall not, except in so far as is provided by or determined in accordance with regulations under subsection (2) above, terminate any arrangements made with him for the provision of general medical services; but he shall not provide such services in person during the suspension."
Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972
In Article 56 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (arrangements and regulations for general medical services)—

(a) in paragraph (4C)(c), for the words "of the Preliminary Proceedings Committee of the Council under section 42(3)(b)" there shall be substituted the words "under section 42"; and

(b) after paragraph (4C) there shall be added—

"(4D) Where the registration of a medical practitioner in the register of medical practitioners is suspended by a direction of the Committee on Professional Performance of the General Medical Council—

(a) under section 36A of the Medical Act 1983 (professional performance),

(b) under section 38(1) of that Act (order for immediate suspension), or

(c) under rules made by virtue of paragraph 5A(3) of Schedule 4 to that Act (procedure of committees),

the suspension shall not, except in so far as is provided by or determined in accordance with regulations under subsection (2) above, terminate any arrangements made with him for the provision of general medical services; but he shall not provide such services in person during the suspension.".")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Bill already makes provision to ensure that where a doctor has been suspended by the Committee on Professional Performance he will not automatically lose his livelihood. For GPs the Bill provides in paragraphs 28 to 30 of the schedule for the appropriate amendments to be made to the 1977 NHS Act, the 1978 NHS (Scotland) Act and the 1972 Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order.
The regulations governing GPs need to explain the limits on this protection. The amendment that I have brought forward seeks to do this. The amendment replaces paragraphs 28 to 30 of the schedule to the Bill and is different to the existing paragraphs in two respects.
First, we have created a separate subsection in the existing Acts and order so that they deal solely with the performance procedures. The second change is to qualify the sentence which says that the suspension shall not terminate the arrangements between the GP and the health authority by including the phrase,
"except in so far as is provided by or determined in accordance with regulations".
Regulation 7(2) of The National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 states that a doctor who has not provided services personally for six months may be removed from the medical list. But, any time that a doctor has spent suspended by the health committee must be disregarded for the purpose of this regulation. This exclusion is to ensure that a GP's livelihood is not threatened when poor performance has occurred due to ill health which could last for a considerable time. A doctor who is suspended cannot, of course, provide medical services personally, but would have to arrange locum cover.
We do not want a GP who is suspended by the Committee on Professional Performance to be removed from the medical list immediately and automatically. However, where a health authority considers it is in the interests of the patients on the doctor's list, it is important that it can remove that GP from its medical list after a period of time has elapsed. We propose that the regulations should allow the health authority to consider delisting the doctor six months after his or her suspension. We have therefore sought to reach a balance between protecting the livelihood of the GP with the responsibility of the health authority to ensure that the interests of the patients in its area are protected. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: My Lords, these Benches and the British Medical Association are very happy to accept this amendment. There is just one query in relation to it. In the case of general practitioners, will arrangements be made through the General Medical Services Committee of the BMA as to the details of how the finding of a locum is to be organised? It is possible, for instance, that the health of the doctor concerned may be so bad that he is not in a position to arrange this for himself. It could be that regulations will need to be updated and changed as a result of this amendment to the Bill.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am sure that it is in everybody's interest that a locum should be supplied as quickly as possible. I am not sure about the details and whether the BMA would be involved or whether we should seek other organisations, or indeed rely on the present procedures that are in place. Perhaps I may write to the noble Lord on this matter. If he is dissatisfied, I am sure that he will bring it up at Third Reading.
With the leave of the House, I should like to correct something I said in the debate on the earlier amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, asked me whether a doctor would be suspended during the course of this process between two committees when that doctor had been found not guilty by the conduct committee but had yet to be referred to the screener. I
1086
understand that if the doctor has been found not guilty of serious professional misconduct he will not be suspended. If the papers are referred to the performance screener, everything will depend on the outcome of that assessment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Collective Redundancies and Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) (Amendment) Regulations 1995
9.51 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations be annulled.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Very little time or opportunity has been given to either House to discuss these important changes in the arrangements about consultation on collective redundancies. They are due to become operative on 26th October. The only way in which this House will have the opportunity for discussion is on the Motion that I put forward.
As your Lordships know—at least those Members of your Lordships' House who take an interest in labour relations—the Government's provisions in regard to consultation about collective redundancies were found to be wanting by the ECJ. As a result, new regulations have had to be issued.
A period for consultation has been allowed. I am glad to say that the result of that consultation with the CBI, the TUC and others is that amendments to the original draft have been made. We certainly welcome that. Even so, in my view the proposed regulations do not meet the ECJ requirements either in the spirit or the letter.
The intention was certainly not to undermine existing systems of industrial relations or to encourage employers to de-recognise unions where recognition currently existed. That may be in line with the current philosophy of the Government, but it is not the philosophy generally accepted within the EU, where the concept of social partnership with organisations representative of employees' interests is firmly established and widely accepted.
As the regulations now stand, however, employers are given a unilateral choice as to whether to consult representatives of recognised unions or, alternatively, representatives elected by employees. It would be possible for an employer who was contemplating collective redundancies to consult with the representative of an ad hoc group that he might have been instrumental in setting up in order to bypass the recognised trade union. This aspect of the proposed regulations seems to me to owe more to anti-union ideology than to a genuine concern to make sure that employee representatives are properly consulted in advance of redundancies.
It is as well to remind ourselves of the reasons for the consultative process insisted upon by the ECJ. The handling of redundancies is, admittedly, a difficult—sometimes heart-rending—process. Unfortunately, it has become all too common in recent years. But the position is likely to be made worse if encouragement is given to employers by means of the regulations to exclude recognised trade union representatives from the consultation process. One of the main purposes of a consultative process is to enable discussions to take place with a view to minimising the negative effect upon employees. Hence, redeployment and retraining may be discussed within this context. The representatives most likely to be able to assist appear to be those whose job it has been to represent workers in the establishment on a continuous basis.
The regulations would appear to give an employer who just wants to cut the workforce without any concern for the welfare of the employees the opportunity to do so by giving him the right, even where there is a recognised trade union, to set up alternative arrangements of his own in opposition to the recognised union. It is quite true that, as a result of the consultations with the CBI and TUC, to which I have already referred, the Government have been willing in this draft to make provision opposing discrimination against employee representatives. Furthermore, rights to time off have been included for candidates who also will have some protection.
These are improvements on the original draft which, as I said before, I welcome. However, there are no real guarantees about the independence of elected non-union representatives. The reliance on ad hoc arrangements weakens the effectiveness of consultation as there is no element of continuity and the representatives, unless of course they come from a recognised union, will have had no training or preparation for their role. Moreover, the regulations give the employer control over the timing and arrangements for the elections, thus providing scope to frustrate the consultation process.
It is the view of the TUC that the proposed sanctions are inadequate where an employer fails to hold proper elections. There should be provision for obtaining a High Court order to ensure that proper elections are held, until which time the status quo should be maintained. Under the regulations only the employer can initiate elections and the only obligation on the employer is to issue an invitation to the employees who might he dismissed to elect representatives long enough before the time that consultation should start to allow them to elect representatives by that time.
The TUC's view is that the vague wording may very well not meet the terms of the ECJ's judgment. It is the employer who determines when an announcement on job losses is made and it should not therefore be the employer who determines when employee representatives are elected.
Moreover, the regulations are silent on the election process. They appear to give the employer a free hand in deciding on matters such as the number of representatives, constituencies, the nomination process and balloting arrangements. The fact that the regulations
1088
leave to employers the determination of election arrangements is another reason why the regulations may not comply with the ECJ ruling.
Furthermore, excluding redundancies involving fewer than 20 posts over 90 days is a serious erosion of existing rights of consultation. It will automatically remove from consultation rights the 5½ million workers in small firms as well as larger firms where fewer than 20 redundancies are proposed over a 90-day period.
Perhaps the Minister may argue this evening that it is unlikely that employers exist who might seek to frustrate the intention of the ECJ judgment and the regulations in the manner in which we have suggested. However, if everyone behaved reasonably, there would be no need for laws and regulations. Experience teaches us that there are always some who do not behave well; and in a general labour relations environment in which the Government have been actively seeking to get employers to bypass unions, it is not surprising that we should seek to close any loopholes which may exist.
As I said at the outset, it clearly was not the intention of the ECJ actively to discourage consultation with recognised trade unions. But we fear that that may be the result of the draft if it is not modified by the Government before it becomes operative. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations be annulled.—(Baroness Turner of Camden.)
9.58 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to support the Motion so cogently put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden. I do so even though my approach to this matter differs from hers to some extent.
Like the noble Baroness, I spoke on the Unstarred Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, last March. Indeed, my interest in the subject goes back to the debates in this House on the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill in 1993. At that time I tabled amendments which questioned and sought to overturn the Government's contention that the relevant clauses of the Bill brought the detailed provisions of UK legislation fully into line with the requirements concerning consultation contained in the two directives.
As the noble Baroness reminded us, the Government's legislation at that time obliged employers to consult only the representatives of recognised trade unions, both when they were contemplating large scale redundancies and when the transfer of an undertaking was in prospect.
My amendments to the Bill sought to extend the right to information and consultation to employee representatives generally. Unfortunately the Government were unwilling to accept them. Now, however, following last year's judgments of the European Court, they have had to acknowledge the need to introduce procedures for the designation of employees' representatives whom employers must consult about proposed redundancies and business transfers. Whether the Government's arrangements provide a mechanism that will prove to be legally adequate for that purpose is highly questionable.

1089
At first sight it may be thought that my noble friends and I would welcome unreservedly the Government's concession on this basic point. The trouble is that, in conceding to employee representatives the right to be consulted, the Government propose to make it possible for the same right to be taken away from representatives of trade unions.
I cannot accept that, where trade unions are recognised, they should retain the exclusive right to be consulted on these matters. But in allowing employers to choose whether to consult either with union representatives or with representatives elected by employees generally, the Government seem almost to be inviting employers no longer to recognise trade unions for these and possibly even other purposes. That may not be of much concern to this Government, but to those of us on these Benches who share the view that, where strong support for trade unions can be demonstrated, employers should be obliged to recognise them, it is a matter of great importance.
For my part, I cannot see why there should not be, first, a general requirement for employers to consult employee representatives about prospective redundancies and business transfers; and, secondly, a requirement that where trade unions are recognised, their views should also be taken into account before decisions are made.
I shall be grateful for any comments the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, feels able to make when he replies to these suggestions. I can hardly expect a considered response, if only because of the unseemly haste, as it seems to me, with which the Government are planning to push through these regulations. It has taken them 16 months to respond to the judgment of the European Court and now it is intended that the regulations should come into force next week, even though they will not apply to redundancies or transfers until March 1996.
I should like to make a number of other points, on one of which I can compliment the Government. In the draft proposals circulated by the Department of Employment last April, I could find no reference to the obligation which the directives placed on employers to consult,
"with a view to reaching agreement".
I am therefore pleased to see that that phrase is now included in the regulations. We may wonder, as did my noble friend Lady Seear in our debate last March, what that phrase—a sort of half-way house between consultation and negotiation —actually means in practice. It should at least ensure, in the words employed by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, in winding up that debate, that,
"Both parties must engage in a constructive dialogue".—[Official Report;20/3/95; col. 1095.]
A number of proposals give the impression that in framing the regulations the Government have been keen to do the absolute minimum in responding to the judgment of the European Court. One of the most notable examples is the deregulatory proposal to amend UK legislation so that the requirement to consult will arise only when an employer plans to dismiss as redundant 20 or more employees over a 90-day period.
1090
That has the effect—the noble Baroness referred to this point—of removing the rights to consultation which millions of people working in firms with fewer than 20 people now enjoy, and appears on the face of it to be particularly mean minded.
The Government further claim, on the question of the timing of consultation on redundancies, that replacement of the phrase "at the earliest opportunity" by the words "in good time" provided for in the directive will avoid unnecessary disputes about precisely when consultation should begin. It is to be hoped that they are right in that. But my fear is that this change may result in even more legal quibbling as to what "in good time" means in the particular case.
Lastly, it appears that under the regulations it is left to the employer to initiate elections of the employee representatives who are to be consulted. In the draft proposals circulated by the Department of Employment last April it was specifically stated that,
"the Government does not propose to specify the means of election",
and that they believe it to be,
"a matter which should be left to employers and employees to arrange in the manner they think best, having regard to the particular circumstances".
No doubt in most cases the necessary arrangements will be amicably agreed. But in other cases there does not appear to be much by way of remedy available for employees who may object to the system that is adopted by a rogue employer wishing to make arrangements for a ballot that is calculated to produce the outcome he desires. Difficult problems could also arise if employers try to hold elections on an ad hoc basis, as they are entitled to do under the regulations, in the bitter atmosphere which often surrounds large scale redundancies. Such difficulties could be exacerbated by time pressures, since employers would have to leave enough time both to hold proper elections and to have meaningful consultation with employee representatives.
I hope that I have said enough to make it plain that these regulations as they stand are not a satisfactory response to the judgments of the European Court. I only hope that they do not prove too damaging to industrial relations in this country and necessitate further judgments having to be brought forward by the court.
10.8 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I rise to support the arguments already advanced, especially by my noble friend, at the outset declaring that I have in the past given advice professionally on some matters that are not central but germane to the two directives of 1975 and 1977. I preface my remarks by asking the Minister whether he will be so kind when he responds to address the two questions of which I have given him written notice, since there is some technicality in the matter. They relate to Regulation 3(2), excluding the duty of consultation on dismissal where there are fewer than 20 employees, and to Regulation 8, in part reversing the effect of recent decisions so as to exclude the rights of workers unfairly dismissed in transfers of undertakings who have no two-year qualification. My question in relation to each of those is: since neither of these issues is a necessary consequence of the Court of

1091
Justice's decision of 8th June 1994, on what ground do the Government find it proper to include them in these regulations made under the Act of 1972 rather than afford us an opportunity of a full debate and possible amendment in primary legislation, as was done on parallel matters in the Act of 1993?
On the regulations as a whole, in my submission the test is a legal test as to their validity. That test is clearly set out by the Court of Justice in the decision of 8th June 1994. It is put in two ways. The first is the question of whether the scheme of the domestic or national law would,
"allow the employer to frustrate the protection of the workers",
or secondly, "impede that protection" of the employees concerned. The question is not whether employers are likely to act so as to "frustrate" or "impede"—many sensible employers would certainly not do so—but whether the regulations and their national implementation leaves open the possibility that the rights accorded by the directives in European law will not be properly implemented. This is a matter not merely of legal technicality. As usual, the law in this area shrouds a very important and, as my noble friend said, profound social issue. We are discussing people who are going to lose their jobs.
The regulations provide that the elections are to be held as and when the employer chooses—even if an independent trade union is recognised for bargaining. I know that some people will say that there is not much difference between negotiating with the officials of a recognised union and negotiating with representatives resulting from elections. However, the regulations show that that need not necessarily be so. The employer may impose whatever electoral process he chooses. What is more, the appropriate representatives for elections designated by the employer are elected at his "invitation" issued to,
"any of the employees who may be dismissed"—
that is to say, in one part of the regulations it is clear that the representatives represent only the employees who may be dismissed. There is a clear contrast with the representatives of a trade union who can take account of the interests of the workforce and of the enterprise as a whole.
There are not just two types of electoral representatives in the regulations — there are four. First, there are the representatives of a recognised trade union. Secondly, there are the representatives elected by some or all of
"the employees who may be dismissed"
at the "invitation of the employer". Thirdly, there are the representatives elected "by employees" more generally, a constituency comprising not necessarily only the employees who may be dismissed. Finally, there is the special case of representatives who are elected at any time to a body or for a purpose other than consultation on dismissals, such as a staff council, where that is an appropriate body to make use of for consultation. I repeat the phrase "to make use of because it is for the employer to make use of any of those four avenues which he chooses to select.
1092
Against what must we test that quite remarkable power which is given to the employer? The only test—the only proper test—is what the directives of 1975 and 1977 both demand. They demand that there shall be,
"consultation with a view to agreement".
That requirement was inserted at long last in our domestic law in 1993. If there is to be consultation with a view to agreement, there must manifestly be representatives on both sides. On the employees' side, they must certainly be freely chosen without interference or constraint. They must be chosen in such a way that they are independent of the employer's control. They must be chosen by electoral procedures which are impartial and fair. They must have the resources and capacity to make and administer the agreement and, some would say, they must be chosen by secret ballot. Not a single one of those elementary principles appears in the legal part of the regulations—or in the regulations as law. As to free choice, the employer is told by the Department of Trade and Industry's note of guidance that that is something that no doubt he "will no doubt wish to consider". I repeat that it is suggested the employer "will wish to consider" the free choice of the employees in that process as he decides when is the reasonable time for nominations, what is a reasonable balance of constituencies, and all the other parts of the procedure.
Although elected representatives must be allowed access to the employees threatened with redundancy, at an earlier stage the employer is not obliged to be even-handed about access to candidates. He can, if he wishes, give certain candidates access to the voters, and exclude other candidates at his whim.
One might have thought, in passing, that, as this is a matter of the protection —the court will certainly take this view—of the employees, there might have appeared somewhere a legal right for the workers to trigger elections at their chosen time, since it is their jobs that are in issue.
Nor is there any provision in the regulations for independence. That is of course the most startling omission. The representatives, in order to negotiate an agreement, or consult with a view to agreement, must have independence from the employer. It is true that the regulations now—it is an improvement on the consultative document—afford some negative protection against discrimination or dismissal. But there is no provision to ensure that the employer does not discriminate by giving preference in the elections to his chosen candidates or by arranging the electoral machinery to suit some candidates rather than others.
A provision on independence would have been easy to draft. There is an analogy with the definition in Section 5 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Consolidation Act 1992 on independent trade unions. As regards independence, the specific is perhaps more important than the general: that is to say, why is there no provision in the regulations outlawing interference or constraint on the voters? In every piece of trade union legislation passed by the Government since 1984 there has been a provision that in the ballot members must not be subject to interference or constraint by the union or its officials or employees. Why do these regulations

1093
so glaringly omit a similar provision to outlaw constraints imposed on employees or candidates by an employer?
In these regulations, it is clear that the interest of the employees which the directives purport to put forward can be impeded and could be frustrated by an employer making use of all these vast powers. It is not a scheme for representatives of employees in the proper sense. It is a scheme which would allow an employer to get what he wanted in terms of employee representation. That is exactly the type of scheme which the judgments of 8th June 1994 clearly outlawed.
The Government would save a lot of time and money in litigation and, I suspect, another weary dispute with the Commission, which might see them hauled off once more to the court in Luxembourg, if they agreed at this late hour to take back these regulations for extensive amendment in the matters to which I have referred.
10.18 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, although it is comparatively late at night, we should congratulate ourselves on two things: first, we should congratulate ourselves on the fact that my noble friend Lady Turner has been instrumental in producing the debate. We are so far the only one of the two Houses of Parliament which has had a debate of this kind, and a debate which will take place before the regulations are law. If they have a debate down at the other end, it will have to be after they are law. At least we have managed to get the debate in. It was difficult to get it in. We got it in only late at night, but we got it in. I suppose that we should congratulate ourselves on that.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, should congratulate himself on being, as I see it, the first DTI spokesman to reply on an industrial relations issue since 1915, when of course the Ministry of Labour and National Service, as it was then, was created. I take it that the noble Lord replies for the DTI, because I know that he has many responsibilities. He may be replying for the Foreign Office and he may he replying for the Whips' Office, but I take it that he is replying for the DTI. If he is, he will be the first Minister of the Crown to be replying on industrial relation issues for the DTI since 1915. We must congratulate him on that.
As regards the regulations, I wish to focus on a narrow, single issue in the hope that I shall receive an answer. It was mentioned by previous speakers and it is the issue of independence. On what possible grounds can the Government justify the denial of the simple test of independence? I refer to the Advocate-General who, after all, is frequently quoted by the Government in relation to the regulations. At paragraph 10 of his report he stated that the essential point was that,
"the designation of representatives ought not to depend on the free choice of the employer".
The Advocate-General said that that was the essential issue and, if it is, it is about independence.
I turn to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who, unfortunately, has disappeared somewhere else and has some other departmental duties. I cannot recall them at the moment. He spoke to this
1094
House as a Minister on 20th March when he represented the now dead and gone Department of Employment. He said that workers' representatives,
"must clearly have appropriate guarantees of independence".— [Official Report, 20/3/95; col. 1095.]
Why have the Government gone back on that? Was the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, speaking outside the brief? Were they the last dying spasms of the old Department of Employment which believed in the independence that we do not now get from the Foreign Office or the Department of Trade and Industry? Are the Government completely revoking everything that the noble Lord said—that workers' representatives must have appropriate guarantees of independence?
After all, the Government have not completely revoked the notion of independence. They apply it to trade unions, which is the fantastic thing. The House will know that there are two ways in which one can conform to the regulations: one can recognise trade unions or one can have an electoral system. If one recognises trade unions, they must be recognised trade unions and they must be independent. Independence comes in but only where trade unions are concerned. In other words, it is the definition of independence which is contained in Section 5 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
My next question to the Government is: why is not the definition of "independence" on the face of the regulations? Why does it not apply not only to recognised trade unions but to the funny little elected organisations? The Act states of an independent trade union that it:

"(a) is not under the domination or control of an employer or group of employers…

(b) is not liable to interference by an employer … arising out of the provision of financial or material support".

That seems to me to be a perfectly good workable definition of "independence". Why should not the elected representatives be not under domination or control of an employer or group of employers? Why should not they be not liable to interference from an employer via the provision of financial or material support? Why should not that be on the face of the Bill? Was not that what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, was getting at? But, of course, that was the old Department of Employment.
When we turn to the requirements of elected representatives, which is the second issue on the face of the regulations, we find:
"employee representatives [shall be] elected by them…as the employer chooses".
That is in direct contravention of what was said by the Advocate-General. As was said by my noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lady Turner, that is not the only thing that the employer can decide. He can decide which employees will be eligible for election; whether they will be elected by universal ballot directly or indirectly; whether they will be elected by a show of hands or a secret ballot; whether he wants to count the votes or whether he will let his foreman do so; and whether there is any right to report back, and so forth.

1095
I mention those matters to noble Lords because, as my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said, all those matters—who is liable for election, whether the election shall be universal, direct or indirect, by show of hands or secret ballot—are very closely regulated in all the Acts affecting trade unions, now consolidated in the 1992 consolidation Act passed by this Government. All those rules regulate independent organisations when they are trade unions, but there is no sign of those rules applying to the other system. I ask the Government why.
It seems to me that there are only two possible conclusions. The first conclusion —and I ask the Government to say this—is that they do not believe at all in consultation. They do not believe in the passage of information. They believe that the best workers are the ignorant workers and the more they are told, the more trouble is created. If Europe makes them introduce this system, the less effective it is, the better. They do not believe in it from the beginning, through the middle to the end. Although it is twenty-five minutes past ten, if that is the case, I suggest that we should congratulate ourselves if they were actually to get up and tell us that.
The second possibility—and the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive —is that this is just one further attempt to undermine the trade union organisation. The reason that the TUC, the Labour Party and anybody who has any interest in the representation of workers has moved away from the old system, where they supported the Government in saying that these regulations, these directives, need concern only trade unions and that you had to join a trade union to enjoy those rights, is that they now know that those measures have been used as a way to encourage employers not to recognise unions. Therefore, we say that representation must no longer be a trade union monopoly. That would be quite wrong today. Representation has to be something to which individual workers have a right and if they wish action to be taken through a trade union, so be it. But if they do not wish that approach, they do not have to have it. However, the Government do not believe that.
The second possibility is that the Government want to find a way to penalise those who recognise trade unions, those who go through the union text. Therefore the Government say, "If you choose the first method of recognising a union, that has got to be independent and the union will have all kinds of rights and its members will have all kinds of rights against the employer and the union itself'. They would say that that is the organised, recognised bureaucratic way. But they say, "If you do not recognise an independent union, you do it yourself and you do it how you like". What could be a more constructive way in which to encourage employers not to recognise unions? The Government say that if you want to know how to take no notice of these regulations, the one thing you must not do is to recognise a union.
Therefore, the second possibility is that the purpose of the regulation is that it is one more way to discourage recognition of unions and encourage the de-recognition of unions. It is for the Government to say whether I am right on ground one or ground two or whether they have another ground. I look forward to hearing the answers.
Earl Russell: My Lords, listening to this debate, I have been persuaded that the Government have introduced these regulations in the spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, introducing some regulations against racial discrimination in another place, is alleged to have said, "I move these regulations in the spirit of a wine waiter asked to serve a Coke". My Lords, I like my spirits a bit stronger than that.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate this evening on these complex regulations. I am conscious that this is not the first debate in this House on the important subject of the Government's response to the judgments of the European Court of Justice of 8th June 1994. The noble Baroness has, as before, argued her case forcefully and articulately and has been amply supported by noble Lords opposite. I must however oppose the Motion to annul the regulations.
As your Lordships are aware, these regulations have two purposes. First and foremost, they give effect to judgments of the European Court of Justice concerning the implementation in the United Kingdom of the 1975 Collective Redundancies Directive and the 1977 Acquired Rights Directive. However, Regulation 8 deals with a separate matter and reverses the effect of the judgment of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Milligan and Bailey v. Securicor Cleaning Ltd in which the EAT had interpreted the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 in a way which Parliament had not intended.
Before I turn to the detail of the regulations, I shall deal first with the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, concerning the inclusion in an instrument made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 of Regulation 8 and the provisions of Regulation 3 which limit the obligation to consult about collective redundancies. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me notice of his question. It concerns a matter to which the Government have given careful consideration. Section 2(2)(a) of the 1972 Act enables regulations to be made for the purpose of implementing any Community obligation; Section 2(2)(b) of the Act enables regulations to be made for the purpose of dealing with matters arising out of or related to any such obligation.
Article 1 of the Collective Redundancies Directive defines collective redundancies. It allows member states to choose between two thresholds for the number of dismissals concerned, below which thresholds the directive does not apply. The Government have chosen the second of those options; that is where the employer proposes at least 20 dismissals over a period of 90 days. The amendment made by Regulation 3 is entirely consistent with Article 1 of the directive. As the proposed regulation has the purpose of implementing our Community obligation, albeit in different terms from the manner in which it is at present implemented, or alternatively arises out of or is related to that obligation, the use of Section 2(2) of the Act is entirely appropriate.

1097
With regard to Regulation 8, Article 4(1) of the Acquired Rights Directive permits member states to exclude specific categories of employees who are not covered by national law concerning protection against dismissal. That is what Regulation 8 provides for. Indeed, Regulation 8 is intended simply to restate the position intended by the 1981 regulations which, I would remind the House, were made under the 1972 Act. Regulation 8, therefore, concerns a matter which is clearly related to our obligation to implement the directive and again it is appropriate that it be included in regulations made under Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act.
I turn now to the substance of the regulations. As your Lordships are aware, both directives require an employer to consult, in the relevant circumstances, workers' representatives defined in each directive as,
"the workers' representatives provided for by the laws or practices of the Member States".
In implementing the Collective Redundancies Directive in 1975 the then Labour Government required an employer to consult only where there was a recognised trade union. In 1981 the Government in implementing the Acquired Rights Directive followed the same approach. The ECJ ruled that by failing to provide for the designation of workers' representatives where an employer does not recognise a trade union the United Kingdom had not met its obligations under those directives. That is the history of the matter. The regulations now provide for consultation by an employer whether or not the employer voluntarily recognises a trade union. They therefore bring UK law into line with the directives as interpreted by the ECJ.
What we have done is to give effect to our Community obligations in a way which gives the maximum flexibility to employers in this country to decide how to meet their obligations. That has always been our intention. My noble friend Lord Inglewood told the House on 20th March (Official Report, col. 1095):
"Our aim, consistent with the points I have made tonight, will be to bring forward proposals which, while fully implementing the requirements of the two directives, which have been clarified by the ED judgment, provide the maximum flexibility for employers to make arrangements consistent with their business circumstances and the particular needs of their employees. They must recognise the need to minimise the burden on business: they must not interfere with the delicate balance of industrial relations generally and must ensure proper consultation with employees' representatives."
My noble friend could not have stated our approach more clearly. The regulations which we are discussing tonight are fully consistent with what he said then. I ask the House to look closely at what the regulations actually do. They require an employer to inform and consult, in the relevant circumstances, either a recognised trade union or representatives elected by the employees themselves. I shall repeat the point, for it is an important one—representatives elected by the employees themselves. An employer may choose whether to consult a union or elected representatives, but he cannot choose not to consult anyone at all. That is a significant extension of the obligation to consult. There are those who will argue, as has been argued here
1098
tonight, that an employer who recognises a union should not be free to consult anyone other than that union. I ask simply, why not?
We must recognise that the extent and nature of union recognition has changed substantially over the past decade and the next decade may well see further changes as employers and unions have to adapt to ever more competitive markets and changing employment patterns. Many—probably most—employers who recognise a trade union will wish to continue to consult that trade union about redundancies and business transfers. These regulations provide no obstacle to that, and unions which are confident that they speak for the majority of the workforce and act responsibly in the best interests of both their members and the business should have nothing to fear from this measure.
However, the regulations also recognise that some employers have developed other channels for consultation with their employees, whether or not they recognise a trade union for particular groups of employees. We want employers to be able to use such machinery where it exists and where the employer judges it right to do so. An employer who recognises a union for some categories of employee but not others may well, for example, feel that it would be simpler and more appropriate to consult elected representatives for all the employees affected by a proposal, rather than a mixture of union and elected representatives. We believe that it is right, therefore, to offer that flexibility and freedom of choice. But let me repeat, it is a freedom of choice concerning who to consult, not whether to consult.
It has been argued that the regulations should set out detailed rules for the conduct of elections and require standing machinery to be established. It is a fact that the regulations do not provide for such matters; we have deliberately chosen not to do so. Again, our watchword is flexibility. There are good reasons for not dealing with such matters by statute. The circumstances surrounding the employers' obligation to consult will vary considerably. This would inevitably lead to complex statutory rules designed to cover all possible circumstances. Such complexity benefits neither employers nor employees. Nor do we see any reason why employers with perfectly acceptable existing machinery should have to adapt it to fit with rigid bureaucratic requirements. Rather, we believe it is right to set out the purpose of the consultation and the necessary safeguards and leave it to those who know the particular business circumstances best to determine detailed arrangements. That is what we have done.
As to whether ad hoc arrangements are acceptable, we believe that they are, subject to certain safeguards. Of course an argument can be made for standing arrangements, and some larger employers may well wish to establish such arrangements. That is a judgment which they must make. But many employers will never, or very rarely, be faced with having to make collective redundancies or be involved in a business transfer. It would be absurd for us to require those employers to establish and maintain some machinery which might never be used. That would be bureaucracy gone mad.

1099
But I made clear that there must be some safeguard to prevent abuse and we have provided that. An employer cannot leave it to the last moment to begin consultation. Consultation must be in good time and, in the case of redundancies, the legislation prescribes a minimum time before the first dismissal takes effect. Regulation 3(8) requires that where there is no standing machinery and the employer therefore invites the employees to elect representatives, he must allow sufficient time for them to do so and for the consultations to take place. A similar provision is made in respect of transfers by Regulation 9(10).
The Government entirely accept that simply to provide for consultation with elected representatives where there is no recognised trade union would, without more, be inadequate protection. But we have provided substantially more than that. The regulations provide protection for elected representatives against dismissal or detriment short of dismissal on the grounds of their status or activities as a representative. Those protections have been drafted so as to provide protection not only to those who are presently representatives but also to those who have ceased to operate in that capacity and to candidates for election. They provide a right to time off with pay to carry out representative duties and a right to appropriate access to the affected employees and to facilities such as telephones. The regulations also amend the provisions concerning who may bring a complaint to an industrial tribunal. These are extended to include not only elected representatives but also in appropriate cases individual employees who have been affected by the proposal. Those are substantial rights and protections and I trust that the House will recognise their importance as part of a coherent package of measures.
We have spoken tonight of the deregulatory element of the proposal on redundancies. The Government considered very carefully what measures should be taken to ensure that the burden on employers resulting from these additional measures should be minimised. I would not expect some noble Lords opposite to accept that any deregulation can ever be a good thing, but the Government believe firmly that to hamstring employers with unnecessary regulations is to damage the ability of our businesses to compete, to grow and therefore to provide jobs for people in this country. In drawing up the package of measures in response to the ECJ judgments we believed it was right therefore to look for ways of balancing the additional obligations which would be imposed on employers. Restricting the statutory obligation to consult through representatives to collective redundancies, as defined in the directive, is just such a measure. We believe that it is vital to ensuring the coherence of the package of measures.
The directive imposes very specific and detailed requirements on an employer. By setting a threshold below which these requirements do not apply, the Council of Ministers recognised that these would not necessarily be appropriate to small firms or to small numbers of redundancies. That must surely be right.
Limiting the obligation to consult through representatives about collective redundancies will provide substantial relief for small and medium-sized employers in particular. But let me make it quite clear.
1100
It does not absolve employers from the obligation to act fairly and reasonably in handling individual redundancies, including informing and consulting employees individually as appropriate. There is ample case law showing the importance which industrial tribunals attach to such matters in considering whether or not a dismissal is unfair. It is simply not the case, as some may suggest, that our regulations now give employers a free hand to dismiss without any fear of sanction.
I return now to the change made by Regulation 8 of these regulations concerning the right to bring a claim of unfair dismissal in connection with a business transfer. When the draft TUPE regulations were debated in this House in 1981, my noble friend Lord Lyell stated (Official Report 10th December 1981; col. 1483) that the normal provisions governing unfair dismissal—for example, the qualifying period necessary to bring a claim—would continue to apply where employees were dismissed because of a transfer. That is how the regulations were understood to operate until earlier this year when the Employment Appeal Tribunal held, in the case of Milligan and Bailey v. Securicor Cleaning Ltd, that the 1981 regulations did not prevent an employee with less than the normal qualifying service from bringing such a claim. The EAT noted that member states were entitled under the Acquired Rights Directive to exclude categories of employees who do not qualify for dismissal protection. But it held that, as drafted, the regulations did not exclude such employees from bringing a claim.
The effect of that judgment would be to give employees greater rights on transfer than they enjoyed if there was no transfer. We do not believe that to be consistent with the purpose of the directive or, in light of what was said in the 1981 debate in this House, with the wishes of Parliament. Regulation 8 therefore seeks to clarify beyond any doubt that the normal qualifying conditions for unfair dismissal apply in these circumstances.
In conclusion, I wish to thank all noble Lords who have taken part for their contributions to tonight's debate and also for their approval of certain things that we have done, if not everything. There is much on which we do not and cannot agree, but I hope that the House will recognise that the package of measures contained in these regulations is a coherent and proper response to the ECJ judgment of 8th June 1994. It is one which provides for the maximum flexibility in approach consistent with an employer's obligation to consult in the relevant circumstances.
I repeat that, though we are providing flexibility and freedom of choice, it is a choice about how to meet the obligation to consult rather than whether to do so. The obligation is clear and the necessary safeguards are there. I commend the regulations to the House.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, the House will not be surprised to learn that I am disappointed with the response. We had hoped that, as a result of the arguments advanced from this side, the Government would take back the regulations and re-think them. I am sorry that we have failed to persuade the Minister to do so because we hold the view strongly on this side of the

1101
House that the regulations do not meet the requirements of the ECJ decision. We believe that that means that there may well be a situation in which again there will be a challenge to what has been done. Once again, the Government may be faced with a situation in which they have to re-vamp regulations and present a fresh set of regulations for consideration by both Houses.
We hold strongly to the view already expressed that the regulations as they stand allow employers to bypass existing trade union organisations and trade union representatives. We are concerned that there are no guarantees of independence for representatives. We note what the Government have had to say about maximum flexibility for employers, but we are also concerned about the rights of employees and their organisations. We regret that we have not persuaded the Government to re-think the regulations and are afraid that we may well be debating re-vamped regulations at some time in the future because they have failed to meet the requirements of the ECJ decisions. However, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Saint Paul's Churchyard Bill
A message was brought from the Commons, that they have made the following order, to which they desire the concurrence of the Lords:
That the Promoters of the Saint Paul's Churchyard Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.

  European Convention on Human Rights: Ratification of Protocol 9
  European Convention on Human Rights: Ratification of Protocol 9
  Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh: Review
  Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh: Review
  Environment Council, 6 October
  Environment Council, 6 October
  Third Country Nationals Resident in the EU: Status
  Third Country Nationals Resident in the EU: Status
  Western Mediterranean Countries' Transport Ministers' Meetings: Exclusion of Gibraltar
  Western Mediterranean Countries' Transport Ministers' Meetings: Exclusion of Gibraltar
  A.12 Wickham Market to Saxmundham Bypass
  A.12 Wickham Market to Saxmundham Bypass
  Highways Agency Tunnels
  Highways Agency Tunnels