Sitting of 31 October 1995

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

    LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords]. (By Order)
    Order for Third reading read.
    Amendment agreed to
    Read the Third time, and passed, as amended.
    Ordered,
    That the Lords Message [26th October] relating to the Bodmin Moor Commons Bill [Lords], King's College London Bill [Lords], and the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] be now considered.

    LOCH LEVEN AND LOCHABER WATER POWER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third time.
Oral Answers to Questions
  HEALTH

    United Leeds Hospital Trust
    Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of underfunding of the United Leeds Hospital trust in this financial year on waiting lists. [38212]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): Leeds health authority is not underfunded. It has been allocated £4.5 million over and above its weighted capitation target for this year.
    Mr. Battle: Does the Minister realise that Leeds local medical committee revealed in a recent survey that, contrary to his claims, orthopaedic outpatients have to wait for between 44 weeks, minimum, and 144 weeks for a first appointment? Whatever the reason for that, is it not totally unacceptable? Is it not time that the Minister took action to ensure that his health trusts provided for the health needs of our constituents—or will they be told that they must continue to suffer in silence?
    Mr. Sackville: I certainly agree that a wait of 44 weeks is unacceptable; we have made that clear—to Leeds health authority, as well—by setting a target that no one should wait more than 26 weeks. The hon. Gentleman knows that waits for orthopaedic treatment in Leeds are not new, and that action is being taken to ensure more accurate and better referring by general practitioners, taking that into account.
    84
    The House should know, however, that those waits are not representative of waiting lists across all specialties in Leeds. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has seen the overall figures, and he will know that 86 per cent. of patients are seen within 13 weeks and 96 per cent. within 26 weeks. That is close to the target that we set.
    Mrs. Roe: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the patients charter means that, for the first time ever, patients, whether in Leeds or elsewhere in the country, have a guarantee of the maximum time that they should have to wait for an NHS operation?
    Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we look forward to all health authorities meeting those targets.
    Mr. Barron: Do not patients, not only those in the United Leeds Hospital trust but in hospitals throughout the country, wait longer than the Department's patients charter standards? In the quarter ended 30 June 1995, the targets for new out-patients waiting times were not met—neither the 13-week nor the 26-week standard. Would not patients in Leeds and throughout the country be better served if some of the millions of pounds spent on internal market bureaucracy were spent instead on front-line patient care?
    Mr. Sackville: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to notice that, over the past year, the number of people waiting more than 12 months for non-emergency treatment in Leeds has fallen from more than 1,200 to 200. That represents considerable progress, when not only non-emergency but emergency demand has increased sharply. It is about time that Leeds and other health authorities received some credit from the Opposition.

    GP Fundholding Practices (London)
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner fundholding practices there are currently in Greater London. [38213]
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): Three hundred and twenty-five general practitioners' practices in Greater London are currently fundholders, serving over a quarter of the population. This is due to rise to 578 practices serving 40 per cent. of the population from next April.
    Mr. Merchant: Is my hon. Friend aware of the pioneering work in fundholding being carried out by Elm House surgery in my constituency? Is he aware of the popularity of that work with patients? Does that popularity partly explain the dramatic leap in the number of applications for fundholding status in London this summer?
    Mr. Malone: I am aware of the practice to which my hon. Friend refers, and I met a number of the practitioners involved when I visited Beckenham hospital in my hon. Friend's constituency some time ago. We want such services to be extended throughout London—in the teeth, sadly, of opposition from Labour.

    NHS Budget
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the NHS budget was spent

    85
    on management, administrative and clerical staff (a) in 1989 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available. [38214]
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the variation of the proportion of NHS trusts' budgets spent on management and administration. [38224]
    The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): Expenditure on management and administrative staff as a proportion of total hospital and community health service expenditure was 8.8 per cent. in 1989–90 and 9.8 per cent. in 1993–94. I announced on 11 October that I am seeking a 5 per cent. cash reduction in the costs of running health authorities and in NHS trust management costs in 1996–1997 compared with planned spending in 1995–1996.
    Mr. Hoyle: When the changes were made, we were promised that there would be a growth in efficiency. Instead, there has been a huge growth in bureaucracy, and resources that could have been spent on patient care and medical staff have gone to accountants and managers. How does the right hon. Gentleman account for the squandering of public money that has resulted in waste, inefficiency and more red tape?
    Mr. Dorrell: That line would come a great deal better from the Opposition had it not been for the fact that they opposed the abolition of the regional health authorities, which added an extra and unnecessary tier of bureaucracy to the health service.
    Mr. Miller: That line comes not just from the Opposition, as the chairman of a large trust in my area wrote to me this morning to point out the differences in the Secretary of State's position now from when he was a junior spokesman in the same Department. Will the Secretary of State now undertake unequivocally to ensure that his Department carries the can for all the inefficiencies which have been built into the system as a result of the ridiculous growth in management expenditure?
    Mr. Dorrell: My position on this issue is exactly the same now as it was when I was a junior Minister at the Department of Health, and it is this—the traditional health service was under-managed. That view was shared by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) until she moved to her other responsibilities. We have built up the management function of the health service, and we are now requiring that management function to pass the same tests of efficiency as every other aspect of the health service.
    Dame Jill Knight: Is it not the case that efficient management has achieved a much quicker input of patients and much shorter waiting lists, and that trusts hold their management costs at 3 per cent? Is that not extremely good value for money?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is remarkable that the Opposition—or at least the Opposition's previous health spokesman—at least recognised that the traditional health service needed its management function to be strengthened, and yet opposed every single strengthening of that function. They now talk about administrative costs as though they were avoidable.
    86
    Yet when we come forward with proposals to abolish excess administrative costs—as we did earlier this year—they oppose them.
    Mr. Sims: I commend my right hon. Friend for his attempts to reduce bureaucracy in the NHS. Does he agree that occasional incidents where patients are left on trolleys for unreasonable lengths of time suggest that there is scope for improvement in the quality of management? What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to achieve that improvement?
    Mr. Dorrell: I announced the squeeze on 11 October because I believe that it is necessary that the management and administration functions in the health service are subject to the same efficiency drive as every other aspect of the service. My hon. Friend referred to patients waiting for admission from accident and emergency departments, and he will know that that is a specific subject on which my predecessor as Secretary of State announced a tightening of patients charter standards, which will be effective from 1 April and towards which trusts are working.
    Ms Lynne: Does the Secretary of State agree that, at the same time as so much is being spent on bureaucracy and administration, it is an absolute disgrace that so little is being spent on breast cancer research—£3 million precisely—when 300 women die of breast cancer a week? Can he make some commitment today, on the launch of the UK National Breast Cancer Coalition, that he will do something to address that problem?
    Mr. Dorrell: As the hon. Lady has raised the subject of breast cancer on a question about administration costs, we might have expected her to welcome the fact that the national health service is a world leader in the development of a breast cancer screening service. It offers a service to British women that is not available in the huge majority of other equivalent countries. Why did she not mention that fact?
    Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in certain parts of England, notably Chorley and South Ribble, the increase in administrative staff that has come about as a result of the opening of Chorley and South Ribble hospital, which my right hon. Friend visited recently, goes down extremely well, is extremely popular and is further evidence of the amount of money that the Government are putting into the health service locally as well as in London?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is right to mention the health service's investment programme. The hospital that we visited in his constituency is a result of, first, the Government's commitment to investing in the development of the NHS and, secondly, the commitment through effective management to ensure that those resources are used to deliver a high-quality service throughout the country.
    Mr. Milburn: While the Secretary of State talks about a 5 per cent. cut in management costs, is not the reality that spending on managers has rocketed by 300 per cent. since the Government's changes to the health service? Is it not the case that millions of pounds of precious public resources continue to be lost from front-line patient services simply to finance the administration of that

    87
    internal health market? Can the right hon. Gentleman explain how more managers but fewer nurses add up to a national health service in which the patient comes first?
    Mr. Dorrell: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his responsibilities. When he has had a little more time to think about them, perhaps he would like to tell the House which of the policies espoused by the predecessor of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) he disagrees with. Does he disagree with her acceptance of the fact that the traditional health service was under-managed, in which case he supports the investment in management in the health service, or does he disagree with the stance that she took to oppose the abolition of regional health authorities? How does it help management and administrative efficiency in the health service to insist on maintaining an outdated regional health authority structure?
    Mr. Hayes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is outrageous that managers are the latest scapegoat for the Opposition—managers who have worked hard to bring down waiting lists to the lowest level since records began and many of whom are regraded nurses? The Opposition's proposals would bring in more bureaucracy but, worst of all, political placemen.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is almost right, but not quite. He is wrong in his suggestion that the Opposition would change anything substantial in terms of the administrative costs of the health service. Actually, they have opposed the changes that we introduced, the effect of which is to reduce the administrative burden on the health service.

    NHS Dental Practices
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dental practices are no longer accepting new NHS patients. [38215]
    Mr. Malone: As dentists are independent practitioners, information in this form is not available centrally. However, at June 1995, there were 15,616 dentists in England providing general dental services. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that that is 190 more than three years ago.
    Mr. Pike: Whatever the Minister says, does he not recognise that it is increasingly impossible for people to get national health service dental treatment? Does he not accept that the Government are presiding over the destruction of the NHS dental service and that they need to do something about it now?
    Mr. Malone: What the hon. Gentleman says is a lot of nonsense. In his own constituency, for example, there are nine dentists in four practices, who all accept NHS patients. In the adjacent village of Padiham, a further five dentists are accepting new patients. National health service dentistry is alive and well and growing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. That is happening in the majority of places throughout the country, although in a number of isolated and difficult areas, we are seeking to encourage family health services authorities to employ salaried dentists to deal with local problems.
    Mr. Nicholls: Would my hon. Friend like to remind the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) that there is an
    88
    overriding obligation on the national health service to provide dental services, and that if those services are not provided by local dentists because they want to operate a cartel, salaried dentists are employed by the national health service to plug the gap? I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for ensuring that those services are provided in Teignmouth in my constituency, and I hope that I shall not have to write to him about Newton Abbott in due course.
    Mr. Malone: I thank my hon. Friend. In his constituency, there is a good example of how a shortage that manifests itself locally can be tackled through the salaried dental service by the family health services authority, with determined results. I was delighted to find that there is now a mobile service at Teignmouth hospital, which has been secured for the future.
    Mr. McLeish: Will the Minister apologise to the House for the fact that nearly 1 million people have been taken off NHS dentist lists in the past three years? That is an attrition rate of 6,000 a week. Does he accept that that is a scandal and tragedy for those who want access to NHS dental care? Of course, he could give an undertaking to the House today that he will once and for all put patient access and preventive health care above the dogmatic pursuit of privatisation.
    Mr. Malone: As we are having a lot of welcoming of hon. Members to their portfolios, I extend a warm welcome to the hon. Gentleman to his portfolio and to the Dispatch Box. If he is going to ask me in future about deregistration of people in NHS dentistry, it would be helpful to the House if he understood, and pointed out, that registrations take place at the same time. The figure for those registered between 1992, when the deregistration campaign started, and now stands at some 27.3 million. In fact, when it comes to child registrations, the figure has gone up.
    On the second point, of course oral health is an important strategy. It is widely recognised throughout the country and by dental practitioners in particular that our oral health strategy has been a success, and dentists are happy to work with the Government in taking it forward.

    GP Fundholding Practices (Suffolk)
    Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of general practitioners in Suffolk are in fundholding practices. [38216]
    Mr. Malone: About 30 per cent. of general practitioners in Suffolk are fundholders serving 34 per cent. of the population. A further 4 per cent. of GPs serving a further 4 per cent. of the population are preparing to join the scheme from next April.
    Mr. Spring: Is my hon. Friend aware of the increase in services to patients from GP fundholders in Suffolk, including the provision of surgery-based physiotherapy, new equipment for electrocardiograms and to test for glaucoma as well as additional support for community nursing services? Does my hon. Friend agree that this attests to the tremendous success of GP fundholding not only in Suffolk but right across the country?
    Mr. Malone: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend that GP fundholding introduces a tremendous new range of services for patients at local level. I have visited

    89
    fundholding practices in East Anglia and would add to what my hon. Friend said by pointing out that many out-patient services are now provided in the context of a primary care setting, which is extremely important in rural constituencies.

    Children's Homes
    Ms Coffey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the quality of care provided by small unregistered children's homes. [38217]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Bowis): Responsibility for the care of children rests with the placing local authority.
    Ms Coffey: As the Minister will be aware, the recent study by the social services inspectorate showed that a high proportion of private, small, unregisterable children's homes did not meet acceptable standards. The Minister has the power to legislate to ensure that those homes are properly inspected and registered, as happens with all other children's homes. Why will he not do so when his own inspectors have told him that children are at risk in those homes?
    Mr. Bowis: As the hon. Lady knows from our persistent duet across the House on the subject, this is a matter that our overall review of inspection will be considering. In the meantime, she is quite wrong to suggest that the social services inspectorate report did anything other than highlight some good practice among small children's homes as well as some poor practice. It also highlighted that the failure was of local authorities to use their powers under the placement of children regulations—regulations designed to protect children wherever they may be placed.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend confirm that his Department will keep constant vigilance over local authority social services, reminding them of their statutory duty to carry out rigorous inspections of children's homes?
    Mr. Bowis: Yes, my hon. Friend is right. Sadly, we have recently seen the results of occasions on which such duties have not been carried out properly. There is a duty on local authorities to inspect and visit children's homes, and a responsibility on elected councillors to ensure that that happens. Everyone associated with a child in the care of any local authority anywhere has a responsibility to ensure that the child is safe and protected and that, if the child needs help, help is brought to him or her.

    GP Fundholding
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the future of general practitioner fundholding. [38218]
    Mr. Hanson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of general practitioners in the United Kingdom are currently fundholders. [38220]
    Mr. Dorrell: General practitioner fundholding is central to our plans for the future of the national health service. We expect more than half the GPs in the country
    90
    to be fundholders from next April and I recently announced a further extension of the total purchasing pilots.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Can the Secretary of State explain why my constituents who are waiting for certain treatment at Pinderfields hospital, Wakefield, are asked whether they are the patients of fundholding or non-fundholding GPs? Why does it appear that fundholding patients are able to get certain treatments, which are being denied to patients of non-fundholding GPs? Will he join me in welcoming the fact that the Labour party is committed to ensuring that patients are treated on the basis of clinical priority and, as a consequence, will get rid of fundholding once and for all?
    Mr. Dorrell: As we are in the business of welcoming hon. Members to different parts of the House, I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to a position on the Opposition Back Benches—one of his own choice. It no doubt allows him to tease out some of the differences about fundholding among those on the Opposition Front Bench, which he previously had to obscure from the world.
    The hon. Gentleman asked whether I welcome the fact that those on the Opposition Front Bench are committed to ensuring that care in the national health service is available on the basis of clinical need. He will have seen that precisely that commitment is given by the Government Front Bench. In terms of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, that commitment was given to the hon. Gentleman by both Wakefield health care trust and the Wakefield fundholders in exercising choice in the use of their funds.
    Mr. Hanson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the two-tier system—the inefficient, bureaucratic system referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—also costs an additional £200 million in bureaucracy? Will he welcome the Labour party's commitment to abolish fundholding and put that money back where it belongs, into patient care?
    Mr. Dorrell: I shall certainly make no commitment to abolish fundholding because to do so would put back the cause of patient care. The evidence is clear. The Opposition keep calling for extra research because they do not like the results of the research that has already been carried out. It shows clearly that, for a small increase in transaction costs, we deliver substantial savings and improved patient care. That is the result not of the Government's assessment but of repeated independent assessments of the effect of fundholding.
    Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the majority of fundholders in my constituency provide a better service for their patients. However, will he now look at a problem that has arisen and advise my national health service trust? Where that trust literally runs out of money, it is beyond doubt and political banter that patients suffer because non-fundholders cannot have equal access to the national health service trust.
    Mr. Dorrell: With respect, my hon. Friend must face the fact that the resources available to treat patients, whether of fundholding practices or not, are exactly the same. The assurance given to patients of fundholding GPs, by both trusts and GPs, fundholding and non-fundholding alike, is that access to urgent and

    91
    emergency care is dealt with from a single waiting list. The availability of non-urgent care within the health service reflects different purchasing decisions taken not merely by different fundholders within the health service but by different health authorities within the health service. That is part of the exercise of local choice, exercised in the interest of all patients of the NHS.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that firm evidence now suggests that devolving financial power to GPs has enabled them to deliver improved care to their patients? Does he agree that the best means of improving the position of all patients would be to extend GP fundholding to them, thereby levelling up rather than levelling down, as espoused by the Labour party?
    Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's desire to take the benefits that come from fundholding and generalise them. I entirely agree that that is surely how, in practice, one continues the rate of improvement of patient care within the NHS. Those who argue that we should abandon fundholding must explain to what is now a majority of GPs in the NHS why it is in their interests and those of their patients to abandon a scheme that has been shown by repeated analysis to deliver better value care and better quality care not merely to fundholding patients but to all NHS patients.
    Ms Harman: Is the Secretary of State aware of the situation in his own Minister of State's constituency? Although the patients of GP fundholding practices get their hip replacements in less than 10 months, the patients in non-fundholding GP practices have been told by the Winchester and Eastleigh Health Care trust that they will have to wait 18 months or more. What does he say to those patients who are in pain and have been told that they have got to wait more than 18 months, while other patients are treated in less than 10 months? Is that not evidence of a two-tier system and of the unfairness of Tory health reforms? Will he join me in thanking Dr. Andy Coates, all the local GPs and the local NHS hospital trust for working together to try to mitigate the unfairness of those Tory health reforms?
    Mr. Dorrell: One of the things that the Labour party must get used to about its new health spokesman is that she cannot see an elephant trap without walking into it. What has happened in Winchester blows sky high her theory that fundholders do not work for the benefit of all NHS patients. The deal to which the hon. Lady referred clearly reveals that the GPs of the district, fundholders and non-fundholders, are working together to deal with a problem that has emerged in the district, and was caused by an 8 per cent. increase in accident and emergency admissions. I do not remember that the hon. Lady predicted that. What has happened in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Minister of State is evidence that the case of the Labour party is wrong—fundholders do not desert NHS patients. All the GPs of that district have worked together to look after all the local patients, as the hon. Lady had the grace to admit in the closing sentence of her question.
    Mr. Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the Opposition were correct in their assumption that patients registered at fundholding practices benefit far more than other patients, surely the obvious answer is for the Opposition to see to it that that successful mode of GP practice is extended throughout the NHS?
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is not only right, but echoes the views of the majority of GPs operating in
    92
    the NHS. That is why the predecessor of the hon. Member for Peckham, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), found herself faced with a rather hostile audience when she recently attended the fundholding doctors conference. She had to explain to those doctors why the Labour party is committed to abolishing a scheme that allows the majority of GPs in Britain to improve the health care available to their patients.

    Drug Abuse
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new proposals he has to reduce abuse of prescribed drugs. [38219]
    Mr. Bowis: Any drug, prescribed or otherwise, can cause serious harm if misused. We will take whatever action is necessary to tackle the misuse of drugs. Recent measures have dealt with the serious problem of temazepam misuse.
    Mr. Flynn: As 200 people died last year as a result of paracetamol use—twice the number of people who died as a result of heroin use—and 30,000 people were admitted to hospitals as a result of paracetamol overdoses, what is the Minister doing to unblock the ban on the sale of the safe paracetamol that includes an antidote that prevents liver damage? Is it not true that drug companies are campaigning against safe paracetamol because they know that the only way in which to market the safe product is to draw attention to the deadly peril of the existing paracetamol products?
    Mr. Bowis: We will always look at the safety of medicines as the subject is brought to our attention, and there are proper procedures for considering such matters. The hon. Gentleman is trying to confuse several types of drugs that could be perfectly safe if used properly, but can be very dangerous if misused. That is why we have taken action on temazepam. I should have thought that he might start by welcoming the steps taken when a drug is perceived to be a danger to the public—the fast steps to remove the gel-filled capsules and to reschedule that drug.
    Many issues surround the hon. Gentleman's messages about drugs. On the whole, his message that cannabis, for example, is something to be taken without hesitation is something that the House would reject.
    Mr. Fabricant: In that very connection, I was wondering what representations my hon. Friend has received from the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), regarding cannabis, and has she said whether or not she inhales?
    Mr. Bowis: I would say to my hon. Friend, to the hon. Member for Ladywood and to Opposition Front Benchers that, if they came with me and saw some of the results of cannabis use, if they came and saw children trying to find the courage to say no to drugs, if they came and saw young people struggling to get out of the black hole into which they have fallen as a result of trying drugs—and trying cannabis among them—they would know that they are not helped by the Labour party's line of "soft on drugs, soft on

    93
    criminal abuse of drugs", as expounded by the hon. Member for Ladywood in her capacity as a member of the shadow Cabinet.
    Mr. Flynn: In view of the disgracefully complacent and libellous nature of the Minister's reply, I intend to raise that matter on the Adjournment.

    Prescription Prices
    Ms Church: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the increase in real terms in the price of prescriptions since 1978; and if he will make a statement. [38221]
    Mr. Dorrell: Roughly eightfold.
    Ms Church: Does the Secretary of State share the anxieties of the British Medical Association and general practitioners in my constituency that, when low-income patients have been prescribed two or more items, they actually ask their GP which of the items is the most important for them to take? Does the Minister not understand that, when two items are required, a matter of £10.50, or three items, a matter of £15.75, that is not an inconsiderable chunk out of the family budget for many of my low-income constituents? Will he join Labour Members in requesting a review of the prescription system so that we have a much more equitable system for low-income families?
    Mr. Dorrell: I shall take the Labour party's commitment to a review of the prescription system a great deal more seriously when Labour Members tell us what the results of that review will be. In the meantime, the hon. Lady's low-income constituents are protected by the exemptions that already exist, which cover more than 80 per cent.—more than four out of five—of all prescriptions dispensed.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Will my right hon. Friend give a commitment that the money raised through the increase in prescription charges this year, which I believe to be £300 million, will go directly to front-line health services? That could pay for about 75,000 hip replacement operations or 235,000 cataract operations.
    Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend expresses precisely the dilemma confronted by any of those Labour Members who may think that we could afford to do without prescription charges. Those charges are part of the financing of the health service—my hon. Friend has the right number: £300 million is raised by prescription charges and is invested in precisely the sort of patient care that he described.
    Mr. Galbraith: What is the Government's position on the prescription of beta-interferon? As the Secretary of State knows, that is a drug of unproven value and its unrestricted prescription would hinder future knowledge of it. We may never find out whether it—or, indeed, any of the other available drugs—is of any value.
    Mr. Dorrell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the drug has not yet been granted its market licence. We have been working closely, both with the patients' organisations and with the profession, against the possibility that the drug will receive a licence. If it receives a licence, we have agreed with them protocols
    94
    to ensure that the drug is available from those clinicians who are best qualified to make judgments about which patients are most likely to benefit from it.

    Waiting Times
    Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in reducing waiting times in Somerset and the south-west. [38222]
    Mr. Sackville: Excellent progress has been made in reducing waiting times in Somerset and the south-west generally. At 31 March 1995, there was no one waiting more than 12 months for non-urgent treatment in Somerset and only 66 patients waiting that long for treatment in the south and west region.
    Mr. Robinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Will he confirm that average waiting times have come down? Does that not give the lie to the Labour party's opposition to the creation of hospital trusts and its current desire to abolish fundholding? In fact, Conservative reforms are working.
    Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that not only have the numbers of those waiting come down but the time that they wait—the important figure—has also come down. In his district, the figure for those waiting more than six months for non-emergency treatment has come down by a full 40 per cent. I would certainly say that his constituents enjoy a high-quality health service that is matched only by the quality of their parliamentary representation. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. It is far too noisy: I can hear neither questions nor answers.

    Hospices
    Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the funding of hospices. [38225]
    Mr. Bowis: Our commitment to hospices and specialist palliative care services has been demonstrated by a sixfold increase in funding—from £8 million in 1990–91 to nearly £48 million in 1994–95. From 1994–95, that funding has been built into health authorities' general allocations.
    Mr. Hutton: Is the Minister aware of the increasing financial pressure under which many hospices are operating? That is partly as a result of the fall in voluntary giving due to the national lottery. Will he take action to relieve that financial pressure by restoring the ring-fencing of hospice funding and ensuring that the 50:50 joint funding guidelines issued to health authorities are honoured?
    Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman refers to an overall target of 50:50 funding nationally. The change in the formula will enable local authorities to be more flexible in their approach. I think that he would join me in congratulating the voluntary effort that goes into financing and resourcing the hospice movement, both in his St. Mary's hospice, Ulverston—a subject which he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) have raised with me—and in Trinity hospice in south London in my constituency. It is

    95
    the combination of voluntary effort and the health service that enables those excellent facilities to continue. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. I can hear individual private conversations. I want to hear questions and answers.
    Mrs. Peacock: May I ask my hon. Friend to look again at the possibility of departmental funding for children's hospices, such as Martin house in Yorkshire, as that funding would assist them in their excellent work?
    Mr. Bowis: I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in supporting children's hospices and children's palliative and long-term and life-threatening illness care. I am sure that she is aware of our £5 million programme of support for children's hospices, which I am certain will help the movement to expand in that respect.

    Prescription and Patient Charges
    Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to make an announcement about increases in prescription and other patient charges.[38227]
    Mr. Malone: An announcement will be made at the appropriate time.
    Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister agree that it would be a charge 9n other patients if the North and South Birmingham health authorities were to agree to make public funds available to general practitioner fundholders to buy appointments in nine weeks and operations within six months while other patients must wait a minimum of 13 weeks and nine months for their treatments? Is that not evidence of a two-tier health service?
    Mr. Malone: I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that targets for waiting lists are being met. Waiting lists are coming down, to the benefit of many people. The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise the agreement that was reached with the professions in introducing health service reforms which ensure that everyone receives the same quality of care. The majority of people are admitted at once as emergencies, and clinical need determines when people will be treated. I am astonished that Labour Members are carping on when waiting lists are coming down and more people are being treated more quickly.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October. [38241]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Winnick: Why did the Prime Minister in his meeting with the French President not condemn French nuclear tests, which have deeply offended British and international opinion? Did the Prime Minister not take such action because the British Government have connived with
    96
    the French in a dirty deal whereby information arising from the nuclear tests will be passed on to this country? If that is the case, it shows the dishonesty of the Government.
    The Prime Minister: It is not the case. As I have said before, no information from the French nuclear tests will be passed to us—indeed, given the nature of our weapons, it would not be of use to us. There is no deal; I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that and withdraw his allegation.
    At least the hon. Gentleman is consistent in his views. He has been a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and he is, and he saluted the courage and determination of anti-nuclear demonstrators at Greenham Common. [Interruption.] I trail my coat to find out where Labour Members' hearts are, and now we know.
    Mrs. Lait: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October. [38242]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mrs. Lait: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the announcement that one of London's most popular grant-maintained schools, the Oratory school, will be able to build a choir school, thanks to its self-governing status in the public sector? While that may be music to the ears of the parents with children at the school, how does my right hon. Friend think that the rest of the Labour Front Benchers will react?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I welcome that news. Grant-maintained schools have a greater freedom to develop their strengths because power is put where it should belong: with the school head, the school governors and the parents who know best what is in their children's interests.
    Mr. Blair: Is it—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Stop this barracking—particularly from Ministers.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm as a matter of fact that what the chairman of the rail users' watchdog as well as the Transport Select Committee have said is true: that, as a result of privatisation, an extra £700 million of taxpayers' money will be paid to the subsidised, privatised railways?
    The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. Gentleman knows that over the years we have increased resources to the nationalised British rail industry. Contrary to what has been said by some people, the Government have supported record levels of investment. We made it clear when we decided to proceed with privatisation that we would support lines that were socially necessary—partly at the request of Her Majesty's Opposition. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not believe now that we should not do that.
    Mr. Blair: Is it not right that the Select Committee attributed the extra £700 million to privatisation, not to paying for socially useful routes, and that hundreds of millions of pounds of City fees are involved? Is it not also true that investment in the railways today is half what it was two years ago and that, as a result of privatisation, 5,000 manufacturing industry jobs have been lost and the unified railway network has been broken up into 70, 80 or 90 companies?

    97
    When will the Prime Minister, just for once, stop pandering to the right wing of the Conservative party? [Interruption.] Conservative Members may want rail privatisation: the British people do not. When will the right hon. Gentleman stop pandering to the right wing of his party and, instead, listen to and speak up for the British people, who want their railways run as a public service?
    The Prime Minister: I wondered whether the right hon. Gentleman would get round to his "lurch to the right" campaign, launched so inexpertly—one might almost say he made a hash of it—by the new shadow Chief Whip.
    If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the policies we are following, of bringing choice to parents and opportunity to children, are a lurch to the right, the country will not agree. If he thinks that spending more on patients' health is a lurch to the right, the people will not agree. If he thinks that dealing with asylum abuses, or standing up for Britain in Europe, represent a lurch to the right, he is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the centre right of politics is our ground and there is no way a squatter like him can rest on it. He may regard himself as the Trojan horse of socialism, but he will find that it is our land on which he is parking and there is no room for him on it.
    As for the right hon. Gentleman's specific point, and pushing aside the points on which he was inaccurate, I would tell him that there have been record amounts of investment in recent years—£1.5 billion in 1992–93, which was the highest for 30 years. Investment is still running at more than £1 billion in the current year, and every privatisation that we have introduced has provided better service.
    I see the new shadow Chief Whip in his place. It was he who once referred to the privatisation of British Airways as the pantomime horse of capitalism. It is now the most successful privatised air service in the world.
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that positive discrimination in favour of women is both unnecessary and patronising? Will he comment on the policy of the Labour party, which has imposed by diktat from Walworth road—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister is not responsible for the attitude of the Labour party. I am sure that he has caught the first part of the hon. Lady's question and is perfectly capable of answering it.
    Mrs. Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that we will never impose women-only shortlists, as has been done by diktat of Walworth road in six constituencies in the north-west of England?
    The Prime Minister: I can assure my hon. Friend that I believe that we should seek equality of opportunities for everyone, for women in the House of Commons and elsewhere. It is certainly our policy to do so. My hon. Friends needed no special discrimination to get here. As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I can promise her—not only in this but in other matters—that we will not follow the policies of the Opposition, because, apart from anything else, daily they seem to be following our policies.
    Mr. Ashdown: Will the Prime Minister consider these three dates? On 11 July, Srebrenica fell and 8,000 young men were taken away and massacred. On 31 May, I asked the then Secretary of State for Defence, in the House, to assure me that the policy on the defence of Srebrenica had
    98
    not changed, and he gave me that assurance. It is now revealed, or claimed, that on 24 May, with the full knowledge and acquiescence of the British Government, the UN decided to abandon Srebrenica to its fate. Is that correct?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, just occasionally, might do the British forces and the British Government the credit of acknowledging what they have done. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is not correct. He has been wrong throughout the whole of this episode time after time. He has denigrated what the British Government have done and what the British armed forces have done. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman this: there are hundreds of thousands of people alive today in Bosnia because of what was done by the British Government and the British armed forces.
    Mr. Elletson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a successful conference this year in my constituency? Is he aware that next year the Labour party will be in Blackpool? Will he take this opportunity to reassure parents and police in my constituency that under a Conservative Government cannabis cigarettes will never be for sale?
    The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance and I will tell the House why very clearly. The vast majority of people—between 80 and 90 per cent.—who move on to hard drugs graduate to hard drugs having first experimented with soft drugs. Any sensible person realises the danger of doing that and realises that any responsible person in public life would discourage the use of soft drugs because of the danger of moving to hard drugs. I am sorry that some Opposition Members with some responsibility in public life should choose to take a different view.
    Mr. Dowd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October. [38243]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Dowd: Given the Government's latest response to the recommendations of the Nolan committee, when will the Prime Minister stop his feeble backtracking on his alleged intention to improve the standards of conduct of Ministers and stop trying to defend the snout in the trough behaviour of so many on the Benches behind him?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman knows—or should know, if he took an interest in our matters—that the Nolan report is at present being considered by the Select Committee. It will very shortly be brought before the House, when we will have the benefit of the deliberations of the Select Committee and when the House can then vote on all the recommendations that emanate from it.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October. [38245]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend seen the letter—the characteristically pompous letter—from the leader of the Liberal party, inviting Conservative Members of Parliament to back his party on education? Does my right

    99
    hon. Friend agree that the best response to that has come from a Harrow Liberal councillor, Bernadette Murphy, who says that the arguments for the Conservative education system are unanswerable and that every party should understand that? Will he congratulate her on reinforcing her message by resigning from the council and causing a by-election and giving such a clear steer as to how people should vote in that by-election?
    The Prime Minister: I did see the letter from the right hon. Gentleman, which he displayed so widely among my colleagues. I recall that the letter also said:
    "This is the moment to stand up for what is right and to put Britain first."
    Clearly, Miss Murphy did.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October. [38246]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Deputy Prime Minister that Britain requires a job skills
    100
    audit? We have fallen from 21st to 24th in the league, according to the World Economic Forum's report on skill shortages. Is that because the Government do not invest in education and training? Is it not about time that the Government recognised that education and training are vital to our economy?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman has just demonstrated a skill shortage in answering questions. [Laughter.] It is clear—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Prime Minister: It is clear that Opposition Members' new standards of behaviour are only for certain occasions.
    Of course my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is right to examine the level of skills. He has done that to enable us to ensure that we can build on what has already been done to improve skills in the country. That is the purpose of the changes that have been made. That is the purpose of the training and enterprise councils; that is the purpose of investment. It is because of the increasing skills and increasing investment that our exports—not least in manufacturing—are performing better today than they have for many years.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You are a defender of the liberty of individual Members of Parliament, and I also agree with your advice that hon. Members on both sides of the House should show each other more courtesy. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that during the recent by-election certain representatives of the Labour party were very beastly to the—
Madam Speaker: Order. What is the point of order for me? I am not involved in by-elections; I need to know the Standing Order and the procedure with which the hon. Gentleman wishes me to deal.
Mr. Fabricant: The point of order, Madam Speaker, is that people have been very beastly to the Liberal Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies), and have been questioning his recommendations that people should use cannabis and that it should be legalised. Is that not very unfair, as the Opposition Front Bench is now making the same recommendations?
Madam Speaker: That is a total abuse of the House's time. I shall take no similar points of order; points of order must relate to questions with which I can deal, as Speaker of the House.
Mr. Matthew Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House may be aware by now that, after what has been internationally condemned as a show trial, Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa, the international environmentalist and social campaigner, has today been sentenced to death with no right of appeal. That is a matter of great concern. Has there been any indication, Madam Speaker, that a British Minister may respond, bring pressure to save the lives of Mr. Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues and make a statement in the House?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed by any Minister that he or she is prepared to make a statement today.
Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would appreciate a ruling on what is said in "Erskine May" about the abuse of Prime Minister's Question Time. Page 287 clearly states:
"Questions which seek an expression of an opinion, or which contain arguments, expressions of opinion, inferences or imputations, unnecessary epithets, or rhetorical, controversial, ironical or offensive expressions, are not in order."
In recent weeks, Conservative Members have asked an increasing number of questions that should really be addressed to the Leader of the Opposition. Many of my hon. Friends would approve of the idea of a Leader of the Opposition's Question Time, but we do not have one. Prime Minister's Question Time should be precisely that, but the Prime Minister is increasingly dodging legitimate questions by employing dubious devices originating from the Whips Office to ensure that questions are addressed to the Leader of the Opposition which only the Prime Minister can answer.
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that today I cautioned a Conservative Member that questions put to the Prime Minister must not relate to the Opposition. All Ministers are responsible to the House
102
for the workings of the Government and Departments, not for the attitude of the Opposition or any of the minority parties. I hope that my words will be noted by all concerned and that, in future, questions will be put to Ministers on matters for which they have responsibility and accountability to the House.
Mr. David Shaw: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A Member of the House receives £5,500 from ASLEF in sponsorship and has booked a room in the Parliamentary Estate on Thursday to meet a number of my constituents in connection with the £5,500 that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) receives. Is that not corrupt use of House of Commons facilities and should not it be stopped because it is a Labour party meeting for the benefit of the ASLEF sponsorship that the Member receives?
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Order. I think what the hon. Gentleman is trying to raise is further to the point of order. Serious allegations have been made by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw). I ask him to put them in writing to me so that I may respond properly because I am not quite clear about what he is insinuating. Such points of order must be put in writing so that the allegations are clear.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose—
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is not true.
Madam Speaker: Order. It may or may not be true. I wish to see the evidence supporting the allegations so that I may deal with them.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had any representations from the Deputy Prime Minister who has now been geared up with a £150,000 machine with which he is wired up to every Cabinet Minister? Has there been any request for him to answer questions for every Minister? He has a spy in a cabin over there and the taxpayers are having to foot the bill for £150,000 desk diary. In Derbyshire, that would buy a desk, a diary, a roof to put over people's heads, five rooms which could be stuffed full of furniture and a Rover Sterling car to put in the garage. It is an abuse of taxpayers' money and it ought to be condemned by all of us.
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman and, I hope, all hon. Members are aware, this matter will appear in the estimates. When they are debated, no doubt Members will notice it. In the meantime, there may be opportunities for an Adjournment debate on the matter. The estimates will come before the House for debate.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any request from the shadow Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement in the House on the alteration of her policy, which clearly shows that the Labour party is now soft on the greatest cause of crime? Have you received any such request to show that the Leader of the Opposition proposes to dispense with that shadow Secretary of State

103
following his demotion of her predecessor? To lose one shadow Secretary of State may be a misfortune. To lose two looks like carelessness.
Madam Speaker: Order. This is a totally disgraceful abuse of the House's time. I will not take the trouble to respond to questions such as that which do not come near a point of order.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have observed from the remaining Orders of the Day that there are no fewer than five pages of closely printed amendments to Standing Orders, most of them amending matters that are not contentious, such as Wednesday morning sittings and those which save the time of the House. However, you will recall that, when these matters were debated a year ago, there were three or four Divisions on matters of principle because some hon. Members believed that even the experimental orders permanently removed the powers of private Members as against the Government. In addition, the one that slipped through was for the removal of the opportunity for private Members' ballot motions to be debated in the House, and I understand that that is something of an historic privilege.
I have given notice to the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House suggesting that, due to the importance of those amendments, which are to be permanent, the time given on Thursday, prior to an important debate that the whole country wants to watch and know about, will be inadequate for a proper consideration of the amendments, that we should take the precedent of a Bill and have at least a weekend before we can debate them, and that we should therefore debate them early next Session, rather than in a hurried and controversial manner on Thursday.
Madam Speaker: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and that he has given notice to the Leader of the House on this matter. If he wishes, however, to alter our practice concerning the period of notice before motions are debated, I suggest that he asks the Procedure Committee to consider the matter. As to the timing of the debate on the motions to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, may I remind him that, on Friday last and without objection, the House ordered that all necessary questions to dispose of procedures on the motions should be put after two hours' debate on Thursday 2 November.
Mr. Charles Hendry: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. After all the attention over the summer given to the spread of the Internet, have you had any requests to install in the Chamber computers linked to the Internet, not least to ensure that Opposition spokesmen know the line from their party leader and the spin doctors, rather than being encouraged to speak their own minds?
Madam Speaker: Order.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Can you establish whether the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) gave notice to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) that he intended to raise in this House an issue that he knew not to be true?
Madam Speaker: I take it that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) did give notice, as is usual in the House, but he is here and can now speak for himself.
Mr. David Shaw: The facts with that information came through immediately before I came into the House. May I point out to Opposition Members that the hon. Member—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. I take it from that that no notice was given.
Mr. Shaw rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Gentleman conform with the courtesies of the House is all I am asking.
Mr. Shaw: On that point of order, Madam Speaker, you will recall that I wrote to you to make the point that that particular hon. Member did not inform me before visiting my constituency.
Mr. Denis MacShane: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On Thursday, Monday and Tuesday, we will debate the important questions relating to Nolan. Before each of those three debates, will it be in order for you to say to all Members that they should declare what consultancies and directorships they have and, in particular, what moneys they earn from outside businesses?
Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not present in the House yesterday. [Interruption.] Is he listening—he has just put a point of order to me. Perhaps he was not present in the House yesterday when I made it clear that, in any debates of that nature, I expect all hon. Members—that is, Members on both sides of the House—to declare any pecuniary interests.
Mr. Jim Dowd: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you clarify then and say that hon. Members must name each specific interest that they have, rather than—
Madam Speaker: Order. I am going no further. Hon. Members know precisely what is expected of them when they declare an interest.
Mr. Gerald Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has become abundantly apparent in recent months that points of order are used to name hon. Members in a way which, if broadcast outside and found not to be true, would give rise to substantial libel damages. The courtesies of the House also require that, in every case, notice is given to an hon. Member who another Member proposes to name. Clearly, that has not been done in many cases. Might not this be an opportunity for you to reconsider the rules of the House and to make giving notice mandatory?
Madam Speaker: We have a great many privileges in the House. What disturbs me enormously is that responsibility is not matched with the privileges that we have. Members of Parliament choose special times of the day and special days of the week in which what they say across the Floor of the House will be highlighted by the media. I deprecate very much many of the exchanges that are not at all genuine points of order which take place across the Floor of the House to attempt to seek publicity. I hope that Members will reflect on what I have said, and in future will put to me only real points of order that deal with our Standing Orders, proceedings and other matters with which the Speaker of this House can properly deal.

Water (Conservation and Miscellaneous Provisions)
3.44 pm
Mrs. Helen Jackson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the conservation of water by the establishment of mandatory water leakage targets for water undertakers and by encouraging the installation of water efficient fittings in homes; to provide for the review of abstraction licences which affect sites of nature conservation value; to give domestic consumers greater choice as to methods of charging for the supply of water; and to provide for the payment of compensation in relation to drought orders.
I am grateful for the chance to introduce the Bill, which, although a small Bill, is made significant by the failure of the water industry to cope with this year's hot dry summer. Its object is to place conservation at the heart of water management, in a way that both protects wildlife and ensures constant supplies to meet all our needs in homes and industry without the use of crude price rationing for the poor and more vulnerable.
Behind that objective lies the fact that, whatever the industry's management structure, water belongs to us all, and is in true common ownership. To squander that precious resource affects not only us but every plant, bird and animal.
The Bill seeks to achieve that objective in four ways, the first of which concerns leakage. Public anger spilled over this summer as company after company sought drought orders, hosepipe bans and, in the Yorkshire area, stand-pipes and cut-offs. That anger was fuelled by the growing awareness that because of leaking pipes, half a million gallons of treated drinking water is wasted every minute of every day—enough to serve the daily needs of an extra 26 million households.
Labour's campaign to highlight that scandal has now been backed by the National Rivers Authority report, "The Drought of '95", published last month, which said:
"Leakage is an area where in knowledge, the UK is without doubt a world leader, but in practice has some of the highest leakage rates in the world".
My Bill calls for mandatory targets to be set, monitored and enforced by the Government through the Environment Agency, in close consultation with the companies and the water regulator. The power to penalise companies for failure would rest with the new agency rather than with Ofwat, whose approach to leakage has been disappointing, constrained by its limited focus on economic factors rather than the wider conservation picture.
Two weeks ago, in a letter to the Secretary of State, the Water Services Association promised an enhanced programme of leakage reduction at no extra cost to customers. That is most welcome, and recognises for the first time that leakage reduction is the prime factor in water conservation. My Bill will ensure that those fine words are followed by effective action and investment.
Secondly, my Bill examines how homes could be designed to conserve water without changing usage patterns involving hygiene and our basic needs. Plentiful use of clean water remains the foundation for a high level of public health. The Bill seeks to minimise people's need for water by promoting water-efficient fittings in the home, rather than by using blunt economic tools simply to drive down demand.
106
For example, a programme to replace all the nation's older 9-litre toilet cisterns with new 6-litre varieties would in itself save more than 10 per cent. of present household usage. If half the baths that we take were replaced by showers—I do not advocate the Yorkshire Water chairman's advice to forgo baths and showers altogether—we should save a further 4 per cent.
Those savings are technically simple to achieve and permanent, and they would be popular because they cause no added inconvenience to customers. They are also more equitable than metering, as they are not made at the disproportionate expense of poorer customers, and are cheaper than the £200 per property cost of metering, especially as there are no continuing billing costs.
My Bill uses the new duty inserted into the Water Industry Act 1991 by the Environment Act 1995, adding a clause requiring water undertakers to devise grant schemes to help with the cost of installing the efficiency measures.
Customers who respond to the call for greater water efficiency would then be rewarded by a reduction in their bills to reflect their lower consumption. Companies would receive both the benefits of reduced demand, and their success or otherwise would be a recognised factor in price negotiations. The Government document "Water Conservation" endorses some of that approach, stresses the value of transferring to low-flush toilets and suggests that water byelaws and building regulations should be used to enforce the fitting of water-saving devices. We look forward to further work on this.
The Bill attempts to offer the necessary incentives to companies and customers to get some action. One response of the water companies to the summer shortage was to rush to the Secretary of State for drought orders, which would enable them to do two things—to take more supplies from the rivers and to escape liability for compensation. The Bill addresses both areas.
Section 79 of the Water Resources Act 1991 deals with the payment of compensation where a drought order has been made. There is no provision in the accompanying schedule for compensation for interruptions in supplies brought about by emergency drought orders. Moreover, interruptions in supply caused by ordinary drought orders are exempt from the provisions of the guaranteed standard scheme, unless covered in a specific contract with a particular business.
The horrendous threat of 24-hour cut-offs hangs today over the people of Halifax and Bradford in Yorkshire. The courts need to prepare for countless test cases for financial loss—or worse—in the event of a fire which might cause injury, or even death, which might have been prevented had a source of running water been available.
The action proposed in my Bill on compensation has been endorsed strongly by all the consumer bodies, and only last Friday by Ofwat's customer services committee.
But we cannot simply rob the lifeblood of fish, otters and other wildlife and drain the rivers dry in response to our failure to conserve the nation's resource. The Bill places water conservation at the heart of environment policy, where it belongs. It instructs the Environment Agency to review every abstraction licence
"which may be having a significant damaging effect upon a site of nature conservation value".
Where such damaging effect is found, the Bill will seek to revoke or vary the licence accordingly.

107
Many hon. Members will remember that half an hour before the end of the debate on Report of the Environment Act 1995—at 11.55 pm precisely—and after 75 hours of debate in Committee, the Government tabled a new clause about water conservation. There was no time for a considered amendment and no time for a proper debate. The Bill seeks to put that right, and it has the support of all the officers of the all-party parliamentary group on water and many outside organisations. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Helen Jackson, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Paul Tyler, Ms Joan Ruddock, Mr. Richard Burden, Mr. David Nicholson, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. David Jamieson, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and Mr. Max Madden.

WATER (CONSERVATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)
Mrs. Helen Jackson accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the conservation of water by the establishment of mandatory water leakage targets for water undertakers and by encouraging the installation of water efficient fittings in homes; to provide for the review of abstraction licences which affect sites of nature conservation value; to give domestic consumers greater choice as to methods of charging for the supply of water; and to provide for the payment of compensation in relation to drought orders: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 November, and to be printed. [Bill 185]

Disability Discrimination Bill (Ways and Means)
3.54 pm
The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Disability Discrimination Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of any fees received by the Secretary of State into the Consolidated Fund.
This resolution covers amendment No. 62, which relates to fees charged as part of the procedure for ensuring that public service vehicles are accessible to people with disabilities. The Bill provides for two means by which manufacturers may have their vehicles certified as accessible. The first approach, and one that we expect to be used most often, provides for individual vehicles to be certified as meeting accessibility requirements. That is closely modelled on the existing procedures for ensuring that buses and coaches meet the necessary safety and environmental standards—the certificate of initial fitness procedure.
The second approach, which will be available to manufacturers producing vehicles in larger volume, is a system under which a type vehicle is approved and manufacturers may then produce subsequent vehicles without individual inspection, so long as there are satisfactory arrangements to ensure conformity of production. That too mirrors existing arrangements for the type approval of buses and coaches. There is also a system of review and appeal when a manufacturer is aggrieved at the decision of a vehicle examiner not to issue a certificate.
The new clause, amendment No. 62, simply provides for fees to be levied to cover the Government's costs relating to the approval and certification procedure. That approach is well precedented in existing vehicle construction legislation.
3.55 pm
Mr. Tom Clarke: The Minister has set the scene for the Government's U-turns and climb downs on so many issues on disability, which we will be debating this afternoon. In that spirit, I welcome what he had to say at the eleventh hour, and invite the House to agree.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Disability Discrimination Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment of any fees received by the Secretary of State into the Consolidated Fund.

Orders of the Day

  Disability Discrimination Bill
  Order for consideration of Lords amendments read.
  Ordered,
  That the Lords amendments be considered in the following order: Amendments Nos. 1 to 29, Amendments Nos. 31 to 170 and Amendment No. 30.—[Mr. Burt.]

New clause

  Past Disabilities
  Lords amendment: No. 1, after clause 1, to insert the following new clause—
  (".—(1) The provisions of this Part and Parts II and III apply in relation to a person who has had a disability as they apply in relation to a person who has that disability.
  (2) Those provisions are subject to the modifications made by Schedule (Past disabilities).
  (3) Any regulations or order made under this Act may include provision with respect to persons who have had a disability.
  (4) In any proceedings under Part II or Part III of this Act, the question whether a person had a disability at a particular time ("the relevant time") shall be determined, for the purposes of this section, as if the provisions of, or made under, this Act in force when the act complained of was done had been in force at the relevant time.
  (5) The relevant time may be a time before the passing of this Act.")
  3.56 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3, 67 to 70, 72, 74, 77, 79, 91, 97, 98, 113 to 123, 129 and 130.
  Mr. Burt: This group of amendments relates primarily to part I of the Bill. The main changes involve extending the Bill's protection to cover people who have had a disability; putting human immune deficiency virus on the face of the Bill as an example of a progressive condition; introducing an additional power to make regulations stipulating effects on normal day-to-day activities which are to be treated as being, or, as the case may be, not being, substantial effects; and making the clause 2 guidance subject to the negative procedure. The remaining amendments are of a minor nature and are largely for clarification.
  I shall speak to a couple of the more substantial amendments in the group, which will extend the provisions of the Bill to people with a past disability and honour a commitment made on Report on 22 May by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who was then Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. He said that the Government accepted that the Bill should confer protection against discrimination on people who have had a disability that meets the Bill's definition.
  Hon. Members will recall that the Bill did not initially protect people against discrimination related to a disability from which they had recovered to the extent that they no longer experienced a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
  110
  We were persuaded that people who have had a disability need the same degree of protection as will be available to disabled people. It is an important part of the recovery process to be able to participate in social activities and to engage in employment. Discrimination, which undermines recovery by blocking access to employment or services, would be particularly damaging.
  Amendment No. 121 places on the face of the Bill
  "infection by the human immunodeficiency virus"
  as an example of a progressive condition. It has always been our policy that people who have such a condition will be protected by the Bill from the moment that it leads to an impairment that has any effect on that person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, whether or not the effect is substantial. The examples included no viral conditions and the amendment has helped to correct that omission.
  We have made it clear before that people with HIV will be covered by the Bill only if they meet all the requirements of schedule 1(7), that is, not until the first effect on normal day-to-day activities manifests itself. As the great majority of people with HIV infection are symptom-free, they would not be covered. HIV is a progressive condition and Lords amendment No. 121 gives it as a fourth example of such a condition.
  Sir Michael Neubert: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the innovation embodied in Lords amendment No. 121 at a time when concern has been expressed in connection with another Bill. Could he estimate what the cost to the state will be as a result of the change?
  Mr. Burt: The number of people expected to be brought under the Bill is negligible because the Bill, in its original form, was intended to cover people with progressive conditions anyway. The inclusion of HIV in the Bill has not changed the Bill's intentions towards progressive conditions or towards people who may have had HIV in any case. It uses HIV as an example of a viral condition and makes it clear that people can come under the terms of the Bill even if they have such a condition. The amendment only established that on the face of the Bill. Therefore, there is no extra cost.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The hon. Gentleman said that the cost of what is proposed is minimal. At what stage does he expect to be able to say anything about the total cost of the Bill as amended? Has he any idea of what the total cost of what the Government are proposing will be?
  Mr. Burt: That is not really at issue. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the total cost of the Bill will depend, to some extent, on the speed with which regulations are brought into effect. The main difference between the Bills offered by the Government and the Opposition has been that to introduce the Bill too rapidly would increase the costs to those who are going to be expected to provide goods and services in future. Our method of introducing the Bill over a period will mean that the costs will be reasonable for industry, while still matching the aspirations of disabled people.
  Mr. Morris: I am grateful to the Minister, who, as always, was as helpful as was possible. I mentioned the total cost of what is proposed because such great play was made about the cost of my Bill—the Civil Rights

  111
  (Disabled Persons) Bill. It was said repeatedly that that would cost £17 billion. If the Government felt able to make that costing, how long will it be before they can cost what is proposed in this much different Bill?
  Mr. Burt: As I courteously said to the hon. Gentleman, the great difference between the costings—and the resistance from the Government to his Bill and to similar Bills—resulted from the fact that they lacked the flexibility of this Bill in terms of its regulation-making power to introduce matters within the remit of the Bill over a period of time. The problem with the hon. Gentleman's Bill and other Opposition Bills was that their requirement to introduce provisions at a very early stage substantially increased the costs to employers and business—by so much that it would have made life awkward.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is simply not correct. The Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill envisaged that its provisions should be brought in over variable periods to be decided at the discretion of the relevant Secretary of State. There was a lot of Government propaganda that said that it all had to be done within five years at the staggering cost of £17 billion, but that was disinformation. The comparison that the Minister is seeking to make is wrong.
  Mr. Burt: We have heard the arguments about the merits of the respective Bills many times. It was the considered view of Conservative Members—and this view prevailed—that the cost would be prohibitive because of the way in which the previous Bill was drawn. We do not need to go back over those arguments. We are dealing today with a series of amendments to this Bill—a Bill that will substantially advance the cause of disabled people. If we concentrate on that, the merits of the Bill, as it will be amended, will become clear.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: I see much logic in the case that the Minister seeks to present on behalf of the Government, who have clearly changed their position. However, the House be unable to decide on these matters unless we know whether, by definition, those affected by the Bill accept the decision of the House of Lords on amendment No. 30. What is the Government's view on that amendment?
  Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman knows our view on amendment No. 30 very well. We seek to overturn that amendment, as we have made plain from the moment that it was passed in the House of Lords.
  Amendment No. 116 inserts into the Bill a power to make regulations stipulating effects on normal day-to-day activities, which are to be treated as being or not being substantial adverse effects. Hon. Members will be aware that the Bill defines "disability" as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
  We believe that businesses, disabled people, and courts and tribunals will, in the vast majority of cases, know who is and who is not protected by the Bill. However, experience may show that express provision is appropriate to clarify the position in relation to some conditions. This power enables that to be done without the need for further primary legislation. It complements other
  112
  regulation-making powers covering other aspects of the definition that were in the Bill when it left this House. I therefore commend the amendment to the House.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: This is the first of several occasions when I hope to catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to welcome the Government's climbdowns during the progress of the Bill. We have witnessed a series of concessions and U-turns, and the defeat in another place on a major principle. Ministers have been forced to recognise that the Bill which left this House seven months ago was simply not adequate to tackle disability discrimination. Nowhere is that clearer than in the area covered by the Lords amendments.
  We argued day after day in Committee about the definition of disability. We argued that the protection offered by the law should not be confined by medical definitions of disability. We argued that protection should be extended to those likely to suffer discrimination because of a history of or reputation for disability. We also argued for protection for those likely to suffer discrimination on the grounds of future disability, not just those with conditions such as multiple sclerosis and muscular dystrophy but those infected with HIV.
  Ministers resisted those arguments throughout the Committee stage, and the evidence exists. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said in Committee that he did
  "not think that we could justify to the country including in the Bill people who were thought to have HIV".
  He said that to do so would make the Bill too broad because it would include people who were not
  "understood to be disabled in any generally accepted sense of the term".—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 7 February 1995; c.83.]
  On protection from discrimination for those suffering from HIV, I am delighted that the Government have now given way. But notwithstanding their U-turns, we are bound to seek reassurances on the implementation of their commitment. We know from experience of the Act sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) in 1970 and my Act in 1986 that Ministers cannot always be relied on to implement every aspect of existing disability legislation, so we must be sure that there is no reluctance on their part in this matter and that the law will be fully implemented to protect those to whom protection has been offered only at a relatively late stage.
  We also welcome the addition of those with past disabilities, as contained in the amendments, subject to the same proviso that more needs to be said about implementation. With specific reference to the regulations and guidance, which define "substantial adverse effects", we seek Ministers' assurance that that phrase will be interpreted in a flexible way. Will Ministers assure us that the fluctuation in levels of the adverse effects suffered by many disabled people will be taken into account when the regulations are made?
  Subject to those comments, we welcome the amendments. My only regret is that Ministers have not accepted that perceived disability should be considered at this stage and included in the Bill. I regret that, following my intervention, the Minister confirmed his decision.
  Credit should be given where it is due. Many thousands of people will benefit from the Government's concession, made even at the eleventh hour. I congratulate all those

  113
  representatives of organisations of disabled people and others who lobbied the House on a cold, uncomfortable day. What has been achieved is their success and their victory. In that spirit, I welcome what the Minister has said.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister was not personally involved in the Committee, but he will know that we were repeatedly blocked in trying to include in the Bill what the amendments now propose. In particular, we discussed HIV at length, and of course we welcome the Government's belated conversion.
  The Minister used the words "We were persuaded" to explain the Government's conversion. We accept that compliment, which justifies our stance in the debates today in supporting further changes to the Bill, as now drafted. That is not unreasonable when we recall that the Bill left the Commons in March. It was 44 pages long, but there are 47 pages of Lords amendments. They are amendments to a Bill that the Government were quite satisfied was well drafted before it left here. We hope that the few further improvements that we are seeking today will be readily granted against that background.
  Mr. Neil Gerrard: I should like to discuss amendment No. 121, to which the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) referred, which relates to the inclusion of progressive conditions and HIV in the Bill.
  The Minister repeated the assurance given by his colleague in Committee that the Bill, as originally drafted, covered people with AIDS and symptomatic, but not asymptomatic, HIV. The recent concession by the Government is a welcome change of heart. I have always believed that it was important that the Bill should offer a clear recognition of the true medical significance of the progressive nature of HIV.
  The concession will help to offset some of the hysteria that still surrounds discussion of the subject. That was evident earlier in the summer, when the press got hold of the story that the Government had agreed in another place to make the amendment. There was dreadful press coverage about that, in the Daily Mail in particular. As I recall, matters were not helped by certain Conservative Members.
  It could be argued that it is of marginal importance whether something is dealt with in the Bill or in regulations, but it is not of marginal importance to those people with the HIV infection or those working with them. It is not a trivial matter. The Bill as amended still does not allow for the creation of a disability commission with teeth; instead, it relies on advisory councils. It is therefore important that as much as possible is spelt out in the Bill so that employers, providers of goods and services and those who may be discriminated against know that they are covered by its provisions.
  I still believe that the Government's approach to the definition as it relates to asymptomatic HIV leaves something to be desired.
  However, asymptomatic HIV is not covered by the Bill, and I continue to be unaware of any reason why the legislation will prevent employers who want to do so demanding pre-employment tests and, on the basis of those tests, discriminating against people who turn out to
  114
  be HIV-positive but do not yet show symptoms. That is a remaining loophole, which I am afraid some employers will continue to use to bar some applicants.
  As survival rates increase, as the efficiency of drug regimes to help people who have HIV infections improves, I can foresee that becoming more and more of a potential problem in future as long as that loophole remains.
  4.15 pm
  The fundamental flaw in the Bill, even with those welcome amendments, is that it continues to rely on medical models with a medical approach to disability, defining disability purely in terms of people's physical impairments. It says nothing about attitude. It says nothing about the physical and social arrangements that discriminate against people and build barriers against them. It says nothing about perceived disability. I am glad about the change of heart on a history of disability, but those flaws remain.
  I believe that the Minister used the words "any impairment". Later, when he described some of the clauses in more detail, he made it clear that we were continuing to use the definition of "substantial and adverse impairment" and effects on day-to-day activities. I should be grateful if he would say something about the way in which he envisages the regulations being framed.
  Undoubtedly, some people's conditions vary from time to time. That certainly applies to the issue that I have spent most of my time talking about—people who have HIV infections, who may sometimes be perfectly well for a time but who then will be quite ill for a time. There are people with sight impairment whose conditions are not constant and vary from time to time.
  It would be interesting to hear from the Minister the way in which he envisages dealing with people with problems that vary in intensity, in the regulations that will put into effect the definition of substantial and adverse effects.
  I welcome the improvements in the definition, which have been dragged out of the Government during the Bill's passage. It is a pity that the Government continue to resist the civil rights based approach and insist on the approach to definition that remains in the Bill. However, it is perhaps better than when we started.
  Mr. Roger Berry: In one sense, the group of amendments that we are discussing reflects the Government's whole approach to legislation.
  On the one hand, there has obviously been movement. That group of amendments shows that the Government have moved significantly in relation to definition.
  In Committee, we were told that it was necessary to have the narrowest possible definition, and that, if we were to include history of impairment in the category, it would open the floodgates and cause enormous problems. I am pleased to say that the Government have now recognised that they had to move to accept a broader definition of disability—just as I am delighted that the Government have moved from their position of 15 months ago, when they felt that no legislation at all was necessary on that subject.
  Although movement is always welcome, the problem in relation to the definition of disability—as indeed for the legislation as a whole—is that, when the Government have moved, they have moved too little and too late.

  115
  It was always the case that, when the Government consulted on definition, their idea of definition had very little support. Several of us have referred, on occasions, to the red book—"Consultation on Government Measures to Tackle Discrimination Against Disabled People". I find that red book—the outcome of the Government's consultation exercise on the Bill—almost as interesting as the Red Book that the Chancellor places before the House every year.
  One reason I find it so interesting is that it states that, of those who offered a view on the definition, only five supported the Government's original approach. The vast majority of people felt that a much broader definition was necessary. I welcome the fact that this group of amendments accepts that argument—we shall discuss amendment No. 30 later. I regret that the Government have not gone much further and taken a sensible approach.
  A number of us have referred to the definition used in the Americans with Disabilities Act, which was used in the Rehabilitation Act 1973, and thus goes back 22 years in the United States. We have used that legislation to invoke the argument that we need to include those with a history of impairment as well as those perceived as having an impairment. Those two aspects are closely related, which is why I hope that I am not out of order in making my point.
  The Government now accept that it should not be lawful to discriminate against someone with a history of impairment, if that is the reason for the discrimination. The Government accept that disabled people should be protected from unfair discrimination for that reason.
  But let us suppose that an employer says, "This person has applied for a job with my company. This person has a history of mental illness, which is over—it is history—but that history suggests a finite probability that the illness might recur. If the illness recurs and I employ this person, I may have to make reasonable adjustments to the accommodation in order to allow him. Therefore, might it not be reasonable for me not to employ this individual?"
  When we talk about a history of impairment, we are often talking about how an employer or service provider now perceives an individual. If a potential employee has a history of impairment, it affects the employer's perception of the future. Will the Minister clarify whether, when he accepts the idea that we should seek to prevent discrimination against people with a history of disability, he seeks to prevent discrimination against someone whose potential employer believes that his or her history may impose a burden on the company?
  We must be clear about that. I am worried that, because the Government specifically wish to exclude the notion of discrimination on the grounds of someone's perception of a disability, they might—in the case that I have given—use that exclusion as a reason for not acting against discrimination on the grounds of history.
  I hope that I have made my argument clearly. I have made my point as clearly as I can, but it is for other hon. Members to determine whether they understand it. I hope that the Minister will tackle that issue.
  I welcome this group of amendments, although they have not gone far enough, which is why we shall have a debate on amendment No. 30. I want to ensure that the
  116
  Minister's interpretation of history in the context of the amendments we are discussing will not create the problem that I have identified.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I simply want to ask a question of the Minister. When he uses the term "history", does he use it to refer exclusively to an individual person, or to a family history? I should be grateful if he will advise the House on whether his policy is intended to protect those born into families with a history of disability, such as genetically transmitted diseases. Would an individual be protected against discrimination by an employer or a provider of goods and services who is aware that that person may be in the pre-symptomatic phase of a genetically transmitted disease, for example?
  Mr. Burt rose—
  Madam Speaker: Does the Minister have the leave of the House to speak again?
  Hon. Members: Aye.
  Mr. Burt: I turn first to the issue of HIV. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) was correct in saying that my predecessor looked at the issue very carefully. The position in relation to asymptomatic HIV remains the same: it is too broad to include in the legislation. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the fact that the Bill now covers HIV when symptoms occur and impair.
  It is quite important for the House to say that, no matter how conditions are contracted, where there is illness, disability and disease, it will act—as society would—with compassion. That strong statement must appear on the face of the Bill, and it is a central part of the argument. I think that the House would be following a very unhappy route if it were to try to distinguish how people are in certain circumstances—particularly in relation to health and illness—and to explore those circumstances in every case. We would have to open the net extremely wide, and I will have no truck with that.
  The Bill recognises that all people who are affected by crippling diseases, however they have been contracted, will be treated in exactly the same way when they manifest symptoms. Everyone is in the same boat, no matter how a disease is contracted. It is important to clarify that point, and I hope that hon. Members will find it useful.
  The hon. Gentleman also referred to flexibility, and I hope that I can reassure him and the House on that point. Hon. Members will be aware that the process of establishing the regulations involves extensive consultation before we issue guidance. We recognise that certain conditions fluctuate, and that substantial episodes may occur rarely, with large gaps between them. The regulations will be flexible enough to deal with the fact that substantial episodes may occur at some stage in the distant future.
  Mr. Gerrard: Will the Minister clarify how the regulations will work in relation to the 12-month period that is mentioned in the Bill?
  Mr. Burt: I think that there has been some confusion about the 12-month period. It does not mean that episodes must recur within 12 months; that is not the issue as far as I am concerned. The likelihood of an episode recurring, not the frequency of the recurrence, is the main factor.

  117
  A person will be regarded as disabled if it is likely that the substantial adverse effect will recur at least once after—not before—a period of 12 months from the first occurrence. If it is clear that an episode will recur, it will fall within the terms of the definition. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find the regulations flexible in that area. There has been a great deal of consultation to ensure that that is the case.
  I think that I understood the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) pretty well. He seemed to be getting at exactly what we are getting at in terms of putting history on the face of the Bill. It is important that the Bill protects a person with a history of disability according to the Bill's definition, who may have recovered from that disability, but who may suffer a recurrence. From memory, I think that the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described would be covered by the Bill.
  I want, if I may, to scale down the gung-ho element in this debate. The House is grown-up enough to realise that the process of legislation involves hard debate, on Second Reading and in Committee, and in the Lords. There are times when the Government have to think extremely carefully, and are moved only after the passage of time. That is not the same as a climbdown or a U-turn: it has to do with the process of debate. The Government have to listen to the arguments, here and in another place; they have to deal with lobby groups and others; and if they take some time to produce amendments, that is because it is our duty to weigh these matters carefully. That is the proper process of government.
  I therefore hope that, on subsequent amendments, we will not go through this little charade of suggesting that the Government have been ground down and overturned on every point. That is not how it works.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Berry: Given the history of the fight for civil rights for disabled people, and the fact that, 15 months ago, the Government were opposed to any legislation, it would be nice if the Minister would now apologise to all the groups who were told 15 months ago that they had no right to protection of any kind.
  Mr. Burt: We should also bear in mind the Government's history of passing legislation supporting disabled people, from 1979 onwards. We have a superb record, but it is rarely referred to by Opposition Members.
  I said earlier that the Government had grave reservations about the costs—and everything else—involved in previous Bills on this subject. I am pleased to say that our Bill has moved the debate on. The Government are entitled to credit for that, just as all who have persuasively argued their case are entitled to credit for it.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: As the Minister seems to be seeking absolution, should we agree to that until he has made a full confession? Will he answer one simple question: when tabling today's amendments, did he consult the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott)?
  Mr. Burt: My right hon. Friend is and will remain a firm friend, who has done a great deal for disabled people.
  118
  I have no doubt that he would be in favour of the Bill and of all today's amendments. He remains a strong voice for disabled people in the United Kingdom.
  My memory has now recovered somewhat in relation to the costs of the Bill, which temporarily slipped my mind when I was discussing the matter earlier. The original estimates of the costs of introducing this Bill are between £300 million and £1.2 billion. The range is so wide because of the timetable, but, as hon. Members will understand, this Bill costs much less than previous Bills—
  Mr. Berry rose—
  Mr. Burt: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman for the last time. If I keep giving way, we will not be able to make progress.
  Mr. Berry: We all want to make progress, but the Minister has just made a throwaway remark about the costs of previous Bills, clearly referring to the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. May we hear again on the record that the Government's estimate of £17 billion was outrageous and wrong, and opposed by the all-party disablement group and by every organisation that looked objectively at the figures? It amounted to a smear on our Bill.
  Now I am happy to make progress.
  Mr. Burt: The hon. Gentleman seems to have got that off his chest. He can put it on the record if he wants to. The Government's view remains different from the hon. Gentleman's; that is why we have this Bill and not the hon. Gentleman's.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 4

  MEANING OF "DISCRIMINATION"
  Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 3, line 3, leave out from beginning to ("cannot"), in line 4 and insert
  ("to whom that reason does not or would not apply; and (b) he")
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 16, 18, 29 and 31 to 42, Lords amendment No. 43, Government amendment (a) thereto and Lords amendments Nos. 44, 45, 104, 106, 132 and 133.
  Mr. Paice: This group of amendments deals with reasonable adjustment to the meaning of discrimination within the Bill.
  Under the Bill, disabled people are protected from less favourable treatment which is for a reason relating to the disability and which is not justified. Lords amendments Nos. 4, 32 and 41 change the test of when treatment is "less favourable". As amended, the Bill will regard treatment that is for a reason relating to the disability as being less favourable if it is less favourable than the treatment of people to whom that reason does not apply. For example, where someone does not get a job for a

  119
  reason connected with his or her disability, that person is less favourably treated than the person who does get that job. The employer would then have to justify that treatment. That seems to us to be the right comparison.
  The remaining amendments provide a simpler and clearer test of "justification" for less favourable treatment. The changes were made following concern raised by hon. Members as well as noble Lords in another place that the original test in the Bill placed too much weight on the opinion of employers, and it was too complex. Indeed, that concern was raised both in Committee and on Report. The use of the undefined and broad word "unsuitable" also led to adverse comments.
  The amendments to the employment provisions substitute for a fixed list of specific justifications a principle that can be applied much more easily in the wide and varied range of circumstances that can arise in employment. Less favourable treatment of a disabled person would be justified only if the reason for it was material to the circumstances of the particular case and if it was substantial.
  In part III of the Bill, the concept of a reasonably held opinion and a fixed list of justifications is retained, although the drafting has been much simplified, as in part II. Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 43 alters the regulation-making power that deals with the question of what is reasonable, in the context of the provisions on premises in part III, to rely on one of the justifications for less favourable treatment. The Government amendment brings the premises provision into line with those relating to service providers in amendment No. 34. We are satisfied that this different approach continues to be right and relevant in the very different context of premises. Service providers often have to take quick and, perhaps, less informed decisions when serving someone, so an opinion-based approach remains appropriate.
  In the case of the clauses about employment and provision of services, the amendments also provide that a failure to comply with a duty of reasonable adjustment itself counts as discrimination, unless justified within the relevant provision.
  The amendments also make it clear, in new subsection (7), that regulations made under subsection (6) for less favourable treatment may stipulate that additional cost is a valid ground for justification. They also make it clear that regulations can enable uniform rates of contribution to be maintained. I can assure hon. Members that we do not intend that a trivial degree of extra cost should amount to a justification for less favourable treatment. The nature of an assessment makes it very unlikely that the regulations will fix precise figures for the level of extra cost that would amount to justification; instead, they are more likely to set out the considerations that should be taken into account.
  We are committed to consultations on the content of regulations that relate to occupational pensions and other regulations under the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will expand on the provisions relating to occupational pensions when the House considers the next group of amendments. I hope that hon. Members will wait until then to raise issues on that matter.
  We believe that, with these amendments, the Bill provides the right balance between ensuring that an employer can recruit the best person for the job and that
  120
  a provider of services can do so in a sensible way, and preventing unjustifiable discrimination against disabled people.
  Amendment No. 8 ensures that the duty of an employer to make reasonable adjustments, where any physical feature of premises causes substantial disadvantage to a disabled person compared with those who are not disabled, refers only to an employer's own premises.
  Hon. Members as well as noble Lords and employers expressed concerns that the criteria for reasonableness in making an adjustment should be more clearly established. The Government reflected on those concerns and concluded that it would be helpful to list in the Bill the key factors to which employers shall have regard when making decisions about a "reasonable adjustment". That is now done by Lords amendment No. 10.
  As my noble Friend the Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment explained in another place, we believe that a number of principal factors should be taken into account in determining whether it is reasonable for an employer to take a step. The code of practice would, of course, give further examples and guidance on the question of reasonableness. As amended, the Bill would continue to reflect the Government's view that the duty on an employer to make an adjustment should provide a fair balance between what can legitimately be asked of employers, and the needs of disabled people.
  Lords amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 ensure that, should the need arise, certain adjustments can be clearly prescribed as always or never being reasonable. That can be done, when appropriate, by reference to the cost of taking the step concerned.
  Section 7 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 enshrines the principle of merit in local authorities' practice. There is an exception relating to the appointment of disabled persons. It currently refers to the quota provisions of the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944, which will be repealed by the Bill. Lords amendments Nos. 132 and 133 make it clear that there is no conflict between the requirement that appointments be made on merit and the duty of reasonable adjustment in the Bill. In other words, an authority will still have to appoint on merit, but it will first have to consider whether a reasonable adjustment could help a disabled person to achieve that state of merit.
  Ms Liz Lynne: Will the pilot priority interview schemes be allowed to go ahead when the amendments are passed?
  Mr. Paice: The priority interview scheme is part of what is being repealed, so the answer is no; but there are a number of other ways in which local authorities, in appointing staff, will be able to take positive action to allow disabled people to demonstrate their merit.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: Will the Minister give us some examples of what the Government have in mind?
  Mr. Paice: There is a range of examples. Local authorities might wish to provide preferential training schemes for disabled people, to encourage them to make the most of their abilities in their employment. They might wish to launch special recruitment drives to encourage applications from disabled people for local

  121
  authority posts. They might wish to encourage applications from disabled people for individual vacancies as they arose. They might wish to interview all suitable disabled applicants. They could do, or continue to do, all those things.
  Let me remind the House of the disability symbol scheme run by the Employment Service. One of the commitments that employers must make if they are to use the symbol is to interview all applicants with a disability who meet the minimum criteria for a job vacancy, and then consider them on the basis of their abilities. The large number of local authorities that use the symbol is a clear indication of their freedom to take such action without falling foul of section 7 of the Local Government and Housing Act. That is just one of the ways in which authorities are currently able to ensure that disabled people have the best possible chance of making the most of the opportunities open to them. All those opportunities will remain when the Bill is enacted.
  The remaining amendments are very minor, improving and clarifying parts II and III of the Bill. I commend all the amendments to the House.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Gordon McMaster: Speaking at this stage in the Bill's passage, I feel a bit of a fraud. Much of the work has already been done by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), and has been recognised by disabled people throughout the country.
  I wish to concentrate on the powers of local authorities to take positive action to employ disabled people. During my researches this morning, I concluded that the Government had not acted with malice aforethought, but had merely been caught in their own net. Following the Minister's disgraceful speech about the positive action that can be taken, however, I feel that we must have something strong to say.
  Only last week, in the other place, did it become clear that local authorities would no longer be able to take positive action. We thought that that was simply because the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 requires councils to appoint on merit; but councils seeking to meet the 3 per cent. quota defined in the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 have had the power to take positive action. Following the Bill's removal of the quota, that will no longer be possible.
  Before reaching his conclusion, did the Minister examine the hundreds of examples of local authorities throughout the country that have taken positive action to give employment to disabled people? Before my election as a Member of Parliament I was leader of a council, and remember being presented with a "fit for work" award by the Department of Employment because the council had achieved a 1 per cent. quota for disabled people. In fact, we secured that award by breaking the law: we had exceeded the requirement by two thirds. The Minister is simply enshrining the removal of the quota in law; rather than ensuring best practice, the Bill will ensure worst practice.
  One of the reasons why the quota was so difficult to achieve was that the duty applied only to registered disabled people. There is a disincentive for disabled
  122
  people to register, as registration can make it more difficult for them to find employment. Many local authorities tried hard to achieve that 3 per cent. quota, but found it extremely difficult to do so because of the registration problem. They were making progress, but now some of the best practice in the country is to be stopped. The Minister shakes his head, but that will be the effect of the Bill. If local authorities can no longer take positive action, there is no doubt that the number of disabled people who are encouraged to work for authorities will fall.
  Local authorities seem to be treated differently from other groups. The Bill contains an exclusion for charities, especially those dealing with disability issues in the voluntary sector, and there is evidence of similar good practice in government which local authorities should be encouraged to follow. During the recess, for example, a new Benefits Agency office was opened in my constituency by Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, Minister of State, Department of Social Security. Although I could not attend the opening, I visited the office a few days later, and noted that the agency was employing blind telephonists. That is an example of good practice.
  In some circumstances, there will be nothing to prevent similar action in the future. Local authorities, however, should have the power to state after receiving application forms that they will guarantee an interview and that—all else being equal, and if the applicant meets the minimum or essential criteria—that applicant will be given the advantage of a job. It will seem a bit hollow for the many local authorities that now use the "positive about disabled people" symbol in their letterheads to be told by the Government to be less positive about disabled people. Some local authorities may not want to do that because it would be a backward step. I am disappointed that the Minister has taken that position and I have a few important questions for him.
  Will the Minister clarify the exact powers of local authorities to operate guaranteed interview schemes? What powers will local authorities have to operate any other type of positive action to encourage disabled people to enter into their employment? How does the Minister define merit and how will disputes be settled? "Merit" cannot be scientifically defined and, of course, there could be some disputes. Will local authorities be able to earmark particular jobs for disabled people—for example, in the field of equal opportunities units? I hope that the Minister will be more positive in reply to my questions.
  Ms Lynne: I was disappointed by the Minister's reply to my intervention. Local authorities that are taking positive measures should be congratulated. We must address the problem of under-representation in the work force of local authorities and what the Minister suggests will not take us far enough on that road. It is wrong that progressive local authorities such as the one in Rochdale will be blocked from taking these positive measures. Rochdale has a priority interview scheme in social services and, although we cannot totally assess it at the moment, according to the local government information unit there is benefit from it in, for instance, educating managers in how to judge a disabled candidate's ability to do a job rather than judging the perceived disadvantages, a practice that has often occurred in the past.

  123
  We have to tackle under-representation in local authorities. For decades, they have been as guilty of discrimination as other employers. The Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 set a target of 3 per cent., but it has been missed by a long way. Only 1 per cent. of employees of London authorities are disabled people and the average is worse for county councils. Borough and district councils are slightly better, but it is vital to allow local authorities to tackle this problem.
  I should like more clarification from the Minister on what he means by positive measures and whether he thinks they will meet the target. Under the Bill, the target is to go. Will the Minister's positive measures get more disabled people into the work force of local authorities? Priority interview schemes should be allowed to continue. The Bill repeals parts of the 1944 Act and changes to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 will prevent local authorities from pursuing such schemes. The Government must give a firm commitment on what will replace them.
  Some positive measures are reinforced by the Bill. Clause 10 deals with charities and supported employment being able to take positive action. Why not local authorities? They should be able to take the same action as other employers and should have the freedom to tackle the under-representation of disabled people in the work force. I should be glad to hear the Minister spell that out in more detail because I am extremely worried about it.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Can the Minister guarantee that the powers to make regulations in Lords amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 will not be used to undermine the assistance given to disabled people under the access to work scheme? In the view of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Government are already putting undue pressure on a whole range of employers to volunteer to pay a contribution to access to work. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that any weakening of access to work would run completely contrary to the intentions set out in the Bill to tackle discrimination against disabled people in employment?
  I am delighted to follow in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster). He is as true a friend of disabled people as one will find anywhere in this country. He worked with disabled people before he came here and has shown constancy of the highest order in their service since the moment he arrived at Westminster. I count him among my most honoured parliamentary colleagues and wish him all success in what I am sure will be a deservedly long and distinguished Front-Bench career.
  The Minister said that it was an important purpose of this part of the Bill to ensure that an employer could appoint the best person for any vacant post. Hon. Members will appreciate that, having legislated so extensively on disability over the past 25 years, I receive a national post from disabled people and their organisations. I am told by disabled people in all parts of Britain that they are refused access to jobs for which they are well qualified due to misconceptions on the part of employers.
  I recall the case of a very capable woman who, in keen competition, won a senior post in a big police authority. Having taken the job, she was told that, because of a disability that in no way affected her job, she would be excluded from the superannuation scheme. That was a
  124
  most important consideration as far as she was concerned. I recall the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation contacting me about that particular case. The Minister's predecessors are aware of case after case where I have been asked to do everything possible to ensure that disabled people who have proved their fitness for jobs are not disbarred by actions taken by unreasonable employers. It is that sort of gratuitous extra handicap that so upsets disabled people. In that particular case, the woman had to decide whether to carry on in the job that she had won in open competition or to look for something else. That cannot be right. We are not absolutely certain yet that there will be fewer opportunities to exploit people in that kind of difficulty if the Bill as drafted becomes law.
  I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South talked about the 3 per cent. quota. The quota has not been implemented through legal action since the 1970s. It has many critics. The fact that is very important today for disabled people is that a Bill that seeks to increase the rights of disabled people takes a right away from them that they regard as still very important. They say, "You must not do away with an existing form of protection without introducing something stronger." My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South knew, from the work that he did among disabled people before he entered Parliament, how important the 3 per cent. quota was in terms of local government employment. He mentioned it today and I hope that the Minister will respond positively on that issue.
  Let no one speak in accents of serene satisfaction about what is now proposed. That is not how disabled people see what we are doing today. They want full and enforceable civil rights and they want them without any further delay.
  5 pm
  Mr. Connarty: When I stand to speak in the debate, I am aware that I follow people who have ploughed a deep and clear furrow in the cause of fighting for people with disabilities, but I wish to support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) and to congratulate him on his first Front-Bench appointment. I look forward to seeing him on those Front Benches for many years to come.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South made the important point that some serious concerns must exist as to the purpose of the Government's removal of the 3 per cent. quota, which was not just a protection, but the only piece of positive and affirmative action contained in the law for disabled persons.
  As some people have said, in many respects it had fallen into disuse. Sixteen years of recession since the Government came to power meant that many corners were cut. That is the reality at the sharp cutting edge. People had to choose between an employee who might have had to be cosseted or protected slightly more, or whose productivity was slightly less than others. In the economic environment created by the Government, employers did not choose those people where they did in the past.
  It was local authorities, in the majority of cases Labour and other non-Conservative local authorities, that took seriously the 3 per cent. quota. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South said, the "Fit for Work" award was often given when the local authority or other

  125
  employers had not reached the 3 per cent. quota, but were seen to taking affirmative action, not just not to discriminate against disabled persons, but to discriminate in their favour.
  Some people would say that the 3 per cent. quota had fallen into misuse. It was clear that employers and often local authorities, I am sorry to say, encouraged people in employment who had a minor injury or minor disability to register as a disabled person to obtain a green card for a broken limb, thumb or finger, but that was not the purpose of the original Act.
  I was also a Scottish local authority leader for 10 years. We were proud to receive the "Fit for Work" award, but we did not reach the 3 per cent. target, although we tried hard to do so—not by trying to get people to register for the green card, but by seeking people who would fit that bill and then positively discriminating towards them under the 3 per cent. rule. That power has been removed by the Government in schedule 4: they are removing the positive discrimination and saying that posts must be awarded on merit.
  In an intervention, I asked the Minister what the Government would do and he mentioned preferential training schemes, special recruitment drives to encourage disabled people to apply for a vacancy, and interviews of all suitable disabled people for potential vacancies. In reality, however, he is saying that those people should queue up and then be chopped down on the basis of merit.
  Someone will be able to say, "I deserve that job on merit, a disabled person does not deserve it on merit, and therefore he has no complaint under the Government's Bill." That is not the spirit that, in my experience, made local authorities use the 3 per cent. quota.
  I wish to give an example to the House. When I was leader of Stirling district council, we had a vacancy for someone to operate the switchboard and to work on reception. We were offered many people with minor ailments and disabilities, but the position was so accessible to someone with severe disability that we wanted the disablement officer to find us someone who had the ability but major problems of mobility. The council's attention was brought to a young woman called Jean—I shall not mention her second name, but I am sure that she would be proud to be mentioned. She has also been featured in many articles.
  Jean was a seriously disabled person because thalidomide had been taken by her mother; she had foreshortened limbs. She had some trepidation about coming into a job, especially that of a receptionist working on a switchboard and facing the public, but she had a bold character. We made all the amendments necessary to give that young person access to the council.
  Within a couple of years, Jean blossomed. She is still working with the local authority in reception, and in an upfront role. She takes the other receptionists to work in her disabled-amended car. She has a pilot's licence for gliding, and in the workplace has taken on board all the skills necessary. She has developed not only the personality for working in the reception and the technical skills, but everything required of her.
  That was positive discrimination by the local authority, but it is clear that, under this Bill, no matter how one advertised the post, one would have great difficulty not
  126
  discriminating positively—in other words, breaking the law—to give someone such as Jean the sort of job that she requires. A local authority, public employer or a large employer deserves a "Fit for Work" award when they positively discriminate, because that is what persons with disabilities are looking for. To receive such an award, it is important that an authority or large employer should be able to hold their head up among people who suffer from severe disablement.
  The Minister mentioned the word gung-ho in referring to the Opposition's pleasure at the Government's climbdown on a number of issues in the Lords. Over the past 18 months, we have recognised, from the way that persons with disabilities have come to the House and lobbied, that they have acquired a new, louder voice. Talk about gung-ho—we will see some gung-ho action on this Bill, because those people will fight for every chance to prove that they need more from the Government. They will batter down the doors of the House until they are given equal rights and a positive discrimination framework that gives them access to true employment, which they deserve and which they will undertake with honour.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Amendment No. 4 deals with the comparative for assessing whether an employer's treatment of an individual is less favourable. That is but one instance of a problem that we will have to reflect on and on which the Government owe the House some guidance this afternoon. We are dealing with an extremely complex piece of primary legislation, with further extensive and no doubt complex secondary legislation to follow.
  The Government have not made it clear how an employer, a provider of goods and services or a disabled person is to understand what the nature of their obligations is. How is an employer to make his assessment of whether his treatment is, under the terms of the legislation, less favourable or not? The Minister sought to explain the Government's case on that, but did not cast all the light on it that may be needed.
  The Minister with responsibility for disabled people told us in a debate the week before last that he had it in mind that there should be a fairly extensive system for provision of information and advice, but I do not think that the details have been made clear. This debate would provide an opportunity for the Government to make more clear to hon. Members and—very important—to the field that they have in mind.
  Most of what we know so far is what the Government have ruled out. We know that there is not to be a disability rights commission which would have responsibilities for briefing and education, analogous to those of the Equal Opportunities Commission or the Commission for Racial Equality. We also know that the National Disability Council is not to be involved—certainly it is not to have a role in advising in particular cases and circumstances.
  We have been advised that there is to be a central helpline, perhaps located in the Department of Social Security, and we have also been told that there will be some sort of second tier and network around the country whereby advice will be made available. This is an urgent and important point. In all the complexities of this legislation, we will need advice that is clear, consistent and accessible and that is provided on a cost-effective basis, in relation both to the providers and to the seekers of the advice.

  127
  It is important that whatever advice is on offer should be readily accessible. It would be helpful, therefore, if the Minister told us a little more about the helpline. For example, will it be a freephone? If somebody seeking to use it is held in a queue of callers, will the courtesy of a return call be offered, or will he or she have to wait, fuming and increasingly impatient and frustrated, in the queue?
  What will people find in the local telephone directory when they seek to discover how to take advantage of the service that the Government intend to make available? If they manage to get through and to consult someone, what guidance will be on offer?
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has spent a very great deal of time over recent years assisting people with special learning difficulties. He will be aware of the work of People First, and in particular of Simone Aspis of that organisation. She has asked that this debate should take account of young people with special learning difficulties, who will find it very hard to get the information they need about their rights.
  She gives the example of a young person who is refused access to a social club, a youth club, because of having Down's syndrome. A person with special learning difficulties trying to find out her rights under this legislation will have no easy task. I know that my hon. Friend is as seized of the importance of that as are many others on this side of the House.
  Mr. Howarth: My right hon. Friend provides an excellent example of the need that I have sought to describe. It is a happy circumstance that the Minister present comes from the newly combined Department for Education and Employment, which has particular responsibility for young people, including those whom People First exists to represent and support. The Minister's Department has responsibility for the youth service—or what remains of it.
  Certainly the needs of disabled young people, and the needs of the youth service that seeks to serve young people, represent an important example of an area in which there will be a demand for advice.
  I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House what guidance he and other Ministers intend to give to Whitehall, to Government agencies, to non-departmental public bodies, to quangos and to the rest of our increasingly fragmented system of government, as well as to local authorities.
  At present, there is great uncertainty. The CBI suggests that the range of services to he provided will be so extensive that it may include a mediation service. I cannot see how that could be so, but it would be encouraging if it were.
  What will be the nature and extent of the advice available? Where will it come from, and what can people expect to be advised upon? Will they be told the nature of their obligations under the various elements of the legislation? Will they be given guidance, for example, on the practical meaning of "reasonableness" in a particular set of circumstances? Will they be advised as to what is "best practice", and about the developing body of case law resulting from tribunal hearings? Will they be told where to go for further advice on technical and specialised matters?
  128
  May we be told today about the funding of the system? What resources will be available for a system that must go well beyond the present PACTs—placement, assessment and counselling teams—and CEDPs—committees for the employment of disabled people? I am sure that the citizens advice bureaux will want to play what part they can in the system, and what they can do is invariably most helpful, but traditionally they have not been able to shoulder responsibilities of the sort suggested. If the Government seek to enlist them for the purpose, what will they do to help them? What resources will be provided for them?
  There is already a pretty tangled and impenetrable cat's cradle of services, bodies and organisations, so it is vital that everyone concerned should know what they can expect in the way of information and advice.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster), whom I warmly congratulate on his appointment to the Front Bench, said to the Minister that the Bill as amended would prevent local authorities from taking the positive action that many of them have so valuably undertaken to promote better employment opportunities for disabled people, the Minister shook his head. It is therefore important that, if he has the leave of the House to respond to the debate, the Minister makes it clear what diminution the Government intend in the scope of local authorities to support the employment of disabled people through positive action—or whether he considers that the status quo will be preserved.
  5.15 pm
  I put it to the Government that public authorities should set the best standards in employment, and should have every assistance and support from the Government in doing so—not only because they are major employers, but because they are public authorities, and it is right that they should set a model.
  Too many public authorities do not set a good example. The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) has over the years tabled a series of questions and elicited much information about the disappointing performance of Whitehall Departments and other publicly funded bodies in the employment of disabled people, and the manner in which they have all too often ignored the quota by which the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944 bound them.
  However, many local authorities do set a high standard and provide a good model in that respect, with their positive disposition and the positive action that they have been willing to take. The Bill should at least safeguard local authorities so that they are not in a weaker position than private employers if they wish to act positively towards disabled people in their employment practices. After all, local authorities are expressive of their communities, and should take the lead within those communities in supporting those who are disadvantaged and in demonstrating best practice.
  Such legislation is enormously important, not only for what it specifically provides but for its more broadly ranging declaratory effect. I mean not words without substance but legislation that articulates the values that we as a society should uphold and seek to realise in practice. Such legislation has an important educative role, and there should be nothing in it that seeks to discourage or restrain employers from best practice in the employment of disabled people.

  129
  As it is, there are too many equivocations, omissions and vaguenesses in the Bill. As has been said, it is sad that the Government are not willing to embrace the universal principle set out in the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. We should not at this stage countenance any amendment of the Bill before us that would take us backwards rather than forwards towards the realisation of what should be the objective of all of us—an end to discrimination against disabled people in employment and in the provision of goods and services.
  Mr. John Heppell: I shall not speak long, but I start by congratulating those who served on the Committee, who have achieved the almost impossible in turning a sow's ear into a silk purse. I say "almost impossible", because there are still omissions from the Bill that I would like to put right. One of those is the absence of a commission, because—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We cannot at this stage debate omissions from the Bill. We have plenty to debate as it is.
  Mr. Heppell: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was leading on towards the more relevant subject of the clauses concerned. First, I shall say something about the 3 per cent. quota that has disappeared. Like many other hon. Members, I have been a councillor, and I had the responsibility of being a chair of equal opportunities and the chair of a disability sub-committee. We were able to do things on that disability sub-committee that we could not do in committees on race or gender. I would like the same laws to apply in all areas, and I would like there to be a commission for disability, as is the case for both gender and race.
  The 3 per cent. quota is not just a mechanism, and by removing it, the Minister is also removing something from councils. The quota gives a target and a perspective to councils. My council did not have its solicitors in the background on the subject of disability, saying, "We are not sure that the council has the power to do this," in the same way as it did on the subjects of race and gender, but that is what will happen in the future. We can see already that there some things that we can do in terms of positive action, but there are other things that we cannot do. I cannot seen any reason why the 3 per cent. quota could not have co-existed with the provisions of the Bill.
  I wish to ask the Minister about Lords Amendment No. 31 which plans to insert the words
  "Except in such circumstances as may be prescribed".
  Will the Minister confirm my suspicion that part III of the Bill will not apply to clubs or societies in relation to the provision of services for their members?
  Does that mean that a Bill designed to outlaw discrimination will allow discrimination against people who are members of a pigeon fanciers' society? Does proper access and provision need to be made by a garden centre, but not by a gardening club? It seems to me that there is an anomaly there, and the Minister should tell the House what measures the Bill contains to take action against a service provider which limits its services to members while continuing to discriminate unfairly against people with disabilities.
  130
  Can the Minister clarify the position of business, and particularly shareholders? Will it be necessary for a company having its general meeting to make sure that the building is accessible to people with disabilities? Will the information to shareholders be sent in a form of communication that suits people—such as braille, large letters or tapes? If not, people will be discriminated against.
  Will copyright matters be considered circumstances "as may be prescribed"? I understand from the Royal National Institute for the Blind that some famous authors will not allow their books to be put on tape or made into braille for blind people, thus denying blind people the right of access to those books. That is serious enough, but the fact that those books may form part of a set text for an exam that a blind person might have to take makes the matter even more serious. If that is a prescribed matter, will the Minister tell us what he proposes to do about it? Will the National Disability Council be allowed to investigate the matter further if it is prescribed?
  The Bill is in many ways a milestone in terms of disability discrimination legislation, but it is not the end. There are still many things which need to be done if we are to ensure that people with disabilities enjoy the same civil rights as those of us in the Chamber. After tonight, I hope that people will not say that this is the end of the chapter and that we can now forget disabled people. There is still a long way to go to make people with disabilities free and liberated in society.
  Mr. Harry Barnes: I wish to make some brief points on this batch of amendments. The Government have again shown that they do not understand local authorities. As employers, local authorities are not the same as businesses. They are elected authorities, with particularly close links with citizens, whose values are shaped by those citizens. They must seek to shape attitudes within an area.
  By not allowing the quota system to operate and not allowing positive discrimination, the Government are seriously affecting local authorities. The Derbyshire Coalition of Disabled People—an activist body working for disabled rights—is based in Clay Cross in north-east Derbyshire. That group undoubtedly has had a great impact upon local authorities throughout Derbyshire, none more than North-East Derbyshire district council.
  Programmes such as "Towards Equality", in which disabled people are trained for jobs with a local authority or another organisation, are very important. Such programmes may now be taken away from local authorities because of a spurious argument about level playing fields and about how disabled people generally are to benefit from the provisions of the legislation. Local authorities are special, because the views of local people are reflected back to them, and we should take that seriously into account.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) visited the Derbyshire Coalition for Disabled People and the district council, and he understands the close connection between them and the impact that that organisation of disabled people run by disabled people has made. It would be a pity if the organisation now found itself fighting a harder battle with local authorities in areas where it has previously had its greatest response.
  My second point arises from points raised during the debate on the first batch of amendments. It was mentioned that a cost assessment of the operation of the Bill would

  131
  be considered. We have always asked how many people are supposed to be covered by the Disability Discrimination Bill.
  We know that a cost assessment of £17 billion was made for the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, and that the number of people to which the Bill applied was 6.5 million, or 10 per cent. of the population. The Government have never stated how many people this Bill is designed to apply to. If a cost assessment is likely to be made, the Government must have some idea of the number of people to whom these amendments and others apply. I hope that the Minister will give us those figures when he replies.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Paice: First, I welcome the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) to his position. I join his hon. Friends in hoping that he will spend many years on the Opposition Front Bench. In a genuine expression of feeling, I join him in thanking the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), for his work; he dealt with the issues throughout Committee stage with his usual humorous, but nevertheless extremely well-meaning and deliberative, intent.
  We have heard a lot about quotas. As you will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, provisions for the abolition of the quota and everything that went with it were already a part of the Bill when it left this House. To reopen that debate at this time is hardly appropriate. We debated the quota and the fact that it required registration, and a large number of disabled people did not want to register for personal reasons, some of which were that it stigmatised and categorised them, which they did not like. That is why the priority interview scheme cannot continue. If there is no registration, there can be no scheme as practised.
  The hon. Member for Paisley, South and most of his colleagues, as well as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) have pushed me further about what local authorities can do. They will be able to do virtually anything to encourage and enable disabled people to work for them, as long as they appoint the person who is most suitable for the job after they have made reasonable adjustment.
  I must stress that point—it is after they have made the reasonable adjustment. There is no maximum for such adjustment. If the local authority is prepared to invest vast sums of money in making provision so that a disabled person is suitable for a job, that is up to the authority, and it has that privilege. I share the view of a number of hon. Members that local authorities are the ideal organisation to set a good example to employers, but appointing a less suitable person to a job is not a good example to set to anyone.
  Mr. Corbett: No one is suggesting that.
  Mr. Paice: But that is precisely what has been suggested in Opposition Members' speeches, and what has been practised in a few local authorities. We want every local authority to have the opportunity to do what it democratically decides to do to encourage and enable disabled people to apply, be interviewed and be considered for any vacancies that arise. They can do what they like in the manner of making reasonable adjustment. Ultimately, they must decide on the most suitable person for the job. The one thing that they must not do is to
  132
  disadvantage someone who is not disabled. They must use the best person, regardless of whether or not he or she is disabled.
  Mr. Corbett: I am grateful to the Minister for his kind remarks, and for giving way. May I make this matter as clear as I am able? No one is looking for privileged treatment for people with disabilities. What has been argued today and during earlier stages in the passage of the Bill is that job applicants should be judged by the same criteria for their fitness, and that if the successful applicant happens to have disabilities, that matter should properly be addressed. That is all that was being asked. My colleagues and I might have wanted to go further and ask for positive discrimination, but we did not do so.
  Mr. Paice: It is a matter of interpretation. If it is as the hon. Gentleman says, then that is fine. There is no problem with local authorities considering disabled people in the manner that he described and appointing them. I was under the clear impression, however, from a number of the speeches of his hon. Friends, that they wanted to take it much further and to discriminate positively in favour of disabled people at the appointment stage, which would not be permissible under the Bill, for the reasons that I described.
  The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) referred to employers having misconceptions. Under the Bill, any employer would have to ensure that, if he discriminated against a disabled person, the discrimination was not based on any unreasonable misconception, and he would have to justify it according to the new amendments from the other place in this group, which I support.
  Every employer will have to be able to stand up in an industrial tribunal, if the case gets that far, and demonstrate that discrimination was justified and that it was material to the circumstances of the case and the reasons for it were substantial. Those are important points. If he has misconceptions and brands all disabled people in some prejudicial way, it will cause him serious trouble. That is the purpose of the law—to ensure that disabled people who might suffer from such misconceptions are protected.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. The case that I raised was not a hypothetical one. It was a real case, which I referred to one of his then ministerial colleagues, who is no longer in the Government.
  What it proved was that even employers in very important organisations, such as major police authorities, were not aware that they were piling handicap on handicap for a woman whose disability was totally irrelevant to the job that she was doing. To say, in her case, "You can't belong to the pension fund," really was highly culpable, yet they thought that they were acting properly.
  What the Minister is now saying raises the whole question of legal representation. I am sure that he recognises that many disabled people will feel unable to pursue their own cases. More fortunate people will seek the highest legal advice. That is a very important problem for disabled people who cannot afford to do so. It is not one that I am trying to create, but one that they tell me about day by day as we discuss the Bill.
  Mr. Paice: I must emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman that we are certainly not encouraging all cases

  133
  to go to an industrial tribunal. I hope that he will not interpret my earlier remarks as saying so. As I made clear on Report, we are trying to change employers' attitudes and thereby change their behaviour towards disabled people.
  I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would rightly challenge this, but what are the sanctions if they do not treat disabled people fairly? Ultimately, employers have to be prepared to defend their case in an industrial tribunal. I have no desire to see thousands of cases go to such tribunals. I want disabled people to be given their proper opportunities by employers the length and breadth of the country.
  On the case of the lady to whom the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe referred, will he reflect on what I said about pensions? Although we face a slight procedural difficulty in that one of the amendments in this group refers to pensions, the next group predominantly concerns occupational pensions, and my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People will reply at length to the right hon. Gentleman when we discuss that group.
  In that lady's case, in which disability was irrelevant to the job at hand, discrimination would normally have been unreasonable. Discrimination because of a disability that is totally irrelevant to a person's suitability for a job would normally be considered unreasonable.
  A number of other hon. Members spoke—largely about quotas and whether or not positive discrimination was possible. I remind the hon. Member for Nottingham. East (Mr. Heppell) that positive discrimination is not allowed in race or gender legislation either, and that was enacted under a Labour Government.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, East asked about clubs and societies. Disabled people will not be covered by part III, because that is addressed to the general public; membership of a closed club or society is not a service to the public. Again, that mirrors the sex discrimination legislation.
  I have responded to the principal points that were raised. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 16 agreed to.
  Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 5, line 20, 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.")

  Mr. Burt: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 99.
  Mr. Burt: Clause 4, in its present form, will cover actions of an employer in providing opportunities to employees for pensions and insurance benefits. These will fall within the existing wording of clause 4(1) and (2). However, the actions of trustees and managers of a pension scheme are not covered, as they are not the employer.
  134
  Amendment No. 27 will imply a rule of non-discrimination against disabled people into the rules of occupational schemes. That means that any discriminatory decision taken by trustees will be contrary to the rules of the scheme. A disabled person affected will be able to seek redress through the dispute resolution mechanisms that already exist for pension schemes. The regulation-making powers in sub-paragraphs 3 and 4 of Lords amendment No. 27 modify the existing powers in part II to enable the regulations to make special provisions for trustees of pension schemes.
  To go to the meat of the matter, 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 advice, such as actuarial or medical advice. Many disabled people have disabilities that do not affect their life expectancy or likelihood of ill health retirement, and the amendments will make sure that they can no longer be unfairly denied access to an employer's pension scheme.
  The amendment to clause 6, Lords amendment No. 17, will disapply the duty of reasonable adjustment for occupational pensions and certain other similar benefits and provides a regulation-making power to prescribe benefits for additional types of risk to be covered by this exclusion. Again, we will 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 also other insurance benefits. Lords amendment No. 28 inserts a new clause on insurance benefits and 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 the disabled person under this new clause if it treats that person in a way that would be an act of discrimination under part III if done by the company with regard to a member of the public. A disabled person would be able to take a complaint against the 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.
  Lords amendment No. 99 provides that the term "occupational pension scheme" is to have the same meaning in the Bill as in the Pension Schemes Act 1993.
  The amendments provide the right balance between meeting the needs of disabled people and non-disabled people in occupational pension schemes and placing necessary requirements on employers. I believe that they achieve the Government's objective, and I commend the amendments to the House.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. McMaster: Now that the Government's Bill is taking its final shape, the United Kingdom's 6.5 million disabled people will judge it against the civil rights legislation that they have wanted so much for so long—

  135
  the legislation that was offered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who was responsible for much of its drafting, and by some of my other hon. Friends since.
  Despite the fact that the Bill as it stands today has been improved by the Opposition, following concession after concession, climbdown after climbdown and U-turn after U-turn by the Government—I was not on the Committee, but I have studied its proceedings and it is clear that the Opposition have managed to force the Government to change course since the Bill started out on its parliamentary voyage—the Bill is still a pale shadow of what it could and should be.
  The measure of the Bill must be whether it makes disabled people full and equal citizens. Against that yardstick, it does not measure up. One of the great holes in the Bill is its failure to give disabled people full or equal rights in the provision of occupational pensions and insurance benefits. The fact that the Government have introduced amendments, albeit at the eleventh hour, that bring such matters into the ambit of the Bill should have been a good thing, but the effect—and I suspect the purpose—of those measures, is to enshrine in law the discrimination that already exists rather than to outlaw it.
  On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, speaking on behalf of the Government, suggested that employers and insurance companies will be able to exclude—or limit the benefits offered to—disabled people considered to be higher risk. He said that the Government were
  "preventing the weighting of risk on grounds of disability but retaining it for health".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 October 1995; Vol. 566, c. 1000.]
  On Report, he had stated that there would be cases where less favourable treatment would be justifiable. By no stretch of the imagination could that be called full and equal citizenship.
  Will the Minister tell us exactly what that means in practice? What criteria will he use to determine the distinction between disability and ill health? Disputes and grey areas are inevitable and people will look to the Minister and his Department to sort them out. In the absence of a powerful commission to enforce the legislation, how will the Minister ensure that the measure is applied consistently, fairly and with equity?
  The amendments allow for cost to be a justification for discrimination, yet, according to a recent research report by the Minister's own Department, there is no evidence to suggest that disabled people go off work due to sickness more often than do able-bodied people. In fact, the report shows that 44 per cent. of employers said that they found no difference in absence levels and 32 per cent. said that disabled staff were absent less often.
  The amendments exclude occupational pensions and other benefits from the requirement on employers to make reasonable adjustments to assist the employment of disabled people. That exclusion is important. The Bill as it stands lists factors that are to be taken into account when deciding if it is reasonable to expect an employer to make adjustments—factors such as the impact, cost and practicality of the adjustment. To exclude pensions and insurance makes the non-discrimination rule in the amendments little more than window dressing. In the name of anti-discrimination legislation, the Government are institutionalising the unfairness that disabled people already face in obtaining equitable pensions and benefits.
  136
  To enshrine in law existing discrimination against disabled people is unfair and unjustifiable, but to try to peddle it as anti-discrimination legislation is shoddy and shabby.
  The amendments will mean that, where a disabled person has been refused access to a scheme that is lawful under the terms of the Bill, there will be no requirement that the employer seek to make any adjustments to the employee's terms and conditions. On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish stated:
  "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".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 October 1995; Vol. 566, c. 1001.]
  It could not be clearer than that.
  The Government's substitute for proper civil rights legislation, which they have trailed as an historic advance in the struggle to give disabled people equal rights, in fact makes provisions for disabled people to be forced into a position where they have to sell their labour more cheaply—and to be less well rewarded—than non-disabled people who do the same job, in the same place, at the same time. That is the effect of what Lord Mackay said. He spelled out the Government's position for all to see. Instead of attempting to integrate disabled people into the work place, the Government are attempting to integrate discrimination into the law.
  Why should disabled people be less entitled to pensions and insurance benefits than anyone else? The higher risk argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny. It is neither logical nor fair, and evidence produced by the Minister's Department establishes that. The decision on whether a disabled person is eligible to participate in and contribute to a pension scheme is likely to be based on an estimate of risk, but that eventuality may never arise, which means that future benefits would be reduced because of the mere possibility of something happening at some indefinite time in the future.
  The Minister will no doubt attempt to justify that by saying that that is how many pension schemes are assessed, but if it is lawful for schemes to exclude disabled people on the grounds of a higher health risk, he must produce evidence to prove that that is the case, because his Department is producing evidence to show the opposite.
  There appear to be strong grounds for believing that the amendments seek not to give disabled people an absolute right to enter or enjoy the full benefits of a scheme and that, where people do not join a scheme on starting work but subsequently apply, trustees could refuse access or offer only limited membership. Will the Minister confirm whether that is his intention?
  Why are the Government so set against a requirement that reasonable adjustment be made in respect of occupational pensions and insurance benefits? The problems are not insoluble. The Minister has a reputation for achieving what he wants to achieve, so surely it was not beyond his guile to devise some reasonable adjustments. For example, he could have required employers to make equivalent contributions to a private pension scheme. The Government often say that everyone should provide for his or her retirement. It would not have been an ideal solution, but it would have been better than what is on offer today.
  Where no private scheme could be found, or where employer and employee could not reach agreement on a scheme's suitability, the Minister could have required the

  137
  employer to increase disabled employee's wages or salary by an amount equivalent to the normal contribution, thereby allowing the disabled person to buy into a scheme of his or her choice. Again, it is not an ideal solution, but it is better than what is on offer.
  Those would have been reasonable adjustments in the light of the now famous Barber v. Guardian Royal Exchange decision, in which it was determined that occupational pensions should be considered as deferred pay.
  The effect of the amendments is that those disabled people who are deemed ineligible to participate in an occupational pension scheme will not have their pay deferred but will simply not receive that element of their pay. That is unfair and discriminatory. It is a back-door way of reducing the pay of disabled people during their lifetime. It is doubly unfair that many disabled people are likely to be excluded not because of a greater risk of ill health but simply because of a perceived risk.
  For example, some schemes might take the ill-judged view that someone with diabetes or epilepsy is ineligible because he or she might—just might—develop complications later. Will the Minister clarify the Government's position as it relates to people with diabetes or epilepsy, for instance?
  Yet again, disabled people are being singled out for unfair treatment. Under the amendments, it would be unlawful to exclude them because of risk. When I joined the parliamentary pension scheme, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe does so well in representing all Members of the House, I was not excluded because I am, I am ashamed to say, a smoker. No one asked me whether I was. The Minister no doubt also belongs to that scheme and was not excluded because he is a member of the House of Commons football team, which is also a high risk. Nor was he excluded when he was Minister responsible for setting up the Child Support Agency, which, at the time, must have been the most dangerous job in Britain.
  A survey published in 1992 by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys shows that disabled people are among the least likely to belong to a pension scheme. Some 34 per cent. of those who had a pre-retirement disability before the age of 50 had never belonged to an occupational pension scheme. The study also found that the chances of their ever having joined a scheme or attained rights to one decreased with the increasing severity of disability. The reason is simple: many disabled people simply cannot afford to join. They tend to earn less and must pay the inevitable additional costs of disability. The Bill and the amendments do nothing to change that. Worse, they build that position into the law.
  The Minister will be aware that the Disability Alliance and Disablement Income Group have worked hard to produce a cogent, coherent and comprehensive document known as "There May Be Trouble Ahead"—perhaps prophetic words. It shows the inequity that exists in pension schemes and suggests ways of tackling that and other problems. The group is asking for a forum of all the interested parties to be set up. Is the Minister prepared to allow that forum to go ahead?
  The Government cannot claim that the Bill is, in any shape or form, a comprehensive piece of anti-discrimination legislation so long as it excludes
  138
  pensions and benefits. Civil rights mean full and equal citizenship without qualification or exclusion. As the amendments are full of qualifications and exclusions, unless the Minister can convince us otherwise, we shall press them to a Division.
  Ms Lynne: I simply wish to make a few comments about the recent research carried out by the Disability Alliance and Disablement Income Group, which shows that disabled people are already less likely to be in occupational pension schemes. More than two thirds of disabled women have not joined such schemes because they could not fulfil the conditions as a result of frequent changes of jobs or interrupted employment. People with pre-retirement disability were less likely to retain any rights to an occupational pension scheme.
  On the surface, the Government's amendments look fine, but they do not really deal with the problem. I am extremely worried about amendment No. 17, which, as has already been said, could be the back door to reducing pay for disabled employees. We need reassurance on this matter, although I do not honestly believe that the Minister will give us the reassurance we need.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I apologise to the Minister for missing part of his opening remarks. If he has covered the point that I want to raise, I apologise doubly.
  I am concerned about the amendment that deals with insurance benefits. I realise that this is a fraught area. Although insurance is, by necessity, about the sharing of risks, insurance companies always make it their business to find out as much as they can in order to specify and appreciate the degree of risk in a case. In framing the amendment, have the Government accepted the principle that insurance companies that provide the services described in amendment No. 28(3) can adjust those services in terms of the amount of benefit paid, in line with a known disability or a disability that may occur in the future as a result of, say, a genetic condition?
  A new clause moved in the other place does not clarify that. It seems to be possible for an employer, or an insurance company working on behalf of an employer, to discriminate against disabled people, particularly those with a genetic condition, in terms of the insurance benefits that they could receive. If so, they would be discriminated against.
  Given the choice between the conflicting interests of getting as much information as possible and the sharing out of risks between all beneficiaries under an insurance scheme, on the balance of fairness and particularly given the ethos of the Bill before us, we should come down on the side of sharing the risks. We should ensure, as far as humanly possible, that insurance schemes are not loaded, either in terms of increased premiums or reduced benefits, against people with a potential disability. I hope that the Minister can offer me some assurance on that.
  6 pm
  Mr. Burt: With the leave of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
  I shall try to do what I can to offer reassurance, but as the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) said, this is genuinely a difficult area. I must clear up one thing. We are talking about individuals as opposed to types or groups. An employer may discriminate where there are clear grounds for believing that a person, including a

  139
  disabled person, but not necessarily, represents a higher risk to the scheme because of his impaired health, and that higher risk could be justified on the grounds of cost. Any non-inclusion in the scheme's benefit provision will only be as a result of that person's health condition and not simply because the individual is disabled. Disabled persons whose propensity to take ill health retirement or die in service is not materially higher than other members would, of course, be entitled to be admitted to the scheme as normal.
  That is the ground rule, but we are talking about dealing with individuals. We are trying to create a differential between two individuals who, although both may be described as disabled, may have different conditions which mean that the likelihood of ill health or risk of early retirement is much greater for one than the other. We can all think of such examples. Where an employee is to be excluded, the employer will have to prove that that refusal is based on substantial grounds, not simply on the mere fact of disability.
  The most important question is, why should employers be permitted to discriminate on grounds of health? It is right that employers and scheme managers should continue to be able to make certain decisions on health grounds for a number of reasons. Employers have always been able to discriminate on grounds of health for such benefits. If that changed, employers could be faced with an unjustifiably large extra bill. It is estimated that the additional costs could be hundreds of millions of pounds a year. A significant amount of that additional expenditure would fall directly on the taxpayer, because approximately one third of pension scheme members are in public service pension schemes. Much of the balance would have to be passed on in the form of higher prices.
  The pension schemes of many employers are too small to accept large potential liabilities for ill health and death benefits, and therefore those employers insure those risks in the commercial insurance market. Insurance companies operate strict underwriting criteria to control the risk which they accept. Those companies would offer policies that admitted individuals with all potential health conditions at truly prohibitive premium rates. It is more likely that they would not admit such individuals, so, effectively, the insurance route would be withdrawn.
  As a result of the significant additional burden of costs and the lack of insurance, employers would seriously have to reconsider their options. There would be a real risk that many employers would restructure their employment packages to reduce or remove altogether any incapacity or death benefits. Some employers, if not permitted to take account of health risks, may simply wind up their schemes. Such are the likely changes in employment practice were the Bill not to allow employers to make decisions on the grounds of health
  Hon. Members have asked whether it would be possible to unbundle contributions, and whether an individual disabled person's contribution rate could be reduced if he or she is only receiving age retirement benefits. Such a proposal would not only be completely at variance with the manner in which occupational pension schemes with benefits defined in terms of a member's final salary are operated, but would result in significant extra administrative difficulties disproportionate to any gain to the disabled person.
  Such a change could be achieved fairly only after taking medical and actuarial advice. Even then, the resulting adjustment would be subjective and open to
  140
  dispute by the member. A doctor would be required to certify an individual's life expectancy or the probable length of his working life. On the basis of the medical prognosis, an actuary would then have to consider the value of the residual benefits compared with the total package. Overall, such a requirement would be disproportionately expensive and administratively messy.
  Salary pension schemes in the United Kingdom are predominantly operated on what is known as a "balance of costs" basis. Employees pay a fixed contribution and the employer meets the rest of the cost on the basis of advice from the scheme actuary. Typically, scheme members pay only one third of the cost of the scheme benefits.
  The employer considers the cost of providing the benefits in aggregate and does not try to isolate the costs for each individual member. The cost of the accruing benefits, however, will vary significantly between individuals according to their individual circumstances—for example, age or sex.
  All individuals pay the same member contribution even though they may not be entitled to all the benefits. For example, a spouse's benefits are of no use to a single pensioner, and some benefits may be more valuable to certain members than others. For example, a pensioner who lives a long time will get more valuable benefits than someone who died shortly after retirement.
  To suggest that a disabled person, who may get less valuable pension benefits from a scheme, should pay a lower contribution rate would therefore rewrite the way in which final salary occupational pension schemes operate. Other groups could make claims for similar treatment. For example, under current sex equality legislation there is no similar requirement that men should pay a lower member contribution rate because they tend to live less long in retirement than women. Such arrangements would lead to additional costs.
  It should be remembered that membership of an occupational pension scheme is voluntary. If an individual member feels that he is going to get less valuable benefits out of a scheme than his own contributions, he can opt out. If he chose to take out a personal pension, he would, of course, be protected under part III.
  People with a genetic predisposition are not covered by the Bill. That reflects the views of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, which concluded that labelling that group as disabled was not the right way forward. We will consider the Committee's final report when it is available.
  Mr. Wigley: If the report from the Committee on that important matter, which will be published before too long, suggested that the Bill should be changed to avoid discrimination against people on the basis of genetic information gained for insurance purposes, does the Minister have the facility to amend the Bill without having to come back with primary legislation?
  Mr. Burt: No, I do not believe there is such a facility. The principle on which the hon. Gentleman will have to rely, and which may emerge from the Committee's report, would operate on an individual basis and the circumstances facing a particular applicant.
  As I tried to establish from the start, that principle does not discriminate against disabled people in general. It will not be possible for an employer to exclude someone from

  141
  a pension scheme just because that person is disabled. The employer will have that right only if the nature of the disability is such that it would cause the sort of problem with the pension or insurance scheme as might affect anyone whether he is disabled or not. It is on those grounds that I put the case to the House. The individual is protected unless he has a marked disability which may cause concern.
  Mr. McMaster: With the leave of the House, may I say that the Minister has simply reinforced our concerns, so we will divide the House on the amendment.
  Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
  The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 249.

  Division No. 225]

  [6.07 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Coe, Sebastian

  Alexander, Richard

  Colvin, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Congdon, David

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Arbuthnot, James

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Ashby, David

  Couchman, James

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Cran, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

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

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Valley)

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Day, Stephen

  Baldry, Tony

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Devlin, Tim

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Dicks, Terry

  Bates, Michael

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Batiste, Spencer

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dover, Den

  Bendall, Vivian

  Duncan, Alan

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dunn, Bob

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Booth, Hartley

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boswell, Tim

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Elletson, Harold

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Bowis, John

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Evennett, David

  Brazier, Julian

  Faber, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Forman, Nigel

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Burns, Simon

  Forth, Eric

  Burt, Alistair

  Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Butcher, John

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Butterfill, John

  French, Douglas

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gale, Roger

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gallie, Phil

  Cash, William

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Garnier, Edward

  Churchill, Mr

  Gill, Christopher

  Clappison, James

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  142

  Gorst, Sir John

  Marland, Paul

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Marlow, Tony

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Mates, Michael

  Hamilton, Sir Archibald

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Merchant, Piers

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Harris, David

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hawkins, Nick

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hayes, Jerry

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Heald, Oliver

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Norris, Steve

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Hendry, Charles

  Ottaway, Richard

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Page, Richard

  Hicks, Robert

  Paice, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Patnick, Sir Irvine

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Pawsey, James

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Pickles, Eric

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hughes, Robert G farrow W)

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Jack, Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Riddick, Graham

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Jessel, Toby

  Robathan, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

  Knapman, Roger

  Sackville, Tom

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

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

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Knox, Sir David

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Sims, Roger

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Soames, Nicholas

  Leigh, Edward

  Speed, Sir Keith

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lightbown, Sir David

  Sproat, Iain

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lord, Michael

  Steen, Anthony

  Luff, Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Stern, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stewart, Allan

  MacKay, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Sumberg, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sweeney, Walter

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Sykes, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Mabne, Gerald

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mans, Keith

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  143

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Thomason, Roy

  Waterson, Nigel

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Watts, John

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Wells, Bowen

  Thurnham, Peter

  Whitney, Ray

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Whittingdale, John

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Tracey, Richard

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tredinnick, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Trend, Michael

  Willetts, David

  Wilshire, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wood, Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Walden, George

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Waller, Gary

  Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Derek Conway.

  Ward, John

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Cummings, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Allen, Graham

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Alton, David

  Dafis, Cynog

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Darling, Alistair

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Davidson, Ian

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Austin-Walker, John

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Barnes, Harry

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Barron, Kevin

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

  Battle, John

  Denham, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dewar, Donald

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Dixon, Don

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bell, Stuart

  Dowd, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Benton, Joe

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Eastham, Ken

  Berry, Roger

  Etherington, Bill

  Betts, Clive

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Blunkett, David

  Fatehett, Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Bradley, Keith

  Flynn, Paul

  Brazier, Julian

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

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

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Burden, Richard

  Foulkes, George

  Byers, Stephen

  Fraser, John

  Callaghan, Jim

  Fyfe, Maria

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Garrett, John

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Gerrard, Neil

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Cann, Jamie

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Godsiff, Roger

  Church, Judith

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clapham, Michael

  Gordon, Mildred

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Graham, Thomas

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

  Ctelland, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Coffey, Ann

  Grocott, Bruce

  Cohen, Harry

  Gunnell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Hall, Mike

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hanson, David

  Corston, Jean

  Hardy, Peter

  Cousins, Jim

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Cox, Tom

  Henderson, Doug

  144

  Heppell, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hoey, Kate

  Mudle, George

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Mullin, Chris

  Home Robertson, John

  Murphy, Paul

  Hood, Jimmy

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Hara, Edward

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

  Olner, Bill

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pearson, Ian

  Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hutton, John

  Pope, Greg

  Illsley, Eric

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Bridget (Lewisham East)

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pende)

  Jamieson, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Janner, Greville

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Radice, Giles

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jowell, Tessa

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Keen, Alan

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)

  Rogers, Allan

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

  Rooker, Jeff

  Khabra, PiaraS

  Rooney, Terry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lewis, Terry

  Salmond, Alex

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Sheerman, Barry

  Litherland, Robert

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Livingstone, Ken

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Short, Clare

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Simpson, Alan

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Skinner, Dennis

  McAllbn, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Spellar, John

  McCartney, Ian

  Squire, Rachel

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  McFall, John

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  McKelvey, William

  Stott, Roger

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  McLeish, Henry

  Straw, Jack

  McMaster, Gordon

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  MacShane, Denis

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  McWilliam, John

  Taylor Matthew (Truro)

  Madden, Max

  Timms, Stephen

  Maddock, Diana

  Turner, Dennis

  Mahon, Alice

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Mandeteon, Peter

  Walley, Joan

  Marek, Dr John

  Warden, Gareth (Gower)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Martlew, Eric

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Maxton, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Meacher, Michael

  Winnick, David

  Meale, Alan

  Wise, Audrey

  Michael, Alun

  Worthington, Tony

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Wray, Jimmy

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Milburn, Alan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Miller, Andrew

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 18 agreed to.

Clause 7

  EXEMPTION FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
  Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 5, line 25, at end insert—
  ("(3) In this section—

  "anniversary" means the anniversary of the coming into force of this section; and

  "review" means a review of the effect of this section.

  (4) Before making any order under subsection (2), the Secretary of State shall conduct a review.
  (5) Unless he has already begun or completed a review under subsection (4), the Secretary of State shall begin to conduct a review immediately after the fourth anniversary.
  (6) Any review shall be completed within nine months.
  (7) In conducting any review, the Secretary of State shall consult—

  (a) such organisations representing the interests of employers as he considers appropriate; and

  (b) such organisations representing the interests of disabled persons in employment or seeking employment as he considers appropriate.

  (8) If, on completing a review, the Secretary of State decides to make an order under subsection (2), he shall make such an order to come into force not later than one year after the commencement of the review.
  (9) If, on completing a review, the Secretary, of State decides not to make such an order, he shall not later than one year after the commencement of the review lay before Parliament a report—

  (a) summarising the results of the review; and

  (b) giving the reasons for his decision.

  (10) Any report made by the Secretary of State under subsection (9) shall include a summary of the views expressed to him in his consultations.")
  Mr. Paice: I beg to move, That this douse doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  As the House will know, this is an important clause. We are exempting employers with fewer than 20 employees from the Bill's employment provisions because we recognise that it is likely to be more difficult and burdensome for them than for larger businesses to get to grips with the new right and to have available the advice that they need. However, the Government have listened carefully to the arguments calling for changes to the clause.
  Although we have, in earlier debates, rebutted many of the suggested amendments, we have not been inflexible. We amended the Bill on Report so that the power to change the threshold could not be used to raise the threshold above 20. In reaching that decision, we recognised that it was unlikely that there would ever be a need to raise the threshold above the initial number. I gave an undertaking to bring forward a further amendment, which was passed in the other place and, on its own, would have required the Secretary of State to review the operation of the clause within five years of its coming into force and to give Parliament the opportunity to debate the issue. It would also have required the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the effects of clause 7 if, before the fourth anniversary of the clause coming into force, she proposed to use an order to change the threshold number.
  However, on Report in the other place, my noble Friend Baroness O'Cathain raised the issue of whether there should be a review before any change in the threshold, whenever proposed. My noble Friend the Minister responsible for the employment of disabled people agreed
  146
  to consider the matter further, and duly returned with an amendment to that effect on Third Reading in the other place.
  The overall effect is that, if at any time the Secretary of State proposes to make an order to change the threshold number, a review must be held, whether the order is to be made within the first four years of the operation of the section or at any later time. A review must be held immediately after the fourth anniversary of the clause's coming into effect, even if no change in the threshold is then proposed, unless a review has by then already started or been finished.
  The Lords amendment also requires that any review must be completed within nine months. The Secretary of State would be required to consult employer organisations and organisations representing the interests of disabled people in employment or looking for employment. If the review led the Secretary of State to decide on a change in the threshold, that would have to come into force within a year from the start of the review. If, after a review, the Secretary of State decided not to change the threshold, the amendment would require her to lay a report on the results of the review before Parliament and, at the same time, give reasons for her decision.
  The Government have always maintained that it would be best to gain experience of the legislation before considering whether there was a case for widening its scope. We believe it is right to keep the threshold at 20. In the light of the changes, I hope that the House will accept that it is a reasonable position to take.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Once again, I am extremely pleased to welcome a Government climbdown—[interruption.] I shall give way to the Secretary of State for Social Security if he wishes to intervene. He clearly does not, as he does not have the courage of his convictions.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), who supported us so magnificently throughout the passage of the Bill. I regard him as a truly hon. Friend. I know that disabled people are extremely grateful to him for the tremendous contribution that he has made to our achievements.
  Earlier today, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in the moderate style to which we have become accustomed, said that the Government were parking on Labour territory. I welcome that description of the Government's position. We have been told throughout the passage of the Bill that the exemption of small firms from the obligation not to discriminate against disabled people was necessary. We have been told that such firms should be defined as those employing fewer than 20 people.
  The Government opted for the figure of 20, and the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) told us that that figure had been chosen because it reflected the quota legislation. Throughout the Bill's progress through the House, the Minister agreed that 20 was the best figure. Of course a cut-off at 20 for a 3 per cent. quota makes good sense, as 3 per cent. of 20 is a good deal less than one job. I think that even the Minister's mathematics might lead him to that conclusion, but to import that figure into legislation that deals with the rights of individuals rather than percentages of an overall work force makes no sense.

  147
  Taken with the abolition of the quota, the measure diminishes the rights of disabled people. However confused the Minister might feel, we have the support of every organisation of disabled people on that issue. The provision introduces the phenomenon of legal discrimination. By the time the Bill had reached Third Reading, Ministers were beginning to sound less convinced. We were told that the threshold should never be raised and that 20 was still the best figure. Now the Government are even less sure. They have finally admitted that the figure of 20 might be wrong and that a review of the principle of exemption will be necessary in five years. The Government did not mention that on Second Reading or throughout the Committee discussions.
  I think that the Minister has already concluded that the figure of 20 is wrong. All disabled people should have a right to fair and equal access to the jobs market. I look forward to the day when the denial of employment rights to disabled people in small, medium and large firms will be abolished altogether.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Before my hon. Friend concludes, will he comment on the huge number of employers who employ fewer than 20 people? He has made a powerful point that deserves the attention of both sides of the House.
  Mr. Clarke: As always with disability issues, my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I have some private regard for the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, even though I believe that he defends the most abysmal of policies. He does not realise that he must stand at the Dispatch Box and defend a Government that would exclude 96 per cent. of firms from employment discrimination policies and present it as progress.
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Wigley: When he responds to this brief debate, will the Minister clarify whether the Government are to some extent returning to the provisions originally in clause 7? As that clause stood originally, it was possible for the Secretary of State to amend the threshold of 20 immediately by order. I understand that there will now be a built-in time delay of up to 12 months before it can be operational. If the Secretary of State believes that there should be an immediate change, will he be able to implement that change without going through the review mechanism and the time delay that is built into the process by the Lords amendment?
  Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman could put that interpretation on it, although he refers to the maximum period. We propose that the review must take no more than nine months, and there is no reason why it could not be conducted much more quickly. We are anxious to ensure that any decision to change the figure is made on the basis of a proper examination of all of the issues.
  While I appreciate the personal note in the speech made by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), it was a case of smiling while wielding the knife—even though the knife proved to be made of rubber.
  Mr. Clarke: That is more than the Secretary of State does.
  Mr. Paice: I must advise the hon. Gentleman that he is treading on dangerous ground this evening. Every time
  148
  that he congratulates the Government on what he classifies as a "U-turn" or a "climbdown", he is undermining the Labour Front-Bench campaign that we are lurching to the right. I can only assume from everything that the hon. Gentleman has said this evening that the Conservatives are lurching to the left. The hon. Gentleman could find himself in real trouble with his party.
  I announced the decision to re-examine the issue before its fifth anniversary on Report six months ago. The fact that it comes as a surprise to the hon. Gentleman only serves to underline his lack of attention at that time.
  What the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) said about the number of businesses is correct, but far more important is where the jobs are. More than 80 per cent. of jobs are in businesses with more than 20 employees, so the job opportunities of the disabled will not be seriously affected by the proposal.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: The Minister knows that the Government make a great point of wanting to help small employers. They are very concerned about small employers and, by extension, presumably they are very concerned with the employees of small employers. The Minister's constituency is famous because of Newmarket. Can he tell us how many stables in his constituency employ fewer than 20 employees? It is a very important point and the fact that 96 per cent. of employers are excluded must be a matter of considerable concern. Many people admire the Minister's constituency.
  Mr. Paice: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's admiration for my constituency. I must be straight with him and admit that Newmarket is not in my constituency—although my constituency surrounds it and the racing industry is important to it.
  I do not know the specific answer to his question, but the nub of the issue is that we are not encouraging small employers to discriminate in any way. In the amendment and the clause that it amends, we are saying that small employers should have their particular difficulties recognised by not being forced to comply with the legislation. We hope that small employers will be enlightened: we hope that they will adopt the same approach as other employers and employ disabled people. The amendment does not encourage or exhort small businesses to discriminate against the disabled.
  During the Committee stage, Labour Members suggested that a great phalanx of small businesses were waiting to discriminate against disabled people. They could do that now, but they are not doing it in any great number. We are simply trying to protect them from over-burdensome regulations.
  Mr. Robin Corbett: I am especially grateful for the Minister's remarks about small firms. He knows that we are disappointed about this and other issues. He said that, although small firms will not be obliged to comply with these provisions, we shall look to those small firms to embrace the Bill's aims. I think that some progress has been made. Will the Minister confirm that the largest growth in jobs in the past few years has occurred in the small firms sector? It is vital to the strength and efficiency of our economy that that should continue into the future.
  Mr. Paice: The hon. Gentleman is right: we do look to the small firms sector. The Government are second to

  149
  none in their desire to see the small business sector continue to prosper and expand. However, it will do so only if it is not affected by too many regulations. That is why the Government are anxious to minimise the burdens placed on small businesses across all Government activities and policies, and it is why we are proposing the threshold of 20 at this time.
  I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's kind remarks about what I said about encouraging small businesses. If he reads the speech that I gave on Report, he will find that I said it then as well. We want small businesses to adopt an enlightened approach, but we simply do not believe that they should be forced to adopt fairly expensive measures and to understand arid follow all of the legislative ins and outs of the Bill. As I have said, the review will take place in five years' time, if not before. I commend the amendment to the House.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 20 and 21 agreed to.

  New clause
  Lords amendment: No. 22, after clause 11, to insert the following new clause—Discrimination against contract workers—
  ".—(1) It is unlawful for a principal, in relation to contract work, to discriminate against a disabled person—

  (a) in the terms on which he allows him to do that work;

  (b) by not allowing him to do it or continue to do it;

  (c) in the way he affords him access to any benefits or by refusing or deliberately omitting to afford him access to them; or

  (d) by subjecting him to any other detriment.

  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to benefits of any description if the principal is concerned with the provision (whether or not for payment) of benefits of that description to the public, or to a section of the public which includes the contract worker in question, unless that provision differs in a material respect from the provision of the benefits by the principal to contract workers.
  (3) The provisions of this Part (other than subsections (1) to (3) of section 3) apply to any principal, in relation to contract work, as if he were, or would be, the employer of the contract worker and as if any contract worker supplied to do work for him were an employee of his.
  (4) In the case of an act which constitutes discrimination by virtue of section 28, this section also applies to discrimination against a person who is not disabled.
  (5) This section applies only in relation to contract work done at an establishment in Great Britain (the provisions of section 38 about the meaning of "employment at an establishment in Great Britain" applying for the purposes of this subsection with the appropriate modifications).
  (6) In this section—

  "principal" means a person ("A") who makes work available for doing by individuals who are employed by another person who supplies them under a contract made with A;

  "contract work" means work so made available; and

  "contract worker" means any individual who is supplied to the principal under such a contract."

  Mr. Paice: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 25, 71, 73, 101, 105, 108 and 109.
  Mr. Paice: The amendments deal with the coverage by this Bill of trade organisations and contract workers. That
  150
  is an issue that we discussed at considerable length in Committee and on Report, so I shall draw my remarks to a close. If hon. Members want to pursue the matter, they may.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 23 to 29 and 31 to 42 agreed to.
  Lords amendment No. 43 and Government amendment (a) thereto agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 44 to 46 agreed to.

  Lords amendment: No. 47, after clause 22, to insert the following new clause—("Part IIIA—
EDUCATION

  EDUCATION OF DISABLED PERSONS
  .—(1) In section 161(5) of the Education Act 1993 (information relating to pupils with special educational needs to be included in annual report), omit the words from "and in this subsection" to the end.
  (2) After section 161(5) of that Act insert—
  "(6) The annual report for each county, voluntary or grant-maintained school shall include a report containing information as to—

  (a) the arrangements for the admission of disabled pupils;

  (b) the steps taken to prevent disabled pupils from being treated less favourably than other pupils; and

  (c) the facilities provided to assist access to the school by disabled pupils.

  (7) In this section—

  "annual report" means the report prepared under the articles of government for the school in accordance with section 30 of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 or, as the case may be, paragraph 8 of Schedule 6 to this Act; and

  "disabled pupils" means pupils who are disabled persons for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995."

  (3) In section 1 of the Education Act 1994 (establishment of the Teacher Training Agency) add, at the end—
  "(4) In exercising their functions, the Teacher Training Agency shall have regard to the requirements of persons who are disabled persons for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995."")
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Paice.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 48, 49 and 134.
  Mr. Tom Clarke: Once again, I am delighted to welcome a climbdown by the Government. Earlier, the Minister talked about what he thought was an ambiguity about lurching to the right. I must remind him that their Lordships, including hereditary peers whose abolition my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) supports, could not for a moment fathom the right-wing approach being commended to them. It was they who brought some reality to this aspect of the Bill.
  Throughout the passage of the Bill we have tabled amendments to bring education within its purview. Ministers consistently told us that such amendments were impossible and unnecessary. Once again, the Government refused to budge—until they did. So I welcome the amendments, I accept the Government's climbdown and

  151
  I look forward to further revisions of the Bill that will finally ensure genuine equality of opportunity for disabled children and adults in education.
  I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to clarify exactly who and what are included in the continuing general exemption of educational establishments. In particular, we want to know whether all early-years facilities regulated by the Children Act 1989—I led for the Opposition on it—are covered by the Bill.
  An amendment was moved by the Opposition in the Lords on this very matter. The Minister who replied complained that raising the issue of day care for the under-fives on Report was making his life "extremely difficult". No doubt it was; sometimes that is the job of an Opposition. The reason why it was necessary was the Government's announcement in July this year that they intended to introduce a pre-school voucher scheme. It is the Government's intention that it should come into force at the same time as the Bill. It appears that the result will be that any place accepting vouchers under the scheme will be treated in law as an educational establishment.
  6.45 pm
  It is this that has caused our concern, and we are entitled to express it. Many of the places that currently provide day care for four-year-olds and that will be eligible under the proposed voucher scheme also provide places for three-year-olds. Many of them are not schools or educational establishments, but they do employ teachers. My question is therefore relevant. When considering the Bill, we need to know whether it will apply to pre-school day care facilities. Although the question is a simple one, many people outside the House will be interested to hear the Minister's response.
  If a day care centre accommodates both three and four-year-olds—those using vouchers and others who do not—will the establishment be entirely exempt under the Bill, or will it be exempt only with regard to the four-year-olds who will be funded by vouchers? It should be easy enough to answer that, with all the departmental resources available to Ministers.
  Finally, we believe that the voucher scheme is an ill thought out and hasty proposal. We shall want to ensure that it does not lead to the exclusion of day care centres for young children from the terms of the Bill, and that the definition of exempted educational establishments remains consistent with the provisions of current children's legislation.
  Mr. Paice: I might point out that the hon. Gentleman is on his hobby-horse again. I suggest that he read what was said on Report in the House. He will find that my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), then the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People, gave the undertaking on education which is now covered by the amendments from the other place that I am proposing to accept—
  Mr. Clarke: The Minister knows that I always try to be fair. Of course I recall what the right hon. Gentleman said, but I also remember his White Paper of July, which contained no reference to education. I further recall, on Second Reading, that he rejected the very arguments that the Minister is now pursuing.
  Mr. Paice: The world moves on. I should have paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J.
  152
  Hannam), who was behind many of the changes on education. It is therefore false to suggest that we have just seen the light: we made our position clearly known to the House some six months ago.
  Hon. Members have argued for the inclusion of education in the part of the Bill dealing with access to goods and services. The amendments propose an alternative way of dealing with the matter, requiring reports and information to be published. I shall not go into all the details, because the amendments are self-explanatory.
  The hon. Gentleman specifically asked me about the general exemption with regard to pre-school age children. The voucher scheme is widely welcomed by parents throughout the country as an opportunity for them to get their under-fives into a form of education. We are consulting at the present time about the voucher scheme, and legislation will be brought before the House to enable it to happen. When it comes before the House, these issues will have to be addressed in it. I am quite happy to make that statement.
  It is the case at the present time that, as drafted, a day care facility would be covered as goods or services—assuming that it was open to the public—by part III of the Bill, the goods and services clauses. On educational establishments, we are looking at amendments as I have described, and if changes have to be made to resolve the issue with voucher schemes, that will be done at the time of the legislation that the Government will be laying before the House in due course.
  Lords amendment agreed to.
  Lords amendments Nos. 48 and 49 agreed to.

  Lords amendment: No. 50, after clause 22, to insert the following new clause—("Part IIIB—
PUBLIC TRANSPORT
  Taxis

    TAXI ACCESSIBILITY REGULATIONS
    .—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations ("taxi accessibility regulations") for the purpose of securing that it is possible—

    (a) for disabled persons—

    (i) to get into and out of taxis in safety;

    (ii) to be carried in taxis in safety and in reasonable comfort; and

    (b) for disabled persons in wheelchairs—

    (i) to be conveyed in safety into and out of taxis while remaining in their wheelchairs; and

    (ii) to be carried in taxis in safety and in reasonable comfort while remaining in their wheelchairs.

    (2) Taxi accessibility regulations may, in particular—

    (a) require any regulated taxi to conform with provisions of the regulations as to—

    (i) the size of any door opening which is for the use of passengers;

    (ii) the floor area of the passenger compartment;

    (iii) the amount of headroom in the passenger compartment;

    (iv) the fitting of restraining devices designed to ensure the stability of a wheelchair while the taxi is moving;

    (b) require the driver of any regulated taxi which is plying for hire, or which has been hired, to comply with provisions of the regulations as to the carrying of ramps or other devices designed to facilitate the loading and unloading of wheelchairs;

    153

    (c) require the driver of any regulated taxi in which a disabled person who is in a wheelchair is being carried (while remaining in his wheelchair) to comply with provisions of the regulations as to the position in which the wheelchair is to be secured.

    (3) The driver of a regulated taxi which is plying for hire, or which has been hired, is guilty of an offence if—

    (a) he fails to comply with any requirement imposed on him by the regulations; or

    (b) the taxi fails to conform with any provision of the regulations with which it is required to conform.

    (4) A person who is guilty of such an offence is liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
    (5) In this section—

    "passenger compartment" has such meaning as may be prescribed;

    "regulated taxi" means any taxi to which the regulations are expressed to apply;

    "taxi" means a vehicle licensed under—

    (a) section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, or

    (b) section 6 of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869,
    but does not include a taxi which is drawn by a horse or other animal.")

    Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move amendment (c) to the Lords amendment, after subsection (2)(c), at end insert—
    '(2A) A taxi access order shall be made in such terms as the Secretary of State considers appropriate and may, in particular—

    (a) apply to more than one transport facility or class of transport facility;

    (b) authorise the owner of a transport facility to—

    (i) charge such fees for the admission of taxis to that transport facility as may be prescribed in the order;

    (ii) designate places at that transport facility at which persons may be taken up by or set down from taxis; and

    (iii) impose such other conditions for the maintenance of safety or the control of traffic at that transport facility as may be specified in the order;

    (c) in relation 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, postpone that date on which the order is to apply to that transport facility until—

    (i) the day following the date on which that contract or agreement expires; or

    (ii) such other date as may be prescribed in the order.'.

    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendments (d) to (g), Government amendment (i) and amendment (h) to the Lords amendment, Lords amendments Nos. 51 to 64, Lords amendment No. 65 and amendment (a) thereto and Lords amendments Nos. 66, 90, 92 to 94, 96, 102, 103, 107 and 110.
    Mr. Clarke: The amendments apply to the issue of transport. I am happy to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box from the Department of Transport, and assure him that transport was an extremely important issue when we debated disability matters.
    The House will recognise that the Government have now accepted the spirit of the amendments on public transport that the Opposition tabled during the early stages
    154
    of the Bill. Their conversion, as on others matters, did not come easily. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) argued:
    "The most flexible, sensible and practical way"
    to bring about a radical improvement in accessible transport vehicles was
    "outside the scope of legislative requirements."—[Official Report, 24 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 153.]
    At that stage, Ministers seemed reluctant to accept that regulations based on consultations were indeed flexible, sensible and practical and that they could and should be provided for in the Bill, so we had to persuade them to the contrary, which is what Parliament is supposed to be about. We had to show them that flexible and practical regulation was best done within the terms of the legislation designed for that purpose and that the best and most sensible place to pass such legislation was indeed within the Bill. But, no, they said, they would not back down on transport—until they did.
    By the time we reached Report, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks took a different view. He said then, and this is a real exercise in the study of empiricism:
    "The Government certainly support the spirit of the new clauses"—[Official Report, 28 March 1995; Vol. 257, c. 859.]
    which were tabled by the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) and by me.
    I must tell the Minister that the hon. Member for Exeter, who is a distinguished member of the all-party disability group, deserves more than a fig leaf to cover Government inadequacies. He certainly has more respect from Opposition Members than he has from Members on the Government Front Bench. The hon. Member for Exeter and I put forward our views. I will not be churlish: I am glad that the Minister came to the view that we expressed and that we have consequently been able to make progress towards achieving a fully accessible transport system. The Government backed down.
    The Lords amendments before us today provide that flexible and sensible timetables should be set within the context of an agreed objective that all vehicles should be accessible to and usable by disabled passengers. We welcome that. Of course we do, having argued for so long to have the principle accepted. We welcome the conversion, no matter how late in the day, because it is better than no conversion at all. That being said, I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to put a little more flesh on the bones. It would certainly be helpful to have some further indication that the timetable that the Government have in mind on these matters is made known to the House.
    I now come to the specific area covered by the amendments to Lords amendments No. 50 and 65, which address the final anomaly on which the Government were most reluctant to back down: access by taxis to the facilities operated by providers of other forms of public transport. We argued at earlier stages and throughout our discussions that it was ludicrous for the Government to propose new requirements for disabled people to enjoy full and equal access to railway and bus stations while the Bill explicitly exempted transport vehicles. That was conceded, but only up to a point. Disabled people were offered access to trains and to stations but were given no guarantee that an accessible taxi would be available on arrival to take them to their final destination. It is to address that anomaly that we tabled our amendments to Lords amendments Nos. 50 and 65.

    155
    I must say to the Minister that I seldom take a taxi anywhere in London—I suspect that he agrees with me on this point—without hearing his name mentioned. We are giving him the opportunity tonight to rescue his reputation. I shall even tell the taxi driver tonight—if we leave the House at a reasonable time with yet another victory—that he is not as bad as he is painted in taxi driver circles, but even that will not save his seat at the next general election. Licensed taxis or hackney cabs are covered by this legislation—this is the kernel of the issue—but private hire vehicles are not. The problem is that operators of transport facilities, such as airports, seaports, railway and bus stations, are free to grant a monopoly to private hire as opposed to taxi firms in providing services to passengers.
    If the Bill were passed without further amendments, a private hire firm winning such a monopoly would be under no obligation whatever to provide vehicles that were wheelchair accessible. It would be possible for a disabled person to hail a taxi on the street or join a queue at an ordinary taxi rank, confident in the knowledge that the vehicle would be designed to accommodate a wheelchair user, but it would not be possible to have that confidence at a railway station in those circumstances. That is why we tabled our amendments and welcome the fact that the Government have finally addressed the issue by tabling amendments of their own. But it is truly a last-minute conversion.
    The text of the Government's amendment first became available to me at 5.15 yesterday evening.
    The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris)indicated assent.
    Mr. Clarke: I am glad that the Minister confirms that point.
    My colleagues in another place had raised this question in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. I am delighted to congratulate those colleagues, those noble Lords and Ladies, on the magnificent job they did.
    Amendments were tabled in the other place on Third Reading last week. The Government must have known then that they were in an indefensible position. That certainly seemed clear from the Minister's replies in another place, given by Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, whom I know well from his experience as an elected Member for a Scottish constituency, and the earlier climbdown on my own Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which was not dissimilar to this evening's events.
    He was at his wits' end to find a convincing reason why car services provided by private hire companies at railway stations and airports should not be brought into the scope of the Bill. A few days ago, in another place, he argued that there was no problem, because owners of transport facilities had a commercial interest in ensuring that such services were adequate to meet the needs of all their customers. If that were a sufficient response, however, there would be no need for any legislation governing vehicles. I suspect that, in his heart, the Minister concedes that.
    7 pm
    The Government have already conceded the principle, which is important. They have recognised that the needs of the minority of the travelling public—wheelchair
    156
    users—were not necessarily guaranteed by the commercial interests of operators in the maximising of revenue. Yet, for some curious reason, the Government were not prepared to accept that the principle applying to other aspects of transport provision should apply to this aspect as well. Another argument was presented: disabled people, it was said in another place, could book taxis in advance, and there was therefore no need to impose a requirement for accessible taxis to be available on arrival. That is a remarkable view; I know of no disabled people's organisation that would accept it for a second.
    It was said that there would be no problem for disabled travellers who booked a taxi and then found that they must pay for the two hours during which the driver waited for an aeroplane that arrived two hours late. In the Minister's experience, there was no problem with planes arriving late—except, he said, those crossing the Atlantic, when there were technical problems with "windage up high". I think that we would find such an expression unacceptable in the present context!
    Those are not the arguments of a Government standing firm on a principle that they believe to be right; they are the meanderings of Ministers who discovered that they were creating a legal loophole, and who were reluctant to admit either that they were doing so or that they needed the Opposition to point out the folly of their ways.
    The Government have finally admitted the need to act, and—as I have said—the amendments duly arrived in my office at 5.15 pm yesterday. Until then, not even the chairman of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation—RADAR—who has worked hard to convince the Government, had seen the text. The Minister has presented us today with evidence of an unbelievable conversion, verging on the road to Damascus. In a Bill that is now full to the brim with Government climbdowns and U-turns, this is the latest and most hurried concession of all.
    Perhaps the Government decided to hold Christmas at Hallowe'en, and give an unexpected present to all disabled people; but they would not have done so without the pressure exerted on them by the Labour party in Parliament, and by organisations representing disabled people. I congratulate the latter warmly, and invite the Minister to do the same.
    We are, I think, entitled to ask the Minister to spell out the intention and effect of his proposals. He must tell us why he believes that his amendments are preferable to ours. If he satisfies us that they remove the legal anomaly to which we have repeatedly drawn attention, we shall be happy to withdraw our proposals, in the excellent spirit of co-operation that we have extended to an unwilling Government—but, I must warn the Minister, with the satisfaction of yet another victory won.
    Under the Government's amendments, private hire vehicles with monopoly contracts at stations, ports and airports are to be subject to the taxi provisions in the Bill, but with modifications. The key taxi provision in the Bill is that all taxis are to be wheelchair-accessible. We need to know whether the measure will stand in full, or will be subject to modification. We seek the Minister's assurance that a disabled person alighting from a train or aeroplane will be guaranteed that the first vehicle at the rank will be fully accessible, and that all vehicles providing hire car services at stations will be fully accessible on the same terms as licensed taxis plying for trade on the public highway.

    157
    I hope that the Minister's replies will be in the affirmative. I look forward to the day when disabled people will be able to travel in the same way as others—with the same guarantees of access to cars and other vehicles to allow them to complete their journeys.
    Extracting concessions from the Government on the Bill has sometimes been a slow and tortuous process, but the day on which all public transport is truly accessible will make that process well worth the effort.
    Mr. Norris: Lest I was in any doubt about what "windage up high" actually means, I fear that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has given me an ideal illustration in his extraordinary peroration—including an uncharacteristic and appalling slur on my personal reputation among taxi drivers. He should know that my reputation depends entirely on the part of the country that people visit.
    When I attended my party's magnificent conference in Blackpool, the first taxi I entered carried a sign facing the passenger seat, reading "Steve Norris must go". I did not like to say that I had already gone; I relied on the fact that junior Ministers are so obscure that there is not the slightest chance of their being recognised by any taxi driver outside the metropolis, and executed a delicate withdrawal.
    My reputation has, in fact, recently received a boost here in the capital. It is true to say that because I—alone among Transport Ministers of any party over generations—have insisted on wheelchair accessibility and on redefining the taxi as a modern vehicle capable of taking disabled people, and have never been prepared to compromise that principle, I would not necessarily come top in a poll among taxi drivers to elect the bloke of the month. They have all had the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in the back of the cab, but, sadly, an increasing number have also had the pleasure of my own company, and I cannot say that I was able to convince all of them of the rightness of my views.
    That, however, was before the arrival of the entirely unlamented hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who for a period—a sadly brief period, from my point of view—was the Opposition's transport spokesman.
    Mr. Tom Clarke rose—
    Mr. Norris: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish my story, because it is very important, and illustrates why the Government are resisting the Opposition amendment and have tabled their own.
    The hon. Member for Oldham, West—who knows nothing about taxis—produced a "position paper" on the subject, which he unwisely read only to a couple of his friends in the Transport and General Workers Union—
    Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is making a good-natured response, but may I ask him whether he informed my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that he would refer to him?
    Mr. Norris: I certainly did not, because I had not seen the unwarranted attack on my reputation of which the
    158
    hon. Member for Monklands, West gave me no notice. If he is not to rely on spurious points of order to interrupt my speech, let me just say this. The relevance of—
    Mr. Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman sure that it is a point of order?
    Mr. Clarke: I think that it relates to an important principle in the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will confirm that. However light-hearted our exchanges, if an hon. Member wishes to refer to another, he should do that hon. Member the courtesy of giving him notice. That has not been done, and I am sure that you deplore it.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The reference to giving notice operates where a Member intends to make some kind of attack or disparaging remark, within parliamentary rules, about another hon. Member. I am not yet persuaded that it is of that order, but I await to hear whether it is.
    Mr. Norris: I acquit myself of the charge of dishonour in respect of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who produced a position paper on taxis. It was so ludicrous that, far from wishing to attack him, I volunteered to send copies of it to every taxi driver in London. Such was its reception that the headline in the taxi press the following week was, "Come back Norris, all is forgiven." I put that on the record to show that I take no lessons from Opposition Members on how to regulate the taxi industry. Without any political division, the House is prepared to accept that we at least know what we are talking about.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I am glad that the Minister retains his good nature despite his unpopularity among taxi drivers, which is increasing from the north to the south. To give evidence of that I should be glad to go tonight with the Minister to Peckham—as long as he pays the fare and takes the judgment that he perceives. I accept that the Minister has been through a rough time. No politician would suggest that we have not all had that experience but he is being a bit ungrateful to the star, if the press is right, of the Conservative party conference—the Secretary of State for Defence—who claimed that it was he who introduced disability provisions for London taxis.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Am I right in thinking that this is an intervention?
    Mr. Clarke: It is.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: It is so long that I am beginning to wonder.
    Mr. Norris: My bona fides in this matter require no further underlining. The most cynical group of individuals known to man—the 22,000 members of the London licensed taxi trade—are a shrewd judge in these matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) knows only too well, they tend to speak their mind, and, my goodness, they spoke it on that occasion.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister to describe all London's taxi drivers as cynical?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.
    Mr. Norris: It is pretty true, in my experience. I think that the number of taxi drivers in my constituency is

    159
    second only to the number in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North. Many of them are personal friends, and have remained so because they recognise that at least I know one end of a taxi from the other. The hon. Member for Oldham, West clearly did not, but there is hope for any sinner that repenteth on these matters. I am delighted to debate the amendments.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: On the matter of the unsolved mystery of the Government's massive conversion, their spectacular change of attitude, am I right in suspecting that that very distinguished official who is respected in all parts of the House, Anne Frye, might have played some part in the change? I suspect that the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) may share my view that perhaps she is involved somewhere.
    Mr. Norris: It is gracious of the right hon. Gentleman to refer to Miss Frye, who is a distinguished official in my Department and who has been recognised for her sterling work on behalf of disabled people in every field of the transport industry. Her whole team is marvellous.
    I shall now reply to the substance of the speech by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). We started from the proposition that access for the disabled to all forms of transport is wholly desirable, but that what is required to be injected into any legislative programme to require such access is reasonableness as to the speed and extent with which it can be delivered. In the context of taxis, the proposition is relatively straightforward, because by their nature taxis will come to the end of their useful life.
    In London, there is a programme for requiring full accessibility, and it will be completed by 31 December 1999. That means that, on 1 January 2000, the whole of London's taxi fleet will be wheelchair-accessible, and the same will be true of taxis in increasing numbers of local authorities.
    7.15 pm
    Provided that sufficient notice is given to the owner of a vehicle that may not comply to allow him to amortise the useful life of his vehicle and not suffer any unreasonable financial burden as a result, the principle of him ensuring that thereafter he acquires an accessible vehicle is entirely reasonable.
    In another place, the noble Lord Gladwin of Clee brought to our attention an issue that I was immediately prepared to acknowledge had some real merits. I shall refer shortly to those merits, but I should first like to refer to the reasons why we cannot accept the Opposition amendment and why the words that we have employed are more helpful. Some doubts about the Opposition amendment are technical. For example, it authorises the owner of a transport facility to do things that he is already entitled to do. However, this is not an occasion for nit-picking.
    Our chief worry is about the main thrust of the amendment, which would let taxis in general into a transport facility, rather than allow the owner of that facility to make an exclusive contract with a taxi or private car hire firm. There is general recognition that that is the case at Gatwick airport because the airport authority has a specific contract with a particular company.
    The purpose of the contract is clear. If no such contract exists, there is a risk that the local licensing authority could regulate fares only in its own area. Therefore, there
    160
    should be a proper contract between a company and the airport authority, under which the authority says to the contractor, "You will take passengers on a fixed scale to any destination that they want." As I have no doubt hon. Members will have seen at the airport, those prices are available for inspection.
    If there is no such arrangement, there is a danger that some taxi drivers will exploit passengers who wish to travel outside the immediate licensing area, and charge much more than they are entitled to charge. The authorities at Gatwick recognised that in the airport's early days. Of course, the situation at that airport is very different from the one in London, which was specifically brought within the provisions of the Metropolitan police service area for London taxis.
    The idea of a contract is good, and offers a genuine measure of protection to all taxi users, irrespective of whether they are disabled. On that basis, it would be unhelpful for the generality of taxi users if an authority was not able to enter into the arrangement that I have described. The amendment moved in the other place was similar to the Opposition amendment, and is certainly right in its spirit, because it seeks to ensure that the taxi service that is available at King's Cross station or any other major station is available to disabled people at airports and other such transport facilities.
    The form of words that we have used essentially allows for that. It gives the Secretary of State a regulation-making power to ensure that, when accessibility requirements are in force for taxis generally, equivalent requirements can be imposed on vehicles used under a contract to provide hire car services, so that the Secretary of State is able to solve any of the problems as they arise.
    This is not a massive principle, a huge reversal or U-turn. It is, however, a genuine acknowledgment that the point that has been made here, and the spirit behind the amendments, were sensible, and that our amendments will meet that point. I hope that, in that spirit, the hon. Member for Monklands, West will accept that the deficiency in the original amendment wording is sufficient to allow him to withdraw that and to move to support the Government amendment.
    Mr. Vivian Bendall: First, may I declare an interest? I represent the London Taxi Drivers Association. That interest is registered in the Members' book upstairs.
    It is to be welcomed that the Government have brought forward the amendment, which will ensure that wheelchair-accessible licensed taxis are guaranteed free access to transport termini—the very areas where those with disabilities are in most need of such vehicles. I wish to thank my hon. Friends who have shared my concerns that, without the amendment, owners of transport facilities could enter into exclusive contracts with minicab companies, thus excluding wheelchair-accessible licensed taxis from transport facilities. It is important that those people with those disabilities have proper access to the provision of transport in airports, railway stations and other such areas.
    Many people do not realise that minicabs do not and cannot give that facility—that is of great importance. Such a position would have driven a coach and horses through the principle of the Bill, and undermined the commitment shown by the licensed taxi industry, to which the Minister

    161
    has referred, to ensure that, in due course and at considerable cost to itself, all licensed taxis will become wheelchair-accessible.
    I would, however, prevail on the Minister to answer a number of points, in view of the fact that this was a late Government amendment, and it has been difficult to ask him to clarify one or two points. First, the new clause will apply only to transport facilities that are designated by the Secretary of State. Which transport facilities are likely to be designated, and on what basis will the choice be made?
    Secondly, the new clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to impose the "taxi provisions" in the Bill concerning wheelchair access on the vehicles and drivers used to provide services under a franchise agreement. How will that work in practice, and what provisions are likely to be imposed? Thirdly, the term "hire car" has not been defined in the new clause, but is simply stated to have
    "such meaning as may be prescribed".
    Why has the term not been defined, and what definition is likely to be prescribed?
    Mr. Norris: In order not to detain the House, I think that it is better if I write to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) on those queries.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: I found the Minister's reply unconvincing, but in the interests of progress, I look forward to a further discussion at the back of a taxi to Peckham, and I therefore will not press our amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Lords amendment No. 50 and Government amendment (i) thereto agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 51 to 88 agreed to.

    New clause
    Lords amendment: No. 89, after clause 35, to insert the following new clause—Application to Parliament—
    ".—(1) This Act applies to an act done by or for purposes of the House of Lords or the House of Commons as it applies to an act done by a private person.
    (2) For the purposes of the application of Part II in relation to the House of Commons, the Corporate Officer of that House shall be treated as the employer of a person who is (or would be) a relevant member of the House of Commons staff for the purposes of section 188 of the Employment Rights Act 1995.
    (3) Except as provided in subsection (4), for the purposes of the application of sections 12 to 15, the provider of services is—

    (a) as respects the House of Lords, the Corporate Officer of that House; and

    (b) as respects the House of Commons, the Corporate Officer of that House.

    (4) Where the service in question is access to and use of any place in the Palace of Westminster which members of the public are permitted to enter, the Corporate Officers of both Houses jointly are the provider of that service.
    (5) Nothing in any rule of law or the law or practice of Parliament prevents proceedings being instituted before an industrial tribunal under Part II or before any court under Part III."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Burt.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we may consider Government amendment to the Lords amendment, (a), in line 8, leave out
    162
    '188 of the Employment Rights Act 1995'
    and insert
    '139 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978'.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: At the recent lobbies to the House, many disabled people and organisations of disabled people were concerned—and it was a matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)—that they did not have adequate access facilities, and even when they attempted to have a discussion in Westminster Hall, they were not allowed facilities for loudspeaker equipment.
    I know that the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People is concerned to correct that position, but it might be helpful if he confirmed to the House that discussions to improve all this is continuing.
    Mr. Burt: I am happy to respond. I share the concern that was raised at the time of the lobby. Discussions are going on to deal with that with the House authorities and with the Serjeant at Arms' office. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate the written answer that appeared in Hansard on Tuesday 24 October, which was in response to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), and which gave details of the latest substantial alterations that have been completed to the palace of Westminster in favour of disabled people.
    On the problem of microphones in Westminster Hall, I have not yet had an answer on that issue, but it is a live one. I know that discussions continue, and we are all anticipating future lobbies to see how that problem can be dealt with.
    Mr. Clarke: With the leave of the House, I thank the Minister for that helpful statement. I know that he will have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), who spoke on this issue a few weeks ago, and who shares the Minister's and the House's concern.
    Lords amendment No. 89 and Government atnendment (a) agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 90 to 111 agreed to.
    Lords amendments Nos. 112 to 127 agreed to.

    New clause
    Lords amendment: No. 128, after schedule 2, to insert the following new schedule—( "Schedule 2A—
PREMISES OCCUPIED UNDER LEASES
  PART I
    OCCUPATION BY EMPLOYER OR TRADE ORGANISATION
      Failure to obtain consent to alteration
      1. If any question arises as to whether the occupier has failed to comply with the section 6 or section (Duty of trade organisation to make adjustments) duty, by failing to make a particular alteration to the premises, any constraint attributable to the fact that he occupies the premises under a lease is to be ignored unless he has applied to the lessor in writing for consent to the making of the alteration.

      Joining lessors in proceedings under section 8
      2.—(I) In any proceedings under section 8, in a case to which section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) applies, the complainant or the occupier may ask the tribunal hearing the complaint to direct that the lessor be joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings.
      (2) The request shall be granted if it is made before the hearing of the complaint begins.
      (3) The tribunal may refuse the request if it is made after the hearing of the complaint begins.
      (4) The request may not be granted if it is made after the tribunal has determined the complaint.
      (5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings and the tribunal finds that—

      (a) the lessor has—

      (i) refused consent to the alteration, or

      (ii) has consented subject to one or more conditions, and

      (b) the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable, it may make such declaration as it considers appropriate or order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.

      (6) A declaration or order under sub-paragraph (5) may be made in substitution for, or in addition to, any steps taken by the tribunal under section 8(2).
      (7) If the tribunal orders the lessor to pay compensation it may not make an order under section 8(2) ordering the occupier to do so.

      Regulations
      3. Regulations may make provision as to circumstances in which—

      (a) a lessor is to be taken, for the purposes of section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) and this Part of this Schedule to have—

      (i) withheld his consent;

      (ii) withheld his consent unreasonably;

      (iii) acted reasonably in withholding his consent;

      (b) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be reasonable;

      (c) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be unreasonable.

      Sub-leases etc.
      4. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision supplementing, or modifying, the provision made by section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) or any provision made by or under this Part of this Schedule in relation to cases where the occupier occupies premises under a sub-lease or sub-tenancy.
  PART II
    OCCUPATION BY PROVIDERS OF SERVICES
      Failure to obtain consent to alteration
      5. If any question arises as to whether the occupier has failed to comply with the section 15 duty, by failing to make a particular alteration to premises, any constraint attributable to the fact that he occupies the premises under a lease is to be ignored unless he has applied to the lessor in writing for consent to the making of the alteration.

      Reference to court
      6.—(1) If the occupier has applied in writing to the lessor for consent to the alteration and—

      (a) that consent has been refused, or

      (b) the lessor has made his consent subject to one or more conditions, the occupier or a disabled person who has an interest in the proposed alteration to the premises being made, may refer the matter to a county court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff.

      (2) In the following provisions of this Schedule "court" includes "sheriff'.
      (3) On such a reference the court shall determine whether the lessor's refusal was unreasonable or (as the case may be) whether the condition is, or any of the conditions are, unreasonable.
      (4) If the court determines that the lessor's refusal was unreasonable it may make a declaration to the effect that if the lessor were to give his consent subject to such condition or conditions as may be specified in the declaration he would be acting reasonably.

      Joining lessors in proceedings under section 20
      7.—(1) In any proceedings on a claim under section 20, in a case to which this Part of this Schedule applies, the plaintiff, the pursuer or the occupier concerned may ask the court to direct that the lessor be joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings.
      (2) The request shall be granted if it is made before the hearing of the claim begins.
      (3) The court may refuse the request if it is made after the hearing of the claim begins.
      (4) The request may not be granted if it is made after the court has determined the claim.
      (5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings and the court finds that—

      (a) the lessor has—

      (i) refused consent to the alteration, or

      (ii) has consented subject to one or more conditions, and

      (b) the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable, it may make such declaration as it considers appropriate or order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.

      (6) If the court orders the lessor to pay compensation it may not order the occupier to do so.

      Regulations
      8. Regulations may make provision as to circumstances in which—

      (a) a lessor is to be taken, for the purposes of section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) and this Part of this Schedule to have—

      (i) withheld his consent;

      (ii) withheld his consent unreasonably;

      (iii) acted reasonably in withholding his consent;

      (b) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be reasonable;

      (c) a condition subject to which a lessor has given his consent is to be taken to be unreasonable.

      Sub-leases etc.
      9. The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision supplementing, or modifying, the provision made by section (Alterations to premises occupied under leases) or any provision made by or under this Part of this Schedule in relation to cases where the occupier occupies premises under a sub-lease or sub-tenancy.")
      Amendments made to the proposed Lords amendment: (a), in paragraph 2, leave out sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) and insert—
      '(5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings, the tribunal may determine—

      (a) whether the lessor has—

      (i) refused consent to the alteration, or

      (ii) consented subject to one or more conditions, and

      (b) if so, whether the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable.

      (5A) If, under sub-paragraph (5), the tribunal determines that the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable it may take one or more of the following steps—

      (a) make such declaration as it considers appropriate;

      (b) make an order authorising the occupier to make the alteration specified in the order;

      (c) order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.

      (5B) An order under sub-paragraph (5A)(b) may require the occupier to comply with conditions specified in the order.

      165
      (6) Any step taken by the tribunal under sub-paragraph (5A) may be in substitution for, or in addition to, any step taken by the tribunal under section 8(2).'.
      (b), in paragraph 6, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert—
      '(4) If the court determines—

      (a) that the lessor's refusal was unreasonable; or

      (b) that the condition is, or any of the conditions are, unreasonable,

      it may make such declaration as it considers appropriate or an order authorising the occupier to make the alteration specified in the order.
      (4A) An order under sub-paragraph (4) may require the occupier to comply with conditions specified in the order.'.
      (c), in pararaph 7, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—
      '(5) Where a lessor has been so joined or sisted as a party to the proceedings, the court may determine—

      (a) whether the lessor has—

      (i) refused consent to the alteration, or

      (ii) consented subject to one or more conditions, and

      (b) if so, whether the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable.

      (5A) If, under sub-paragraph (5), the court determines that the refusal or any of the conditions was unreasonable it may take one or more of the following steps—

      (a) make such declaration as it considers appropriate;

      (b) make an order authorising the occupier to make the alteration specified in the order;

      (c) order the lessor to pay compensation to the complainant.

      (5B) An order under sub-paragraph (5A)(b) may require the occupier to comply with conditions specified in the order.'.—[Mr. Burt.]
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 129 to 139 agreed to.

    Schedule 6

      MODIFICATIONS OF THIS ACT IN ITS APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND
      Lords amendment: No. 140, in page 36, line 45, at end insert—
      (". In section 13(6A)(b) for "Part VII of the Mental Health Act 1983" substitute "Part VIII of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986".")
      Amendment made to the proposed Lords amendment:(a), leave out from '(6A)' to end, and insert
      'for paragraphs (b) and (c) substitute "; or

      (b) functions conferred by or under Part VIII of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 are exercisable in relation to a disabled person's property or affairs.".'.—[Mr. Burt.]

      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords amendment: No. 141, in page 37, line 9, at end insert—
      ("12A. Omit sections (Education of disabled persons), (Further and higher education of disabled persons) and (Further and higher education of disabled persons: Scotland).
      12B.—(1) In section (Taxi accessibility regulations)(1) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
      (2) In section (Taxi accessibility regulations)(5) for the definition of "taxi" substitute—

      ""taxi" means a vehicle which—

      (a) is licensed under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 to stand or ply for hire; and

      166

      (b) seats not more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver."

      12C. For section (New licences conditional on compliance with taxi accessibility regulations) substitute—

      New licences conditional on compliance with accessibility regulations.
      .—(1) The Department of the Environment shall not grant a public service vehicle licence under Article 61 of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 for a taxi unless the vehicle conforms with those provisions of the taxi accessibility regulations with which it will be required to conform if licensed.
      (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if such a licence was in force with respect to the vehicle at any time during the period of 28 days immediately before the day on which the licence is granted.
      (3) The Department of the Environment may by order provide for subsection (2) to cease to have effect on such date as may be specified in the order.".
      12D. Omit section (Exemption from taxi accessibility regulations).
      12E. In section (Carrying of passengers in wheelchairs)(7) for "licensing authority" substitute "Department of the Environment".
      12F.—(1) In section (Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs)(5) and (6) for "licensing authority" substitute "Department of the Environment".
      (2) In section (Carrying of guide dogs and hearing dogs)(9) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
      12G. Omit section (Requirements as to disabled passengers in Scotland).
      12H.—(1) In section (Appeal against refusal of exemption certificate)(1) for "a licensing authority" substitute "the Department of the Environment".
      (2) In section (Appeal against refusal of exemption certificate)(2) for "licensing authority concerned" substitute "Department of the Environment".
      (3) In section (Appeal against refusal of exemption certificate)(3) for the words from "the magistrates' court" to the end substitute "a court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessions district in which the aggrieved person resides."
      12I.—(1) In section (PSV accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
      (2) In section (PSV accessibility regulations)(5) for the definition of "public service vehicle" substitute—

      ""public service vehicle" means a vehicle which—

      (a) seats more than 8 passengers in addition to the driver; and

      (b) is a public service vehicle for the purposes of the Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1981;".

      (3) In section (PSV accessibility regulations)(7) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".
      12J.—(1) In section (Accessibility certificates)(2) for "Secretary of State" substitute "Department of the Environment".
      (2) In section (Accessibility certificates) for subsections (3) and (4) substitute—
      "(3) Any person who uses a regulated public service vehicle in contravention of this section is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.".
      12K.—(1) In section (Approval certificates) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
      (2) In section (Approval certificates)(1) for "he" substitute "it".
      (3) In section (Approval certificates)(6) for "his" substitute "its".
      12L. In section (Special authorisations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
      12M.—(1) In section (Reviews and appeals) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
      (2) In section (Reviews and appeals)(2) for "him" substitute "it".
      (3) In section (Reviews and appeals)(6) for "he" substitute "it" and for "his" substitute "its".
      12N.—(1) In section (Fees) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
      (2) In section (Fees)(2) for "him" substitute "it" and at the end add "of Northern Ireland".
      (3) In section (Fees)(4) for "he" substitute "it".
      12P.—(1) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
      (2) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(6) in the definition of "rail vehicle" for the words "on any railway, tramway or prescribed system" substitute "by rail".
      (3) Omit section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(7).
      (4) In section (Rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(11) for the words from "the Disabled" to the end substitute "such representative organisations as it thinks fit".
      12Q.—(1) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations) for "Secretary of State" wherever it occurs substitute "Department of the Environment".
      (2) In section (Exemption from rail vehicle accessibility regulations)(3) for the words "the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee and such other persons as he" substitute "such persons as it" and for "he" substitute "it".
      12R. Omit section (Offences by bodies corporate etc.)(3).")
      Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), after subsection (2) insert—
      '(2A) In section (Designated transport facilities) for "Secretary of State", wherever it occurs, substitute "Department of the Environment".'—[Mr. Burt.]
      Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.
      Lords amendments Nos. 142 to 170 agreed to.

    Clause 12

      DISCRIMINATION IN RELATION TO GOODS, FACJLITIES AND SERVICES
      Lords amendment: No. 30, in page 9, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert—
      ("( ) For the purposes of this Part, references to a service provider who discriminates against a disabled person shall include references to a service provider who—

      (a) treats a person who has a physical or mental impairment that does not have a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities, as having a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities;

      (b) treats a person who does not have a physical or mental impairment as having a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities.")

      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Burt.]
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Tom Clarke: Of all our discussions today, this is easily the most serious. Many thousands of people outwith this place will attach their concern about parliamentary democracy to the manner in which we respond to the clear decision in another place. The amendment was carried in another place in the face of opposition from the
      168
      Government Front Bench, and it is a matter for regret, but not for surprise, that Ministers are not prepared to accept the verdict of the other place.
      The Lords amendment is yet another challenge to the inadequate scope and coverage of the Bill. Ministers were forced to concede that the Bill should protect those with a history of disability and those likely to be disabled in future, and they suffered defeat in the Lords because of their refusal to extend protection to those with an ill-founded reputation for disability.
      The effect of the Lords amendment is to outlaw discrimination against those wrongly perceived by providers of goods and services to be disabled. If we accepted the Government's original proposals, to which they now wish to return, a service provider alleged to have discriminated would win a court case if it could be shown that the victim of the discrimination was not actually disabled, or had a disability that did not meet the narrow definition in the Bill.
      The perverse effect of that would be that well-founded discrimination based on prejudice would be unlawful, but ill-founded discrimination based on ignorance and prejudice would remain lawful. For example, if a restaurant owner refused to serve a customer whom he believed to be epileptic and the customer really was epileptic, the customer would have a case against him. But if the customer were not epileptic but suffered from a lesser form of ailment not covered by the Bill, the discrimination would be perfectly acceptable and within the law, and the customer would have no right to redress whatever. That is wholly unacceptable.
      The Lords amendment lays down that that the problem is the discrimination itself, not the precise degree of disability. To discriminate on the grounds of disability is wrong whether the perception of disability is well founded or not, just as would be the case with any other sort of discrimination. To ban a customer because he was Scottish would be unlawful, even if he was not a Scot at all. The same logic should apply to discrimination on grounds of disability.
      The Lords amendment would achieve that, with the support not only of their Lordships' House but of every organisation I know of and for disabled people, and that of every disabled person whom I have ever met, including some people who have been discriminated against because they merely have a reputation, or whose history is perceived by others as being covered by the word "disability".
      Ministers may argue that the amendment would lead to inconsistency, because perceived disability is not covered in the part of the Bill dealing with employment. However, that would be the least of the inconsistencies in the Bill. Its overall structure draws a false and unnecessary dividing line between employment and other spheres.
      The Opposition have been the most persistent critics of that divide, and our criticism remains. Government amendments to the employment parts of the Bill no longer allow an employer's subjective opinion as a ground for less favourable treatment. We welcome that change, but Ministers saw fit to leave the subjective opinion of a service provider as grounds for less favourable treatment.
      It is a result of the Government's approach, not of ours, that objective criteria must be satisfied for an employer to treat a disabled person unfavourably, but that no such principle applies to service providers. Clearly that is

      169
      repugnant. If subjective opinion can be a ground for less favourable treatment in the provision of goods and services, but not in employment, it would make as much sense for the Bill to outlaw discrimination on the grounds of subjective opinion in employment but not in the provision of goods and services.
      It is unsatisfactory that the two areas of employment and the provision of goods and services should be so needlessly kept apart in the Bill, despite all the evidence, all the representations and all the arguments. However, the blame for that lies firmly with Ministers, and not with other parties or with the Lords amendment.
      Ministers have argued that there cannot be protection for people perceived to be disabled without the Bill's becoming open-ended. The Government argued that only those who meet the criteria of disability should be protected by the Bill, but they can no longer advance that argument as they have conceded that those with a history of disability should be protected, even if they do not necessarily meet the narrow definition of actual or current disability.
      The Bill should address the problem of discrimination on the grounds of disability. We should shift the onus of proof from the alleged victim of discrimination to the alleged perpetrator. It should not be up to the victim to prove that he or she is disabled, and therefore protected by law. The onus should be on the service provider not to discriminate on the grounds of disability, which is why we believe that the amendment should be passed.
      The Minister said that the Opposition's attitude was "gung-ho". I took the opportunity during a Division to look up in a dictionary that the House would find acceptable the definition of "gung-ho". I found that the United States marines used that expression during the second world war to indicate that they were "enthusiastic, eager, zealous". When the House refuses to emulate that approach to put right that which is wrong, we will no longer be serving the democratic rights of our people, or the rights and needs of 6.5 million of our fellow citizens.
      Ms Lynne: I shall be brief, as I know that many hon. Members want to speak.
      Lords amendment No. 30 proposes to outlaw discrimination based on ignorance and prejudice: I believe that most discrimination is based on ignorance and prejudice. It aims to prevent a provider of goods or services from acting in a discriminatory manner just because someone is perceived to have a disability.
      We debated this issue in Committee, and I am glad that the Government have moved slightly on the history of disability. I am saddened, however, that they have not moved on the reputation of disability. I hope that they will agree with the Lords amendment. In many instances, people who have no disability, but who have a reputation of disability, are perceived to have such a disability—for example, those who are perceived to have mental health problems or HIV.
      Are we saying that it is justifiable to discriminate on a perception that somebody has a mental illness? Is it justifiable to be prejudiced against someone who is believed to be HIV positive? If the House does not pass the Lords amendment, that is exactly what it will say. Discrimination is based on ignorance and prejudice, and we must take that on board when we consider the amendment.
      170
      At long last, disabled people are to be protected in law to a certain extent. I say "to a certain extent", because, without a commission to enforce the rights of disabled people, the Bill will not give disabled people what they need. People who are perceived to have a disability—even if they do not have that disability—will not be protected, and that is not fair and does not make sense. The amendment is vital, and the Government must not oppose it. It will give a clear message that any discrimination relating to disability is wrong, whether it is related to an actual disability or a perceived disability.
      Mr. Wigley: I am glad to have the opportunity to make a brief intervention in the debate.
      In rejecting the Lords amendment, the Government will leave a massive loophole in the Bill, and I wish to address my remarks to that matter. Under the Bill, a person providing a service may discriminate against a disabled person on the basis not of that disability but of a belief that the disabled person has more severe disabilities.
      If we do not agree the Lords amendment, we will give any provider of goods or services a defence against an accusation of discrimination against a disabled person on the basis of an acknowledged disability. The provider alleged to have discriminated will be able to say that he or she did so on the basis of not an acknowledged disability but a perception of a far-reaching disability. That will be a watertight defence in any action, and the provision intended by this part of the Bill will be flawed. The Government have not thought this matter through, and the Lords amendment should be agreed.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Barnes: There are two main distinctions between the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and the Disability Discrimination Bill. One is the lack of an enforcement agency, which is not proposed in the amendment, and the other is the scope of its application. Who does the Disability Discrimination Bill apply to?
      We have always made it clear that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill applied to anyone who was disabled or who was perceived to have a disability—at least 10 per cent. of the population. We do not know how many people are covered by the Disability Discrimination Bill. The Bill's details of definition are hedged with all sorts of medical provisions and a host of exemptions; considerable powers over those exemptions are placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. The amendment gives us a chance to extend the areas of definition within that limited scope, and therefore to extend the Bill's areas of application. The Lords amendment would ensure that the discriminator could not use the argument that the person discriminated against had a perceived disability.
      The Lords amendment still does not make the Bill fully acceptable to the civil rights movement, but it is important. If it is passed, we will be in a better position to amend the legislation or to introduce a measure based on the principles of the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. All hon. Members who have supported the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill in this House should be in the Lobby to defend this Lords amendment.
      Mr. Alan Howarth: Anybody who doubts the existence and extent of prejudice within our society against minorities, including disabled people, need consider only the performance of the tabloids in recent

      171
      weeks in their commentary on the distribution of funds from the National Lottery Charities Board. There were outpourings of venom against minorities, based—as much as anything—on ignorance. Again and again we find that ignorance is at the root of prejudice, and we must act to deal with the unacceptable consequences of such ignorance and confusion.
      The Bill aims to remedy one of a range of injustices: discrimination against someone who has an actual impairment of long-term and substantial impact. But if the Government win the vote and Lords amendment No. 30 is not passed, we will fail to address another range of injustices that occurs when someone with a minor disability—or no disability at all—experiences discrimination as though he or she did have a substantial disability. When that occurs it is just as damaging and objectionable.
      If the Government vote against the Lords amendment, the less disabled one is, the more one can be discriminated against. That is the most astonishing policy for the Government to adopt. It puzzles me that they should intend it to be within the law to discriminate on the basis of imaginary disability.
      The Minister promised that guidance will be issued, and that will, no doubt, be helpful to a degree, but the principle needs to be solidly established in the legislation.
      At the heart of the problem is the Government's conception of the nature of disability. They insist on the medical model, hence their insistence on the definition of disability in the Bill as being its fulcrum. That insistence is misguided even on the Government's terms because the definitions have failed to be definitive and are woolly. The phrases, "long-term and substantial impact" and "normal day-to-day activities" are susceptible to infinite debate and argument. What does it mean to talk of a
      "clinically well-recognised medical condition"?
      The truth of the matter is that the definitions that the Government have offered will be a challenge to litigation and a paradise for lawyers. They should have sought universally to establish the principle that it is unacceptable to discriminate on grounds of disability and allowed sensible exemptions on the basis of reasonableness.
      The Government should take as their conception the social model. After all, one cannot legislate against impairment, which arises as a fact of life out of natural or accidental causes, but one can and must legislate to constrain anti-social behaviour and to improve social behaviour in all the areas relevant to disability.
      The measure is called the Disability Discrimination Bill and it is designed to prevent discrimination. It is discrimination itself that disables and further impairs those who are unfortunate enough to be impaired already and to be the victims of discrimination. It impairs not only those individuals but all of us, because, to the extent to which discrimination on grounds of disability may still be licensed within our society, so we shall tend the more to have a society characterised by aggression, harshness, guilt, distrust, fear and injustice. It follows from that analysis that the evil against which we are legislating is discrimination itself, whether based on an objectively ascertained reality or a mistaken perception.
      It seems particularly strange that the Government are unwilling to accept the Lords amendment, given their acceptance earlier that it should not be lawful to discriminate against someone who has a history of
      172
      disability but is no longer disabled. In accepting that principle they have gone a significant way towards acknowledging that they must act to deal with mistaken perception. I cannot understand how they can leave that task uncompleted and be willing to accept that discrimination on grounds of disability should still be permissible under certain circumstances and how, if they are to allow people to be stigmatised and disadvantaged in such a way, they can claim to be the Government of a party committed to one nation.
      The Government should, indeed, have tabled an amendment to the Lords amendment to ensure that it covered employment as well as the provision of goods and services.
      The Government put forward considerations of expediency. They are concerned about costs, but there is no need to fear the costs given the principle of reasonableness that permeates the legislation. Nor need the Government fear that service providers are going to spend disproportionate amounts of time poring over the small print in part III of the Bill. That simply is not the way in which life works. Civil servants study the small print of legislation, as do lawyers and a few Members of Parliament, but employers and providers of goods and services do not, so the Government need not fear that either.
      Nor need the Government fear that, if they accept the amendment, it would lead to great quantities of litigation. They must recognise that it will always be hard for the victim of such discrimination to prove their point about the motives of people who discriminated. What matters is that the declaration of principle should be enshrined in the Bill. The principle should be paramount.
      Sadly, I must ask one last question of the Minister. At the meeting that he was kind enough to hold with the all-party disablement group last week, I asked whether he would be willing to accept as a fallback position that the Government should take powers to introduce the substance of this amendment in secondary legislation. I would greatly prefer that it should be clearly established in the primary legislation, which would be the right principle, but surely it would at least be a prudent precaution to take a reserve power to implement the substance of the Lords amendment in secondary legislation if experience should prove it to be necessary. Perhaps the Minister will say whether the possibility of the Government taking such a power is provided for and, if not, why will they not take it?
      Mr. Berry: In opposing the Lords amendment, the Government are placing themselves in a ridiculous position. After many years, they have been convinced that discrimination is wrong if a service provider discriminates against someone whose impairment falls within their definition, but they seem to think it acceptable if a provider discriminates against someone in the belief that he or she has an impairment that falls within the definition and has made a secret of the fact.
      One cannot discriminate against someone who has epilepsy, but one can discriminate if one believes that they have it. One cannot discriminate against someone with mental illness, but one can do so against someone who is believed to have it. One cannot discriminate against someone who has a serious hearing impairment, but I guess that the Bill will allow one to discriminate against someone who uses a hearing aid. Plainly, that is a nonsense.

      173
      If the Government are concerned because they feel that there will be litigation, may I point out that someone who wishes to complain under this part of the Bill will do so only if their complaint can stand up in court? If someone can prove that they have suffered discrimination because of their perceived disability, surely they should have the right to justice.
      The Government should listen to what the Law Society and members of the Bow Group have to say and should support the Lords amendment and say that they really believe that discrimination is worth abolishing.
      Mr. Burt: Let us try to settle this matter in context and to explain why things are not quite as they have been portrayed. The amendment extends the coverage of part III of the Bill to people who are treated by service providers as though they have a disability.
      Last week, I had an opportunity to discuss the amendment with a delegation from the all-party disablement group, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam), who, as always, has done sterling work throughout the passage of the Bill on behalf of disabled people. He was accompanied by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who is also present, and the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), both of whom have spoken
      I am grateful to them for explaining the ostensible purpose of the amendment. I do not doubt their sincerity. Indeed, I have much sympathy with their concern that people who are not disabled but have minor impairments might he treated unfairly. Extending the definition as they propose, however, would create a number of problems, which would seriously undermine the operation of the Bill. Not only would it lead to confusion, but its provisions would be unworkable.
      The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon mentioned principle, but to establish a point of principle that cannot then be enforced is, to my mind, to take a dangerous step. The whole point of the Bill—and why it is important—is that the principles that it enshrines can be delivered. I am not prepared to allow the base of the Bill to be undermined by taking a step that might sound right but which will not deliver the goods and will provide only an opportunity for the unwary to fall into traps. I therefore ask the House to reject the amendment.
      The amendment is a development of others discussed at earlier stages of the Bill. The exact terminology has changed; it is now framed in terms of treating someone as disabled instead of as perceiving someone as disabled, but its intention remains the same.
      During its passage, the Government have emphasised that the Disability Discrimination Bill is concerned solely with discrimination against people who are, or have been, disabled. It cannot provide the solution for all those who may possibly face discrimination. It is not a general anti-discrimination Bill. The definition that the Bill uses is clear. The people covered are those who have, or have had, a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. We are talking about people who are disabled in common-sense terms.
      Any attempt to introduce provisions to widen the Bill's scope to include people who are merely thought to be, or are treated as, disabled would damage the Bill and
      174
      dramatically reduce its effectiveness. I fear that a change of that nature would lead to a good deal of spurious and vexatious litigation. It would—this is the crucial point—be extremely difficult to establish legally what was in the mind of a service provider accused of having perceived someone as having disability or to prove that someone had been treated as if they were disabled.
      8 pm
      Perception is necessarily the response of an individual person. In my view, it is simply not possible to base important legal issues on such uncertainty. What evidence can be produced to answer the statement, "I have no such perception"? We cannot look inside a person's mind in that way, still less provide for legal disputes on the point. The concept of perception is irredeemably flawed in that context. The attempt to move away from perception to treatment does little to remove the potential for confusion. We spent much time and trouble getting the definition right. It would be bizarre if we were now to allow those who did not meet that definition to benefit from the protection afforded by part III through the loophole that the amendment would create.
      We have heard no argument advanced by the Opposition about the burden on the service providers, upon whom the successful implementation of the Bill depends. The great advance of the Bill is in the requirement on service providers to change policies and practices, provide auxiliary aids and remove physical barriers, where reasonable. Failure to make such changes could amount to unlawful discrimination. The concept of reasonable adjustment that that implies—taking practical steps to make jobs and services accessible—is crucial to the Bill. It is right to require those adjustments but the case for that duty is based on two key arguments: first, that it is right to ask society to make changes to help those with a substantial disability; secondly, that the extent and nature of the changes required can be predicted because only those with a substantial disability are covered.
      If the Bill covered non-disabled people and those with minor conditions, it would result in an unacceptable degree of uncertainty on the part of the service provider, who would never know for certain whether the person in front of him or her was someone for whom some form of adjustment was necessary. Of course, service providers would not have to make adjustments on a major scale for those who are not disabled or who have only minor disabilities. However, they would have to consider the full range of duties, including changing policies and practice that made access unreasonably difficult, to ensure that they were operating within the law. That would create a considerable burden for small business trying to come to terms with its duties under the Bill.
      There has been a lot of misunderstanding about the degree of disability covered by the Bill's definitions. I am seeking to be reassuring. People think that substantial disability means severe disability. That is wrong. The word "substantial" is used in the definition to indicate an effect more than minor. As a result, many disabled people who may think that the Bill does not cover them will find that they enjoy its protection. That will become clearer once we have published guidance on the matter.
      The amendment will be resisted because the Bill as now drafted fulfils not only the aims of the House but those of the wider public. For the first time, it will be unlawful to discriminate against a disabled person in access to

      175
      employment, goods, services and facilities. A National Disability Council will advise the Government and assist us in drawing up the regulations needed to put the Bill into practice, and because a workable and coherent definition of disability is in the Bill, we can proceed with confidence, recognising the interests of those who supply employment, goods and facilities, as well as the aspirations of disabled people. Without such a constructive relationship, the further change that we seek in society's attitudes towards disabled people is made more difficult.
      The Bill is therefore a fundamental advance for disabled people put forward by a Conservative Government, like so much other excellent legislation for supporting disabled people. It is easily as significant as the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which was passed, as the House well knows, after a substantial climbdown by the then Labour Government, which had originally decided not to take the measure forward. I therefore ask the House to support the Bill and reject the amendment.
      Mr. Tom Clarke: I have no doubt that those who listened to our debate, and especially to the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and of other hon. Members from all the Opposition parties, will remain completely unconvinced by the argument that the Minister has advanced. If the Government are supported in the Lobby tonight, let it be remembered that those who do so will make an absolute mockery of the speech made at the Conservative party conference in Blackpool by the Secretary of State for Social Security.
      The Bill is a betrayal of disabled people, and those who are perceived or considered to be disabled. The Government have had the opportunity, by embracing the wisdom and decision of another place, to put the matter right. They are culpable because of that. They have considered the matter. Let no one therefore doubt that nothing that the Government propose is in the interests of those whose disability, or perceived disability, will be held against them as a result of the law introduced by the Government. On that basis, I invite the House to join us in the No Lobby, and to do so with pride and so oppose a position that will, in time, be reversed by the House.
      Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—
      The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 250.

      Division No. 226]

      [8.07 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Bendall, Vivian

      Alexander, Richard

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Amess, David

      Booth, Hartley

      Arbuthnot, James

      Boswell, Tim

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Ashby, David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Bowis, John

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Baldry, Tony

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Brazier, Julian

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Bates, Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Batiste, Spencer

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      176

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Burt, Alistair

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Butcher, John

      Hartley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Butterfill, John

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Harris, David

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cash, William

      Hawksley, Warren

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hayes, Jerry

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Heald, Oliver

      Churchill, Mr

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Clappison, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hendry, Charles

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Hicks, Robert

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Colvin, Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Congdon, David

      Horam, John

      Conway, Derek

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Couchman, James

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Cran, James

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

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

      Hunter, Andrew

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jack, Michael

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Day, Stephen

      Jessel, Toby

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dover, Den

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Duncan, Alan

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dunn, Bob

      Knapman, Roger

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

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

      Elletson, Harold

      Knox, Sir David

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Evennett, David

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Faber, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Lidington, David

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lightbown, Sir David

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Lord, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Luff, Peter

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      MacKay, Andrew

      French, Douglas

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Fry, Sir Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      Madel, Sir David

      Gallie, Phil

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Garel-Jones, Fit Hon Tristan

      Malone, Gerald

      Garnier, Edward

      Mans, Keith

      Gill, Christopher

      Marland, Paul

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Marlow, Tony

      Goodlad, Ftt Hon Alastair

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Mates, Michael

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Merchant, Piers

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Moate, Sir Roger

      177

      Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Steen, Anthony

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Stephen, Michael

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Stern, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Stewart, Allan

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Streeter, Gary

      Nonis, Steve

      Sumberg, David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Sweeney, Walter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Sykes, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Paice, James

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thomason, Roy

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Pickles, Eric

      Thurnham, Peter

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Tracey, Richard

      Tredinnick, David

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Trend, Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      Trotter, Neville

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Richards, Rod

      Viggers, Peter

      Riddick, Graham

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Walden, George

      Robatnan, Andrew

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Waller, Gary

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Ward, John

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Watts, John

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Wells, Bowen

      Sackville, Tom

      Whitney, Ray

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Whittingdale, John

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Wilkinson, John

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Willetts, David

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Wilshire, David

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Sims, Roger

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Wood, Timothy

      Soames, Nicholas

      Yeo, Tim

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spring, Richard

      Mr. Simon Burns and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

      Sproat, Iain

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Boateng, Paul

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Bradley, Keith

      Ainger, Nick

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Allen, Graham

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle upon

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Tyne East)

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Burden, Richard

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Byers, Stephen

      Ashton, Joe

      Callaghan, Jim

      Austin-Walker, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Bayley, Hugh

      Canavan, Dennis

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Cann, Jamie

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Bell, Stuart

      Church, Judith

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clapham, Michael

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Berry, Roger

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Betts, Clive

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Blunkett, David

      Clelland, David

      178

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Ingram, Adam

      Coffey, Ann

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Connarty, Michael

      Jamieson, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Janner, Greville

      Corston, Jean

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Cousins, Jim

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Cox, Tom

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Cunningham, Roseanna

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Dafis, Cynog

      Keen, Alan

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Darling, Alistair

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

      Davidson, Ian

      Khabra, Piara S

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

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

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Lewis, Terry

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

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Denham, John

      Litherland, Robert

      Dewar, Donald

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Dixon, Don

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Dowd, Jim

      McAllion, John

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Eastham, Ken

      McCartney, Ian

      Etherington, Bill

      McCrea, The Reverend William

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McFall, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McKelvey, William

      Fatchett, Derek

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Fisher, Mark

      McLeish, Henry

      Flynn, Paul

      Maclennan, Robert

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      MacShane, Denis

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      McWilliam, John

      Foulkes, George

      Madden, Max

      Fraser, John

      Maddock, Diana

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mahon, Alice

      Galbraith, Sam

      Mandelson, Peter

      Gapes, Mike

      Marek, Dr John

      Garrett, John

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Martlew, Eric

      Godsiff, Roger

      Maxton, John

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Meacher, Michael

      Gordon, Mildred

      Meale, Alan

      Graham, Thomas

      Michael, Alun

      Grant, Bemie (Tottenham)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Milburn, Alan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Miller, Andrew

      Gunnell, John

      Mitchell, Austin (Greaf Grimsby)

      Hain, Peter

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hall, Mike

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Hanson, David

      Moriey, Elliot

      Hardy, Peter

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Henderson, Doug

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Heppell, John

      Mudie, George

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mullin, Chris

      Hinchliffe, David

      Murphy, Paul

      Hoey, Kate

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Home Robertson, John

      Olner, Bill

      Hood, Jimmy

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

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

      Pearson, Ian

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

      Pike, Peter L

      Hoyle, Doug

      Pope, Greg

      Hughes, Kevin (DoncasterN)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hutton, John

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Illsley, Eric

      Primarob, Dawn

      179

      Purchase, Ken

      Stevenson, George

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Stott, Roger

      Radice, Giles

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Raynsford, Nick

      Straw, Jack

      Reid, Dr John

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Rendel, David

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'tryNW)

      Timms, Stephen

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Touhig, Don

      Rogers, Allan

      Turner, Dennis

      Rooker, Jeff

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wallace, James

      Rowlands, Ted

      Walley, Joan

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Salmond, Alex

      Welsh, Andrew

      Sheerman, Barry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Short, Clare

      Wilson, Brian

      Simpson, Alan

      Winnick, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wise, Audrey

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Worthington, Tony

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

      Wray, Jimmy

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Soley, Clive

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Spellar, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Mr. Joe Benton and Mr. John Cummings.

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to amendment No. 30: Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Piers Merchant, Mr. Gordon McMaster and Mr. Richard Ottaway; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      To withdraw immediately.

      PROCEEDS OF CRIME (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
      Read a Second Time.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Sessional Order [19 December], That the Bill be not committed.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      Question agreed to.
      Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.
      Bill read the Third Time, and passed.

      Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      8.25 pm
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have no wish to hold up the House, but I have an important question about clause 18, in part II, entitled
      "Sporting events: control of alcohol etc".
      It has been suggested that the sanction contained in the clause should not apply to sporting events
      "at which all the participants take part without financial or material reward".
      I must remind the Minister of a recent cricket match in Glasgow where there was something of a stramash. It was suggested by a number of witnesses to that unholy incident that those involved were decidedly under the influence of alcohol.
      I do not want to force a Division—I suspect that I would not be very popular if I did so—but, because of the increasing habit of drinking alcohol at amateur as well as professional events, the Minister should think again about clause 18(2).
      8.26 pm
      The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. We are making certain inquiries into the recent boxing match and the disgraceful scenes of violence and intimidation that took place there. The hon. Gentleman will have read in the press today that the police have been making inquiries and have followed up on them.
      We are investigating the matter, but the Bill is purely a consolidation measure. It does not change the law, but we are not ruling out further changes in the future depending on the results of our inquiries.
      8.26 pm
      Mr. John McFall: May I concur with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman)? As the Minister said, however, the Bill is merely a consolidation measure. The Bill is welcomed by the Opposition because it will make the law more manageable and accessible. I am also sure that it will be welcomed by public and professional bodies because of that. Although we could dispute individual aspects of the Bill, I do not think that this is the right forum for such a discussion. We welcome the consolidation measure.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read a Second time.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Sessional Order [19 December], That the Bill be not committed.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      Question agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

      Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
      Order for Second Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]
      8.28 pm
      Dr. Norman A. Godman: On the whole the Opposition welcome the Bill, which is a consolidation measure. However, I must draw the Minister's attention to the serious concern felt at the failure of the Crown to use measures that could be taken under the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993. I refer to section 33, which allows the employment of a commissioner in court cases involving the cross-examination of child witnesses. That means that a child can give evidence on commission. Many of us are concerned, however, that screens are being used instead of closed circuit television or the employment of a commissioner. Although I accept the Bill readily, the Government still have much to do to offer protection to child witnesses and other vulnerable witnesses in our Courts.
      8.29 pm
      Mr. Phil Gallie: I too acknowledge that the Bill is likely to have a fairly swift passage tonight, but I wish to record some dissent with respect to part III, which refers to bail.
      I understood that several significant changes would be introduced in the way in which bail would be applied from our courts. I believe that the Bill makes some amendment, but it certainly does not go as far as I was led to understand during the passage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill earlier this year.
      I should therefore like an undertaking from my right hon. Friend the Minister that, perhaps in the not too distant future, bail in Scotland will once again be considered and perhaps some more stringent criteria applied.
      8.30 pm
      The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): First, in response to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), I am well aware of his great concern and efforts on behalf of children and the need to safeguard them. He
      182
      specifically mentioned evidence on commission, closed circuit television and the use of screens, and he obviously believes that children should be given more protection.
      I will make inquiries about the up-to-date position. I will draw to the attention of the Lord Advocate the arguments that the hon. Gentleman made and ask for a full letter to be sent to him.
      To my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) I can say that the Bill merely consolidates existing law. I am well aware of his desire to tighten up on bail. We have severely tightened up on bail already. The Act will be reviewed in due course in the light of experience. No doubt we can return to it in future if there is a further need, just as we returned to the issue of knives when my hon. Friend so successfully piloted a Bill on to the statute book.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read a Second time.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills),
      That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      Question agreed to.
      Bill immediately considered in Committee.
      Clauses 1 to 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 87

    NON-AVAILABILITY OF JUDGE
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 87, page 63, line 43, leave out '(1)(c)' and insert '(1)(b)(ii) or (3)(b)'.
    Clause 87 consolidates section 128 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 as amended by section 30 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1995. The consolidation failed to reproduce the amendment made at subsection (3) of section 30 of the 1995 Act, which is consequential on the change made earlier in section 30.
    The amendment is purely consolidation, and I am able to advise the House that Lord Lloyd of Berwick, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, is content that it is pure consolidation, and will not change the character of the Bill. Without the amendment, the consolidation would be inaccurate.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 87, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 88 to 309 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedules 1 to 10 agreed to.
    Bill, as amended, reported; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

    Criminal Procedure (Consequential Provisions) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be read a Second time.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton]
    8.34 pm
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: On clauses 2 and 3, many of us are deeply worried about what appear to be the over-lenient penalties imposed on people convicted in our High Court of the most serious and violent crimes against the person. I am not alone. I do not think that I am allowed to mention the name of the specific judge, but one High Court judge has been remarkably lenient in the way in which he has treated certain people convicted of horrific crimes.
    Perhaps the Minister cannot do it with this Bill, but I hope that he and the Lord Advocate will issue guidelines to sheriffs and High Court judges concerning the need to inflict condign punishment, especially on those convicted of violent crimes against the person.
    8.35 pm
    Mr. Phil Gallie: I support what the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) said. The feelings that he expressed are felt throughout the land. There are great anxieties about inconsistencies and perhaps there are great anxieties about those who judge the judges. Who are they? Should we perhaps consider that in future? I suggest that, given the example quoted by the hon. Gentleman, that should be the case.
    8.36 pm
    Mr. John McFall: I wish to make a few comments to back up what my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallic) said.
    On clause 3, I wonder whether the Government have considered the issue of a sentencing commission. We have had inconsistencies in sentencing. In the summer months, one young person was sentenced to gaol for more than two years for stealing £5 from a football pools company
    184
    and the next day a young person was given a community service order for badly beating up a 78-year-old pensioner. That type of inconsistency cannot be allowed.
    The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) wrote to me with regard to those cases, saying that he was writing to the Lord Advocate about the matter. The response that the hon. Member for Eastwood received from the Lord Advocate was insufficiently serious in view of the position. That gives the impression that, whether it be the judges or those in charge of the judges, as the hon. Member for Ayr said, a vacuum exists between them and the rest of the community.
    We urge the Minister to consider that seriously. Perhaps eventually he will be really radical and decide that there should be a judicial committee to appoint judges, which would involve lay people as well, so that the committee can be seen to be acting in the interests of the entire community.
    8.37 pm
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): First, with regard to guidelines, I will ask the Law Officer, the Lord Advocate, to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). We have made it clear that we want more honesty in sentencing, that we intend to consult in due course before legislation is considered and that we wish sentences to approximate more closely to what the court passes.
    As hon. Members will appreciate, the judiciary is independent of the Government. Those matters will be borne in mind. As I mentioned, it is a consolidation measure.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Sessional Order [19 December], That the Bill be not committed.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

    Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    8.39 pm
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): I beg to move, That the Bill be read a Second time.
    The Bill promotes the reform of statute law by the repeal, in accordance with the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of enactments that are no longer of practical utility. The Bill, which proposes the repeal of 223 whole Acts or orders and the removal of redundant provisions from 259 others, represents the culmination of much careful and detailed research and consultation by the two Law Commissions.
    I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing appreciation to the commissions and to the draftsmen for this Bill and for all the important work that they undertake in preparing consolidation Bills.
    8.40 pm
    Mr. Paul Boateng: The Opposition are only too happy to join the Solicitor-General in thanking the Law Commission for its activities. This is a good time to consider the Law Commission and the importance of its role.
    It is the House's responsibility to ensure that the logjam that has developed recently in relation to the Law Commission is cleared as quickly as possible. I had thought that the House would have an opportunity tonight to give effect to the important work that the Law Commission has sent to both Houses this Session. That was the hope of the Opposition and, I suspect, of many Conservative Members. Although we shall consider this Bill—one of several that we are to consider tonight—there is one other provision that we shall not consider today, although we had expected to.
    When he introduced the Bill in the other place, the Lord Chancellor said that the Law Commission's functions consisted of
    "the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments, the reduction of the number of separate enactments and generally the simplification and modernisation of the law".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 April 1995; Vol. 563, c. 581.]
    Measures brought to us by the Law Commission have traditionally been given by this House the careful consideration which they merit, having undergone detailed and specific consideration and extensive consultation in the other place. We are then normally able to give them as detailed a consideration as they merit, but not as detailed a consideration as they would normally receive. That is the understood mechanism for dealing with Law Commission reports. I had thought that that was understood and appreciated on both sides of the House.
    I have no doubt that those sitting on the Treasury Bench tonight and, indeed, those sitting immediately behind the Treasury Bench, appreciate only too well the importance of the Law Commission's work. Because of the value of the commission's work, its significance, and the care and detail that it applies to the consideration of measures before they reach the other place or this House, we are tonight happy to join Conservative Members in welcoming the Bill. I suspect that we shall also welcome other measures during the evening. It is to be hoped that we shall welcome at least one other piece of legislation before the House rises for the recess.
    8.45 pm
    Mr. Donald Anderson: I follow the Solicitor-General in saying that tonight is one of the rare opportunities that the House has to pay tribute to the work of the Law Commission. I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) in saying that there is still a logjam of consolidation measures and of the work that the Law Commission seeks to put through this House for the benefit of ordinary citizens. We are not talking merely about arcane legal work—many of the Law Commission's recommendations have a direct impact on ordinary citizens. That factor is all too often overlooked.
    I should like to pay a well deserved tribute to the Law Commission for the diligence and quality of the work that it produces on our behalf. As the Solicitor-General has already said, the Bill will repeal 223 whole Acts or orders and remove individual redundant provisions from 259 others. It adds to the 1,600 whole Acts that have already been repealed in response to Law Commission reports. There is clearly a vast undergrowth of law that puzzles the ordinary citizen, which gives gainful employment to many lawyers, and which should be cut for the benefit of all our citizens.
    Like earlier reports, the Law Commission's 15th report on statute law revision provides a fascinating glimpse of the old days. I shall not trawl through all the repeals, but I was intrigued by an Act of 1694, in the sixth and seventh year of the reign of William and Mary. It is described as
    "An Act for rebuilding the town of Warwick and for determining differences touching houses burnt or demolished by reason of the late dreadful fire there."
    Many other examples give little vignettes on the history of the time.
    The Law Commission clearly deserves our sincere tributes in respect of the work that it has done. Paragraph 1.9 of its sixth programme of law reforms states:
    "the Commission exists to make the law simpler, fairer, more modern and cheaper to use."
    Who could be against that laudable aim?
    Between September 1989 and April 1995, Parliament received 30 consolidation Bills prepared by the draughtsmen at the commission. The commission has also been involved in the preparation of many other Bills, including two Statute Law (Revision) Bills. We are told that the next such Bill is unlikely to be ready before 1998. Given the quality of the Law Commission's work and its relevance and importance, will the Solicitor-General confirm whether financial constraints are preventing it from continuing its work? It is important to pay tribute to the quality of the Law Commission's work generally.
    On 14 June this year, I was fortunate enough to attend the celebrations held at Inner Temple hall to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the Law Commission for England and Wales and the Scottish Law Commission. Mr. Justice Brooke, the commission chairman, reminded the gathering that, 15 months ago, he wrote in his introduction to the Law Commission's annual report:
    "The position is now serious. It is not of course cataclysmic. But history shows that a nation which neglects the ordinary care of its laws is neglecting something which is very important in its national well-being."

    187
    He went on to give six examples from unimplemented reports published between 1983 and 1985, which are a serious cause for concern. I shall not bore the House by setting out in extenso the six reports that Mr. Justice Brooke mentioned.
    Mr. Boateng: There is no danger of my hon. Friend ever boring the House. I urge him to give us some examples from the reports. He need not set them out in extenso, but it would be helpful to have some examples of the sorts of report to which he correctly draws the House's attention.
    Mr. Anderson: In response to those blandishments and invitations from my hon. Friend, I shall select three examples that I hope will prove to the House how the law impacts directly on the citizen and how the failure to implement law has an adverse effect on the rights of the citizen.
    In 1987, a foreign bank obtained a judgment in London against an American bank for $300 million. The case bristled with difficult points of law, but the defendants simply could not afford to risk an appeal. Interest was running on the judgment at the English rate of 15 per cent. per year, whereas the United States rate was about 6 per cent. If the case had taken 18 months to reach the Court of Appeal, the difference in interest alone would have cost another $400,000. The Law Commission recommended reform in 1983, but the Bill only recently reached this place for the first time. One wonders how much more injustice occurred in the interval between the Law Commission's recommendation and the Bill's reaching the House.
    My second example is perhaps more relevant to the ordinary citizen than to companies. Ronald and Hazel Rhone bought a cottage in Somerset in 1981. The roof of the house next door, from which it was divided, overhung their bedroom, but they had the benefit of a covenant from their neighbours stating that they and their successors in title would maintain the roof in wind and weather-tight condition. In the event, it was neglected and the cottage suffered as a result. The house had changed hands and, last year, the other place ruled that the couple could not enforce the covenant because such positive covenants do not run with the land.
    In 1965, a committee chaired by Lord Wilberforce said that reform was needed urgently. In 1971, the Law Commission commented that the law in that area was
    "illogical, uncertain, incomplete and inflexible".
    In 1984, the Law Commission formally recommended that positive covenants should be replaced by a system of land obligations, but nothing has been done. How many more citizens have suffered injustice since 1984 as a result of what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South described as the logjam in terms of the House dealing with important Law Commission reports?
    The House will be pleased to learn that I shall limit myself to only one more example to illustrate my point. Three years ago, the other place castigated landlords who exercised their archaic legal right to re-enter premises without a court order. They called it a
    "dubious and dangerous method of determining a lease".
    In 1985, the Law Commission reported that the law of forfeiture of tenancies was unnecessarily complicated and no longer coherent. The commission said that its complication added to the costs incurred by people who
    188
    were caught up in the working of the law. Since 1985 and that recommendation, the costs have grown even larger—to the detriment of the ordinary citizens involved. The law remains unchanged.
    One could go on indefinitely giving examples of reports that remain unimplemented at great cost to the individual, but at great advantage to the lawyers who benefit. Parliament has chosen to ignore at least 30 other such reports. It is worse now because of the restrictions on legal aid that have resulted from the Government's cost-cutting measures. The funding for many law centres has been cut off or slashed, and legal costs have soared. That serves only to underline the case for making law as simple and as fair as possible.
    In debates in 1965, when the Law Commission was established, a former Secretary of State for Scotland said that the amount of money spent by the ordinary citizen on lawyers to discover the nature of the present law was disgraceful. Those comments were made 30 years ago and the problem remains unsolved.
    A great failing of the Law Commission is, perhaps, that it has lacked the skills of persuasion in respect of Parliament. It has failed to persuade Government and Parliament that something must be done, particularly in criminal law reform. As those who practise in criminal law know, it is crying out for consolidation and simplification. Mr. Justice Brooke told the celebratory gathering in July this year that he knows of 17 cases since he arrived at the commission in January 1993 in which the Court of Appeal has had to set aside convictions because the judge made a mistake when directing the jury on the law of self-defence. There have been 17 miscarriages of justice in this small area of criminal law alone, yet there is still no progress on it. I could go on giving examples, but I am sure that my point has been well understood.
    There is a chink of light, however. At the same assembly in Inner Temple hall, Mr. Justice Brooke said that, had the event taken place two years before, it would have been not a celebration but a wake. That was because at last, in his judgment, Parliament appeared to have pushed the work of the Law Commission a little further up its agenda. Some of the frustrations at the logjam described by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South have gone. Mr. Justice Brooke rejoiced—and we with him—that his appeal in the annual report of two years before had been heard, and that, between his appeal and the end of the Session, 14 Law Commission reports will have reached the statute book.
    The Law Commission, as we know, is independent, based on an all-party consensus. By contrast, two strong Law Commissions, in Canada and the Australian state of Victoria, have been abolished by incoming Governments. There is no danger of that happening here.
    When the Law Commissions Bill reached the other place in 1965, Lord Gardiner said that he regarded it as one of the most exciting things that a Government had ever done. Most of us would think that the Labour Government of 1964–70 probably did more exciting things than introducing that Bill. I am reminded of the definition of an actuary as someone who finds accountancy too exciting. Perhaps Lord Gardiner's definition of "exciting" was rather different from the person in the street's.
    As the sixth programme of law reform clearly shows, the work of simplification, modernisation and codification continues. That work certainly impacts positively on the

    189
    ordinary citizen, but the constant refrain of the report is that everything will be done "resources permitting". I hope that the Government will respond positively to the Law Commission's case for staff continuity and will provide the resources to enable it to continue its most valuable work.
    9.1 pm
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I too congratulate the Law Commission and its staff on their skilful work to produce this report. It is one of considerable detail and, therefore, it is fallible. I believe that it contains some errors. I tried to point them out to the Joint Committee of which I am a member. Despite what has been said by some of the legal brethren in the House, I do not think the system is especially good. I was clearly not welcome at the Joint Committee—
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Troublemaker!
    Mr. Mackinlay: I did not mean to be—
    Mr. Anderson: I would never describe my hon. Friend as a troublemaker. I was suggesting that some less enlightened souls might consider him one.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Anyway, I went along to do my duty by this House, in the belief that there was an error in one aspect of the report; but I could not escape the feeling that it was considered a cheek that someone who was not a lawyer should question the judgment of the Law Commission and of some noble and learned peers. I queried the definition of the statutes or parts of statutes that should be the subject of repeal: where the legislation is spent, obsolete, unnecessary or otherwise not now of practical utility.
    I checked with the Clerks of the House before I went to the Joint Committee to find out what my duties and rights were. I was told that I could move amendments to the Bill, so I did and put forward the fact that the Abdication Act 1936 should be repealed. Their Lordships immediately raised their eyebrows, but if one applies the test of whether an Act is spent, obsolete, unnecessary or otherwise not now a practical utility, the Abdication Act 1936 neatly falls into that category.
    There are two reasons why their Lordships did not accept my suggestion: first, it was coming from an "oik" and, secondly, it had not gone through all their machinery. They could not accept that somebody other than them could make a sensible suggestion about deleting some clutter from the statute book. There is probably a third reason: that there are some things that the establishment—particularly here—just do not like tampering with. They think that sensitive issues such as the Abdication Act, although spent and obsolete, raise matters into which they do not want to trespass; my suggestion was therefore rejected.
    I particularly drew their Lordships' attention—and I do so here this evening—to what is contained in part II of schedule 1 to the Bill, which will repeal some words from the Regency Act 1937. I detain the House on this matter because I think that there is an important point of principle here. It is my view that some Acts of Parliament are not the sole property of this Parliament. They are what I would call constitutional Acts—those that relate to the
    190
    Head of State and the matter of succession. They are the property not only of this legislature but of some 15 or 16 legislatures in the world where Her Majesty the Queen is Head of State.
    We must pause and think whether it is a matter of constitutional propriety that we should make that amendment, because the Regency Act was passed in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of Westminster 1931, so it can be repealed or amended only in accordance with the provisions of that statute.
    What was the Statute of Westminster? It said that the dominions, which in 1931 were Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish free state, are totally free and independent and that Westminster can pass legislation for them only at their request. It went on to say:
    "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom".
    It seems to me that any amendment to the Regency Act, no matter how small, is subject to that part of the Statute of Westminster that says that it cannot be altered—there is an impediment to its alteration or repeal—unless it is done with the assent of the Parliaments of the dominions. [Interruption.]
    I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), as he is muttering.
    Mr. Boateng: I am not sure that "muttering" is fair. I was thinking to myself in a sedentary position and articulating the thoughts as they came into my head. I would not describe that as a mutter.
    My hon. Friend was making an interesting point, and I wonder whether he would share with the House whether he has raised the matter with the Clerks? It is something on which they may well have a view.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I meant no discourtesy to my hon. Friend, but I must also come back to him with a retort and say, "Of course I did." Of course I raised it with the Clerks. I raised it with them extensively. Indeed, I would not have been able to persuade the Chairman of Ways and Means to contemplate calling some of my amendments in Committee later tonight if there was no credibility in what I have to say. So I passed the hurdle—if it was one—of discussing it with the Clerks.
    Anybody who looks at the matter dispassionately will find that, although the hon. Member for Thurrock has no legal qualifications, he has a point—and, if he has a point, people should tread with caution. Given the ramifications, if this place ignores what I consider to be matters of constitutional propriety in relation to the dominions—of which there are some 16—there could be profound consequences.
    Let us consider two hypotheses. First, let us suppose that Her Majesty the Queen wished at some stage to abdicate, retire or relinquish her main duties, and to hand over to a regent. Secondly, let us suppose that the Prince of Wales divorced and wished to marry again. Legislation would be needed in the House of Commons, and in every other legislature where the Queen is Head of State. That is why we cannot trespass regardless into the Regency Act: the matter must be dealt with simultaneously in the other legislatures.
    On 27 April, I asked the Under-Secretary whether, if we were contemplating repealing or amending the Regency Act, other dominions would be consulted in

    191
    accordance with the Statute of Westminster. He replied that they would. Subsequently—I rather regret this—I asked a further question relating directly to the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill, drawing attention to the fact that the regency legislation was to be amended. The Under-Secretary then replied, "I am advised that it is not necessary."
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Was that a distinction between something that was necessary as a result of a statutory obligation, and something that was courteous and proper as a result of a convention?
    Mr. Mackinlay: My own view is that there is an obligation on us to consult the dominions. Under the Statute of Westminster, they have a right to say, "We would like Westminster to enact the legislation on our behalf'; but things have moved on since 1931. Canada, for example, has had its constitution repatriated. Canada would now encounter an impediment in asking Westminster to legislate for it, even if it wished to do so, but it should nevertheless be advised of the need to amend the Regency Act and make it part of its own constitutional legislation in Ottawa.
    From what I can make out from parliamentary answers, Her Majesty's Government did not extend that courtesy, but they should have. I consider this a dangerous precedent. While the repeal amendment may be pretty obscure and, in an overall context, unimportant, it is not unimportant in terms of constitutional principles and proprieties. It illustrates the fact that we need a present-day equivalent of the imperial or dominion conferences of 1926 and 1930, which were precursors of the introduction of the Statute of Westminster, to clarify how we should deal with amendments to regency legislation and legislation relating to succession, and so forth.
    I asked the then Foreign Office Minister, the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), which of the dominions to which we had granted independence had in their constitutions provision for the application of section 4 of the Statute of Westminster. He replied:
    "This information cannot be obtained at a reasonable cost"— [Official Report, 28 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 873.]
    I find that astonishing and dangerous; but it probably also explains why the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department changed his mind in the time between two parliamentary questions. One parliamentary answer said, "Yes, of course we will consult about the changes to the Regency Act legislation." A few days later, when I pointed out that an amendment was being proposed in the form of the Bill that we are discussing, he changed his mind and said, "I am advised that it is not necessary."
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend should not be surprised when the Minister changes his mind on a matter because of amendments. The Minister seems increasingly prone to do that and I doubt whether my hon. Friend was surprised by the Minister's response to his amendment, was he?
    Mr. Mackinlay: That Minister is one of the nice people in the House and has always treated me very courteously. However, I was disappointed because I had hoped that he would see that there was a matter on which he should caution the Lord Chancellor and other Ministers—that this part of the Bill ought to be amended
    192
    because it trespasses on the sensitive area of interfering with the law of the dominions, because the Regency Act 1937 is part of their law.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: I am puzzled, but not surprised, by the response that it would require a disproportionate charge to public funds to find what is, after all, a relatively simple answer to a simple question. One knows how many dominions there are and any reasonable Commonwealth constitutional lawyer could speedily ascertain from the relevant textbooks the answer to my hon. Friend's question.
    Mr. Mackinlay: I cannot help feeling that somebody advised the Under-Secretary not to take too much trouble on the matter because, "The hon. Member for Thurrock will not be taken seriously." If people do not take this matter seriously, sooner or later there will be acute embarrassment. That will arise either because of circumstances relating to Her Majesty the Queen or the Prince of Wales, or when there is a need for new regency legislation, and this place stumbles across the fact that there is no real mechanism for consulting the Governments of the dominions of which the Queen is Head of State and those Parliaments simultaneously enacting the necessary legislation.
    I can live with the arrogance that has been demonstrated against me by the Government and by some very distinguished Law Lords, but sooner or later the crunch will come. When it does, I shall not hesitate to remind the House that I told it so. First, there is a need for this matter to be taken out of the Bill. Secondly, during the Commonwealth Prime Ministers conference this week, the Prime Minister should at least initiate some side discussions with the Prime Ministers of those countries of which the Queen is Head of State and talk about the need for a conference to find a mechanism to deal with Acts that transcend national boundaries and are not peculiar to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but relate to other countries too.
    Mr. Anderson rose—
    Mr. Mackinlay: I shall give way for the last time, because I am trying to concentrate and it takes great skill to do that on these issues.
    Mr. Anderson: As I recall it, the Bill came before the House in July and was suddenly removed without explanation by the Government. Was my hon. Friend told whether that was in response to the interesting point that he had raised to which it appears the Government had no answer at that time?
    Mr. Mackinlay: That matter was on my original notes, but I deleted it. Earlier today, Madam Speaker spoke about the courtesies of the House. In July, I came prepared to make the speech that I am now delivering and tabled amendments. Without any explanation from the Minister or his parliamentary private secretary, the matter was "pulled"—I think that is the term. In any event, it did not proceed. I thought that that was rather bad form by gentlemen, but I have to live with that.
    It should not have happened, particularly when I was asked today through certain channels whether I intended to press my amendments to a vote. That seems one-sided. People want me to extend some courtesies, but courtesy was not extended to me in July. That, however, is a matter

    193
    of history. I just want to reiterate that, sooner or later, unless the Government take this matter up with some vigour with the other Governments, it will return to haunt the House.
    The proposal in the Bill's schedule is that the words "the Government of India" should be deleted. The argument is that that is clearly inappropriate as India is a republic. I accept that, but the subject of the dominions must be considered. In essence, one could argue that the Regency Act is obsolete because it would be difficult to implement. If and when it needed to be implemented, because the monarch either had died or could no longer fulfil the duties of his or her office, there would be enormous problems in securing clearance of the dominions. The matter needs to be reconsidered. It is not therefore merely a question of words relating to India, which is now a republic; we must recognise that the Act is obsolete in relation to the dominions as well.
    On that note, I hope that the Solicitor-General will reflect that the Government need to reconsider the matter and support the withdrawal of this part of the Bill.
    9.20 pm
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: First, I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I allowed to speak on a subject other than the amendments?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): We are on Second Reading, so the answer is yes, but hon. Members must speak on the Bill before us.
    Dr. Godman: With you in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would not do anything other than that.
    I am concerned about certain parts of the Bill. My concerns are so serious that, unless I receive certain assurances from the Solicitor-General, I am prepared to divide the House. The introduction to the Bill claims that it is an
    "Act to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which … are no longer of practical utility".
    I am not here to talk about the English Law Commission; I wish to question certain recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission.
    May I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to schedule 1, page 32? It mentions the repeal of the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Acts 1821 to 1890. I am concerned about their repeal. Hon. Members may think that they are ancient and have no relevance today, but that is not the case. My argument—I am seeking guidance from the Government's Law Officers—is that those Acts strengthen the provisions of the Fisheries Act 1705, popularly known to Scottish fishermen as the Queen Anne Act.
    The Queen Anne Act, which was passed in Edinburgh in May 1705, is still in being. I think that I am right in saying that, in relation to the interests of our inshore fishermen, it was strengthened by the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Acts. That is my concern. Do not some of those Acts strengthen the Queen Anne Act in certain regards?
    The Queen Anne Act allows our fishermen to use our harbours for the landing of fish, the mooring of fishing vessels, the laying out of nets and other gear on the
    194
    quayside and the mending of gear and pots. It might be thought that that is a trivial matter, but I speak as an honorary president of the Clyde Fishermen's Association, and I can assure the House that every one of our members knows about the Queen Anne Act. I used it recently against the Scottish Development Agency and Renfrewshire Enterprise, which sought to drive some of our fishermen members out of the East India harbour in Greenock.
    I am not sure whether the Solicitor-General knows that the 1705 Act was incorporated in the Inshore Fishing (Scotland) Act 1984. I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was felt at the time that the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Acts passed so long ago in the 19th century could stand on their own in relation to the Queen Anne Act.
    With my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), I played a small part in that initiative, and the Scottish Fisheries Minister who so graciously accepted our amendment so that the Queen Anne Act continued in being was the then Mr. John Mackay, who these days is a Minister in another place. He recognised the importance not only of the Queen Anne Act but of the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Acts of 1821 to 1890.
    I ask the Solicitor-General whether I am right in my assumption that the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Acts strengthen the protection that was given to fishermen 120 years earlier, just before the Union took place in 1707. Are those Acts being repealed because he and his colleagues believe that they are in contravention of European Union fisheries laws? Do Ministers believe that the Acts—despite what the Scottish Law Commission may have recommended, they give our fishermen some protection—conflict with regulations brought into being by the EU common fisheries policy? Are the Government heading off a possible dispute with the European Court of Justice?
    Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give me his word that the repeal of the herring fisheries Acts will not harm in any way the interests of our inshore fishermen? I remind him about the six-mile limit to our territorial waters. Indeed, the Government Whip, the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), is quite an expert on such matters, and if he had not taken a vow of silence, he could probably come to the Dispatch Box and give me the assurance I seek—that, by and large, within that six miles we are still in control of our fisheries and fishing grounds, and that it is in general those inshore waters to which the herring fisheries Acts applied and, I believe, still apply as we approach the end of the 20th century.
    I make no apology for detaining the House, because such matters are of concern to our fishermen in Scotland. As I said earlier, somewhat immodestly, the Queen Anne Act was used against the Scottish Development Agency, and then Renfrewshire Enterprise, when an attempt was made to drive our fishermen out of the East India harbour.
    When I told the Scottish Development Agency's lawyers that it could not throw fishermen out of our harbours, they confessed that they knew nothing of the Queen Anne Act. I seek an assurance from the Minister that in throwing out the Acts we shall not harm our fishermen in any way. That is particularly the case in respect of the development of our harbours in the interests of those who would promote the tourist industry over and above the interests of our fishermen and their families.

    195
    I am looking for an assurance that the Scottish Law Commission consulted widely, and by that I mean with the fishing communities. I also want to know whether the Solicitor-General—as there is no Scottish Office Minister here—is of the considered opinion that our fishermen will not be harmed in any way by the repeal of the Acts. If he cannot give me that assurance or promise he that he will investigate my concerns, I am prepared to divide this House.
    9.30 pm
    The Solicitor-General: I shall deal first with the point exercising the mind of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I think that I can reassure him about the workings of the Bill in relation to the Herring Fisheries (Scotland) Acts 1821 to 1890: only the collective short title of the Acts is repealed by the Bill. The contents of the Acts were repealed between 1934 and 1984. The one exception is the White Herring Fisheries Act 1771, which the Bill does not touch.
    Accordingly, the Joint Committee in another place reported that the enactments proposed to be repealed under the Bill were no longer of practical utility, and approved their repeal. I hope that, with those words, I have set the hon. Gentleman's mind fair with regard to the White Herring Fisheries Act.
    Dr. Godman: Will the Solicitor-General assure me that the Government have no intention of repealing the Fisheries Act 1705?
    The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that we are in the Hallowe'en season, and that we are fast approaching Christmas, but I have not just fallen off a Christmas tree. I have no intention of giving any such undertaking, which will not surprise him.
    I wish to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who asserted that there was a "logjam" in law reform and in the enactment of statute law repeal Bills. I am pleased that we will be able to rely in future on the full-hearted support of the Opposition both in this House and in another place in regard to law reform and the related matter of statute law repeal. But we must distinguish between them, as they are not the same. Every Act proposed for repeal—this Bill proposes to repea; many—needs detailed research, and those undertaking that work constitute only a few of the Law Commission's staff.
    There is no financial constraint. It is quite simply that research takes time, even with modern methods, computers and extensive databases. The commission must give equal priority to law reform measures, and these take up the greater part of manpower resources. Mr. Justice Brooke is to be congratulated on the energy with which he performs his duties as chairman of the Law Commission.
    I have carefully considered what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said and have carefully read the exchanges in the Joint Committee between him and the parliamentary draftsman about this and related issues. Having given the matter my best consideration, it is my concluded view that he has, albeit inadvertently, fallen into error in his interpretation of the Statute of Westminster 1931.
    If the hon. Member for Thurrock would care to elaborate the arguments contained in his amendments, I will attempt to do them full justice. In summary, for the
    196
    present I limit myself to saying that the Statute of Westminster requires the assent of the Parliaments of the dominions to any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne—I emphasise, the succession to the throne.
    The Regency Act 1937 does not have that effect. It merely erects a mechanism in case the sovereign is incapacitated. That is why, in substance, the Statute of Westminster requirements do not bite on the provisions of the 1937 Act.
    Mr. Mackinlay: The Regency Act 1937 was enacted in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of Westminster. From what I can ascertain, the dominions were consulted on that occasion, which buttresses my argument that its amendment or repeal would have to be conducted in accordance with the same procedure or procedures that have come into being subsequently—for example, Canada now has a repatriated constitution.
    In any event, there is also the question of common courtesy. The Government should have shown courtesy to the other 15 or 16 dominions by saying that we were contemplating making this marginal amendment and asking whether they had any objections or whether there was any impediment. That was not done, which was discourteous, but I think that it was also necessary because the 1937 Act was enacted in accordance with the Statute of Westminster.
    The Solicitor-General: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. When the then Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, moved the Regency Bill in this House, he made its function clear. He was explicit in explaining how it affected only the sovereign in the circumstances that I outlined. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no constitutional impediment and no discourtesy in regard to the proposed repeal. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office have been consulted. No one else ought to have been consulted, either in law or in courtesy. I must repeat that, in suggesting otherwise, the hon. Gentleman is in error.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read a Second time.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
    Question agreed to.
    Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.

Schedule 1

  REPEALS
  9.36 pm
  Mr. Mackinlay: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in schedule 1, page 27, leave out lines 26 to 28.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in schedule 1, page 27, line 27, column 3, at beginning insert
  'and communicated to the Governments of Her Majesty's Dominions'.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I will not detain the Committee unduly, because I have referred to much of what I wanted

  197
  to say on Second Reading. Nevertheless, I think that we are in danger of committing a serious error by including this repeal in the schedule. It would be appropriate, in accordance with amendment No. 2, to leave the Regency Act 1937 as it is. The Solicitor-General should raise with the Prime Minister the need for some review of legislation such as the Regency Act with other countries' Prime Ministers.
  If we trespass in making this repeal tonight, we will offend the constitutional position of several countries. It will certainly have political ramifications, because we will be rather arrogantly altering a law that forms part of their constitutions. The danger is that, at some stage, we will find that we are in great difficulty having crossed this line. I hope, therefore, that the House will be persuaded to change the Bill in accordance with my amendment. Constitutionalists in Canberra, for instance, may discover that it was wrong for us to have so acted.
  In any event, I hope that if our proceedings are reflected upon elsewhere, others might say that we need to reconsider the regency legislation. I disagree with the Solicitor-General: the Regency Act does relate to the succession. He has put a narrow and wrong construction on it—in my view it is squarely part of the obligation provided for under the Statute of Westminster—which clearly states that such action must be taken with the dominions acting together.
  The Regency Act needs to be reconsidered, because, if ever we did need such a provision, there would be political consequences in other Parliaments, especially in Canberra. Some would take a leaf out of the book of the Prime Minister of the Irish Free State, who used the succession crisis in 1936 to abolish the post of governor general and create the presidency of the Irish Free State. The point that I made on Second Reading is valid: if the matter is treated with disdain and not addressed, it could have consequences in future.
  The Solicitor-General: I invite the House to reject the amendment, if the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) persists with it.
  He is quite wrong to suggest that the Bill has any effect on the constitution of any other country. It says quite explicitly that it affects only the law of the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. I repeat that it will not have any effect on the law of any other country.
  Out of deference to and respect for the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Thurrock, who has obviously spent a good deal of time researching the matter, let me go into a little more detail, starting with the Regency Act 1937.
  Section 2 of that Act made provision for a regency in the event of the total incapacity of the sovereign. Subsection(2) states that a declaration of the sovereign's incapacity under section 2(1)
  "shall be made to the Privy Council and communicated to the Governments of His Majesty's Dominions and to the Government of India".
  The Law Commission has recommended the repeal of the reference to the Government of India. That is not surprising given that such a reference has been obsolete since the enactment of the Indian Independence Act 1947. That is obvious, as India and Pakistan became republics in 1950 and 1956 respectively. Many such obsolete
  198
  references in pre-independence legislation were repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976. It is only because of an oversight that those words remain on the statute book to this day. Had they been spotted, they would have been removed in 1976 and the hon. Gentleman would have been spared the endeavours in which he has obviously been engaged over the past few months.
  9.45 pm
  The hon. Gentleman's objection to this repeal seems to be based on his assertion that the provision relating to the Government of India cannot be repealed without consulting other Commonwealth countries in accordance with the Statute of Westminster 1931. As I have tried to explain, that is not the case. The Statute of Westminster requires the assent of the Parliaments of the dominions to any alteration in the law that touches the succession to the throne. I stress the words, "succession to the throne".
  However, during the passage of the Regency Bill, it was made clear in Parliament by the then Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, that the Bill did not have that effect. It was merely a mechanism to enable the Crown to continue to operate when there was some impairment of the sovereign's health. So it did not require such assent prior to enactment, and it follows that no such assent is now required to repeal the Act or any part of it.
  This Bill will have effect only on the law of the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. It will have no effect on the law of any other country. For those reasons, I consider it appropriate that the obsolete reference to the Government of India in section 2(2) of the Regency Act should be repealed, as recommended by the Law Commission.
  The Government also oppose amendment No. 3, which would have the effect of introducing additional repeals. As its long title makes perfectly clear, the Bill is based solely on the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. The commissions have made no recommendations for the repeal of any part of the Regency Act, other than the reference to the Government of India in section 2(2). No evidence has been brought to the attention of the commissions or the Government that other aspects of the legislation are of no practical utility. In those circumstances, it will be wholly wrong for additional repeals to be inserted without further careful research and without the support of the Joint Committee.
  I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider this matter further and, if he is now satisfied, to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Mackinlay: I have reflected carefully on the Solicitor-General's comments, and I am grateful for his detailed explanation. Clearly, I have had an opportunity to give this matter an airing on Second Reading and in Committee, so I do not wish to press it to a vote. I hope that the Government will consider the wider implications of the matters I have broached in Committee and on Second Reading. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 1 agreed to.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  Law Reform (Succession) Bill [Lords]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's and Prince of Wales's consent signified].
  9.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  The Bill represents a useful and uncontroversial measure of law reform. I should like to thank the Law Commission for the careful work which it has put into the preparation of reports on which the Bill is based. I commend the Bill to the House.
  9.51 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: This is a welcome, long overdue, modest reform. The Law Commission is to be congratulated.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.52 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  I am sure that, once again, the House would wish to join me in thanking the law commissions—I must be careful to put that in the plural—for their careful and thorough work.
  9.52 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: This is a measure that has received careful and detailed consideration in another place and, albeit of necessity, less detailed but nevertheless careful consideration in Committee in this House.
  We have had a number of concerns, not least in relation to the impact of the legislation on the freedom of expression. We have also quite properly made known our concern to ensure that the Bill does not in any way enable the impact of foreign jurisdictions and foreign law to inhibit such freedoms in this country. We are satisfied that the Bill in its current form has met those objections. We thank the Law Commission for the work it has done, and we are grateful for the detailed consideration given to the Bill in another place. We give the Bill a fair wind tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  Civil Evidence Bill [Lords]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  9.53 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  For the third time tonight I should like to express our gratitude to the Law Commission for its contribution to law reform and to all those who have helped the smooth passage of the Bill.
  The Bill abolishes the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings in England and Wales. It will make the law easier to understand and to apply. I commend it to the House.
  9.54 pm
  Mr. Paul Boateng: We join the Minister in thanking the Law Commission. However, the best way to demonstrate our thanks to that august body would be to complete in its entirety the programme of work that it proposed, which we have considered during the present Session. I very much hope that we shall do that before the end of the Session.
  If we do so, the Minister's words may have a slightly less hollow ring than they currently have—not as a result, I must add, of anything that he has said or done. If only the actions of some other hon. Members who are sitting behind him were not such as to give his words the rather hollow echo that they have tonight.
  202
  I do not refer to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who is sitting behind the Minister, but, as is often the case, to those faceless, nameless ones whose visage and name feature only too clearly in the minds, not least the silent ones who sit on the Treasury Bench. We know who they are, and we will have no hesitation in naming them in the fulness of time. Now is not the time to do that; now is the time to wish the measure well. It is long overdue.
  We welcome the review of the hearsay rules as they affect civil evidence. A similar review is necessary in relation to the way in which they affect criminal evidence, and we look forward to the time when that task has been completed and we are able to take through the House measures aimed in that direction. The court should be concerned primarily with being a forum in which the truth is able to speak for itself. The abolition of the hearsay rule in relation to civil evidence makes that more likely to be the case than it was hitherto.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  DEREGULATION
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Anthony Coombs be discharged from the Deregulation Committee and Mr. David Martin be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

  PROCEDURE
  Ordered,
  That Andrew MacKay be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. Piers Merchant be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

  UNESCO
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  9.56 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: Last week, the Prime Minister was in New York, participating in the 50th anniversary celebration of the founding of the United Nations. The United Kingdom was a founder member of the UN, and the Labour Government, building on the work of the wartime coalition, played a key role in its establishment on 24 October 1945. The Prime Minister was able to speak to the United Nations General Assembly on 23 October 1995.
  In two weeks' time, on 16 November, there will take place in Paris the 50th anniversary celebrations of another important international organisation—the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation—yet, as things stand, no British Minister will attend or speak, as our Government will be absent as a member of that 184-state forum, only sending officials along to observe.
  That is especially saddening, because the United Kingdom played the leading role in founding UNESCO, which was established as a result of a British initiative taken in 1942, during the war. UNESCO was established and its constitution deposited in London, where its headquarters was initially based, and its first director-general and its assistant director-general for science were British.
  The principle aim of UNESCO is to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture, in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law, and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms that are affirmed in the charter of the United Nations.
  For many years, UNESCO did very good work, with Britain having a dominating influence in every aspect—professional or otherwise. However, there were growing criticisms, which led, in 1984, at the height of the cold war, to the withdrawal of the United States, followed, one year later, by a similar decision by our Government.
  The following reasons were given at the time: the Government thought that the so-called new world information and communication order was a potential threat to the freedom of the media; the concept of people's rights was controversial and was thought to challenge the universal declaration of human rights; there was thought to be some threat to freedom of transnational corporations to operate; there was thought to be duplication of the work of some other UN agencies.
  It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]
  Mr. Gapes: There was thought to be some lack of control over budgets, and much inefficiency in the administrative structures within UNESCO at that time. The organisation was also criticised for having too many people based at its headquarters and too few out in the field.
  The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs considered the withdrawal from UNESCO in 1985. It came to the conclusion, shared by the Conservative majority on the
  204
  Select Committee—since 1979, all Select Committees on Foreign Affairs have had a Conservative majority—that withdrawal from UNESCO would be prejudicial to Britain's interests in science, culture and education, was likely to damage Britain's relations with the Commonwealth and the third world, and could have unhappy consequences for Britain's relationship with the United Nations as a whole.
  In 1990, following the experience of Britain being outside UNESCO for five years, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs returned to the issue. It concluded that, because of its absence from UNESCO, Britain was failing to participate in important international initiatives in the fields of education, science and culture as fully as it might. Its report stated:
  "never has the need for such initiatives been greater, as political events in Europe, and all over the world, create a demand … which UNESCO is well designed to satisfy."
  The Committee praised the work of the new director-general, Frederico Mayor, who had been elected in November 1987, and said that he was addressing those parts of the programmes to which the British Government had objected. It said that his proposals for structural reform held much promise. The Committee concluded in 1990 that, assuming those proposals were satisfactorily implemented,
  "we see no reason why the UK should not rejoin UNESCO in a year's time."
  The Government rejected the Select Committee's recommendations, and said:
  "We will continue to monitor developments in UNESCO closely and look forward to the day when we can join a reformed organisation."
  The Select Committee returned to the issue again in 1993 when it stated:
  "The British Government's objections to UNESCO's policies have been overcome. The only serious criticism of UNESCO still outstanding is the complaint that the organisation's expenditure and personnel are still concentrated at UNESCO's headquarters in Paris rather than being devolved to the field in those countries where UNESCO is working."
  The then Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who has now moved on to agricultural matters, said in his evidence to the Select Committee, that "the objections" to rejoining UNESCO were "financial". The Committee report concluded:
  "The debate about UNESCO's policy, budgetary and management problems has been settled, broadly in the organisation's favour. Although further decentralisation is needed, we recommend that the United Kingdom should now seek to rejoin UNESCO".
  Since the Government took us out of UNESCO in 1985, three Foreign Affairs Select Committees have considered the issue in detail and have recommended that we should rejoin. Despite their concerns, the Government have kept Britain out. Why? The main official reason is that "the objections are financial". The Foreign Affairs Committee was told that the cost of rejoining would have to be met from the existing Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Overseas Development Administration budget. But is that necessarily true?
  The 1993 Select Committee report pointed out:
  "We do not commend the Government's approach to UNESCO as an inevitable competitor with the ODA for a share of a limited budget. UNESCO's remit is by no means simply that of a channel for development aid: UNESCO's constitution describes the organisation's role as promoting international collaboration through

  205
  education, science and culture to encourage universal respect for justice, the rule of law and the fundamental human rights and freedoms as affirmed in the UN Charter. Its work, in both developed and developing countries, includes the promotion of the free flow of ideas through the means of mass communication, advancing educational opportunities, conserving the world's cultural inheritance and encouraging co-operation in all branches of intellectual activity".
  The £10 million to £11 million subscription fee for rejoining UNESCO is a gross figure. It does not take account of income that could come to this country to partly, or perhaps wholly, offset that sum. It is a modest figure in relation to the total dues that we pay for membership of international organisations. The United Kingdom has always gained at least as much from UNESCO as we put into it. If we calculated our gains on purely selfish, material grounds, there is a strong case for rejoining UNESCO now. However, I submit that we should look at it in the wider context of what we lose by remaining outside UNESCO, and what we would gain by rejoining it.
  If the cost of rejoining were £11 million, that would represent 0.31 per cent. of the total Foreign and Commonwealth Office-ODA budget. The Foreign Affairs Committee pointed out in 1993:
  "only a third of the estimated cost would have to be found from new sources".
  That was because we were funding some UNESCO activities, even though we were outside the organisation. In 1991, the Select Committee was told that United Kingdom and United Kingdom-related receipts from UNESCO totalled £9.5 million. In 1994, such receipts amounted to twice the sum paid by the United Kingdom as its assessed contribution.
  The £11 million subscription is a gross figure, and payments to United Kingdom nationals employed by UNESCO, whether in Paris or in the field, were not taken into consideration. Rejoining UNESCO would allow an increased participation by United Kingdom nationals in the organisation's staff. Like other international organisations, UNESCO employs United Kingdom staff. However, since we left UNESCO, it has not recruited new British staff to fill vacant positions. Consequently, the United Kingdom component of UNESCO's staff, which used to be disproportionately large, has been declining year by year. The result is that British influence, Britain's contribution, and Britain's abilities and skills in this important international organisation are increasingly absent.
  We are now far less able to influence the outcome of decisions taken by UNESCO, and our diplomatic influence has been correspondingly reduced. I must emphasise that UNESCO is not an aid programme, and the costs of membership should not come solely from the aid budget. Other departmental budgets, including those governing educational, cultural and scientific expenditure, should also be taken into consideration.
  In 1993, the then Minister of State told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee:
  "Of course we can join, we can go back in tomorrow, but in order to do that we have to find"
  the money,
  "because we are not going to get any new money".
  206
  More recently, however, the argument seems to have shifted away from cost. The Under-Secretary of State informed the House in an answer dated 22 May 1995 that the Government's objections had widened. There had been some progress, he said, with regard to bureaucracy, overspending, mismanagement, inefficiency and political bias, but not enough. It would seem, therefore, that, since the Select Committee's report of 1993, the Government have moved away from their previous financial objection, and seem now to be taking a more hard-line position.
  Could this have something to do with the fact that, in 1993, it appeared that the United States, under President Clinton and with a Democrat-dominated Congress, was about to rejoin UNESCO; but that now, with a Republican Congress, the Americans have started to get cold feet? For the Government, the logic of and justification for rejoining does not seem to be quite as apparent as it was then.
  The Government official line is that the matter is still under review, but the fact is that there has been no Government review of the workings of UNESCO in the past decade. The only organisation to have carried out such a review is the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, which has three times recommended that we rejoin.
  As for the latest developments, I have already mentioned the Prime Minister's speech to the United Nations. In it he said that there were some bodies that we should scrap—without specifying which. Significantly, the Financial Times and The Times of 24 October, in almost identically worded reports, said that British officials
  "have made it clear that agencies such as UNCTAD, the UN trade agency, UNIDO, the industrial development organisation, UNESCO, the scientific and cultural organisation, as well as the five regional economic commissions should be part of any review".
  Does that mean that the Government's position has hardened even more? Instead of just saying that £11 million has to be found, suddenly the Government are assaulting the entire organisation in an attempt to destroy its very existence. I should be grateful if the Minister reassured us tonight that the Prime Minister's speech at the UN did not envisage an attack on UNESCO, and that the unnamed British officials either do not exist or were plain wrong. I would welcome a reassurance that the Government are still committed to rejoining UNESCO when they can find the £11 million.
  To paraphrase the Prime Minister at the United Nations, we need frank and honest answers now. The world needs UNESCO.
  I conclude by drawing the attention of the House to a speech made in the other place by the noble Lord Howe, on 22 March this year. He said:
  "It was, of course, during my time as Foreign Secretary that Her Majesty's Government decided to withdraw support from that organisation … But it was never intended to be a permanent step. The objective was to secure specific and essential changes in the management of that organisation. There was a clear implication that if those changes were achieved, our membership would be renewed."
  He goes on the say that he wrote to the Prime Minister on 12 October 1993, and pointed out:
  "The merits of the case have already been substantially conceded … Certainly, I think it would be difficult to resist re-entry to U.N.E.S.C.O. for longer than two years from now. The United Nations organisation celebrates in Golden Jubilee in 1995 and U.N.E.S.C.O. would surely be an unstoppable bidder by then?"

  207
  He concludes:
  "Therefore I ask with due diffidence: why have we not yet re-joined? I hesitate to conclude that Her Majesty's Government are still unable, 18 months later, to find the £11 million or so necessary. I hesitate to recall that when I was making my first budget I learnt to my astonishment that the estimated size of the PSBR was rounded to the nearest £¼ billion. I am still more reluctant to conclude that Her Majesty's Government are unwilling to take the necessary decision."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 1995; Vol. 562, c. 1231.]
  It is an inescapable conclusion that, under the leadership of its director-general, Federico Mayor, UNESCO has satisfactorily addressed all the problems that led the UK to withdraw. It is doing valuable international work. It is praised by many international organisations and organisations in this country. For example, I have a letter from the Royal Society of Chemistry, pointing out the importance of the work of UNESCO, and its desire that the UK should rejoin, so that it can play a part in the valuable work that needs to be done.
  Many other organisations in this country would join me in congratulating the Government if they could see fit to get our country back into UNESCO before the 50th anniversary celebrations, so that we could continue to make a valuable contribution to it in the future. UNESCO's constitution states:
  "Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be reconstructed."
  It is very regrettable that we have decided for the past decade to stay out of that construction process.
  10.17 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) for giving us the opportunity to review this very important subject this evening. As he rightly pointed out, the purpose of UNESCO is one which undoubtedly the Government, and, indeed, all right-minded people would endorse, and he himself read out article 1 of its constitution. It is worth reminding those who are not here this evening—of whom I fear that there are a great number—but who might wish to follow this from Hansard, precisely what article one says.
  Its purpose is of contributing
  "to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations".
  As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the United Kingdom was a founder member of the organisation, its constitution being adopted in 1945 at the Institution of Civil Engineers in London.
  In December 1984, the British Government gave one year's notice of their intention to withdraw from UNESCO, and the hon. Gentleman gave a review of some of the reasons that were given for that withdrawal. The most important reason at the time, I think, was the fact that we had serious reservations about the stewardship of the director-general, Mr. M'bow. We certainly did not share his vision of the way in which the organisation should go forward.
  208
  In particular, we were concerned about the proliferation of programmes without the elimination of those of marginal value; the slow progress being made on decentralisation, which the hon. Gentleman conceded; the inefficient and outdated administrative practices that effectively meant jobs for life for those involved—that was simply not acceptable as a way of running an international organisation; the inflated budgets, which included vastly excessive expenses for those involved in the running of the organisation; the duplication of activities with other United Nations bodies, in particular the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Health Organisation; and special programme issues, particularly the New World Information and Communication Order, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned and which apparently tried to regulate the world's press in a way that could well be construed as an attempt at international censorship. I doubt that even the hon. Gentleman and other fervent admirers of UNESCO would argue that at that time we should have remained part of it; certainly, it was going badly wrong.
  I agree with the hon. Gentleman that vast progress has been made since those days. There have been real changes in UNESCO, and the United Kingdom Government have been working behind the scenes to try to secure those changes, so that we can review our position in regard to membership. I am happy to acknowledge publicly that progress has been made.
  Recent UNESCO budgets have all generally respected the principle of zero real growth, which is consistent with United Kingdom policy. The establishment of the expert group on finance and administration matters has made the budgetary process more transparent. Progress has been made in reducing the overlap with the activities of other UN bodies. UNESCO's communication activities now focus particularly on promoting freedom of the press.
  The work of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is very welcome. The Government always note the work of such Committees, as I am happy to report from my previous incarnation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, given my past participation in the Select Committee, I view Select Committees' conclusions with great concern, and accord them considerable weight.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) right in saying that the Select Committee is the only body that has examined the question properly? After it had reported three times that a certain course should be adopted, should the Government have heeded its advice?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman is, of course, right in saying that the Government should take note of what the Select Committee does, as indeed they do. It is not true, however, that the Select Committee is the only body that has examined the matter closely; the Government keep it under a constant and close review. Notwithstanding what I said about the value of the Select Committee's work, Select Committees, unlike the Government, do not have to find the funds with which to implement their recommendations. I shall say more about that shortly.
  Let me return to the reforms that the Government do not consider to have been fully addressed. We do not believe—the hon. Gentleman conceded the point—that there has been adequate decentralisation. In 1991, a comprehensive study of the issue was undertaken by the

  209
  executive board; it concluded—rightly, in our view—that there was a need for clear objectives, and for field offices to be strengthened. Up until now, that has not happened. Last year, only 25 per cent. of staff were in field offices. We do not consider that adequate.
  In 1985, we questioned the number and focus of UNESCO's programmes. There has been little significant improvement in that regard. We believe that more selectivity is needed; otherwise, UNESCO runs the risk of trying to do too much, and as a result programmes lose their impact.
  In the same vein, we are concerned about the large proportion of staff costs in the overall budget, and about increasing administrative costs. We understand that, at the current general conference, the Canadians—with support from some other major donors—are urging that the general conferences, executive boards and meetings of the governing bodies of UNESCO's related organisations be made more cost-effective. Proposals include a reduction in the length of the conference and board meetings, streamlining of the agenda and less time allocated to formal debate. We are actively encouraging those proposals.
  Of course, the failings that I have outlined are not unique to UNESCO, and our continuing review of UNESCO should be seen in the context of our wider review of United Nations bodies as a whole. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is important to consider the wider elements, to ensure that UNESCO is not taken out of context and looked at without due regard for the rest of the United Nations' activities. The review was given a fresh impetus by the agreement at the G7 Halifax summit on a package of proposals for UN reform.
  It will have been clear from the Halifax summit communiquè, and more recently from the Prime Minister's speech at the UN50 summit on 23 October, that we firmly believe that the time has come for a thoroughgoing review of UN bodies in the economic and social spheres. In that we are not alone. There is a close identity of views on the issue among the G7 countries and in Russia, and the European Union has been in the vanguard of those who are calling for a fresh look at those structures as we approach the millennium.
  The hon. Member for Ilford, South spoke about recent press reports which suggested that the Government intend to seek the abolition of UNESCO, the International Labour Organisation, the FAO and other organisations. Those reports are wholly misleading. What the Prime Minister said at last week's UN50 summit in New York should be quoted in full and accurately. He said:
  "as we form new bodies for new problems do we close down those no longer needed? Not enough. There are bodies we should scrap".
  That represents one of several key questions that the UN and its members must address if there is to be genuine reform of the United Nations. Do some bodies need a total overhaul and do some need to be dispensed with altogether'? Those questions cannot be shirked when reviewing the work of the United Nations.
  Together with our G8 partners, we are working to convince the UN membership at large that the questions raised by the Prime Minister in New York on waste, duplication, pre-emption of conflict, the planning, management and financing of peacekeeping and above all
  210
  on UN finances themselves have to be addressed seriously and soon. Inertia, not change, is the biggest threat to the future of the United Nations.
  The fact that the Prime Minister's speech at the United Nations had such an impact underlines the growing realisation that the reform nettle must be grasped. Over the coming months, we shall look to work with all UN member states in an effort to build a broad-based coalition to reshape the economic and social bodies in such a way as to make them more efficient.
  The hon. Member conceded the financial implications of any decision to rejoin UNESCO. I appreciate that £11 million is not a vast sum in the overall financial picture. However, it is a major consideration in the light of the budget from which it comes, and we cannot look at it without looking at the consequences of transferring that sum from other useful areas.
  To put the matter in perspective, I shall give some examples of how we currently spend £11 million. That amount is more than our total bilateral aid to all the countries in the Pacific. It exceeds our contribution to all the Commonwealth multilateral programmes, and in the diplomatic wing it represents more than 10 per cent. of our overseas commercial effort. It is approximately three times the running costs of all 10 embassies in the former Soviet Union. Therefore, it must be right that we have thought long and hard about United Kingdom membership. We shall continue to do that.
  The hon. Member mentioned the possibility of spreading the budget through other routes. It is a long time since the hon. Gentleman's party was in government, and the reality is that we would not be able to fund UNESCO membership from other budgets. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office would have to find the money, and neither the Treasury nor my colleagues in other Departments would be remotely prepared to find £11 million from another source. It would impact heavily on our work.
  I conclude by speaking about the United Kingdom's current involvement with UNESCO. Contrary to some misconceptions, we have not severed our links with that organisation. We have maintained a presence through our observer section in our Paris embassy, which monitors developments within the organisation, covering key meetings, such as the twice-yearly executive board sessions and the biennial general conference.
  As in the past 10 years, officials from London will attend the current general conference which has just started. Therefore, we are keeping in close touch with UNESCO through that and other means, and we shall continue to do that, notwithstanding the fact that I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Dalyell: Will the Minister give way?
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor: No. I should like to finish.
  I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Ilford, South by saying that at the moment I cannot accede to his request.
  Mr. Dalyell: Before the Minister sits down—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The Minister has sat down.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
  Mr. Colin Shepherd
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress has been made by the House of Commons Commission in selecting a candidate for the post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

  Mr. Beith
  A report recommending to the House Sir Gordon Downey KCB, formerly Comptroller and Auditor General, is being published at 3.30 pm today as HC789. Copies are available from the Vote Office.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October 1995. [38647]

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

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 31 October. [38467]

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

  Office Costs
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the expenditure on his office broken down into(a) salaries and (b) other costs for each year since 1980–81, in 1994–95 prices. [38823]

  The Prime Minister
  Figures on a consistent basis are not available. In 1980–81, recorded spending on my office and Chequers on the votes of the Civil Service Department/Cabinet Office was £3.684 million in 1994–95 prices. In 1981–82, charges were introduced for the use of Ministry of Defence aircraft. Including those charges, spending was, at 1994–95 prices, £4,649 million in 1981–82 and £4.852 million in 1982–83. In 1983–84, charges were introduced by the Property Services Agency for buildings and services. Including those charges, spending was, at 1994–95 prices, £5.197 million in 1983–84. In 1984–85, charges were introduced for the use of the 128
  Government car service and for service personnel at Chequers. Including those charges, spending was, at 1994–95 prices, £6.193 million in 1984–85 and £6.830 million in 1985–86. In 1986–87, the cost of office services was included in the No. 10 budget. Including those costs, spending since then has been as follows:

  £ million

  Total costs 1994–95 prices

  Staff

  Other

  1986–87

  7.469

  2.513

  4.956

  1987–88

  7.741

  2.519

  5.222

  1988–89

  8.777

  2.550

  6.227

  1989–90

  9.600

  2.703

  6.897

  1990–91

  9.533

  2.385

  7.148

  1991–92

  9.450

  2.487

  6.963

  1992–93

  10.866

  3.043

  7.298

  1993–94

  9.384

  3.327

  6.057

  1994–951

  7.671

  3.217

  4.454

  1 In 1994–95 spending of £0.718 million on communications was transferred from No. 10 budget to the Cabinet Office budget.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Office of Public Service (Costs)
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what proposals there are to change the 1995–96 cash limit and running costs limit for the Office of Public Service. [40940]

  Mr. Freeman
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit for the Office of Public Service—class XVIII, vote 1—will be increased by £1 million from £52,713,000 to £53,713,000 and the gross running cost limit will be decreased by £4,019,000 from £82,849,000 to £78,830,000. The changes are to reflect the machinery of government changes announced on 5 July 1995; the Office of Science and Technology being transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry; and the deregulation unit and competitiveness division being transferred from the Department of Trade and Industry—class IV, vote 1. The opportunity has also been taken to take up capital end year flexibility transferred from Her Majesty's Treasury—class XVII, vote 1—due to adjustment in the timing of completion of the pension administration system. Provision is also made for the privatisation expenses of executive agencies. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Brandreth
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the overall level of sickness absence in the civil service. [40721]

  Mr. Horam
  The average number of working days' sickness absence per staff year in 1994 was 9.2, representing a reduction of 9 per cent. over 1993. This is equivalent to 8.4 working days per person, and is comparable with the level for the service sector generally set out in a recent Confederation of British Industry survey of other employers.
  129
  I have placed in the House Libraries copies of the report by the Civil Service Occupational Health and Safety Agency on sickness absence in the civil service during 1994, which contains a comprehensive analysis of the figures about the civil service.

  Civil Service Statistics
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when "Civil Service Statistics 1995" will be published. [40942]

  Mr. Horam
  "Civil Service Statistics 1995" was published today and copies have been placed in the Library. This publication updates and revises civil service staff numbers for 1 April 1995 and highlights key trends in civil service staffing statistics for the financial year 1994–95. Revised copies of the civil service staff in post summary for 1 April 1995 have also been placed in the Library.

LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Grants
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Lord President of the Council for what grant-giving funds his Department is responsible, requiring a private sector contribution, where the use of national lottery funds is not allowed to count towards that private sector portion. [38606]

  Mr. Newton
  The Privy Council is not responsible for making any grants.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Lord President of the Council how many statutory instruments were laid before Parliament between 16 July and 16 October. [38719]

  Mr. Newton
  During the period 16 July to 16 October 1995 inclusive, 274 statutory instruments were laid before the House of Commons.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many applicants refused asylum have appealed against the refusal to a special adjudicator since 1993; how many such appeals have, to date, been lodged; how many appeals have been upheld; how many appeals have been dismissed; how many appeal hearings are pending; how many special adjudicators have, to date, been appointed; and how many appeal hearings on average are held each week. [40444]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the period July 1993 to September 1995, the immigration appellate authorities received 18,204 asylum appeals from the Home Office and disposed of 7,718. Hearings were pending in approximately 8,400 of the asylum appeals outstanding at the end of September 1995. On average, 260 appeals are 130
  listed for hearing each week and approximately 150 are determined or otherwise disposed of. The immigration appellate authorities do not keep statistics on the outcome of asylum appeals. Since July 1993, 25 full-time and 52 part-time special adjudicators have been appointed.

TRANSPORT

  Cash and Running Costs Limits
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits and running costs limits; and what proposals there are to change the cash limit and running costs limit of the Office of the Rail Regulator for 1995–96. [40881]

  Sir George Young
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimates, the following changes will be made:

  (i) The cash limit for class VI vote 1 (Highways Agency) will be increased by £12,295,000 from £1,863,279,000 to £1,875,574,000. The increase in the cash limit includes the take up of £11,831,000 capital end year flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995 (Official Report columns 776–82) and adjustments in funding relating to the consolidation of the Highways Agency's role between this vote and class VI vote 2 and class VI vote 5. Running costs provision on this vote will increase by £135,000 from £86,889,000 to £87,024,000 reflecting a transfer from class VI vote 2.

  (ii) The cash limit for class VI vote 2 (Administration and Transport Services) will be increased by £12,351,000 from £165,054,000 to £177,405,000. The additional provision includes the take up of £776,000 running costs end year flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995 (Official Report columns 776–82); increases in administrative capital expenditure; the transfer of funds to class VI vote 1 for (£135,000) running costs and professional advisers fees; the transfer of funds to class VI vote 8 for various rail consultancies (£1,960,000; and, the transfer of funds from this vote to class VI vote 5 for road safety publicity expenditure.

  (iii) The cash limit for class VI vote 5 (Roads and Local Transport) will be increased by £1,608,000 from £513,157,000 to £514,765,000. The increase includes take up of £1,787,000 end year flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995 (Official Report columns 776–82); the transfer of receipts currently paid to the consolidated fund for interest on subordinated debts arising from the Severn Bridge to class VI vote 1; and, various transfers of funds between this vote and class VI vote 1; and, class VI vote 2.

  (iv) The cash limit for class VI vote 6 (Department of Transport: Other Transport Agencies) will be increased by £1,660,000 from £80,156,000 to £81,816.000. The increase includes the take up of £1,200,000 running costs end year flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995 (Official Report columns 776–82) for various items of running costs and an increase in administrative capital expenditure.
  131
  (v) The cash limit for class VI vote 8 (Office of the Rail Regulator) will be increased by £1,822,000 from £8,629,000 to £10,451,000. The increase includes the take up of capital end year flexibility entitlement of £162,000 as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995 (Official Report column 776–82); a transfer of running costs provision (£1,960,000) from class VI vote 2 to cater for higher than expected expenditure on legal consultancies and the consequential increased levels of VAT receipts (£300,000) that have arisen.

  (vi) The Department of Transport Local Authority Capital cash limit has been increased by £6,354,000 from £347,552,000 to £353,906,000. This reflects partial take up of capital end year flexibility entitlement as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995 (Official Report column 776–82).

  (vii) The Department of Transport running costs limit has been increased by £16,000 from £413,448,000 to £413,464,000 and the Office of the Rail Regulator running costs limit has been increased by £1,660,000 from £8,220,000 to £9,880,000.

  The overall increases will be offset by transfers or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the estimated financial benefit of the A34 Newbury bypass; and if he will publish the full cost benefit analysis carried out in respect of this road. [38209]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Cynog Dafis, dated 31 October 1995:

  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the financial benefits of the Newbury Bypass. The net present value of the benefits of the scheme, at current prices, range between £124.8 million on low traffic growth assumptions and £285.6 million high traffic growth.

  The full cost benefit analysis used to take the scheme through the statutory procedures is a bulky document which is not readily copied. I have therefore enclosed copies of the traffic and economic evidence presented to the 1988 Inquiry which, effectively summaries the full cost benefit analysis. The full cost benefit analysis can of course be made available for inspection if you would like to see it.

  I also enclose a copy of the report prepared by the Study Team who as part of the study commission by the then Secretary of State, looked again at the traffic forecasts and the scheme's economic evaluation.

  European Rail Services
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his current target date for the start of direct through-rail services on the west coast main line to Brussels and Paris. [39989]

  Mr. Watts
  European Passenger Services Ltd., which will operate these services, expects them to start in the first half of 1996.
  132
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what is his current target date for the start of direct through-rail services on the east coast main line to Brussels and Paris. [39988]

  Mr. Watts
  European Passenger Services Ltd., which will operate these services, expects them to start in the first half of 1996.

  Passenger Transport Executives
  Sir Irvine Patrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total number of people employed by each of the passenger transport executives in the metropolitan counties. [40575]

  Mr. Norris
  This information is not held by my Department.

  Rail Investment
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the capital investment in Britain's railways made annually over each of the past 10 years in real terms excluding capital investment in channel tunnel related infrastructure and rolling stock. [40241]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) on 6 June 1995,Official Report, column 49.

  Unlicensed Heavy Goods Vehicles
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what timetable he has for introducing legislation on the impounding of unlicensed heavy goods vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [40306]

  Mr. Norris
  The option of seeking powers for traffic commissioners to order the seizure and impounding and, where necessary, disposal of unlicensed illegally operated heavy goods and passenger vehicles is currently being examined by my Department as part of an assessment of the scale of illegal operations and effective measures for dealing with it.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many times the illegal operations working group has met; what its recommendations are; and if he will make a statement; [40307]

  (2) if he will place a copy of the reports of the illegal operations working group in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [40308]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport's illegal operations working group has met twice and sometimes three times each year since it was established in August 1989. The group monitors the current approach in directing enforcement against illegal operations working within the constraints of existing powers and resources. Its report for 1994–95 described the main aspects of enforcement action directed against illegal HGV operators in 1994. A copy of its report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Repeater Signs
  Mr. Stern
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will reconsider that aspect of the Traffic
  133
  Signs Regulations and General Directions 1984 which prohibits repeater signs on a road where there is street lighting. [40276]

  Mr. Norris
  The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 require repeater signs on unlit roads with a 30 mph limit but do not allow them where there are street lights because the presence of street lights is the indication of a built-up area. In the past, repeater signs were allowed in some 30 mph limits, but this caused enforcement difficulties. Some drivers prosecuted for speeding on roads without repeaters claimed that their absence led them to believe that a 30mph limit did not apply. Were we to permit repeaters on some lit 30 mph roads we would have to require them on all. The reality is that although drivers generally know what speed limit applies some choose to ignore it.

  Motor Cycle Noise Act 1987
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what accounted for the delay in bringing into operation as from 1 August the Motor Cycle Noise Act 1987. [40482]

  Mr. Norris
  Regulations under the Motor Cycle Noise Act had initially to be postponed pending the outcome of negotiations on a new European Commission proposal on replacement silencers. The ensuing directive, 89/235/EEC, prompted the British Standards Institute to update BS 193 which was not completed until 1990. These requirements had to be transposed into domestic law before drafting of the regulations to control supply under the Motor Cycle Noise Act could begin. Regulations were laid before Parliament on 14 September 1995 but do not come into force until 1 August 1996 in order to allow stockists sufficient lead time to clear or mark their current stock.

  Wing Bypass
  Mr. Walden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made, following the Wing bypass investigation last year, of the progress by the Highways Authority. [39887]

  Mr. Watts
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) announced in January last year that progress on the A418 Wing bypass scheme will be subject to the outcome of the A5-M40 study. The 1994 roads programme review placed the scheme in the longer-term category. In the meantime, no further assessment has been made.

  Road Improvements (Stonehenge)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation he has recently carried out with(a) the Secretary of State for National Heritage, (b) the chairman of English Heritage, (c) the National Trust and (d) other interested organisations in respect of (i) the A303 and (ii) the A344 and the effect that their upgrading would have on the World Heritage site at Stonehenge; what were the results of his discussions; and if he will make a statement. [40003]

  Mr. Watts
  This is an operational matter for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
  134
  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 31 October 1995:

  As you know the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question in which you sought information about the A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down improvement scheme.

  The Highways Agency have consulted the Department of National Heritage, English Heritage and the National Trust throughout the preparation of this scheme. Recognising the unique sensitivity of the World Heritage Site at Stonehenge, the Agency have arranged a planning conference which will give all interested parties an opportunity to explore and debate possible ways of overcoming the traffic problems on this length of the trunk road. Conferences on other schemes have been successful in identifying a consensus on the major issues and possible ways forward. The Department of National Heritage, English Heritage and the National Trust will be sending delegates to the conference. All other organisations known to have interest in the scheme have been notified of the arrangements for the conference.

  An assessment of the possible routes identified thus far is given in Preliminary Assessments Reports which are available to the public. Any of the possible solutions illustrated in the conference brochure would help to reduce the effect of traffic on Stonehenge.

  Transport Surveys
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the opinion polling, including group work, currently being undertaken by his Department. [39894]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport regularly carried out surveys in connection with various transport issues. Details are listed in "Transport Statistics Great Britain" and "Quarterly Transport Statistics," copies of which are held in the House of Commons Library. None of these surveys involve opinion polling, although some of them will include questions of opinion about specific transport matters.

  The following current surveys include some group discussions: survey of attitudes and behaviour of adults to wearing rear restraints; survey in connection with child road safety creative development research; interactive survey to examine public attitudes to transport policy and environment.

  Car Park Security (British Rail)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with British Rail on the security of their car parks; and if he will make a statement. [39898]

  Mr. Watts
  I have regular discussions with British Rail on many aspects of railway operation, including passenger security issues.

  Research Funding
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the research projects currently funded or part funded by his Department. [39770]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department currently funds more than 500 research projects and I have arranged for a list of the projects, wholly funded or part funded by my Department, to be placed in the Library.
  135

  Passenger Rail Services (Sales)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of passenger rail services he expects to be sold off by 1 April 1996. [39793]

  Mr. Watts
  We expect that franchises for a significant proportion of passenger rail services will have been awarded by 1 April 1996. The sales process for the first three franchises—Great Western, South West Trains and LTS Rail—is now in its final stages. The franchising director aims to select franchisees for these franchises by the end of the year, with private sector operation commencing in the first few months of 1996. The sales process has started for a further four franchises: InterCity East Coast, Midland Main Line, Network SouthCentral and Gatwick Express. These seven franchises represent 40 per cent. of passenger services by revenue. Preparation of sales documentation is under way for the next stages of the programme.

  Stratford Station
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department is taking to protect the safety of passengers, and the local community, in respect of the proposed increase of rail traffic at Stratford station, East London due to the(a) completion of the London Transport Jubilee line and (b) Eurotunnel traffic, and the transportation of trains carrying radioactive spent fuel rods through the station; and if he will make a statement. [39555]

  Mr. Norris
  The construction of new or altered railway stations or lines requires approval under the Transport Systems (Approval of Works, Plant and Equipment) Regulations 1994. In addition, the Railway (Safety Case) Regulations 1994 are designed to ensure that the safety implications of all railway operations are taken into consideration, and that effective arrangements are put in place to control risk, especially at the interfaces between operations. Any significant changes to the operation of the railway would require corresponding change to the railway safety case of the operator concerned. These and other health and safety requirements are monitored and enforced by the Health and Safety Executive's railway inspectorate.

  The National Radiological Protection Board, on behalf of the Department of Transport, carries out periodic surveys of the radiological impact of the rail transport of irradiated nuclear fuel flasks and other radioactive materials. The radiation levels give no cause for radiological concern with current traffic levels.

  M4 (Repairs)
  Mr. Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what are the estimated costs for the current repairs to the M4 between junctions 8 and 9 and 6; [39590]

  (2) what plans he has to reduce congestion on the M4 between junctions 8 and 9 and 6, caused by roadworks; [39588]

  (3) what representations he has received concerning the disruption caused by roadworks on the M4 between junctions 8 and 9 and 6; [39592]
  136
  (4) what are the estimated costs to business of the roadworks on the M4 between junctions 8 and 9 and 6; [39589]

  (5) when he expects the roadworks on the M4 between junctions 8 and 9 and 6 to be completed; [39587]

  (6) if he will list the contractors who bid for the current roadworks on the M4 between junctions 8 and 9 and 6 on the M4; [39591]

  Mr. Watts
  These are operational matters for the Highways Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Paul Murphy, dated 31 October 1995:

  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr John Watts, has asked me to write to you in reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about the current roadworks on the M4 between Junctions 8/9 and 6.

  This essential maintenance work includes overlaying the existing worn out surface with new hot rolled asphalt, upgrading the existing safety fencing, hardening of the central reserve and bridge rehabilitation and reconstruction works. The scheme is programmed for about 21 weeks and is expected to be completed in mid March 1996. The estimated cost of these works is about £10.1m. The agency has made no estimate of the costs to business arising from these works.

  We have sought to reduce congestion arising from the scheme by giving wide publicity before the works started on both local and national radio and in the press. Warning signs were also erected on the M4 and M25 giving advance warning of the impending works. In addition, leaflets giving information and advice about the works have been distributed to local libraries, garages, service stations and Heathrow Airport. Many organisations, including the AA and RAC, were also notified in advance of the works starting. To minimise disruption during the course of the works, a minimum of two lanes will be kept open in each direction and slip road closure at Junction 7 will be restricted to night-times. As an incentive for the contractor to complete the works as quickly as possible, the contract has been let on a lane rental basis. This provides a bonus of £20,000 a day to be paid to the contractor for early completion but imposes a similar charge on the contractor if he overruns.

  During the first week of the scheme, 36 telephone calls about the disruption caused by the works were received on the information line and about a dozen were received direct at the Agency's regional office.

  The contract has been let to Camas Associated Asphalt. However, without the agreement of each of them, the Agency would not wish to publish the names of the other contractors who submitted unsuccessful bids as this is considered to be commercially confidential.

  European Directives
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action remains outstanding in order to implement European directives under United Kingdom law. [39764]

  Mr. Watts
  There are currently 16 EC directives relating to transport that need further action to implement them in the UK. Steps are being taken to draw up the secondary legislation required for 12 of these. Of the remainder, one requires further legislation at the European level before steps can be taken to implement it in the United Kingdom; discussions are under way with industry on how to implement two others and the remaining one affects the channel tunnel and discussions are taking place with the French authorities on how to implement that aspect of it.
  137

  Ministers' Appointments (European Institutions)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what appointments he and his Ministers have with colleagues from European institutions in the next month. [39765]

  Sir George Young
  My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibilities for local transport and road safety plans to meet the Transport Commissioner, Mr. Kinnock, on 13 November to discuss the draft EC bus and coach directive and bull bars.

  Opposition Spokesmen (Civil Service Contacts)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when members of Her Majesty's Opposition will be able to meet officially with civil servants in his Department to discuss implementation of policies after the next general election; and if he will make a statement. [39616]

  Sir George Young
  My right hon. friend the Prime Minister agreed with the then Leader of the Opposition in 1992 that such contacts should be permitted from early 1996.
  138

  Rolling Stock Manufacturing (Job Losses)
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many job losses have taken place in the railway rolling stock manufacturing industry in each of the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [40243]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on job losses is collected only for the manufacturing sector as a whole.

  Available information showing the net change in people employed in the manufacture of transport equipment other than motor vehicles and trailers is provided in the table.

  Employees in employment in manufacturing of other transport equipment (SIC92 35) in Great Britain: August (thousands)

  Year

  Level

  Annual change

  1991

  206

  -32

  1992

  181

  -25

  1993

  168

  -13

  1994

  154

  -14

  1995

  147

  -7

  Source:

  CSO
  139

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  India, Pakistan and Bangladesh
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to increase British aid to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. [40027]

  Mr. Hanley
  India, Pakistan and Bangladesh contain a large proportion of the world's poorest people, and have made effective use of British aid. We expect to maintain substantial aid programmes to each country.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the United Kingdom's aid to(a) Pakistan, (b) India and (c) Bangladesh in (i) 1994 and (ii) the current year; and what are the projected figures for 1996. [40010]

  Mr. Hanley
  Figures are collated by financial year. Gross UK bilateral aid disbursements in 1993–94 and 1994–95 were as follows—disbursements by the Commonwealth Development Corporation are shown in brackets:

  £ million

  Pakistan

  India

  Bangladesh

  1993–94

  48.1 (24.4)

  102.2 (22.9)

  55.4 (5.4)

  1994–95 (provisional)

  81.4(46.9)

  100.2 (17.5)

  56.3 (9.0)

  We expect to maintain substantial aid to all three countries in the current year and beyond. We also assist through our share of aid provided by multilateral agencies.

  AIDS
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 October,Official Report, column 437, if he will list the bilateral projects supported and the financial commitment to each. [39975]

  Mr. Hanley
  The table gives a breakdown by country and region of the projects that the ODA supports to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS in developing countries:

  Country

  Number of projects

  Total expenditure £

  Africa Regional

  5

  657,784

  Ethiopia

  2

  244,122

  Ghana

  2

  1,259,000

  Kenya

  4

  13,231,733

  Malawi

  2

  11,064,500

  Nigeria

  5

  3,781,549

  Tanzania

  2

  3,610,021

  Togo

  1

  300,000

  Uganda

  6

  2,460,322

  Zambia

  3

  2,399,136

  Zimbabwe

  6

  16,314,000

  Bangladesh

  2

  5,903,821

  India

  6

  678,195

  Sri Lanka

  1

  855,000

  Nicaragua

  1

  226,689

  Non Specific1

  12

  4,431,143

  Total

  60

  67,417,015

  1 Includes multi-country programmes.

  140

  Cash Limit (1995–96)
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made in the 1995–96 cash limit for expenditure by the Overseas Development Administration. [41142]

  Mr. Hanley
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the cash limit on the external assistance vote, class II, vote 5, will be increased by £4,919,000 from £1,759,074,000 to £1,763,993,000. The increase is in respect of rollover of underspending against the 1994–95 external assistance vote. The increase will be offset by a claim on the reserve and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what external finance limit has been set for the current financial year for the Commonwealth Development Corporation. [41143]

  Mr. Hanley
  The external finance limit for CDC for 1995–96 is being increased by £4,000,000, from £15,000,000 to £19,000,000. The limit takes account of an increase in the provision for CDC in class II, vote 5, provision for which is made in the winter supplementary estimate. This increase is being met by transfer of resources within the vote and does not add to the planned total of public expenditure.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Hackney Downs School
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement about Hackney Downs school. [41093]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Hackney Downs school was inspected and found to be failing to provide an acceptable standard of education in August 1994. A further monitoring visit by the Office of Standards in Education in March 1995 found that the school continued to fail its pupils. Consequently, after consultation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State transferred control of the school to an education association with effect from 1 September 1995.

  The education association has now made recommendations to the Secretary of State about the future of the school. Its main recommendation is that it should close on 31 December 1995 and that all pupils should transfer to Homerton House boys school in Hackney.

  The education association also recommends that Homerton House boys school should make special provision for year 11 boys taking GCSEs, and that Ministers should consider making available capital funding for its refurbishment.

  My right hon. Friend is minded to agree with the recommendation that Hackney Downs school should close, in which case she is also minded to make available

  141
  the necessary additional funds for the year 11 boys as well as funds for the refurbishment of Homerton House boys school.

  My right hon. Friend has today written to the director of education of Hackney local education authority and the chairman of governors of Homerton House boys school inviting comments on all the education association's recommendations. She also welcomes views from any other interested party by Friday 10 November. My right hon. Friend will announce her decision shortly after that.

  A copy of the north-east London education association's report has been placed in the Library.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what she is doing to encourage the private finance initiative in local authority schools. [41094]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Department has been working closely with other Government Departments on possible rule changes to encourage the private finance initiative— PFI—on the basis of our contacts with individual local authorities. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration is today announcing proposals from the Department of the Environment to increase the scope for upgrading local authority services through increased private sector investment and management expertise.

  The proposals to generate more resources for PFI projects, by freeing up the requirement for authorities to set aside capital receipts for debt redemption, open up exciting opportunities to upgrade local authority schools. Disposal of education assets surplus to requirements will be encouraged by a reduction from 50 per cent. to 25 per cent. in the rate of set aside, for a limited period of two years from April 1996. Replacement of operational educational assets will also be made easier.

  The proposals should allow both the public and the private sector to benefit from innovative programmes to upgrade the school building stock. They should also encourage local education authorities to rationalise school provision and thus remove expensive surplus places where it seems sensible to do so.

  Overtime Working
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimates she has of the amount of overtime that is being worked nationally in(a) the last year for which data are available and (b) 10 years ago. [39374]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  According to the labour force survey in spring, March to May 1995, 91 million hours overtime were worked per week in Great Britain. The current estimate for spring 1985 is 68 million hours overtime per week.

  Part-time Posts
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the number of part-time employment posts in each of the past five years. [39974]
  142
  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested is provided in the table:

  Part-time employment in Great Britain: June (thousands)1

  Year

  Level

  1991

  6,563

  1992

  6,576

  1993

  6,605

  1994

  6,781

  1995

  6,974

  Note:

  1 Includes employees, self-employed and work-related government training participants.

  Source:

  CSO.

  Building Services Engineering Courses
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals exist to ensure that the Higher Education Funding Council for England is able to provide additional margin funding to institutions providing building services engineering degree courses in respect of the special laboratory and equipment needs of this course. [40146]

  Mr. Forth
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England's allocations of capital funding for equipment are weighted to reflect the institution's historical patterns of spending in different subject areas. Its allocations of recurrent grant for teaching also reflect the institution's own internal distribution of funding between subjects. Students on laboratory or workshop-based courses also attract a higher tuition fee from their local education authorities.

  It is for institutions themselves to determine funding priorities for building services engineering and other courses out of their overall income from grant and tuition fees.

  Appointments (South Yorkshire)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the public appointments for which her Department is responsible in the county of South Yorkshire, indicating in each case the duration of the appointment, the date when a new appointment is due and the salary. [39425]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment makes the following public appointments in the county of South Yorkshire:

  (a) The Committee for the Employment of People with Disabilities (CEPD) (Sheffield and Rotherham).

  14 appointments of three years' duration, all due for renewal on 1 April 1997. All are unpaid.

  (b) The Committee for the Employment of People with Disabilities (CEPD) (Wakefield, Barnsley and Doncaster).

  14 appointments of three years' duration, all due for renewal on 1 April 1997. All are unpaid.

  (c) The Further Education Funding Council (FEFC) Regional Committee (Yorkshire and Humberside).

  12 appointments of three years' duration. The Chairman will be due for reappointment on 1 April 1996 and the 11 members on 1 October 1996. All are unpaid.

  143

  Employment Service (Resources)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of 18 October,Official Report, column 295–96, how many additional staff will be employed to support additional places on jobplan, workshop and jobclub/job interview guarantee schemes in 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1997–98. [38996]

  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 Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 31 October 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of additional staff that will be employed to support extra places on the Jobplan Workshop and Jobclub/Job Interview Guarantee schemes to help people leaving Incapacity Benefit (IB).

  We have allocated the following additional staff for the Job Interview Guarantee Programme:

  Year

  Additional staff

  1995–96

  100

  1996–97

  84

  1997–98

  20

  Jobplan Workshops and most Jobclubs are delivered by external contractors. For these programmes we have negotiated with existing contractors to provide additional places for the ex-IB clients, and therefore Employment Service staffing has not changed. Full details of the additional places were included in my letter dated 18th October.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Barnsley and Doncaster Training and Enterprise Council
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what date her Department last sent a financial appraisal and monitoring team for a review of the monitoring and sample checking systems of the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC in relation to operating agreement compliance, if the non-vocational qualification claims under output-related funding of training provided by all companies providing training at the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC are verified, and if she will make a statement. [38992]

  Mr. Paice
  The Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside carried out the first phase of an annual audit of Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council's financial control systems in July 1995, and is returning to complete the audit during November 1995.

  In the course of annual audits of this kind, including that at Barnsley and Doncaster TEC, a large sample of claims for every type of output from companies providing training and other training providers is verified.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by year since 144
  its inception how much (a) profit and (b) loss Barnsley and Doncaster TEC has made. [39012]

  Mr. Paice
  Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council's first published accounts were for the year ended 31 March 1991 and covered the period 1 January 1991 to 31 March 1991.

  Annual results since inception are as follows:

  £000

  Year ended

  Surplus/(Deficit) before tax

  Surplus (Deficit) after tax

  31March 1991

  505

  293

  31 March 1992

  2,797

  2,688

  31 March 1993

  1,017

  1,012

  31 March 1994

  (882)

  (821)

  31 March 1995

  162

  172

  Source:

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC Annual Audited Accounts.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list by year since its inception for Barnsley and Doncaster TEC how many out-of-school child care places were delivered, and how many are planned to be delivered in future years; and at what cost. [39049]

  Mr. Paice
  The first year of child care funding for Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council was 1994–95.

  In 1994–95 the TEC provided 252 child care places at a cost of £127,440. For 1995–96 the TEC has been allocated a target of a further 250 additional places at a contract value of £188,941. There is no funding available for new places in 1996–97 and future years.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish a table showing the identifiable(a) capital and (b) revenue or current expenditure by Barnsley and Doncaster TEC, by district council electoral division or on any other geographical basis on which the data are collated or accounted, in each year since its inception; how much in both expenditure categories is (i) legally committed and (ii) planned for fiscal years 1995–96 and 1996–97; what is the pro-rata expenditure in each category for each district council electoral division, expressed as a percentage of the total capital and revenue budgets measured against their respective populations; if she will rank the district council electoral division in descending order by level of expenditure in both categories, and if she will make a statement. [38980]

  Mr. Paice
  The information requested is operational information on the Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council and the question would be best addressed to the TEC to answer.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the financial reserves held by the Barnsley and Doncaster TEC for each year since its inception. [39248]

  Mr. Paice
  Barnsley and Doncaster training and enterprise council first published accounts for the year-ended 31 March 1991, covering the period 1 January 1991 to 31 March 1991.

  Financial reserves held since inception are as follows:

  145

  £000

  Year ended

  Land and development fund reserve

  General fund reserve

  Total reserves

  31st March 1991

  293

  —

  293

  31st March 1992

  2,481

  500

  2,981

  31st March 1993

  3,288

  705

  3,993

  31st March 1994

  1,672

  1,500

  3,172

  31st March 1995

  1,844

  1,500

  3,344

  Source:

  Barnsley and Doncaster TEC Annual Audited Accounts.

  Computers in Schools
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what statistics she has on the change in the number of computers available to schools in England in the last decade. [38821]

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

  Estimated computers available in maintained schools in England

  Primary

  Secondary

  Year

  Average per school

  Total available

  Average per school

  Total available

  1984–85

  1.7

  33,500

  13.4

  58,700

  1987–88

  2.5

  48,300

  23.2

  96,300

  1989–90

  4.3

  82,400

  41.1

  163,400

  1991–92

  7.0

  132,500

  58.0

  233,100

  1993–94

  9.9

  185,000

  85.1

  308,800

  Source:

  DFEE Survey of Information Technology in Schools.

  Further infromation on the availability and use of Information Technology in Schools is published in Statistical Bulletin 3/95, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Unemployment Benefit
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many people in receipt of unemployment benefit sign on by post in each travel-to-work area in England; [38572]

  (2) how many unemployed people in England in receipt of benefit in each travel-to-work area in England live more than six miles from their nearest Employment Service office; [38567]

  (3) which categories of unemployed claimant are given the option of signing on by post. [38571]

  Mr. Forth
  Responsibility for the subject of the questions has been delegated to the Employment Service Agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 31 October 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your questions about signing procedures and travel-to-work areas.

  The statistics you requested on the number of people claiming benefit and living more than six miles from their nearest Employment Service Jobcentre (ESJ) are not available for travel to work areas. Similarly, no statistics are kept on the number of these people who are postal claimants. We do, however, record figures for the numbers of people claiming by post for each of the ES's seven English regions.
  146
  In September, the latest month for which figures are available, they were:

  Employment service region

  Number of postal claimants

  Northern

  4,466

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12,282

  East Midlands and Eastern

  15,624

  London and South East

  31,819

  South West

  15,804

  West Midlands

  4,330

  North West

  4,468

  The concession for claiming benefit by post is that someone must live more than six miles by ordinary road from their nearest ESJ. This rule can, at the local office manager's discretion, be waived in cases which would involve hardship. Clients who are disabled and those with such inadequate transport facilities that they would be absent from home for more than four hours, are therefore also offered the postal signing facility.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Special Education
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the growth in demand for special education requirements in each year since 1990, giving the number of pupils in each year. [38788]

  Mr. Forth
  The most readily available measure of the demand for special education provision is the number of pupils with statements of special educational needs. The full figures for pupils in England with statements since 1990 are provided in the table.

  Year

  Number of statements

  1990

  139,779

  1991

  154,743

  1992

  165,095

  1993

  176,698

  1994

  192,308

  19951

  198,329

  1 Provisional.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to market NVQs. [38799]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department for Education and Employment has asked the National Council for Vocational Qualifications to provide leadership and co-ordination of NVQ marketing. The Department also supports marketing through the "Free Your Potential" campaign, which promotes the role of NVQs in vocational training for individuals and employers.

  Civil Servants (Sheffield)
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the impact of the merger of the Education and Employment Departments on the employment of civil servants in Sheffield. [40033]
  147
  Mr. Robin Squire
  The merger may offer some scope for the rationalisation of activities on the various sites occupied by the new Department for Education and Employment, but it is too early to be precise about details. However, the merger is unlikely to result in any significant loss of posts in Sheffield.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the relative costs of employing civil servants within her Department in(a) London and (b) Sheffield. [40034]

  Mr. Squire
  The average annual salary and accommodation costs for staff of the Department for Education and Employment in London and Sheffield are £37,100 and £24,800 respectively. Accommodation costs account for £9,600 of the difference.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make it her policy to relocate further civil servants from London, including those in the education part of her Department, to join those currently based in Sheffield. [40035]

  Mr. Squire
  There are no plans to change the current policy of the Department, which is that staff should be located wherever they are best able to support the efficient and effective conduct of the Department's activities. The merger may offer some scope for rationalisation of activities on the various sites occupied by the new Department for Education and Employment, but it is too soon to be precise about details.

  Derwent System Schools
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what credit approvals have been given to date for the repair and replacement of Derwent system schools; [40289]

  (2) if she will make a statement on the future of Derwent system schools; [40290]

  (3) what representations she has received on the need to replace Derwent system schools; and what bids for credit approval have been received; [40291]

  (4) if she will make a statement on the current condition of Derwent system schools; [40292]

  (5) how many Derwent system schools there are; and in which local authorities they are located; [40293]

  (6) if she will make a statement about the replacement of Derwent system schools. [40294]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Information about the number, location and condition of Derwent system schools is not held centrally. A small number of applications for credit approval have been made specifically referring to systems buildings, but the type of construction is not always identified.

  In 1987, the Department advised all local education authorities of problems which had been found with certain Derwent system buildings, and in 1988 recommended that
  148
  certain timber-framed and prefabricated buildings, including Derwent system buildings, should be checked.

  Local education authorities and governing bodies are responsible for the maintenance of the fabric of their school buildings.

TREASURY

  Government Expenditure
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total expenditure on (i) health, (ii) education, (iii) social security, (iv) transport, (v) defence and (vi) housing in 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1994 expressed as(a) the percentage of total Government expenditure and (b) the percentage of total Government tax revenue. [38258]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 23 October 1995]: The information is given in the tables.

  (a) Expenditure as a percentage of General Government Expenditure excluding privatisation proceeds

  1979

  1984

  1989

  1994

  Health

  10.6

  11.2

  12.5

  13.2

  Education

  12.0

  11.3

  12.3

  12.3

  Social Security

  24.5

  28.2

  28.4

  33.6

  Transport

  4.0

  3.5

  3.6

  3.6

  Defence

  10.4

  11.4

  10.4

  8.2

  Housing

  6.2

  3.4

  2.4

  1.9

  (b) Expenditure as a percentage of total General Government Receipts

  1979

  1984

  1989

  1994

  Health

  13.4

  13.3

  13.4

  16.7

  Education

  15.2

  13.4

  13.2

  15.6

  Social Security

  30.9

  33.5

  30.4

  42.4

  Transport

  5.0

  4.1

  3.8

  4.6

  Defence

  13.2

  13.6

  11.1

  10.3

  Housing

  7.9

  4.0

  2.6

  2.4

  Wine Import Duty
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 24 October,Official Report, column 535, when the EU agreement was approved to require wine import duty to be levied in terms of ecu per hectolitre; when this agreement was approved by Parliament; when Customs and Excise commenced the new import tariffs; and on which day, in relation to the day of import, the value of the ecu is assessed to determine the amount of duty payable. [40219]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 30 October 1995]: EC legislation existing prior to our accession set out the legal basis for Customs duties. The treaty of accession of the United Kingdom to the European Community and the European Communities Act 1972—specifically section 5—both of which were approved by Parliament, give the legal basis for the adoption, by the United Kingdom, of the EC common customs tariff. Accordingly, since 1 January 1974 the UK tariff has incorporated the EC common customs tariff, including

  149
  specific duty rates expressed in European units of account, now termed European currency units. There are a number of other items throughout the tariff which also attract specific duties expressed in ecus. The ecu rate for wine is governed by a monthly industrial ecu conversion rate published in the EC Official Journal C series at the end of the month and applicable for the whole of the following month.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to extend the ecu basis for import tariffs to items other than wine. [40220]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 30 October 1995]: We have no knowledge of any proposals to extend the ecu basis for import tariff items. However, it should be noted that there are currently a number of other items throughout the tariff which also attract specific duties expressed in ecus.

  National Loans Fund
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the impact on(a) public expenditure and (b) the public sector borrowing requirement of selling outstanding debt to the national loans fund held by (i) the Housing Corporation, (ii) the Civil Aviation Authority, (iii) British Rail, (iv) Scottish Homes and (v) new towns development corporations and commission; [40772]

  (2) if he will list and give the face value of outstanding loans to the national loans fund which if sold would have an effect on (a) public expenditure and (b) the public sector borrowing requirement. [40771]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The table shows the total value of loans from the national loans fund outstanding on 30 October 1995. NLF loans are not marketable.

  If a nationalised industry or other public corporation repays an NLF loan, the effect is to reduce general Government expenditure. There will be a similar effect on the PSBR except in so far as the corporation offsets this by taking out other loans or running down its deposits.

  If a private sector body repays an NLF loan, that will reduce general Government expenditure and the PSBR.

  If a local authority or central Government body repays a loan to the NLF there is no effect on the general Government expenditure or the PSBR because the transaction is internal to the Government sector.

  Loans from national loans fund: advances outstanding at 30 October 1995

  Advances outstanding at 31 October 1995 £

  Loans to nationalised industries

  British Rail

  722,916,667

  British Waterways Board

  17,186,000

  Civil Aviation Authority

  453,452,971

  Scottish Nuclear Ltd.

  192,665,347

  Rail track

  1,247,335,619

  Total loans to nationalised industries

  2,633,556,604

  Loans to other public corporations

  Crown agents

  1,924,650

  Development Board for Rural Wales

  8,445,937

  Land Authority for Wales

  3,227,500

  150

  Loans from national loans fund: advances outstanding at 30 October 1995

  Advances outstanding at 31 October 1995 £

  New Towns-Development Corporations and Commission

  893,317,145

  Scottish Enterprise

  949,403

  Scottish Homes

  395,690,863

  UK Atomic Energy Authority

  138,666,667

  Welsh Development Agency

  1,002,737

  Total loans to other public corporations

  1,443,224,902

  Loans to local authorities

  40,725,747,490

  Loans to the private sector

  Harbour authorities

  733,280

  Housing associations

  13,003,056

  Total loans to the private sector

  13,736,336

  Loans within central Government

  Central Office of Information

  381,820

  Housing Corporation (England)

  752,288,998

  Housing for Wales

  59,071,733

  Married quarters for Armed Forces

  64,322,214

  Northern Ireland

  1,642,604,612

  Total loans within central Government

  2,518,669,377

  Total

  47,334,934,709

  Sanitary Products
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to the Exchequer per year of reducing VAT on sanitary protection to 5 per cent. [40582]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Approximately £25 million per year.

  Advance Corporation Tax
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish revenue costs of reducing the rate of advance corporation tax and tax on dividends to(a) 17.5 per cent., (b) 15 per cent., (c) 12.5 per cent. and (d) 10 per cent. in a full year and of reducing the lower rate of tax to the same rates on the first (i) £1,000, (ii) £2,000 and (iii) £3,000 of rateable income, retaining any balance of £3,200 at the 20 per cent. rate. [39101]

  Mr. Jack
  The direct revenue effects of reducing the rate of advance corporation tax from 20 per cent. and the income tax charge on dividends from the lower rate of 20 per cent. to the specified levels are shown in the table. Estimates of the variation in revenue effects over the specified range of income tax rates and bands of taxable income are also given. Further information could be supplied only at disproportionate cost. The estimates take no account of possible behavioural effects which could be significant.

  Direct revenue effects (£ billion, cost (-)/yield (+)) at 1996–97 forecast income levels1

  ACT rate and tax rate on dividends (Per cent.)

  Net revenue effect2

  17.5

  +0.7

  15

  +1.4

  151

  Direct revenue effects (£ billion, cost (-)/yield (+)) at 1996–97 forecast income levels1

  ACT rate and tax rate on dividends (Per cent.)

  Net revenue effect2

  12.5

  +2.1

  10

  +2.7

  Notes:

  1 Based on the 1995 summer economic forecast.

  2 Assuming that the fall in ACT yield would be offset by higher payments of mainstream corporation tax.

  Income tax lower rate (Per cent.)1

  Band of taxable income

  £1,000

  £3,000

  17.5

  -0.6

  -1.8

  10

  -2.5

  -7.0

  1 Costs include consequential effects on capital gains tax and exclude the effects of corresponding changes in the rate of ACT and the basic tax rate on individuals.

  Tax Rates
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many additional people will pay tax at the higher rate if the basic rate upper limit is not raised in line with indexation in 1996–97; and what will be the average loss per taxpayer. [38997]

  Mr. Jack
  About 200,000 taxpayers would be brought into higher rate tax. The average additional income tax liability compared with indexation for the 2.4 million taxpayers affected would be about £145.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the revenue cost or yield in 1995–96 and in a full year of the introduction of a minimum tax rate of(a) 15 per cent., (b) 20 per cent., (c) 25 per cent., (d) 30 per cent., (e) 35 per cent., (f) 40 per cent., (g) 45 per cent., (h) 50 per cent. and (i) 55 per cent. on gross incomes of over (i) £50,000, (ii) £70,000, (iii) £80,000, (iv) £90,000, (v) £100,000, (vi) £110,000, (vii) £120,000 (viii) £130,000, (ix) £140,000 and (x) £150,000. [39104]

  Mr. Jack
  The table gives available estimates showing the variation in revenue yields over the specified ranges of tax rates and thresholds of gross incomes up to £100,000. Reliable estimates are not available for higher thresholds of gross income.

  Full year revenue yield at 1995–96 levels. Rate of minimum tax

  £ million

  Gross income

  15 per cent.

  35 per cent.

  55 per cent.

  Over £50,000

  10

  1,860

  11,800

  Over £70,000

  5

  710

  7,230

  Over £100,000

  5

  280

  4,610

  The estimates do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of the new arrangements.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will estimate the numbers of people in the United Kingdom in 1995–96 with gross and taxable incomes of(a) more than £100,000, (b) more than £150,000, (c) more than £200,000, (d) more than
  152
  £300,000, (e) more than £400,000 and (f) more than £500,000. [39114]

  (2) if he will list the total gross income and total income tax liability of taxpayers falling in the bands (a) £20,000££30,000, (b)£30,000££40,000 and so on in £10,000 bands up to £130,000, specifying in each case the number of taxpayers falling in each band. [39089]

  Mr. Jack
  Available estimates are given in the table. It is not possible to provide reliable estimates for the specified bands of income above £100,000, nor is its possible to incorporate the detailed effect of mortgage interest relief which, in total, reduces income tax liability by £1.1 billion for taxpayers included in the table.

  1995–96 £

  Gross income1£ millions

  Income tax liability2£ millions

  Number of taxpayers (thousands)

  20,000 to 30,000

  89,600

  16,800

  3,700

  30,000 to 40,000

  38,200

  8,500

  1,100

  40,000 to 50,000

  18,700

  4,770

  420

  50,000 to 60,000

  10,600

  2,950

  200

  60,000 to 70,000

  6,650

  1,950

  100

  70,000 to 80,000

  4,950

  1,500

  70

  80,000 to 90,000

  3,470

  1,090

  40

  90,000 to 100,000

  2,470

  790

  30

  100,000+

  23,200

  8,130

  120

  1 Gross income is defined as total income for income tax purposes. It excludes income from certain social security benefits and some investment income such as National Savings Certificates.

  2 Not taking account of mortgage interest relief.

  Taxpayers' Liability
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his projections for the total income and total income tax and national insurance liability of the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers and all taxpayers in 1996–97, based on the indexed 1995–96 regime, giving the amount by which tax and national insurance have changed when compared with the indexed regimes of(a) 1987–88, (b) 1992–93 and (c) 1995–96. [39112]

  Mr. Jack
  Available projections about total tax liabilities were published in table 2.2 of the 1995 summer economic forecast. The liabilities of the top 1 per cent. of taxpayers will depend on the income levels of this group.

  Vehicle Taxes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which EC countries use a vehicle tax or licence fee related to engine size and which do not. [39903]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Most EU countries graduate their vehicle tax or licence fee according to engine characteristics.

  Ministerial Transport Costs
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the cost of ministerial transport in each of the past five years; what allowance has been paid to ministers who use their own vehicles; and what has been the cost in each of the past five years. [40744]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The total cost of ministerial transport in each of the past five years is as follows:
  153

  £

  1990–91

  216,127

  1991–92

  294,341

  1992–93

  277,559

  1993–94

  284,610

  1994–95

  283,518

  1995 to date

  171,913

  No allowance has been paid to ministers for the use of their own vehicles in the past five years.

  Annual Meetings (World Bank and International Monetary Fund)
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the recent annual meetings of the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. [40971]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I attended meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World bank in Washington on 8 and 9 October, where progress was made on several issues of importance for the world economy and for developing countries. I also attended the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting in Kingston, Jamaica on 4–5 October.

  In Kingston, Ministers endorsed a report on measures against money laundering, following my proposals at last year's meeting in Valletta. This matter will now be considered by Commonwealth Heads of Government in Auckland in November.

  I emphasised the desirability of an effective UN, and the need for reform of UN economic and social bodies. I hoped that the Commonwealth would give further impetus to the many UN reform activities under way.

  I gained further support for my initiative to relieve the burden of multilateral debt on a small group of the poorest countries, as well as reiterating the need for full implementation of the Naples and Trinidad terms for official bilateral debt.

  There was further discussion of multilateral debt at the interim and development committees of the World bank and IMF. The bank and fund will continue their work and report with proposals to the spring meetings in Washington next April. I am pleased to report that, one year on from the launch of my initiative, there is now an emerging consensus that this issue must be solved.

  As usual, the IMF and World bank meetings were preceded by meetings of G7 and G10 Finance Ministers and central bank governors.

  In the G7, we reviewed global economic and financial conditions, concluding that in most countries the conditions for continued growth and employment gains are in place and inflation well under control. We agreed that policies should continue to aim at sustaining non-inflationary growth.

  I joined other Ministers in urging the IMF and World bank to carry out an early, thorough assessment of needs for the reconstruction of Bosnia following a peace settlement. We had a useful discussion of the Russian economy with representatives of the Russian Government, led by First Deputy Prime Minister Chubais.
  154
  The G10 endorsed the conclusions of a study on savings, investment and real interest rates, commissioned at my suggestion last year. These are that reducing fiscal deficits would be the swiftest and surest way to reverse the decline in national saving rates and the increase in average interest rates over the last 35 years.

  We agreed that it would be desirable to develop new parallel financing arrangements complementary to the general arrangements to borrow. Discussions will take place with potential participants, with the objective of agreement by next April.

  At the IMF interim committee I emphasised the need for flexible labour markets and a favourable business environment at a time of increasing technological change and international competition.

  Further progress was made in responding to the lessons of the Mexican crisis, as envisaged at the Halifax summit in June. This includes exceptional procedures for the IMF to respond promptly and prudently in the event of serious financial crises. I strongly supported conclusions on the need for regular and timely provision of comprehensive and good quality data to the fund and the establishment of standards for data publication. I welcomed fund efforts to make the surveillance of members' economies franker and more selective. I also urged the fund to develop effective ways of evaluating its own performance. Work is continuing on the 11th review of quotas, although the fund's liquidity is currently adequate.

  I took the opportunity of the development committee meeting to welcome the new president of the World bank, Mr. Jim Wolfensohn, and expressed my support for his leadership. In a discussion of ways to reduce poverty, I emphasised the need for sound economic policies. The committee agreed on the importance of a significant replenishment of IDA. I stressed that donor countries should each shoulder a fair share of the burden.

  Copies of my speeches to the Commonwealth Finance Ministers meeting, the interim committee and the development committee, and of the communiques of those meetings and the G7 and G10 Finance Ministers' meetings have been placed in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Military Liaison Officers
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the location, rank and role of each British military liaison officer based in France. [40160]

  Mr. Soames
  The UK's armed forces currently have the following liaison officers based in France.

  Location

  Royal Navy

  Commander

  Creil

  Army

  Lt. Colonel

  Metz

  Lt. Colonel

  Saumur

  Lt. Colonel

  Coer

  Lt. Colonel

  Versailles

  Lt. Colonel

  Paris

  Lt. Colonel

  Draguignan

  155

  Location

  Lt. Colonel

  Montpellier and Pau

  Colonel

  Metz

  Royal Air Force

  Sqn Leader

  Taverny

  Sqn Leader

  Bordeaux

  Flight Lieutenant

  Salon

  Flight Lieutenant

  Marignane

  Flight Lieutenant

  Merignac

  The role of a liaison officer is to act as a link between the two allied organisations.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the location, rank and role of each French military liaison officer based in the United Kingdom. [40159]

  Mr. Soames
  The French armed forces have the following liaison officers based in the United Kingdom.

  Location

  Army

  Colonel

  Upavon

  Colonel

  Wilton

  Lieutenant-Colonel

  Camberley

  Colonel

  Andover

  Lieutenant-Colonel

  Warminister

  Lieutenant-Colonel

  Blandford

  Air Force

  Commandant

  MOD Harrogate

  Commandant

  MOD Wyton

  Capitaine

  RAF Valley

  Commandant

  RAF Waddington

  Capitaine

  RAF Coningsby

  Capitaine

  RAF Neatishead

  Commandant

  Bentley Priory

  Capitaine

  RAF Marham

  Capitaine

  RAF Shawbury

  Capitaine

  Boscombe Down

  Lieutenant

  RAF Linton-on-Ouse

  The role of a liaison officer is to act as a link between the two allied organisations.

  Nuclear Weapons (France)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the dates when United Kingdom officials or employees of the atomic weapons establishments have visited the(a) Centre d'Etudes de Limil-Valenton in Villeneuve-Saint-Georges, (b) Centre d'Etudes de Valduc, (c) Centre d'Etudes du Ripoult, (d) Centre d'Etudes Scientifique et Techniques d'Aquitane, Le Barp, (e) Centre d'Etudes de Bruyeres-le Chatel and (f) Centre d'Etudes de Vaujours, Moronvilliers, France, over the past five years, indicating the purpose of each visit; [40162]

  (2) if he will make a statement on how far technical discussions between the United Kingdom and France relating to possible arrangements for peer review, as set out in the eighth report of the Defence Select Committee, "Progress of the Trident programme" (HC 350 of Session 1994–195), have progressed; what data or technical information have been sent from France to the United
  156
  Kingdom for peer review as a result of these technical discussions; and if he will make a statement on progress on computer simulation discussions; [40195]

  (3) if he will list the dates when United Kingdom officials or employees of the atomic weapons establishments have visited French nuclear weapons research facilities over the past five years; and if he will indicate details of the purpose of each visit; [40157]

  (4) what technical assistance is being provided to the French Government to aid them in their development of alternatives to underground nuclear weapons testing; [40155]

  (5) if he will list the dates when French officials or scientists visited the atomic weapons establishments in the last five years; and if he will indicate the purpose of each visit. [40156]

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

  French Naval Vessels
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names of all French naval vessels that have visited the United Kingdom over the last 10 years, indicating their port of call and the dates of their visits. [40163]

  Mr. Soames
  The information is available only from mid-1991 onwards. Research of records prior to that date could be undertaken only at disproportionate cost.

  Vessel

  Port

  Date of visit

  1991

  Sterne

  Dartmouth

  24–26 June

  La Belle Poule

  Milford Haven

  11–14 July

  Sterne

  Swansea

  22–25 July

  L'Audacieuse

  Cowes

  3–6 August

  Circe

  Plymouth

  24–27 August

  Lutteur

  Poole

  23–27 September

  Phenix

  Leith

  27–29 September

  Calliope and Cybele

  London

  21–25 October

  Baccarat

  Plymouth

  25–28 October

  La Fidele

  Guernsey

  29–31 October

  Beveziers

  Faslane

  8–11 November

  Beveziers

  Rosyth

  22–25 November

  Amyot D'Inville

  Leith

  5–9 December

  1992

  Emeraude

  Plymouth

  24–28 January

  Thetis

  Falmouth

  31 January–3 February

  Grebe

  Plymouth

  7–11 February–2 March

  Le Vigilante

  Dartmouth

  11–16 March

  L'Audacieuse

  Dundee

  13–17 March

  Laperouse

  Portsmouth

  24–28 March

  Vulcain

  Penzance

  10–14 April

  Emeraude

  Portsmouth

  22–27 April

  Styx

  Guernsey

  24–27 April

  La Grande Hermine

  Guernsey

  13–15 May

  Latouche Treville

  Glasgow

  26–30 May

  Sake

  Jersey

  26–27 May

  Eridan

  Liverpool

  26–29 May

  Andromede and Orion

  Cardiff

  1–4 June

  Saire

  Poole

  2–6 June

  La Fidele

  Poole

  3–5 June

  Latouche Treville

  Leith

  12–16 June

  Phenix

  Inveness

  18–22 June

  Acharne and Cybele

  Poole

  24–26 June

  Phenix

  Cardiff

  26–30 June

  157

  Vessel

  Port

  Date of visit

  Jaguar, Leopard, Lion, Loire, Lynx Panthere and Tigre

  Leith

  29 June–2 July

  Aconit

  London

  11–15 July

  Acharne

  Plymouth

  31 July–4 August

  Acharne

  Cowes

  4–7 August

  Phenix

  Cowes

  5–9 August

  Emeraude

  Faslane

  25–30 August

  La Combattante and Lutteur

  Kingswear

  26–30 August

  Cybele

  Portsmouth

  28 August–1 September

  Thetis

  Greenock

  6–14 September

  Thetis

  Campbeltown

  14–19 September

  Sirene

  Falmouth

  18–21 September

  Phenix

  Guernsey

  29 September–2 October

  L'Audacieuse

  Shoreham

  27–30 October

  Agosta

  Leith

  30 October–3 November

  Somme

  Plymouth

  6–9 November

  Agosta

  Leith

  13–17 November 27 November—

  5 x MSC1

  London

  1 December

  Jaguar and Lion

  Guernsey

  1–9 December

  1993

  Tenace

  Falmouth

  15–18 January

  Vulcain

  Poole

  15–19 January

  5 x MCMV2

  Dartmouth

  18–25 January

  Psyche

  Rosyth

  5–9 February

  Pegase

  Cardiff

  9–12 February

  Psyche

  Leith

  19–23 February

  La Fidele and Saire

  Jersey

  2–5 March

  5 x MCMV2

  London

  12–16 March

  La Combattante

  Guernsey

  24–25 March

  Clio

  Portsmouth

  2–6 April

  L'Etoile and La Belle Poule

  Plymouth

  16–20 April

  Psyche

  Plymouth

  29 April–3 May

  Amethyste and Ouessant

  Portsmouth

  10–14 May

  Primauguet

  Portsmouth

  11–14 May

  Borda

  London

  21–24 May

  Aconit

  Liverpool

  25–30 May

  La Fidele

  Poole

  25–27 May

  Frehel

  Poole

  25–28 May

  Styx

  Dartmouth

  28 May–1 June

  Grebe

  Jersey

  28–31 May

  La Grande Hermine

  Guernsey

  1–2 June

  De Grasse

  Glasgow

  3–5 June

  CDT Birot, CDT Blaison and Lt de Lavallee

  Leith

  7–11 June

  Chacal, Lion, Panthere and Tigre

  Isle of Man

  18–21 June

  De Grasse

  Leith

  18–22 June

  Clio

  Dundee

  21–25 June

  La Grande Hermine

  Guernsey

  25–27 June

  Eridan, La Belle Poule, L'Etoile, and Goeland

  Newcastle

  13–17 July

  Sirene

  Dundee

  16–20 July

  Amethyste

  Faslane

  27 August–3 September

  A. D'Inville

  Plymouth

  27–31 August

  Sterne

  Cardiff

  31 August–3 September

  Cotre Mutin

  Cowes

  7–10 September

  Styx

  Leith

  16–22 September

  L'Audacieuse, Calliope, Cassiopee, Eridan, Lt de Le Henaff, Loire, Orion and Primauguet

  Leith

  17–20 September

  Acharne

  Poole

  28 September–1 October

  Alencon and Ouistreham

  Plymouth

  15–18 October

  Sirene

  Leith

  29 October–1 November

  Ouessant

  Plymouth

  4–8 November

  Glaive

  Torquay

  5–8 November

  Saire

  Alderney

  10–11 November

  Sirene

  Leith

  12–15 November 24 November

  Lion and Lynx

  Guernsey

  1 December

  Cdt Birot and Jean Moulin

  Plymouth

  20 November–2 December

  158

  Vessel

  Port

  Date of visit

  1994

  L'Audacieuse

  Jersey

  5–7 January

  Vulcain

  Poole

  24–7 January

  Aconit, Cassiopee, Le Henaff and Orion

  London

  4–8 February

  Eridan

  Swansea

  11–14 February

  Sterne

  Cowes

  14–17 February

  Beveziers

  Leith

  18–22 February

  Sirene

  Leith

  18–22 February

  Beveziers

  Leith

  5–8 March

  Centaure

  Falmouth

  11–16 March

  Grebe

  Southampton

  11–14 March

  Planet

  Leith

  15–16 March

  La Combattante

  Jersey

  5–9 April

  4 x MCMV2

  Chatham

  15–18 April

  Clio and Croix Du Sud

  Plymouth

  14–18 May

  9 x MCMV2

  Leith

  20–23 May

  Eridan

  Plymouth

  2–6 June

  Duguay-Trouin

  Portsmouth

  2–5 June

  Styx

  Weymouth

  2–3 June

  Circe

  Milford Haven

  3–6 June

  Drougou

  Portsmouth

  3–5 June

  Styx

  Dartmouth

  4–6 June

  Borda

  Guernsey

  4–5 June

  Frehel

  Guernsey

  9–12 June

  Chef Robet and Trident

  Jersey

  9–13 June

  Mutin

  Salcombe

  14–15 June

  Mutin

  Dartmouth

  15–16 June

  Circe

  Falmouth

  17–20 June

  Mutin

  Chausey

  18–20 June

  L'Audacieuse

  Weymouth

  20–23 June

  Borda

  Douglas

  24–27 June

  Grand Hermine

  Helford

  24–27 June

  L'Herminer

  Chatham

  29 June–5 July

  Belle Poule

  Guernsey

  1–4 July

  Styx

  Jersey

  11–15 July

  Sterne

  Cowes

  29 July–6 August

  Vulcain

  Chatham

  19–23 August

  Grebe

  Penzance

  19–23 August

  Vulcain

  Jersey

  2–6 September

  Epee

  Jersey

  7–9 September

  Acharne and Lutteur

  Poole

  13–16 September

  Pegase

  Milford Haven

  16–19 September

  Grebe

  Penzance

  19–23 September

  Cybele

  Plymouth

  20–23 September

  Vulcain

  Portland

  26–30 September

  EDIC 9010

  Marchwood

  5–7 October

  Beveziers

  Plymouth

  7–11 October

  Borda

  Torquay

  14–17 October

  Glaive

  Guernsey

  21–24 October

  Agosta

  Leith

  21–25 October

  L'Audacieuse

  Plymouth

  21–25 October

  Perle

  Plymouth

  28 October–2 November

  Agosta

  Leith

  4–8 November

  Duguay-Trouin

  Leith

  4–8 November

  Duguay-Trouin

  London

  10–14 November

  CoteD'Aquitaine

  Portsmouth

  1–2 December

  La Praya

  Chatham

  21–25 November

  Frehel

  Alderney

  24–25 November

  10 X Support Craft

  Devonport

  24–27 November

  Cote D'Aquitaine

  Portsmouth

  1–2 December

  4 X MCMV2

  London

  9–13 December

  1995

  Andromede

  Portsmouth

  16–19 January

  Surcouf

  London

  1–4 February

  Sirene

  Leith

  3–6 February

  L'Ailette

  Southampton

  7–9 February

  Sirene

  Leith

  17–21 February

  La Fidele and Saire

  Poole

  13–16 March

  3 X MCMV2

  Jersey

  17–20 March

  Croix du Sud

  London

  27–31 March

  Lavalle and CDT L'Herminier

  Plymouth

  30 March–3 April

  159

  Vessel

  Port

  Date of visit

  4 X MCMV2

  Jersey

  31 March–3 April

  Malabar

  Falmouth

  31 March–4 April

  L'Audacieuse

  Oban

  31 March–4 April

  Lutteur

  Portsmouth

  16–18 May

  Mutin

  Falmouth

  19–26 May

  Epee

  Guernsey

  19–21 May

  Mutin

  Helford

  23 May–6 June

  Borda

  Poole

  30 May–2 June

  L'Audacieuse

  leith

  2–5 June

  Latouche Treville

  Leith

  9–13 June

  Loire

  London

  12–15 June

  La Fidele

  Alderney

  20–21 June

  Antares and Glycine

  Swansea

  27–29 June

  Mutin

  Oban

  21–24 July

  Circe

  Falmouth

  24–27 July

  Mutin

  Dundee

  28–31 July

  Mutin

  Grimsby

  3–7 August

  Grebe

  Douglas

  4–8 August

  CDT De Pimodan

  Swansea

  4–8 August

  Calliopee

  Plymouth

  16–21 August

  Aldebaran

  Dartmouth

  23–27 August

  Mutin

  Cowes

  24–28 August

  Utile

  Milford Haven

  25–29 August

  Cybele

  Portsmouth

  1–4 September

  Laperouse

  Southampton

  5–8 September

  Elan

  Southampton

  5–8 September

  Elan

  Lowestoft

  13–20 September

  L'Etoile

  Guernsey

  19–21 September

  La Fidele and La Lutteur

  Poole

  19–22 September

  Elan

  Southampton

  21–25 September

  Agosta

  Leith

  20–23 October

  Circe

  Portsmouth

  27–30 October

  Ouessant

  Portsmouth

  27–31 October

  1 MSC = Coastal Mine Sweeper.

  2 MCMV = Mine Countermeasures Vessel.

  Military Information Sharing (France and Britain)
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all committees established for the purposes of co-ordinating and sharing information and ideas between French and British armed forces on military matters. [40158]

  Mr. Soames
  This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Franco-British Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the purpose of the Franco-British Joint Commission on Nuclear Policy and Doctrine, indicating how often on average the body meets each year. [40161]

  Mr. Soames
  The joint commission provides a forum for discussion of matters of mutual interest to the United Kingdom and France in the area of nuclear policy and doctrine. It has met two or three times a year. The details of its discussions are confidential between the two Governments.

  Armed Services (Recruitment Costs)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost in real terms of recruitment to the armed services in each of the past six years. [39990]
  160
  Mr. Soames
  The information is not held in the form requested for all years and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Outturn figures for the past three years are as follows:

  1992–93: £89.053 million

  1993–94: £ 97.310 million

  1994–95: £93.277 million

  Western European Union Medal
  Sir Keith Speed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the response of the United Kingdom and other western European Governments to the proposal by United Kingdom delegates for a Western European Union medal for service in Western European Union operations agreed by the Western European Union parliamentary assembly in December 1994. [40032]

  Mr. Soames
  On 20 December 1994 the Western European Union Council gave its agreement in principle to the draft proposal by the former Netherlands presidency for a Western European Union mission service medal.

  Since then, the Government, as a Council member of the Western European Union, have agreed in principle that this medal would be compatible with the British honours system for specific, agreed cases. However, to date, no proposal has been received from the Western European Union for the award of the medal, with appropriate clasp, for issue to any UK citizens.

  RAF Machrihanish
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list by year since 1990 the types and marks of(a) NATO and (b) other nationals' aircraft that have used RAF Machrihanish. [39046]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is contained in the table.

  A schedule of NATO and other military aircraft that have used RAF Machrihanish since 1990

  NATO

  1990

  Tucano T1

  Jetstream T2

  Islander AL1

  Andover C2/E3

  HS 125

  Dominie T1

  Canberra PR9

  Jet Provost T5A

  Hawk T1

  Shackleton AEW2

  Nimrod MR2

  C130 C1/C3

  Buccaneer S2B

  Harrier GR3,5,T4

  Jaguar GR1,T2

  Phantom II F4J, FGRI and FGR2

  Tornado F3, GR1

  Chinook HC1

  Gazelle AH1

  Lynx AH1, HAS2

  Puma HC1

  Scout AH1

  Sea King HAR3, HAS 5 and HC 4

  Wessex HC 2

  C12 Kingair

  C21 Learjet

  C23 Sherpa

  161

  C9B

  P3C Orion

  HC130

  MC130E

  C141B

  A10

  F1–11 andEF1–11

  CH 53 and MH 53

  CP 140

  F16

  MS 760

  Broussard

  Breguet Alphajet

  C160

  Breguet Atlantic

  CH 53

  F27

  P3C

  1991

  Bulldog T1

  Jetstream T2

  Andover E3

  Dominie T1

  HS 125

  Hawk T1

  Jet Provost T5A

  Hunter T7

  Canberra PR9

  Shackleton AEW2

  Nimrod MR2

  E3D Sentry

  C130 C1/C3

  Islander BN2

  Buccaneer S2B

  Harrier GR3, 5, T4

  Jaguar GR1, T2

  Phantom H F4J, FGRI and FGR2

  Tornado F3, GR1

  Chinook HC1

  Gazelle AH1

  Lynx AH1, HAS2

  Puma HC1

  Scout AH1

  Sea King HAR3, HAS5 and HC4

  Wessex HC2

  C2A Greyhound

  C12 Kingair

  HC130

  MC130E

  C141B

  C9B

  KC135

  P3C, P3A

  A10

  Fl–11 and EFl–11

  F16

  Mirage 5

  CP140

  Embraer 121

  Nord 262

  Breguet Atlantic

  Antonov 26

  CH53

  P3C

  FK27

  C21 Learjet

  Alphajet

  1992

  Bulldog T1

  Tucano T1

  Jetstream T2

  Andover E3

  Dominie T1

  HS125

  Canberra PR9

  Islander BN2

  162

  Jet Provost T5A

  Hawk T1

  Hunter T7

  Nimrod MR2

  E3A/E3D Sentry

  C130 C1/C3

  VC 10K

  Buccaneer S2B

  Harrier GR3, 5, 7, and T4

  Jaguar GR1.T2

  Tornado F3,GR1,GR1A

  Augusta 109

  Chinook HC1

  Gazelle AH1

  Lynx AH1, HAS2

  Puma H1

  Scout AH1

  Sea King HAR3

  HAS 5 and HC 4

  Wessex HC 2

  C2A

  C5B Galaxy

  C12 Kingair

  C21 Learjet

  HC130

  MC130E

  C141

  C137

  Boeing 727

  Boeing B52

  KC135

  KC10

  P3C

  Lockheed S3A

  Viking

  Fl–11 andEFl–11

  Lockheed U2R

  CF18 Hornet

  CP 140

  Boeing 707

  C160

  Alpha Jet

  Mirage F1

  Breguet Atlantic

  C160

  P3C

  DH6

  P3B

  F16

  1993

  Bulldog T1

  Tucano T1

  Jetstream T2

  Andover E3

  HS 125

  Dominie T1

  Hunter T7

  Jet Provost T5A

  Hawk T1

  Islander BN2

  Canberra PR9

  BAe146

  C130C1/C3

  Nimrod MR2

  Buccaneer S2B

  Harrier GR3, 5, T4

  Jaguar GR1,T2

  Tornado F3, GR1, GR1A

  Chinook HC1

  Gazelle AH1

  Lynx AH1.HA52

  Puma HC1

  Scout AH1

  Sea King HAR3, HAS 5 and HC 4

  Wessex HC2

  C12 Kingair

  163

  C21 Learjet

  HC130

  MC130E

  C141

  KC135

  P3C, P3B

  F15

  F1–11

  Bell UH1

  ND262

  Breguet Atlantic

  Breguet Alize

  F4

  C160

  CP140

  G222

  Bolkow 105

  Allouette III

  F16

  1994

  Islander BN2

  Jetstream T2

  Andover E3

  Dominie T1

  HS 125

  C130 C1/C3

  Nimrod MR2

  Hawk T1

  Buccaneer S2B

  Jaguar GR1, T2

  Tornado F3, GR1, GR1A

  Augusta 109

  Chinook HC1

  Lynx AH1

  Puma HC1

  Sea King HAR3, HAS 5 and HC4

  Wessex HC2

  C5

  C9B

  C12 Kingair

  C21 Learjet

  HC130

  MC130E

  C141

  KC135

  Boeing 707

  P3A

  P3C

  T39 Sabreliner

  F15

  MH53

  CP140

  C144 Gulfsteam

  F16

  DH6

  Gazelle AH1

  1995—October

  Islander BN2

  Andover E3

  HS 125

  BAel46

  VC10

  C130 C1/C3

  Nimrod MR2

  Jaguar GR1.T2

  Tornado F3, GR1, GR1A

  Hawk T1

  Gazelle AHI

  Lynx AHI

  Puma HC1

  HAS 5, HC4

  Wessex HC2, CC4

  C12 Kingair

  C21 Learjet

  164

  MC130E

  P3C

  Alpha Jet

  200 King Air

  Other

  1990: Nil

  1991: Nil

  1992: Nil

  1993: P3C

  1994: Nil

  1995 to October: Nil

  Defence Exports, Singapore
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) of 11 July,official Report, column 527, what evidence of illegal activity has come to light in relation to defence exports to Singapore and has been brought to the attention of Customs and Excise. [40497]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on 11 July,Official Report, column 527, except to confirm that research into aspects of defence exports to Singapore continues.

  Potential Compensation Claims
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money his Department allocated as provision for the payments of potential compensation claims in each of the last five years. [37776]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 19 October 1995]: This information is not readily available for 1990–91, but financial provision for payment of compensation claims from 1991–92 onwards was as follows:

  Financial Year

  Allocation

  1991–92

  £10 million (estimated)

  1992–93

  £11 million

  1993–94

  £26 million (of which £15 million was provision made for compensation payments made to Servicewomen dismissed on grounds of pregnancy)

  1994–95

  £43 million (of which £26 million was provision made for compensation payments made to Servicewomen dismissed on grounds of pregnancy)

  Married Quarters (Disposals)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding disposal of married quarters. [40387]

  Mr. Soames
  We are continuing to consider possibilities for transferring ownership of the married quarters estate to the private sector. We expect to be in a position to clarify the way ahead before the end of the year.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the number of married quarters in each local housing authority area; and what is the percentage vacant. [40386]
  165
  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Unit Closures
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what degree his Department accepts financial responsibility for contingent liabilities arising from closures of establishments or disbandment of units. [40394]

  Mr. Soames
  It is the policy of the Ministry of Defence to avoid incurring contingent liabilities wherever possible. Very exceptionally, an indemnity might be given on or in relation to the disposal of a site, as for instance on the disposal of Gruinard island against claims arising from its decontamination.

  Solent Buoyage
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what powers he has to offer the Solent Buoyage to competent harbour authorities other than Trinity House. [40371]

  Mr. Soames
  The Queen's Harbour Master exercises responsibility on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence for the maintenance of all buoyage within the Dockyard port of Portsmouth; to ensure safe mooring and navigation. There are no powers within the Dockyard Port of Portsmouth Order 1978 to allow for the transfer of specific responsibilities to other harbour authorities.

  Mr. Fields
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Navy to relinquish their responsibility for Solent buoyage. [40370]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no plans to relinquish any of its responsibilities within the area of the dockyard part of Portsmouth.

  No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what basic provision is made for capital costs, storage, maintenance and similar expenditure in assessing costs appropriate to the royal usage of No, 32 (The Royal) Squadron. [40391]

  Mr. Soames
  Costs of royal usage on official business are based on a proportionate cash assessment of total operating costs comprising personnel, aviation fuel, equipment and engineering support and other operating costs. By convention, capital costs are not included in the calculation.

  Service Personnel (Loans)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Governments to which service personnel have been loaned during the period from April 1992. [40493]

  Mr. Soames
  The countries to which service personnel have been loaned since 1992 are Angola, Antigua, Australia, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Brunei, Dominica, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Hong Kong, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lesotho, Malaysia, Mauritius, Namibia, New 166
  Zealand, Nigeria, Oman, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, St Lucia, St Vincent, Swaziland, Turks and Caicos Islands, United Arab Emirates and Zimbabwe.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Stage Hynotism
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what monitoring is undertaken by his Department of the adverse health effects of stage hypnotism. [38223]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We expect shortly to publish the report of a review of the effects of participation in stage hypnotism and the workings of the Hypnotism Act 1952. The report will include an assessment of clinical evidence submitted to the review's panel of psychiatrists and psychologists.

  DNA Samples
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if persons asked to give DNA samples during the investigation of crimes are notified that the samples will be retained for future reference, whether or not they are charged with or convicted of the crimes under investigation. [39960]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 30 October 1995]: When members of the public volunteer to give samples as part of a mass screening, the samples taken are compared only with the sample found at the scene of the crime under investigation. The samples are destroyed at the end of the investigation and the profiles derived from them are not retained on the DNA database.

  When a sample is taken from a person suspected of involvement in a recordable offence, the police are required to inform the person that the sample may be the subject of a speculative search. Whether and for how long the samples will be retained is dependent upon the outcome of the investigation.

  Samples taken from persons convicted of or cautioned for a recordable offence will be retained for the same period as the offender's criminal record on Phoenix. Samples taken from people who are acquitted or not proceeded against will be retained if another person from whom a sample has been taken in the same investigation is convicted of an offence. These samples may be needed for further comparative analysis if it is subsequently suggested that there has been a miscarriage of justice.

  DNA profiles will be retained in a searchable form on the DNA database only if the suspect is convicted of or cautioned for a recordable offence or if action against that individual is ongoing.

  Mohammed Riaz and Abdul Quayyum Raja
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to inform Mohammed Riaz and Abdul Quayyum Raja of his decision concerning their tariffs; on what date he received the case papers; and if he will make a statement. [40446]
  167
  Miss Widdecombe
  The case papers were submitted to Ministers on 4 October. The decisions on tariff will be taken and disclosed to the prisoners as soon as reasonably practicable.

  Patrick Kelly and Michael O'Brien
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) for what reason Patrick Kelly and Michael O'Brien, prisoners, are(a) detained in the special security unit at Whitemoor prison, (b) refused reading material and (c) kept in cells which have no heating; if, the hon. Member for Maidstone (Miss Widdecombe) talked to either prisoner when she visited Whitemoor prison; what complaints she received about their detention; and if he will make a statement; [40449]

  (2) if he will release Patrick Kelly, currently detained in the special security unit at Whitemoor prison, and arrange for his early transfer either to Northern Ireland or to the Irish Republic; and if he will make a statement. [40447]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 30 October 1995]: Patrick Kelly is serving a sentence of imprisonment of 25 years for the attempted murder of a police officer and conspiring to cause explosions. Under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, consideration cannot be given, save in exceptional circumstances, to Mr. Kelly's discretionary release until May 2005.

  Mr. Kelly's recent request for transfer to Northern Ireland was refused on the grounds that he does not meet the criteria for transfer. He has no known links with Northern Ireland and he was not previously resident there before his present conviction. There were considered to be insufficient compelling compassionate factors to justify, exceptionally, granting him a transfer. This decision is currently under review.

  Mr. Kelly has indicated his wish to be repatriated to the Republic of Ireland. This will be considered on its merits, in consultation with the Irish Government, when arrangements for the repatriation of prisoners between the two jurisdictions come into force on 1 November.

  Mr. Kelly and Mr. O'Brien are both category A prisoners with exceptional escape risk classifications. As such, it is necessary for them to be held in conditions suitable for prisoners of the highest security category. It is normal policy, subject to operational constraints which may affect the availability of such accommodation, to hold such prisoners in special secure units—SSUs.

  Mr. Kelly and Mr. O'Brien have not been refused reading material although, because they are on a dirty protest, they are not, for reasons of hygiene, allowed to have books from the prison library. On 17 October, as part of a disciplinary award for failing to comply with the regime requirements of the SSU, they were not permitted to receive publications from outside sources for seven days. They did, however, continue to be provided with daily newspapers. Publications sent to them during that period were stored and given to the prisoners after 24 October.

  The cells in the SSU are heated. There were some technical problems when the heating was first required
  168
  after the summer, but since the middle of October there have been no reported problems. The heating is now operated automatically by a temperature control located within the unit.

  I recently visited the Whitemoor SSU, but did not see either prisoner.

  Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home 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 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. [39127]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 24 October 1995]: The number of cases of fraud committed by staff of the Home Office, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies is tabulated for the years 1991–92 to 1994–95. The monetary value of the fraud and how much was recovered is shown.

  Year

  Department

  Agency

  NDPB

  1991–92

  Number of frauds committed

  16

  —

  —

  Monetary value

  16,668

  —

  —

  Amount recovered £

  9,602

  —

  —

  1992–93

  Number of frauds committed

  15

  —

  —

  Monetary value £

  22,349

  —

  —

  Amount recovered £

  3,847

  —

  —

  1993–94

  Number of frauds committed

  5

  15

  1

  Monetary value £

  710

  48,906

  190

  Amount recovered £

  460

  1,559

  190

  1994–95

  Number of frauds committed

  1

  4

  —

  Monetary value £

  1,400

  38,896

  —

  Amount recovered £

  301

  —

  —

  Irish Prisoners
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are in place to invite applications from Irish nationals serving sentences in prisons in the United Kingdom to be transferred to prisons in the Irish Republic; how many Irish nationals are detained in United Kingdom prisons; how many have indicated their intention of applying to be transferred; how many have applied; what are the arrangements for recording and processing such applications; and if he will make a statement. [40451]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 30 October 1995]: The Council of Europe convention on the transfer of sentenced persons comes into effect for the Republic of Ireland from 1 November. The convention requires that all eligible prisoners who may wish to seek repatriation

  169
  are informed by the sentencing jurisdiction of the availability of these procedures. With the agreement of the Irish Government, Irish prisoners in England and Wales will be advised of these arrangements through instructions given to prison governors. I am placing a copy of the relevant instruction—"Instruction to Governors 101/95"—in the Library.

  As at 30 September 1995, 644 prisoners held in England and Wales gave their nationality on reception into prison as Irish. Under the convention, prisoners may not themselves apply for repatriation but may indicate an interest in this. To date, 35 Irish prisoners have done so. It will be open to either jurisdiction to make a formal request for repatriation on a prisoner's behalf.

  Decisions on asylum applications made at ports of entry and after entry into the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, 1994 and January to September 1995

  1994

  1995 (January to September)

  Port applications

  In country applications

  Total

  Port applications

  In country applications

  Total

  Decisions123

  Total decisions

  7,150

  13,840

  20,990

  7,325

  12,585

  19,910

  Recognised as a refugee and granted asylum

  300

  530

  825

  250

  570

  820

  Not recognised as a refugee but granted exceptional leave

  1,785

  1,875

  3,660

  1,700

  2,055

  3,750

  Refusals

  Total refused

  5,065

  11,435

  16,500

  5,375

  9,965

  15,340

  Refused asylum and exceptional leave after full consideration

  4,255

  8,400

  12,655

  4,490

  8,080

  12,570

  Refused on safe third country grounds

  810

  55

  865

  885

  130

  1,015

  Refused under para.340 of Immigration Rules4

  —

  2,985

  2,985

  —

  1,755

  1,755

  1 Provisional and estimated figures rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 Decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period.

  4 For failure to provide evidence to support the asylum claim within a reasonable period.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken or intends to take to ensure that refugees arriving from abroad are aware that they must apply for asylum on arrival in order to protect their potential entitlement to social security benefits. [40607]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  None. The immigration rules make it clear that matters which may damage an asylum applicant's credibility include failure to apply forthwith upon arrival—paragraph 341 of HC 395. Genuine asylum claims ought not to be affected by considerations of benefit entitlement. People who gain admission on the basis that they will support themselves should be held to that requirement whether or not they subsequently claim asylum.

  British Betting Office Association
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a decision on the British Betting Office Association's request to join the bookmakers committee to the Levy Board and the reconstitutions of the committee; and if he will make a statement. [40589]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The review of the committee's composition is still in progress; the outcome will be announced as soon as possible.
  170
  All requests for repatriation involving prisoners held in England and Wales are recorded and processed by Prion Service headquarters.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for asylum by persons applying(a) on entry to the United Kingdom and (b) after entry were decided in 1994 and in January to September 1995; and how many of each category were granted asylum and exceptional leave to remain. [40605]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Phillip Agee
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the grounds upon which the decision was taken in respect of granting permission to Phillip Agee to enter the United Kingdom. [40204]

  Mr. Howard
  I have revoked the deportation order made against Mr. Agee in 1977 because I consider that he no longer represents a threat to national security.

  West Midlands Fire Service
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the pension deficit of the West Midlands fire service with particular reference to its impact on(a) effectiveness of the service and (b) the future of the scheme. [40247]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The West Midlands fire and civil defence authority is required to set a budget that enables it to meet its obligations under the Fire Services Act 1947, including the provision of an effective fire service and payment of pensions. As far as I am aware, the authority is meeting these statutory obligations. As my right hon. and learned Friend announced on 3 March 1994, the fire service pension scheme is under review, but in determining levels of local government revenue funding, the Government are already taking into account, among other relevant factors, what they know to be the increasing pension liabilities of a number of fire authorities.
  171

  National Lottery Charities Board
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the disbursements made by the National Lottery Charities Board to organisations in Brigg and Cleethorpes. [39956]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  No grants have so far been announced by the National Lottery Charities Board in respect of organisations in the Brigg and Cleethorpes constituency.

  Blue Police Boxes
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will discuss with the Secretary of State for National Heritage collecting centrally information on the locations of the remaining in-situ blue boxes in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [40007]

  Mr. Maclean
  No.

  Fingerprints
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action police forces in the United Kingdom are taking to ensure they have a system for identifying fingerprints taken at the scene of crime; and if he will make a statement. [39730]

  Mr. Maclean
  All police forces in England and Wales have systems for the identification of fingerprints taken at scenes of crimes and, in the great majority of cases, they involve computer support. A national automated fingerprint identification system will be introduced in eight pilot schemes involving eight forces in 1997 and will be implemented in all forces in England and Wales by 2001, replacing existing automated fingerprint recognition systems.

  Constabularies Amalgamations
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to promote the amalgamation of any of the Humberside, Lincolnshire or individual Yorkshire constabularies; and if he will make a statement. [39512]

  Mr. Maclean
  I have no plans to amalgamate any of the Humberside, Lincolnshire or Yorkshire police forces.

  Sirens and High Speed (Emergency Services)
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the regulations for the police, ambulance, and fire services, relating to the use of sirens and high speed. [39782]

  Mr. Maclean
  Control on the use of sirens is provided by the published Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 which state that sirens may be used by vehicles belonging to the recognised emergency services at any time when it is necessary or desirable to do so either to indicate to other road users the urgency of the purposes for which the vehicle is being used, or to warn other road users of the presence of the vehicle on the road".
  172
  In addition, there is a statutory exemption from compliance with speed limits in section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The exemption applies to police, fire and ambulance service vehicles when observance of speed limits would be likely to
  "hinder the use of the vehicle for the purpose for which the vehicle was being used"
  at the time concerned. Any further controls are operational matters for individual police forces, fire brigades and ambulance services.

  Prisoners
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the largest group of offenders currently serving sentences in British prisons. [39742]

  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 Mrs. Anne Campbell, dated 31 October 1995:

  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what is the largest group of offenders currently serving sentences in British prisons.

  The latest provisional information is for 30 September 1995. On that date the offence group with the largest number of sentenced offenders in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales was for violence against the person. 8,700 people were held after sentence for offences of violence against the person. This figure excludes all prisoners for whom an offence is not recorded (five per cent of the total prison population). Information on the prison population, broken down by offence is published annually in "Prison statistics, England and Wales" (table 1.7 of the 1993 edition, Cm 2893), a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Automatic Fingerprinting
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current situation in respect of the use by police forces of IBM's automatic fingerprinting recognition system; and if he will make a statement. [39729]

  Mr. Maclean
  The contract between the automated fingerprint recognition—AFR—consortium, representing 36 police forces in England and Wales, and IBM for the provision of automated fingerprint recognition facilities was terminated earlier this year. The forces concerned have made other arrangements: the 32 which have remained members of the AFR consortium are receiving an interim service provided by the Lockheed Martin Corporation.

  Remission and Sentencing
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated cost of implementing(a) the Woodcock report, (b) the Learmont report and (c) the proposed changes to remission and sentencing. [39597]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The estimated costs of implementing the recommendations of the Woodcock report are being reconsidered in the light of Sir John Learmont's report.

  Sir John Learmont's own assessment of the costs of his recommendations appears at appendix Q to his report.
  173
  Details of the proposed changes in sentencing policy will be set out in a White Paper due to be published early next year.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Orthopaedic Services (Waiting Times)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what is the current waiting time for an

  Unit of Management/Trust

  Hospital

  0–2 months

  3–5 months

  6–8 months

  9–11 months

  12–14 months

  15–17 months

  18–20 months

  21–23 months

  24+ months

  Total

  Altnagelvin Group of Hospitals

  Altnagelvin

  504

  201

  229

  215

  149

  40

  16

  5

  1

  1,360

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  Belfast City

  593

  248

  172

  112

  105

  41

  7

  0

  0

  1,278

  Greenpark Healthcare HSS Trust

  Musgrave Park

  896

  415

  267

  273

  207

  239

  183

  180

  596

  3,256

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trust

  Mater

  28

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  31

  Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  Royal, RBHSC1

  611

  547

  392

  204

  114

  33

  26

  11

  28

  1,966

  Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospital HSS Trust

  Ulster

  319

  131

  95

  51

  48

  37

  33

  29

  184

  927

  1 Information held centrally relates to the total number of patients waiting in each Unit of Management or Trust, for a first outpatient appointment. Therefore it is not possible to provide individual totals for the Royal Victoria and the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children.

  Health Services (Market Testing)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the health services that have been market tested by or notified to his Department and won by the private sector indicating(a) the location and (b) the organisation winning the tender. [40618]

  Details of services market tested and won by the private sector up to 31 March 1995.

  Services(s) tested

  Provider unit(s)

  Service provider(s)

  Domestic Services

  Armagh and Dungannon Unit

  Gardner Merchant

  Homefirst Community Unit

  ISS Mediclean

  North Down and Ards Community Trust (non-residential accommodation)

  ISS Mediclean

  Altnagelvin Hospital Unit

  ISS Mediclean

  Western Area Mental Health Unit (Northern sector)

  Gardner Merchant

  Central Services Agency

  Grosvenor Cleaning

  Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals Trust (North Down and Ards Hospitals)

  ISS Mediclean

  Catering Services

  Altnagelvin Group of Hospitals Unit

  Compass Services

  Foyle Community Unit

  Western Board Headquarters and Bureau

  Western Area Mental Health Unit (Northern Sector)

  Laundry and Linen Services

  South and East Belfast Trust—Linen hire

  Lilliput Laundry

  Hotel Services

  Domestic/Catering Services

  Craigavon Area Hospital Trust

  Gardner Merchant

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community Trust

  Southern Board Headquarters

  Domestic/Catering Portering/ Security Telephonists and Transport Services

  Green Park Healthcare Trust

  Mediguard Services

  Domestic/Catering Portering/ Supplies Transport Services

  Omagh Femranagh Hospitals and Community Unit

  Compass Services

  High Level Cleaning

  South and East Belfast Trust

  Grove Services

  Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals Trust

  Various

  Pest Control

  South and East Belfast Trust

  Alpha Pest Control

  North and West Belfast Trust

  Alpha Pest Control

  Omagh and Fermanagh Unit

  Alpha Pest Control

  Altnagelvin Group of Hospitals Unit

  Alpha Pest Control

  Western Area Mental Health Unit

  Rentokil Ltd.

  Green Park Healthcare Trust

  Rentokil Ltd.

  Sanitary Cleaning

  North and West Belfast Trust

  Canon Hygiene

  Altnagelvin Group of Hospitals Unit

  Canon Hygiene

  Window Blind Cleaning

  North and West Belfast Trust

  Decora Blinds

  174
  appointment with a consultant at each hospital in Northern Ireland which provides orthopaedic services; [39247]

  (2) how many patients are on current waiting lists at each hospital for an appointment with an orthopaedic consultant. [39249]

  Mr. Moss
  The table shows the number of patients and time waiting for a first outpatient appointment in the trauma and orthopaedic speciality at the end of June 1995.

  Mr. Moss
  Health services, in terms of clinical and clinical support services, have not been market tested in Northern Ireland. The table gives the information requested in respect of non-clinical support services.
  175

  Details of services market tested and won by the private sector up to 31 March 1995.

  Services(s) tested

  Provider unit(s)

  Service providers)

  Clinical Waste Disposal

  North and West Belfast Trust

  Down Waste Disposal

  Window Cleaning

  Causeway Trust

  City Contract

  Homefirst Community Unit

  Armagh Industrial

  United Hospitals Unit

  Armagh Industrial

  South and East Belfast Trust

  Armagh Industrial Group

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital Trust

  Grosvenor Cleaning

  North and West Belfast Trust

  Grosvenor Cleaning

  Omagh and Fermangh Unit

  W. McCartney

  Altnagelvin Group of Hospitals Unit

  City Contract Clean.

  Western Area Mental Health Unit

  City Contract Clean.

  Foyle Community Unit

  City Contract Clean.

  Belfast City Hospital Trust

  S. and J. Robinson

  Green Park Healthcare Trust

  Armagh Industrial

  Ulster, North Down and Ards Hospitals Trust

  J. Robinson

  Transport Hire

  Homefirst Community Unit

  Various1

  North and West Belfast Trust

  City Cabs

  Western Board Ambulance Service

  Various1

  Omagh Fermanagh Unit

  Various1

  Green Park Healthcare Trust

  ABA/Enterprise

  Social Services Transport

  Causeway Trust

  Darragh's Coaches

  (Social and Adult Centres)

  Logan's Coaches

  Transport Maintenance

  Southern Health and Social Services Board

  Various1

  South and East Belfast Trust

  Castlereagh Motors

  North and West Belfast Trust

  Macs and Stewarts

  Western Board Ambulance Service

  Various1

  Omagh Fermanagh Unit

  Various1

  Western Area Mental Health (S. Sector)

  R. Donnell

  Foyle Community Unit

  Various1

  Belfast City Hospital Trust

  Harknese

  Green Park Healthcare Trust

  Various1

  Non-Emergency Transport

  Homefirst Community Unit

  Various1

  Grounds and Roads Maintenance

  Homefirst Community Unit (Loughside)

  T L R Landscapes

  Homefirst Community Unit (Bannside)

  J F K Nurseries

  South and East Belfast Trust

  Cameron Landscapes

  Omagh Fermanagh Unit (Fermanagh Sector)

  Ashwood Nurseries

  Courier Services

  North Down and Ards Community Trust

  Armouirguard

  Security Services

  North Down and Ards Community Trust

  Armouirguard

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital Trust

  Securicor

  Central Services Agency

  Guardforce

  Printing and Publishing

  Northern Board (General Printing)

  Nicholson/Bass

  Northern Board (Publications)

  Graham and Heslip

  1 More than one contractor. Full details of all the contractors not available centrally.

  District Health Authorities (Surpluses and Deficits)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) surpluses and (b) deficits were recorded by each district health authority in 1994–95. [40662]

  Mr. Moss
  The surpluses and deficits recorded by each health and social services board for Northern Ireland for 1994–95 are set out in the table.

  The accounts of the health and social services boards report separately on revenue income and expenditure and capital income and expenditure. The table analyses the net surplus or deficit over each.

  These accounts have not yet been certified by the appointed auditor and so may be subject to change.

  NHSSB £

  SHSSB £

  EHSSB £

  WHSSB £

  Revenue

  22,407

  653,940

  (1,985,796)

  (1,138,784)

  Capital

  201,324

  1,251,754

  (278,302)

  1,559,937

  Total

  223,731

  1,905,694

  (2,264,098)

  421,153

  Note:

  Figures in brackets represent deficits i.e. excess of expenditure over income.
  176

  Pay Bargaining
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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 the negotiating machinery to be put in place in each bargaining unit. [38277]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The pay delegation plan submitted by the Northern Ireland Office to the Treasury covers staff in grades 6 and below in the following bodies, which will in 1996 constitute a single bargaining unit:

  THE NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE

  Legal Offices

  Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland

  Crown Solicitor's Office

  Agencies

  Northern Ireland Prison Service (except prison officers and prison governors)

  Compensation Agency

  Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland

  177

  Other Bodies

  Police Authority for Northern Ireland (except industrial staff) Office of the Chief Electoral Officer

  Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights

  Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland

  Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures Independent Commissioner for the Holding Centres

  Proposals for discussion about pay bargaining procedures have been sent to the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, the First Division Association, the National Union of Civil and Public Servants and the Civil and Public Services Association.

  DOE automatic monitoring stations—October 1995

  County name

  Site name

  Network

  Species measured1

  Grid ref.

  Avon

  Bristol Centre

  Urban

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10

  ST594732

  Bristol East

  Hydrocarbon

  VOCs

  ST599729

  Belfast

  Belfast East

  Urban

  SO2

  J357740

  Belfast Centre

  Urban

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10

  J339744

  Belfast South

  Hydrocarbon

  VOCs

  J333726

  Cheshire

  Glazebury

  Rural

  O3

  SJ690959

  Cleveland

  Billingham

  Urban

  NOx

  NZ470237

  Middlesbrough

  Urban Affiliate

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10,VOCs

  NZ505194

  Cumbria

  Great Dun Fell

  Rural

  O3

  NY711322

  Wharleycroft

  Rural

  O3

  NY698247

  Derbyshire

  Ladybower

  Rural

  O3,NOx,SO2

  SK164892

  Devon

  Yarner Wood

  Rural

  O3

  SX867890

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Eskdalemuir

  Rural

  O3

  NT235028

  East Sussex

  Lullington Heath

  Rural

  O3,NOx,SO2

  TQ538016

  Fermanagh

  Lough Navar

  Rural

  O3

  IH065545

  Greater London

  Bridge Place

  Urban

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2

  TQ289788

  Bexley

  Urban Affiliate

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10

  TQ518763

  Cromwell Road

  Urban

  NOx,CO,SO2

  TQ264789

  West London

  Urban

  NOx,CO

  TQ251788

  London Bloomsbury

  Urban

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10

  TQ302820

  London UCL

  Hydrocarbon

  VOCs

  TQ299822

  London Eltham

  Hydrocarbon

  VOCs

  TQ440747

  Greater Manchester

  Manchester

  Urban

  NOx,CO

  SJ838980

  Hampshire

  Southampton Centre

  Urban Hydrocarbon

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10,VOCs

  SU429121

  Highland

  Strath Vaich

  Rural

  O3,NOx,SO2

  NH347750

  Humberside

  Hull Centre

  Urban

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10

  SE105293

  Leicestershire

  Leicester Centre

  Urban

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10

  SK587040

  Lothian

  Bush

  Rural

  O3

  NT245635

  Edinburgh Centre

  Urban

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10

  NT254738

  Edinburgh Med. Sch

  Hydrocarbon

  VOCs

  NT257730

  Merseyside

  Liverpool Centre

  Urban

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10

  SJ349908

  Liverpool Speke

  Urban

  VOCs

  SJ438835

  North Yorkshire

  High Muffles

  Rural

  O3

  SE776939

  Nottinghamshire

  Bottesford

  Rural

  O3

  SK797376

  Oxfordshire

  Harwell

  Rural

  O3

  SU474863

  Powys

  Aston Hill

  Rural

  O3

  SO298901

  South Glamorgan

  Cardiff Centre

  Urban

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10

  ST184765

  Cardiff East

  Hydrocarbon

  VOCs

  ST193773

  South Yorkshire

  Sheffield

  Urban

  NOx,CO

  SK403905

  Barnsley 12

  Urban

  SO2

  SE342067

  Strathclyde

  Glasgow

  Urban

  NOx,CO

  NS595653

  Suffolk

  Sibton

  Rural

  O3

  TM364719

  Tyne and Wear

  Sunderland

  Urban

  SO2

  NZ398570

  Newcastle Centre

  Urban

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10

  NZ251649

  West Glamorgan

  Swansea Centre

  Urban Affiliate

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10

  SS655931

  West Midlands

  Walsall

  Urban

  NOx

  SO995985

  Birmingham Centre

  Urban

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10

  SP064868

  Birmingham East

  Urban Affiliate Hydrocarbon

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10VOCs

  SP116889

  West Yorkshire

  Leeds Centre

  Urban

  O3,NOx,CO,SO2,PM10

  SE299343

  Leeds Potternewton

  Hydrocarbon

  VOCs

  SE307367

  1 VOCs=Volatile organic compounds

  O3=ozone

  NOx=oxides of nitrogen

  SO2=sulphur dioxide

  PM10=fine particles

  Details of the non-automatic smoke and sulphur dioxide sites (approximately 225 sites) are available in "UK Smoke and Sulphur Dioxide Monitoring Networks Summary Tables for April 1993–March 1994".

  Details of non-automatic nitrogen dioxide sites (approximately 1,100 sites) are available in "UK Nitrogen Dioxide Survey results for the first year—1993".

  Details of the Department's other non-automatic networks (metals, acid deposition, rural sulphur dioxide and toxic organic micro pollutants; 86 sites) are available in "Air Pollution in the UK: 1993/94".

  Copies of all three reports are available from the National Environmental Technology Centre, Culham, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, OX14 3DB.
  178

ENVIRONMENT

  Air Monitoring Stations
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the location of all air monitoring stations in the United Kingdom and what pollutants each station measures. [39363]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department of the Environment monitors air pollutants at 50 automatic monitoring sites in its urban, rural and hydrocarbon networks. A list of the stations and the pollutants they measure is given in the table.
  179

  Restoration Orders
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has made on proposals to introduce restoration orders for sites of special scientific interest. [39362]

  Mr. Clappison
  We shall consult interested parties shortly.

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list by grade the numbers of staff and their cost for(a) the financial year 1994–95 and (b) the estimated figures for the financial year 1995–96, for each executive agency for which he is responsible. [39521]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Estimated outturn for 1994–95 and plans for 1995–96 for civil service manpower and pay bill are set out in my Department's annual report, Cm 2807, copies of which are in the Libraries of the House. A breakdown by grade and individual agency could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Nirex (Cumbria)
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the RM Consultants report for Her Majesty's Inspector of Pollution on the movement of groundwater in the area of the proposed Nirex nuclear waste repository in Cumbria; [39732]

  (2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the W S Atkins report for Her Majesty's inspector of pollution on the movement of groundwater in the area of the proposed Nirex nuclear waste repository in Cumbria. [39733]

  Mr. Gummer
  A set of reports arising from the work undertaken by HMIP will be placed in the Library. This will include the reports by RM Consultants and W S Atkins.

  Asylum Seekers (Housing Application)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the number of housing applicants, for each local authority, refused permanent housing due to being asylum seekers since the introduction of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. [39882]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 27 October 19951: Under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, asylum seekers found to be statutorily homeless by a local housing authority are entitled only to temporary accommodation for as long as they remain an asylum seeker. Data are collected from local authorities in England on their activities under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 on a quarterly basis.

  I have today placed in the Library a table of the reported data on applicants registered with the Home Office as an asylum seeker and found to be statutorily homeless between January 1994 and June 1995. Such data were not collected prior to January 1994.

  Information about the number of asylum seekers who have applied to register on a housing waiting list is not held centrally.
  180

  Mineral Extraction (Yorkshire Dales National Park)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the quarries in the Yorkshire Dales national park with the dates on which the permissions for mineral extraction expire. [40469]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is not held centrally, but may be available from the minerals planning authorities for the area—North Yorkshire county council and Cumbria county council.

  Thames Path
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take compulsory purchase powers to allow the river frontage in Hurlingham park to be used for the Thames path. [40470]

  Mr. Clappison
  Since the Countryside Commission's proposals for the Thames path where it runs through Hurlingham park—and the subsequent approved route in this area—did not include the river frontage, the question did not arise.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Countryside Commission concerning difficulties of securing access to the river frontage where the new Thames path could run across open land next to the water's edge. [40472]

  Mr. Clappison
  In approving the route proposed by the Countryside Commission after consultation with the interested parties, the Secretary of State acknowledged the special issues arising out of implementation of the path where it goes through London. [40471]

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment at how many places along its route in London the Thames path leaves the river frontage other than because of a building or other similar obstruction.

  Mr. Clappison
  The Thames path in London leaves the river where access would otherwise be physically possible at four places—the Hurlingham club, the Houses of Parliament, Syon park, a site of special scientific interest, and the Nazareth house convent.

  Water Consumption
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has issued in respect of the preparation of contingency plans prepared to meet water consumption requirements in each region next summer in the event of below average winter rainfall; and if he will make a statement. [40685]

  Mr. Clappison
  It is the responsibility of water companies to safeguard supplies to their customers, and prepare any contingency plans they consider to be necessary to maintain supplies next summer in the event of below average winter rainfall. The Government have requested the National Rivers Authority to continue monitoring the water resources situation and report whenever it considers further action is needed. The Government announced a review in consultation with the National Rivers Authority, water companies and other interested parties, of the lessons to be learnt from this year's drought and what action needs to be taken.
  181

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the A34 Newbury bypass river crossings have been assessed to estimate their impact on otters. [38210]

  Mr. Clappison
  At the time of the environment assessment for the A34 Newbury bypass there was no evidence that the rivers in question were populated by otters.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if licences have been issued permitting the removal of badgers from land affected by the construction of the A34 Newbury bypass. [38211]

  Mr. Clappison
  No. However, licences have been issued to allow surveys of badger populations to be carried out.

  Mesothelioma (Hillingdon)
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what information is available about the incidence of mesothelioma in the London borough of Hillingdon during the past 25 years; and if he will publish details of the number of cases. [40651]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Health and Safety Executive maintains a register of deaths in Great Britain for which mesothelioma is mentioned on the death certificate. The numbers of deaths from mesothelioma in the London borough of Hillingdon are shown for each year for 1976 to 1991 in the table:

  Year

  Male

  Female

  1976

  3

  0

  1977

  0

  1

  1978

  2

  0

  1979

  2

  0

  1980

  1

  0

  1981

  0

  0

  1982

  0

  1

  1983

  4

  1

  1984

  2

  0

  1985

  3

  2

  1986

  5

  1

  1987

  5

  0

  1988

  10

  0

  1989

  2

  1

  1990

  5

  0

  1991

  3

  0

  The register records only a geographical code for area of usual residence at death from 1976 onwards. The latest year for which complete data is available is 1991. The incidence of mesothelioma is closely linked to the number of deaths as mesothelioma is almost always fatal within one year of diagnosis.

  Private Finance Initiatives
  Mr. Hargreaves
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he is taking to encourage private finance initiatives in local government, and if he will make a statement. [41095]

  Mr. Curry
  A year ago we announced a first package of measures under the private finance initiative, whose aim was to encourage joint ventures between local 182
  authorities and the private sector, and the disposal of surplus assets. We are continuing to implement and develop those proposals. Today, I can announce another set of changes to the capital finance rules to encourage further private sector involvement in the upgrading and, when necessary, replacement of local authority facilities. I am also announcing new research into the operation of joint public and private sector ventures.

  The rule changes I am announcing will increase from 50 per cent. to 90 per cent. the usable proportion of receipts from the sales of county farms for two years from 1 April 1996, as announced in the rural White Paper; increase from 50 per cent. to 75 per cent. the usable proportion of receipts from the sale of educational assets for two years from 1 April 1996; increase from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. from 1 April 1996 the usable proportion of receipts from the sale of shares in education companies; reduce the capital cost for authorities when they enter into "design, build, finance and operate" type contracts for the replacement or upgrading by the private sector of facilities such as schools, leisure centres and theatres; give authorities greater scope for financing the replacement of these facilities out of the proceeds of their sale, by a number of rule changes whereby authorities can take account of the cost of replacement assets in calculating set-aside, including relaxations in respect of the treatment of leased assets; remove disincentives to the dual use of such facilities by an authority and the private sector; reduce the capital cost of equipment replacement contracts, making it easier, for example, for authorities to use energy services packages which improve energy efficiency and reduce energy costs.

  I hope to publish draft regulations embodying these changes within the next few weeks, and to lay them before the House, following consultation with interested parties, so that they can come into effect by 1 April 1996. In parallel with this consultation, I hope that further changes can be developed to extend the "design, build, finance and operate" concept to virtually the full range of local authority capital expenditure.

  The new research into the working of the private finance initiative, commissioned by my Department and to be carried out by Coopers and Lybrand, will establish the nature and extent of authorities' involvement in joint companies through a questionnaire sent to all English local authorities. This will be followed by an investigation in detail of the role of companies in a number of case-study local authorities.

  In addition to a report on the research findings, it is intended that the study will lead to the publication of a good practice guide, designed to help local authorities in developing private sector partnerships through the medium of companies.

  Authorities' responses to the private finance initiative have been very encouraging. There is now much greater consciousness of what private finance can achieve, improving local authority facilities and services. The Treasury's private finance panel has worked with the local authority associations to prepare a consultation paper drawing authorities attention to the scope for such action. The setting up of the local government public private partnerships programme, with its own staff to help authorities find the most effective opportunities, is a welcome further step.
  183
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment is making a separate announcement about the specific implications for private finance in education. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is also making an announcement.

  Nitrate Vulnerable Zones
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State what progress has been made by the independent review panel commissioned to consider further written representations from consultees dissatisfied with the Government's response, published in May, to the consultation on proposed nitrate vulnerable zones. [41096]

  Mr. Gummer
  The independent review panel, chaired by Mr. Terence Etherton QC, has completed its work. Today my right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Secretary of State for Wales and I have published the panel's report. It is being sent to all those who submitted further written representations to the panel.

  We are impressed by the quality of the report and, subject to resolution of the issues which it recommends us to consider further, including with the National Rivers Authority, we intend to be guided by its recommendations.

  The panel received 87 submissions relating to 29 of the 72 proposed nitrate vulnerable zones. It has considered these submissions to assess whether the Government's published methodology has been correctly and consistently applied in drawing up the boundaries of the proposed zones. The report presents the panel's views on the case made by each objector, in relation to a specific proposed zone, and makes recommendations for Government to consider. It also presents the arguments for and against the proposed surface water zone at Nayland, and the panel's conclusions on the proposed designation. Furthermore, the report also discusses various issues of principle raised in the submissions received by the panel.

  The panel has had a difficult task in dealing with a great deal of information in a relatively short period of time and we are grateful for its endeavours.

  I am placing copies of the panel's report in the Library.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Heritage Green Paper
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when she expects to publish the Green Paper on heritage announced by her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), at the annual dinner of the Architects Association. [38749]

  Mr. Sproat
  I hope to publish the Green Paper around the end of the year.

  Buildings of Historical Importance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many buildings listed as of historical importance were cleared of such listing and demolished in each of the past five years in Humberside 184
  and the three counties of Yorkshire; if she will list locations; and if she will make a statement. [39573]

  Mr. Sproat
  Responsibility for controls over the demolition of listed buildings rests with the local planning authorities and the Department of the Environment. The Department has provided the following details of the number of listed building consents granted for the total demolition of a listed building in Humberside and the three counties of Yorkshire:

  1991: 8

  1992: 2

  1993: 6

  1994: 1

  1995: 3 (up to 31 February 1995)

  It is not possible to say how many of these consents have been implemented and information on the location of the buildings is not readily available.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many buildings of historical importance were renovated, and at what cost, in each of the past five years in Humberside and each of the three counties of Yorkshire; how many of these were industrial buildings; if she will list the locations of each; and if she will make a statement. [39481]

  Mr. Sproat
  Information on the total number of historic buildings renovated during a given period is not available. Government funding for the repair of historic buildings in England is channelled through English Heritage. All repair grants offered by English Heritage to buildings and monuments of outstanding national importance are listed in its publications, "Grants 1984–92", "Grants 1992–93 and "Grant 1993–94", copies of which are available in the Library. I will arrange for a copy of "Grants 1994–95" to be placed in the Libraries of the House when it is published.

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many buildings listed as being of special architectural or historical importance are currently located in Humberside and each of the three counties of Yorkshire; how many of these(a) have been and (b) are currently subject to grant aid; if she will list the locations of each; and if she will make a statement. [39482]

  Mr. Sproat
  Until the statutory lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest are computerised next year, details of the number of listed buildings in specific areas are not readily available. Government funding for the repair of historic buildings in England is channelled through English Heritage. All repair grants offered by English Heritage in respect of buildings and monuments of outstanding national importance are listed in its publications, "Grants 1984–92, "Grants 1992–93" and "Grants 1993–94", copies of which are available in the Library. I will arrange for a copy of "Grants 1994–95 to be placed in the Library when it is published.

  Royal Palaces
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how much of the expenditure on the occupied royal palaces in each year since 1986 has been in respect of(a) the exceptional work started in 1987–88 and (b) the Windsor fire. [38858]
  185
  Mr. Sproat
  The costs of the exceptional work associated with the rewiring of Windsor castle are:

  £ million

  1986–87 to 1990–91

  13.87

  1991–92

  4.29

  1992–93

  6.41

  1993–94

  3.18

  1994–95

  0.46

  Figures for each year between 1986–87 and 1990–91 are not available.

  Since the Windsor castle fire in November 1992, the following amount has been spent from grant in aid on restoration work:

  £ million

  1992–93

  1.16

  1993–94

  1.86

  1994–95

  2.69

  Mr. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what was expenditure on the occupied royal palaces in 1994–95 and in 1984–85; and what principal elements of cost account for the difference. [38859]

  Mr. Sproat
  Expenditure on the occupied royal palaces as shown in the 1990 report of the Royal Trustees was £11.2 million—equivalent to £18.3 million at 1994–95 prices. In 1994–95 it was £20.5 million. Grant in aid in 1994–95 included £2.7 million for exceptional costs associated with the restoration of Windsor castle, £2 million for the installation of automatic fire detection equipment in the occupied palaces, and £2.1 million for items such as rates and VAT which were not included in the 1984–85 allocation.

  Defence of Britain Project
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list by location(a) the world war II pill-boxes that will be saved under her defence of Britain project and (b) those that are deemed not worth saving; and if she will make a statement. [39058]

  Mr. Sproat
  The primary aim of the defence of Britain project, which is being part funded by my Department, is to compile a database of 20th century military defences in the United Kingdom. Completion of the database will take several years and, when completed, will be used as a planning and research tool. English Heritage is represented on the project management panel and is also carrying out a thematic survey of defence structures in tandem with the defence of Britain project. Any structures considered to be of national architectural or historic importance will be recommended for listing when English Heritage's survey is complete.

  Elizabethan Dove-cote (Barnburgh)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will ask English Heritage to consider the preservation of the Elizabethan dove-cote on British Coal land in the parish of Barnburgh, Doncaster, in the county of South Yorkshire; and if she will make a statement. [39516]
  186
  Mr. Sproat
  This dove-cote is, in fact, already listed at grade II. As such, any proposals which would affect its architectural or historic interest would require listed building consent. I understand that the development proposals for the adjoining land will not, in any case, affect the dove-cote and that the local planning authority is anxious to preserve its historic setting.

  National Lottery Funds
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what is the interest accruing to the Exchequer from those parts of awards from national lottery funds which have been allocated but not yet disbursed for each of the last 12 months; [39744]

  (2) what extra projects have been funded by the interest accruing to the Exchequer from those parts of awards from national lottery funds which have been allocated but not yet disbursed for each of the last 12 months. [39745]

  Mr. Sproat
  The national lottery distribution fund is maintained under the control of the Secretary of State for National Heritage. All money paid into the fund not immediately required for distribution is paid over to the national debt commissioners and invested by them in accordance with Treasury directions. All interest accruing on the fund as a whole is added back and reinvested. It is not possible to identify separately projects which have been supported from this interest. I have set out the interest which accrued on the fund as a whole for the 10 full months since the start of the lottery.

  Month

  Interest £000

  1994

  December

  239

  1995

  January

  578

  February

  1,261

  March

  1,172

  April

  2,136

  May

  3,113

  June

  1,139

  July

  6,199

  August

  7,238

  September

  6,449

  Total

  29,524

  Grants
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage for what grant-giving funds her Department is responsible, requiring a private sector contribution, where the use of national lottery funds is not allowed to count towards that private sector portion. [38604]

  Mr. Sproat
  National lottery funds can partner funds from any source, including other public sector sources, provided other grant schemes do not preclude sector funding in partnership. Lottery money may partner private sector contributions, but cannot count as such.

  Proceeds from the national lottery are classified as general Government expenditure, because, under the terms of section 21 of the National Lottery etc. Act 1993, the

  187
  national lottery distribution fund is under the control and management of the Secretary of State. However, the Government do not seek to control the spending of this fund since it does not affect the burden of taxation on the economy. National lottery proceeds are not, therefore, brought within the public expenditure control total.

  Information on schemes which seek exclusively non-public sector funding in partnership is not held centrally. Officials are collating this information and I will ensure that details are placed in the Official Report in due course.

SCOTLAND

  Barnacle Geese
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department has taken to monitor the one-year voluntary pilot management to protect barnacle geese in the Solway area; and if he will make a statement on the progress of the scheme. [37243]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 23 October 1995]: The one-year pilot for the Solway barnacle goose management scheme was undertaken by Scottish Natural Heritage to address conflicts between farmers and barnacle geese in the Solway area.

  £000s

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  (Provisional) 1994–95

  Family Health Services

  10,392

  22,983

  2,916

  8,039

  -20,661

  7,836

  Hospital and Community Health Services

  6,797

  20,130

  8,175

  9,072

  56,736

  48,236

  End year flexibility entitlement

  8,409

  10,068

  —

  8,401

  29,709

  48,492

  Family health services are demand led and funded from non-cash limited provision. Underdrawings against this provision are not available for redistribution in subsequent years. Most underdrawings on the cash-limited provision for hospital and community health services are available for redistribution though in earlier years the eligibility criteria were more restrictive.

  Underdrawings on the cash-limited hospital and community health services comprise mainly health board and NHS trust carry-forward balances. In the interests of sensible financial management, boards may carry-forward an element of their underdrawings. Once boards' annual accounts have been audited, the carry-forward balances, after parliamentary approval, will be formally allocated back to individual health boards, together with any additional resources secured from central underdrawings which in 1995–96 amounts to £16.3 million.

  A similar procedure is applied to NHS trusts.

  Health boards and NHS trusts can utilise their carry-forward funds to purchase patient care and for capital projects. The funds distributed from central underdrawings are to be used for local initiatives with the emphasis on pump-priming initiatives in priority areas particularly mental health, cardio and cerebro vascular disease, and cancer.
  188
  SNH has reported that the operation and monitoring of the scheme have shown that the approach adopted has been successful and has had the general support and participation of most local farmers.

  Approval has now been given to the continuation of the project as a three-year demonstration scheme to build on the work already undertaken; SNH will continue to monitor and report on the development of the scheme.

  NHS Budget
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will make a statement on underspending in the NHS budget in Scotland for each year since 1989–90, indicating the extent to which such underspend was re-invested in the NHS in the following year; [38500]

  (2) what was the total underspend or overspend in the NHS budget in Scotland in 1994–95; and if he will provide a breakdown of where the underspend or overspend occurred. [38502]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 23 October 1995]: The figures showing the underspends in the NHS hospital and community health and family health service budgets in Scotland since 1989–90, and the end year flexibility entitlement for each year, are set out in the table. Family health services overspent in 1993–94. The appropriation accounts for 1994–95 have still to be finalised and the figures for that year are provisional.

  Scabies (Dykebar Hospital)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action has been taken by the chief executive for the NHS in Scotland to ensure that the risk of a further epidemic of scabies is minimised at Dykebar hospital, Paisley. [39164]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS trust has taken appropriate action to confine an outbreak that affected a handful of people at Dykebar hospital, Paisley.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each non-departmental public body, research council, executive agency, board, trust, public body and other organisation to which he has a right to make(a) appointments and (b) nominations; and if he will make a statement on the equivalent figures for 1980. [39222]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The list of non-departmental public bodies, NHS bodies and nationalised industries to which I make appointments is contained in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies". The total number of appointments made to those bodies sponsored by the Scottish Office at 1 September 1994—the latest date for which figures are available—was 3,567, of which 3,253
  189
  were made by Ministers. This compares with 5,013 in 1983, the earliest date for which comparable figures are available, of which 3,818 were made by Ministers. In respect of executive agencies, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on 9 February 1995, Official Report, columns 235–36. In addition I make a number of appointments jointly with other Ministers to some executive agencies and to some non-departmental public bodies of other Departments. This information is not held centrally by my Department and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to visit Scottish universities over the coming year. [38885]

  Mr. Raymond S. Roberton
  My right hon. Friend intends to visit universities, and other higher education institutions, throughout the year. I also plan to visit higher education institutions on appropriate occasions in the coming year.

  Scottish Homes
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the chairman or chief

  Name

  Occupation/previous occupation

  Salary

  Period of current appointment

  Sir James Mellon KCMG (Chairman)

  Former Diplomat

  £39,290

  1 April 1993–31 March 1996

  Mrs. Frances McCall MBE

  Member, Management Committee, Calvay Co-operative

  £6,830

  1 April 1995–31 March 1998

  Prof. Duncan Maclennan MA MPhil FRSA

  Director of the Centre for Housing Research, Glasgow University

  £6,830

  1 April 1993–31 March 1997

  Mrs. Heather Sheerin OBE

  Co-Director, retail carpet business

  £6,830

  1 April 1993–31 March 1997

  Mrs. Daphne Sleigh

  Freelance Market Researcher

  £6,830

  1 April 1995–31 March 1999

  Cameron Parker OBE

  Non Executive Vice-Chairman, Lithgows Ltd

  £6,830

  1 April 1992–31 March 1996

  Professor John Rankin Small CBE

  Deputy Principal, Heriot Watt University and Professor of Accountancy and Finance

  £6,830

  1 April 1993–31 March 1997

  Alistair C. Dempster

  Chief Executive, TSB Bank Scotland plc; Deputy Chairman TSB Bank Channel Islands Limited

  £6,380

  1 April 1993–31–March 1998

  John D. Spencely

  Chairman, Reiach and Hall Architects

  £6,830

  1 April 1995–31 March 1999

  Peter McKinlay (Ex-officio)

  Chief Executive, Scottish Homes

  £83,490

  7 October 1991–31 December 1999

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the procedures for dismissing the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Homes. [39187]

  Mr. Robertson
  Schedule 1, paragraph 5(3) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 sets out the circumstances in which my right hon. Friend may remove a member of the Scottish Homes board—other than the chief executive—from office. A decision to terminate the appointment of the chief executive would be a matter for the Scottish Homes board.

  Paisley Group
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the discussion he had with representatives of the Paisley group during his visit to the town during September; what is his
  190
  executive of Scottish Homes to discuss their accountability to him, his Ministers, Parliament, elected parliamentarians and the public; and if he will make a statement. [39190]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend and I meet the board of Scottish Homes from time to time to discuss a range of issues. I next plan to meet the board early next year. Scottish Homes is accountable to my right hon. Friend and, through him, to the House.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the arrangements for reporting possible cases of misuse of funds, maladministration and negligence involving Scottish Homes to(a) an independent ombudsman, (b) their internal auditors and (c) their external auditors; and if he will make a statement. [39174]

  Mr. Robertson
  Scottish Homes has a published complaints procedure. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library.

  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the names, previous occupations, payments or allowances and next date for reappointment of the(a) chairman, (b) vice-chairman, and (c) members of the board of Scottish Homes. [39186]

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

  assessment of the scope to progress the initiatives discussed; what is his assessment of the potential to develop a partnership approach aimed at enhancing a positive perception of the town and the surrounding area; and when he next plans to meet representatives of the group and its parliamentary representatives to discuss possible actions and initiatives. [39182]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I had a useful discussion with representatives of the Paisley group on 12 September and I encouraged them to develop their ideas and consult other agencies which have a potentially valuable role to play in improving perceptions of Paisley. There is clearly scope for enhancing Paisley's image by promoting the town's many strengths and a partnership approach is the most effective way of doing this. For that reason, I have written to the group encouraging it to build on other initiatives already under way in Paisley and to co-ordinate its
  191
  activities to achieve the maximum impact. I have asked Renfrewshire Enterprise to meet the group and consider how it may assist them.

  Higher Education
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each higher education institution in Scotland the library budget for 1995–96 together with the numbers of current undergraduate and postgraduate students and staff. [38879]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Information on budgets for the new 1995–96 academic session is not collected or available centrally. Higher education institutions are free to determine the allocations they make for support services from the various resources—including Scottish Higher Education Funding Council grants and tuition fees—they receive for teaching and research.

  Student numbers and staffing for the new academic session are also not yet known. Our expenditure plans for 1995–96—as set out in the departmental report "Serving Scotland's Needs" (Cm 2814)—assumed 118,000 full-time equivalent students at HEIs funded by SHEFC.

  Information on actual expenditure and numbers of students and staff will be published in due course.

  Asthma
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met members of the National Asthma Campaign to discuss air quality reporting and other concerns of the group. [38890]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has had no such meeting with members of the National Asthma Campaign.

  Tree Preservation Order System
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to review the effectiveness of the tree preservation order system in Scotland with particular reference to the prosecution of those who fell or pollard trees prior to submitting planning applications to develop on such sites, or when such applications are under consideration; and if he will make a statement. [39161]

  Mr. Kynoch
  I propose to initiate a review of the tree preservation order system in Scotland in 1996. The review will be wide ranging and will consider all aspects of the operation of the present system.

  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what methods Scottish Natural Heritage uses to calculate the number of sites of special scientific interest damaged in Scotland each year. [39239]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The definition used in categorising damage to sites in Scotland are set out in the annual report of Scottish Natural Heritage, a copy of which is in the Library.

  Scottish Natural Heritage is adopting the principles laid down in the "Common Standards for Monitoring" report—Joint Nature Conservation Committee, 1993.
  192

  Paisley Pattern Goods
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy to develop the manufacture of paisley pattern goods within the town of Paisley as a potential attraction for inward investment and a potential source of international marketing; and if he will make a statement. [39179]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Local economic initiatives generally fall to be pursued by the local enterprise companies. My right hon. Friend fully supports the current range of activities being taken by Renfrewshire Enterprise and its partners to build on the strategy established by the paisley pattern initiative and to identify and develop commercial opportunities arising from the link between Paisley and the paisley pattern.

  Joint Learning Disability Strategy Conference
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which companies and organisations attended the joint learning disability strategy for provider agencies conference, organised by Greater Glasgow health board and Strathclyde regional council, and held at the Garfield hotel, Cumbernauld road, Stepps, in September. [39758]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The conference held on 20 September was attended as follows:

  NHS

  Greater Glasgow Health Board

  Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  Regional/District Councils

  Strathclyde Regional Council

  Glasgow City Council

  Strathkelvin District Council

  Private Providers

  AHP Rehabilitation Limited

  Alphonsus House

  Alternatives for Living Ltd.

  Bassingham Court Ltd.

  Care Solutions Ltd.

  Cause for Concern

  Community Care Company UK Ltd.

  Community Integrated Care

  Fairhome Care Group

  Homelife Options Ltd.

  Independent Living Ltd.

  Lifeways Community Care.

  Mariner Homes

  Milbury Care Services

  Raglin Ltd.

  Westminster Healthcare Ltd.

  Housing Agencies

  Cube Housing Association Limited

  GAP Housing Association

  Glen Oaks Housing Association

  Margaret Blackwood Housing Association

  Queens Cross Housing Association

  Shettleston Housing Association

  Springburn/Possilpark Housing Association

  West of Scotland Housing Association

  Yoker Housing Association

  Voluntary Organisations

  Archiocese of Glasgow

  Barlanark Community Business Ltd.

  British Red Cross

  Castlebrae Co-op

  Church of Scotland

  Community Enterprise

  Cornerstone Community Care

  193

  Crossroads Care Attendant Scheme

  Ealing Consortium

  Enable-Glasgow Branch

  Enable Homes

  Enable Services

  Fair Deal for 1 in 100

  Glasgow Community Development Service (Simon Duffy)

  Key Housing

  Leonard Cheshire Foundation

  McFarlane Homes

  Mentally Handicapped Trust

  Millburn Homes

  Outlook Project

  Quarriers

  Real Life Options

  Richmond Fellowship Scotland

  Royal National Institute for Deaf People

  Royal National Institute for the Blind

  SAM Housing Project

  Scottish Council for Spastics

  Sense Scotland

  SHARE

  Strathkelvin Contact Point

  The Scottish Society for Autistic Children

  Turning Point

  Vanguard Individual Support Agency

  YMCA Glasgow

  Members of the Public

  Three

  Grass (Hay and Silage)
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total area of grass for hay and silage recorded in the June agricultural census within the boundary of the Machair of the Uists, Barra and Vatersay environmentally sensitive area. [39837]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  In 1994, the total area of grass for moving for hay and silage production was 654.2 hectares. This figures includes an estimate for minor holdings.

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS trusts in Scotland have their board meetings(a) fully open to the public, (b) partially open to the public and (c) closed to the public. [39398]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: The information is as follows:

  (a) Open to the public: 6

  (b) Partially open to the public: 16

  (c) Closed to the public: 25

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much(a) NHS trusts and (b) health boards spent on public relations in the previous financial year. [39404]

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Health Board Area/NHS Trust Name

  Private patient income £000

  Percentage of total income

  Private patient income £000

  Percentage of total income

  Argyll and Clyde

  Inverclyde Royal

  n/a

  n/a

  27

  0.07

  Renfrewshire Healthcare

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0.00

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  2

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  194
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 26 October 1995]: This information is not held centrally.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources he has made available to promote the encouragement of liaison between parents and voluntary organisations and named persons' involvement as in accordance with the university of Edinburgh report to the Scottish Education Department on children with special educational needs. [40171]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The Scottish Office has committed considerable resources to the production of guidance for all those involved in the processes connected with records of needs to encourage the full involvement of parents and where appropriate voluntary organisations.

  The Scottish Office publication, "A Parent's Guide to Special Educational Needs", provides relevant information and guidance for parents, including an extensive list of appropriate contacts in the voluntary sector. Further, more detailed, guidance will be published shortly.

  The Scottish Office has also helped the national voluntary organisation, Children in Scotland, to establish the special needs forum, which provides information and training about special educational needs for parents and voluntary organisations. In 1994, with financial assistance from the Scottish Office, Children In Scotland published "A Special Partnership", a guidebook for named persons and parents to help them to participate more effectively in the recording processes.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish children with specific speech or language disorders are having their special educational needs met in residential establishments in England as a result of the lack of appropriate provision in Scotland. [40172]

  Mr. Robertson
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Private Patients
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by trust in each region, details of income from private patients for 1993–94 and 1994–95(a) as a total and (b) as a percentage of total trust income. [39949]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information, grouped by health board area, is set out in the table. The figures have been taken from NHS trust annual accounts. The figures for 1994–95 are provisional. Figures for Central Scotland Healthcare NHS trust include those for Royal Scottish National Hospital NHS trust, which dissolved on formation of the new trust on 1 October 1994. Figures for West Lothian NHS trust include charges to overseas visitors.
  195

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Health Board Area/NHS Trust Name

  Private patient income £000

  Percentage of total income

  Private patient income £000

  Percentage of total income

  Ayrshire and Arran

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare

  0

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  North Ayrshire and Arran

  46

  0.07

  46

  0.07

  South Ayrshire Hospitals

  69

  0.15

  123

  0.28

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals

  n/a

  n/a

  35

  0.09

  Fife

  Fife Healthcare

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0.00

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0.00

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0.00

  Forth Valley

  Central Scotland Healthcare

  0

  0.00

  16

  0.03

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  n/a

  n/a

  29

  0.08

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  33

  0.09

  24

  0.07

  Grampian

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals

  504

  0.44

  672

  0.70

  Grampian Healthcare

  37

  0.03

  11

  0.01

  Moray Health Services

  26

  0.11

  27

  0.11

  Greater Glasgow

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0.00

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0.00

  Southern General Hospital

  417

  0.53

  103

  0.14

  Stobhill

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0.00

  Victoria Infirmary

  17

  0.03

  0

  0.00

  West Glasgow Hospitals

  n/a

  n/a

  30

  0.03

  Yorkhill

  49

  0.09

  93

  0.20

  Highland

  Caithness and Sutherland

  1

  0.01

  19

  0.13

  Highland Communities

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0.00

  Raigmore Hospital

  114

  0.24

  157

  0.31

  Lanarkshire

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0.00

  Law Hospital

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0.00

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals

  0

  0.00

  0

  0.00

  Lothian

  East and Midlothian

  n/a

  n/a

  4

  0.01

  Edinburgh Healthcare

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0.00

  Edinburgh Sick Children's

  n/a

  n/a

  19

  0.09

  The Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  n/a

  n/a

  822

  0.67

  Western General Hospitals

  n/a

  n/a

  337

  0.56

  West Lothian

  29

  0.05

  69

  0.11

  Tayside

  Angus

  n/a

  n/a

  38

  0.10

  Dundee Healthcare

  n/a

  n/a

  0

  0.00

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  45

  0.04

  40

  0.05

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare

  n/a

  n/a

  154

  0.28

  Totals

  1,389

  0.14

  2,895

  0.11

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 18 July,Official Report, columns 1119–20, if he will now confirm and update the figures on private patient income. [39954]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The figures on private patient income for the period up to 1993–94 were provided in the previous answer of 24 November 1994,Official Report, columns 333–34. These figures were confirmed as final in the answer of 18 July, Official Report, columns 1119–20. Income figures for private patients for 1994–95 are provisional, and are set out in the
  196
  table. The figure for Lothian in 1994–95 includes overseas patients, and can therefore not be compared directly with those for earlier years.

  Health Boards

  1994–95 £000

  Agryll and Clyde

  27

  Aryshire and Arran

  169

  Borders

  52

  Dumfries and Galloway

  35

  Fife

  0

  197

  Health Boards

  1994–95 £000

  Forth Valley

  69

  Grampian

  710

  Greater Glasgow

  226

  Highland

  176

  Lanarkshire

  0

  Lothian

  1,251

  Orkney

  0

  Shetland

  0

  Tayside

  232

  Western Isles

  0

  Total

  2,947

  Health Boards (Audited Accounts)
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the underspend for the year 1994–95, (b) the initial reallocation for the year 1995–96 and (c) the revised reallocation for 1995–96 for each health board. [40313]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The audited accounts for health boards for 1994–95 have recently been received and are currently being analysed. Provisional figures for the underspend for each health board based on these accounts are set out in the table. There is only one reallocation which derives from these underspends, subject to parliamentary approval. For the year 1995–96 the reallocation is likely to be the major part of the underspend for 1994–95, but the precise figures have yet to be finalised.

  Health Board

  Underspend/(Overspend) £000

  Argyll and Clyde

  85

  Ayrshire and Arran

  828

  Borders

  816

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,453

  Fife

  1,197

  Forth Valley

  1,313

  Grampian

  1,373

  Greater Glasgow

  9,880

  Highland

  971

  Lanarkshire

  1,272

  Lothian

  3,057

  Orkney

  (2)

  Shetland

  106

  Tayside

  845

  Western Isles

  201

  Total

  23,395

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) surpluses and (b) deficits were recorded by each district health authority in 1994–95. [40661]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The audited accounts for health boards for 1994–95 have recently been received and are currently being analysed. Provisional figures for the surplus or deficit for each health board are set out in the table.
  198

  Health Board

  Underspend/(Overspend) £000

  Argyll and Clyde

  85

  Ayrshire and Arran

  828

  Borders

  816

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,453

  Fife

  1,197

  Forth Valley

  1,313

  Grampian

  1,373

  Greater Glasgow

  9,880

  Highland

  971

  Lanarkshire

  1,272

  Lothian

  3,057

  Orkney

  (2)

  Shetland

  106

  Tayside

  845

  Western Isles

  201

  Total

  23,395

  Barlinnie Prison
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on progress of the procurator fiscal's investigation into the report on prisoners who were allegedly beaten by prison officers in Her Majesty's prison, Barlinnie. [40314]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The procurators fiscal at Glasgow and Hamilton were responsible for the investigation of complaints by prisoners of assaults at, and on the way to, Barlinnie prison, Glasgow, which were the subject of a BBC Scotland television programme "Frontline Scotland" on 12 October 1995. The programme looked at the complaints of three prisoners. The evidence in each of these cases has been considered by Crown counsel in the normal way.

  In the case of William McKay, who alleged that he had been assaulted in January 1994, there was insufficient evidence to justify criminal proceedings against any person, and in October 1994 Crown counsel instructed that no criminal proceedings should be taken. The governor and Mr. McKay were told of that decision.

  In the case of James McGhee, who complained of assault, it has not as yet been possible to establish who was responsible for his injuries and Crown counsel has given the procurator fiscal instructions to pursue further lines of inquiry. Crown counsel has also given the procurator fiscal instructions concerning the complaint of Thomas Monaghan. It would not be appropriate for any further details to be given at this time in relation to the complaints of Mr. McGhee and Mr. Monaghan.

HEALTH

  National Blood Service
  Mr. John Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce his final decision on the reorganisation of the National Blood Service; and if he will make a statement. [38226]

  Mr. Sackville
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will announce the decision as soon as possible. We need to be fully satisfied that any proposals that are
  199
  adopted set the right direction for the future development of the National Blood Service.

  London Initiative Zone
  Mr. Robert Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress is being made on implementing London initiative zone projects in the north Thames region. [38228]

  Mr. Malone
  Since the London initiative zone was set up in 1993, an additional £124 million has been invested in developing primary care services through LIZ projects in north London. A substantial six-year programme is now under way to improve general practitioner surgeries and health centres, to increase the number of staff, and to provide better services for local people.

  Trust Chief Executives (Income)
  Mr. Frank Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average income of the top 10 highest paid chief executives. [38229]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on national health service chief executives' remuneration is published locally in all NHS employing authorities' annual accounts, but is not collated centrally.

  Total Purchasing Initiative
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what interest GPs have shown in the Government's total purchasing initiative. [38230]

  Mr. Malone
  Health authorities and fundholding general practitioners have shown considerable interest in this initiative. That is why we announced that we would extend the number of pilot projects in England from 51 to around 70 in total. We have also decided to extend the formal evaluation programme from two years to three.

  Doctors and Dentists
  Sir David Knox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors and dentists undertook national health service work at the most recent count; and what was the comparable figure in 1979. [38231]

  Mr. Malone
  The number of doctors and dentists undertaking national health service work has risen by 31 per cent., from 72,270 in 1979 to 94,730 in 1994, the most recent year for which figures are available.

  Tameside Hospital (Secure Accommodation)
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about provision of secure accommodation for disturbed patients in Tameside hospital. [38232]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Tameside development is one of seven high dependency units in the north-west region which, with medium secure units, will provide levels of care according to the security needs of the individual patient.

  Frozen Human Embryos
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is taking to safeguard surplus frozen human embryos from destruction. [38233]
  200
  Mr. Sackville
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 23 February 1995 Official Report, column 325. A report by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority about the statutory storage period for embryos is under consideration by Ministers.

  Nursing Profession
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he proposes to improve morale within the nursing profession. [38234]

  Mr. Sackville
  Well managed trusts and other national health service employers in the United Kingdom are fully aware of the importance of nurse morale in the delivery of high-quality patient care. NHS trusts now have greater freedoms than ever before to develop local pay and working arrangements which reflect more properly the valuable contribution of highly motivated and skilled nurses.

  Evidence of the present high nursing morale is reflected in the host of nursing-led initiatives currently in progress. These range from nurse-led clinics and nurse-led out-patient services, nursing beds for the chronically ill, pre-admission clinics, eight nurse prescribing schemes and the expanding range of nurse specialist posts including those of nurse practitioners.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about GP fundholding. [38235]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health gave earlier.

  Breast Cancer Services
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's response to the third report of the Health Select Committee on breast cancer services (HC324). [38236]

  Mr. Sackville
  The Government's response to the Health Select Committee's third report on breast cancer services was laid before Parliament on 18 October 1995, Cm 3007. Copies of the response are also available in the Library.

  Berkshire Health Commission
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the decision of Berkshire health commission to deny treatments previously made available on the national health service. [38237]

  Mr. Malone
  Berkshire health commission has issued a public discussion document setting out its proposed health care purchasing priorities for 1996–97. There are no blanket bans on treatments; each case will be considered on the basis of clinical need. Any significant changes in local services arising from the proposals will be the subject of further public consultation.

  NHS (Research and Development)
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is now being spent annually on research
  201
  and development in the NHS; and what were the comparable figures for the years 1975 to 1979. [38238]

  Mr. Malone
  In 1994–95, national health service research and research related expenditure, including that of the Department of Health, was estimated to be £385 million.

  No comparable figures are available for the years 1975–79.

  Waiting Times (City of Leicester)
  Mr. Janner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current waiting time in the city of Leicester for minor surgery. [38239]

  Mr. Malone
  Information in the form requested is not available centrally. Available data about waiting times for hospitals in Leicester can be found in "Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England", copies of which are available in the Library. The latest published figures are for March 1995.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from the boards of hospital trusts about the costs incurred preparing and presenting bids under the private finance initiative. [38240]

  Mr. Sackville
  None. It is for the private sector bidders to prepare and present their bids, and they bear their own costs in doing so. The national health service benefits from more cost-effective projects.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients are currently receiving treatment for glaucoma. [38157]

  Mr. Sackville
  More than 25,500 glaucoma patients received hospital in-patient or day care treatment last year, an increase of 48 per cent. since 1989–90. The number of out-patients or patients being treated for glaucoma by their general practitioners is not available centrally.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ill-health retirement pensions were awarded to NHS staff incapacitated by chronic fatigue syndrome in each of the last five years; and how many of these awards were made within two years of the disease being diagnosed for each of the last five years. [38575]

  Mr. Sackville
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the NHS Pensions Agency under its chief executive Mr. A. F. Cowan. I have asked him to reply to the hon. Member.

  Letter from A. F. Cowan to Mr. Jon Owen Jones, dated 31 October 1995:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions it falls within my area of responsibility.

  The information is not available in the format requested, because the Agency did not maintain separate records about CFS applications before 15 August 1994. Since then the Agency has
  202
  approved 19 cases as meeting our criteria for permanent incapacity. Of these, 11 awards were made within 2 years of the first diagnosis of CFS.

  Departmental Staff Travel
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many return trips during the last 12 months have been taken by his Department's staff between London and Leeds(a) per week, (b) per month and (c) annually; and at what cost. [39004]

  Mr. Sackville
  The total number of return trips by Department of Health staff between London and Leeds in the 12 months to September 1995 is estimated to be 4,730. The estimated travel costs of these journeys is £665,000. Relocation is expected to produce net savings of around £10 million per year after taking account of travel and other additional expenses.

  Angioplasty
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by regional health authority for the latest available year the number of patients who received balloon angioplasty, the initial success rate percentage and the percentage of patients returned to their doctors during the following six months with angina. [39489]

  Mr. Sackville
  The available information is shown in the table.

  The estimated number of finished consultant episodes for transluminal balloon angioplasty of the coronary artery in National Health Service hospitals in England for 1993–94:

  Region of treatment

  1993–94

  Northern

  372

  Yorkshire

  1,059

  Trent

  570

  East Anglian

  333

  North West Thames

  943

  North East Thames

  658

  South East Thames

  1,364

  South West Thames

  381

  Wessex

  632

  Oxford

  250

  South Western

  268

  West Midlands

  769

  Mersey

  445

  North Western

  439

  SHA's

  503

  England

  8,986

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics.

  National Blood Authority
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the National Blood Authority will be expected to demonstrate a 6 per cent. return on capital under the same arrangements as NHS trusts. [39792]

  Mr. Sackville
  The National Blood Authority is expected to achieve a 6 per cent. return on capital on the same basis as other health authorities.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide the figures for the number of patients who
  203
  are registered with dental practices in the Doncaster family health services area on (a) 30 June 1992, (b) 30 June 1993, (c) 30 June 1994 and (d) 30 June 1995. [39446]

  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table.

  General Dental Services: Number of patients registered in Doncaster Family Health Services Authority

  Year

  All patients

  30 June 1992

  173,328

  30 June 1993

  191,241

  30 June 1994

  193,062

  30 June 1995

  187,940

  Private Patients
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 July,Official Report, columns 1119–20, if he will now confirm and update the figures on private patient income. [39953]

  Mr. Sackville
  Figures for 1994–95 are not yet available.

  Osteopaths Act 1993
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he proposes to give effect to the provisions of the Osteopaths Act 1993. [39908]

  Mr. Sackville
  Work on establishing the General Osteopathic Council is proceeding well and we expect to be able to announce its membership shortly.

  Information Technology Systems
  Mr. Barron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many different information technology systems are currently in use within the NHS for data storage and retrieval; if standardised software and hardware exist for such information storage and retrieval; and what guidance his Department has issued in relation to common information technology systems. [40696]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the number of information technology systems in use in the national health service is not available centrally. The NHS Executive has developed a standards enforcement in procurement, STEP, process to ensure that information technology systems within the NHS in England conform to agreed IT standards. "NHS IT Standards in Procurement", issued on 1 April 1995 to all chief executives of NHS trusts in England contains statements of policy on standards in different areas of IT. This is the definitive statement of the nationally agreed standards and recommendations relevant to all aspects of IT in the NHS. Within these guidelines, NHS trusts are free to implement systems which best meet their individual needs.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes will be made to the cash limits of his Department in 1995–96. [41092]
  204
  Mr. Dorrell
  The cash limit for class XII vote 1—hospital, community health, family health services and related services, England—will be increased by £3,129,000 from £26,536,835,000 to £26,539,964,000. This allows for an increase of £4,465,000 in respect of a transfer from class XII, vote 2—Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England— for work on publicity campaigns, £2,986,000; for work of the Public Health Laboratory Service relating to immunoglobulin products, £810,000; and for the work of the Medical Devices Agency, £669,000. The overall increase is partially offset by £1,336,000 made up of transfers to class XIV, vote 12—hospital, community health, family health, part, and other health services, Scotland—for the work of the Prescription Pricing Authority, £840,000; and the London post-graduate teaching hospitals services, £246,000; and to class VII, vote 2—regeneration and countryside, England—for the urban programme, £250,000.

  The cash limit for class XII, vote 2—Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health services and personal social services, England—will be reduced by £4,570,000, from £1,283,948,000 to £1,279,378,000. This reduction allows for transfer of £4,465,000 to class XII, vote 1 as mentioned above and £105,000, running costs to class XIX, vote 3—Privy Council Office—for the central drug co-ordinating unit.

  The non-voted cash limit for supplementary credit approvals for personal social services—DoH/LACAP—in England is to be increased by £1,305,000 from £26,700,000 to £28,005,000 in respect of the take-up of entitlement to carry forward of underspends from 1994–95 financial year under the end-year flexibility arrangements as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 13 July 1995, Official Report, columns 776–82.

  The Department's gross running cost limit will be reduced by £105,000 from £239,455,000 to £239,350,000 as mentioned above.

  All increases will either be offset by savings, increased receipts or transfers to or from other votes or charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  GP Fundholding
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many GPs currently operate a fundholding budget; how many patients and how much money is involved; and if he will make a statement. [38646]

  Mr. Malone
  More than 10,400 general practitioners in England are currently fundholders. They serve more than 20 million patients—41 per cent. of the population—and control £3.4 billion of national health service resources.

  National Breast Cancer Campaign
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet a delegation from the National Breast Cancer Campaign to discuss increasing funding for research into the disease. [38592]

  Mr. Sackville
  If the hon. Member writes setting out his proposals, we would be happy to consider such a request.
  205

  Dietary Supplements
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the policy of the Medicines Control Agency in respect of consultation with consumers of dietary supplements prior to the finalisation and publication of the proposed Medicines Act leaflet, MAL 8; and what consultation has so far been undertaken with such consumers and practitioners organisations, with particular reference to the Society for the Promotion of Nutritional Therapy; [40105]

  (2) if he will make it his policy to protect the diversity and availability of vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements currently available to consumers by ensuring that the proposed Medicines Act leaflet, MAL 8, does not impose new regulatory burdens or systems of compulsory pharmaceutical licensing on manufacturers of such products; and what is the extent to which the provisions of MAL 8 will be consistent with the Government's policy of deregulation; [40106]

  (3) if he will make a statement indicating the extent to which the provisions of the proposed Medicines Act leaflet, MAL 8, will limit or otherwise affect the sale of dietary supplements currently sold legally; [40107]

  (4) if he will make it his policy that in interpreting article 1 of directive 65/65/EEC (a) foods, (b) vitamins, (c) minerals and (d) other products currently lawfully sold as a foodstuff or dietary supplement will not be reclassified as medicinal product by virtue solely of their capacity to restore normality to physiological functions; [40108]

  (5) in what circumstances vitamin, mineral and other dietary supplements currently lawfully sold as foodstuffs or dietary supplements will be reclassified as medicinal products requiring pharmaceutical product licences under the provisions of article 1 of directive 65/65/EEC. [40109]

  Mr. Sackville
  Medicines Act leaflet, MAL 8, provides guidance for industry on what is a medicinal product. It has no status in law. The Medicines Control Agency has discussed its proposals for updating it with the Proprietary Association of Great Britain, the British Herbal Manufacturers' Association, the Natural Medicines Manufacturers Association, the Health Foods Manufacturers' Association and the Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association. The proposals impose no new regulatory burdens on manufacturers of vitamins, minerals, and other dietary supplements currently sold legally.

  Products which are food, or which are foods for particular nutritional purposes, are considered under food safety legislation. Products sold as foodstuffs or dietary supplements are not necessarily considered as products to which the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations, Etc) Regulations 1994 apply solely because they have the capacity to restore normality to physiological functions. A product currently sold as a foodstuff or dietary supplement would be considered licensable only if, after careful assembly of all the facts of the individual case, it was considered to be a medicinal product to which the Medicines for Human Use (Marketing Authorisations, Etc) Regulations 1994 applied.
  206

  Paracetamol
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is taking to promote comethiamol to doctors and pharmacists as a safe alternative to paracetamol; [40402]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of deaths which could be avoided each year if comethiamol were to be sold and prescribed instead of paracetamol; [40401]

  (3) what research his Department has done on increasing the safety of paracetamol by adding methionine. [40403]

  Mr. Sackville
  Paracetamol is an effective pain killer which is safe at the dosage recommended on the labelling. Comethiamol is a combination of paracetamol and methionine and is currently available from pharmacists as Pameton.

  It is not appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to promote the use of a particular medicine. It is not correct to describe comethiamol as a safe alternative to paracetamol. The methionine component is likely to be of value only if an overdose is taken. People who use paracetamol as recommended would therefore unnecessarily be exposed to any side-effects the methionine might have, without deriving any benefit.

  Creutzfeldt Jakob Disease
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the incidence of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease in farmers; [40381]

  (2) what recent information he has received from the spongiform encephalopathy advisory committee on the subject of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease in dairy farmers. [40380]

  Mr. Sackville
  The spongiform encephalopathy advisory committees, SEAC, reviewed the reported suspect case of Creutzfeldt Jakob disease, CJD, in a farmer who has had a case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, in his beef suckler herd. Three previous CJD cases have been confirmed in dairy farmers whose herds had had cases of BSE.

  The committee concluded that it was difficult to explain this as simply a chance phenomenon. There is a statistical excess of cases in cattle farmers compared with the general population but the absolute risk, even for cattle farmers, is extremely low at about two cases per million per year. There may be other explanations for such an association besides infection with BSE, and the committee noted that there are no reported cases in other occupational groups such as veterinarians who might be expected to be similarly exposed. They also noted that surveillance of CJD elsewhere in Europe has shown a similar incidence of CJD in farmers, including dairy farmers, in countries with no or very few cases of BSE. They therefore felt that it was important to undertake further epidemiological studies to detect any particular risk factors which might be involved, and reiterated their advice that the UK cases of CJD in cattle farmers and the strain of the agent recovered from them should be studied in detail.
  207
  The committee has asked for further work to be done, but has not altered its advice to Government on the precautions necessary to protect either the public health, including farmers, or animal health.

  NHS Finance
  Mr. Milburn:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what (a) surpluses and (b) deficits were recorded by each district health authority in 1994–95. [40660]

  Mr. Sackville
  This information is not yet available.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 28 March to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)Official Report, column 568, what were the results of the market tests in the clinical and clinical support services listed; and if he will list the market testing plans. [40624]

  Mr. Sackville
  The previous plans, as placed in the Library, listed 58 proposals for market testing of 20 separate clinical support services, involving 15 trusts. The National Health Service Executive has been notified that eight of these trusts have completed market testing of a total of 11 such services, the outcome of which is shown in the table.

  NHS Trust

  Service

  Contractor

  Enfield Community Care

  Continuing Care-Elderly (Nursing Home)

  Haven Healthcare Ltd

  Bradford Community

  Sterile Services

  NHS supplies North East Region

  Calderdale Healthcare

  Sterile Services

  Vernon Carus

  Luton and Dunstable Hospital

  Prosthetics

  Camp Ltd

  Mulberry

  Pharmacy

  Pilgrim Hospital

  Heathlands Mental Health Services

  Pharmacy

  Frimley Park Hospital

  Brent and Harrow

  Clinical Genetics(coding)

  Birmingham Maternity Hospital

  Eastman Dental Hospital

  Haemotology

  National Hospital London

  Blackburn Hynburn and Ribble Valley

  Medical Photography

  Preston Acute Services NHS Trust

  Luton and Dunstable

  Orthotics

  Prostech Ltd

  Heathlands Mental Health

  Pathology

  Frimley Park Hospital

  Transplant Surgery
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients received transplant surgery for each organ in each health region for the year ended(a) 31 December 1992, (b) 1993, (c) 1994 and for the latest months for which data are available. [40620]

  Mr. Sackville
  The number of transplants carried out by organ and health region will be placed in the Library.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) of 17 July,Official Report, column 432, on transplant surgery, if he will provide comparable figures for 1992, 1993 and the latest month for which data are available. [40653]
  208
  Mr. Sackville
  Information will he placed in the Library for the years ending 31 December 1992, 1993 and to 30 September 1995. Heart, lung and liver transplantation are funded supra-regionally. Therefore, many patients appear on waiting lists in regions other than the one in which they are resident. This gives rise to variation between the numbers shown waiting in each region.

  Bed Blocking
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to collect data on bed blocking. [40729]

  Mr. Sackville
  Proposals to collect information routinely about delays in hospital discharge are currently being considered.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 12 December,Official Report, column 432, on market testing, if he will update the list of contracts awarded to the private sector. [40623]

  Mr. Sackville
  The following further contracts have been awarded to the private sector.

  Company

  NHS Pensions Agency: Information Systems Development

  Capita

  Storage and distribution of Printed Material

  Two-Ten Communications

  Security Guarding in Richmond House

  Burns International Security Services

  Various Minor Accommodation Matters

  Ferguson Bucknall Austin

  Aggregate information on tender values for the Department's programme to September 1994 were published in a Special Report of the "Market Testing Bulletin" on 9 January 1995.

  Residential Care
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the estimated cost in a full year of raising the threshold for contribution to the cost of residential care for the elderly from £8,000 to(a) £10,000, (b) £12,000, (c) £14,000 and (d) £16,000. [40769]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) on 27 October,Official Report, column 853.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Attorney-General how many times in each month of the current year he has met personally the heads of the agencies which report to him to discuss the work of those agencies. [39855]

  The Attorney-General
  The one agency for which I am responsible is Government Property Lawyers. This agency is supervised by the Treasury Solicitor, who meets
  209
  the chief executive to discuss the work of the agency on a regular basis. I have not myself met the chief executive this year, but I regularly meet the Treasury Solicitor to discuss the work of his Department and, as necessary, the work of Government Property Lawyers.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  United Kingdom Accreditation Service
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made with respect to transferring pre-paid fees liabilities from the National Measurement Accreditation Service to the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. [40975]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  An initial payment was made on 2 August 1995. Under the terms of the business transfer agreement, a second payment will be made on completion of the closing accounts.

  Parliamentary approval for this new service will be sought in a winter supplementary estimate for the Department of Trade and Industry's programmes and administration vote—class IV, vote 1. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £1,030,000 is being met by repayable advances from the contingencies fund.

  Mr. Mans
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the establishment of the United Kingdom Accreditation Service. [40974]

  Mr. Taylor
  The United Kingdom Accreditation Service became operational on 1 August. UKAS has taken over the work of the National Measurement Accreditation Service— formerly part of an executive agency within the Department of Trade and Industry—and the National Accreditation Council for Certification Bodies, a council of the British Standards Institution. It provides a unified national accreditation service for laboratories performing tests and calibrations as well as bodies undertaking the certification of products, personnel or systems, including environmental management and audit systems.

  UKAS has been established as a private sector company limited by guarantee. Its membership comprises bodies which, when taken together, provide a balance of accreditation interests—direct customers, business customers for testing and certification, end-users of products and services and Government. A memorandum of understanding with the Department recognises its unique national role in specified areas of accreditation. UKAS will issue accreditation certificates using the familiar NAMAS and NACCB logos incorporating the Crown, provided that it complies with the terms of a licensing agreement requiring it to operate with integrity and impartiality, and in strict compliance with national and international regulations and standards.

  This development follows a public consultation during 1994 on the future provision of accreditation services in the United Kingdom, and the Government's decision in December 1994 to merge NAMAS and NACCB to form a company limited by guarantee in the course of 1995.
  210

  Radiocommunications Agency
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will announce the results of the review of the local offices of the Radiocommunications Agency. [40976]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My predecessor accepted the recommendations of an internal review by Coopers and Lybrand not to contract out the enforcement and monitoring work of the agency's local offices. I have recently received, and accepted the findings of, a related efficiency study by PA Consulting Group, which will result in savings of about 2.5 per cent. of the agency's running costs. The PA report proposes a reduction in the number of the agency's representative offices. PA believes that greater concentration of managerial and support staff in fewer locations should improve customers' service levels. The field force of technical staff was found to operate with efficiency comparable to private sector best practice and remain in place throughout the UK and Northern Ireland.

  Lloyd's (Resignations)
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will regulate, under the Insurance Companies Act 1982, the insurance affairs of those resigning from membership of Lloyd's. [40977]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  In view of the changes proposed in Lloyd's reconstruction and renewal plan to the reinsurance arrangements that names must enter into before resigning their membership of Lloyd's, I have reviewed the way in which the Insurance Companies Act should apply to those who resign their membership.

  Former members of Lloyd's are technically still carrying on insurance business, in that they are potentially liable to meet claims on policies taken out while they were active underwriting members of the society, until all liabilities on those policies have been extinguished. This remains the case even though policies are being handled by agents. In consequence, former names' insurance activities fall to be regulated by the Secretary of State in accordance with the provisions of part II of the Act, in order to protect the interest of policyholders.

  Where names resign having reinsured all their remaining liabilities with Equitas, provided it is authorised and/or with successor syndicates in Lloyd's, the interests of policyholders are fully protected for as long as Equitas and/or Lloyd's, as the case may be, remain solvent and continue to pay policyholders' claims without funds passing through the former names. In the light of the contingent nature of the insurance business being conducted, I should be prepared to make an order under section 68 of the Act which, for as long as these conditions are satisfied, would set the minimum regulatory arrangements consistent with the law. Effectively, these will require only the return of an annual notification of the address of names for communications purposes. Names are, in any case, likely to want to keep in touch with Lloyd's in order to obtain any repayment from surplus funds which might arise in Equitas. I intend to appoint Lloyd's as my agent for the receipt of these returns. In the hypothetical situation of Equitas or Lloyd's ceasing to be solvent, these arrangements will facilitate

  211
  introduction of such regulation of the former names' insurance activities as I consider will best protect the interests of policyholders at the time.

  These arrangements will apply to all those whose resignation from membership of Lloyd's takes effect after today, whether or not they have already given Lloyd's notice of their intention to resign. It would, however, be disproportionate to introduce such arrangements for those who have already effected resignation from Lloyd's, and the requirement to provide annual confirmation of their address will therefore not apply to them. This distinction relates to regulatory requirements only. It does not change the residual contingent responsibilities for insurance of any names, whether or not they have already resigned from Lloyd's.

  Natural Engineering Laboratory
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the sale of the National Engineering Laboratory. [39781]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The intention to privatise NEL was announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) on 14 April 1994. An invitation to tender was issued early this year, following which three bids were received.

  On 7 August 1995, ASL was selected as the preferred bidder, following extensive evaluation against the Department's objectives for the sale and a wide range of quantitative, technical and financial criteria which demonstrated that its bid represented the best value for money option for the Department. The consideration will be a negative £1.95 million, to be adjusted subsequently in the light of the level of net current assets at completion. All the staff in the undertaking at completion will transfer to ASL.

  This represents a highly satisfactory outcome for the Government and for NEL. ASL's strengths complement those of NEL and it proposes to build on all of its activities to enable it to compete successfully in world markets, as well as ensuring that the Department's need for flow measurement under the national measurement system continue to be met.

  Employee Fraud
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade 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 these years, what was the total monetary sum (1) misappropriated in such frauds and (2) subsequently recovered. [39129]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  [holding answer 24 October 1995]: The answer is set out in the table:

  Department

  Agencies

  NDPBs

  1991–92

  Cases

  1

  —

  —

  Value

  £100

  —

  —

  Recovered

  £100

  —

  —

  1992–93

  Cases

  1

  1

  2

  Value

  £150

  £35

  £29.199

  Recovered

  £150

  £130

  £4.500

  212

  Department

  Agencies

  NDPBs

  1993–94

  Cases

  1

  1

  2

  Value

  £396

  £2,961

  £6.414

  Recovered

  £nil

  £2,961

  £1.414

  1994–95

  Cases

  —

  2

  —

  Value

  —

  £99

  —

  Recovered

  —

  £99

  —

  Citizens Advice Bureaux
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people used citizens advice bureaux during(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95. [40246]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The number of people who visited citizens advice bureaux for each year since 1992–93 is:

  Year

  Million

  1992–93

  7.748

  1993–94

  5.689

  1994–94

  5.388

  Source:

  National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux (NACAB) annual reports 1992–93 and 1994–95.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of his Department's total annual budget is spent currently on funding the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux; and what were the figures for(a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94 and (c) 1994–95. [40244]

  Mr. Evans
  The percentage of the Department of Trade and Industry's total annual budget spent on funding the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, based on the cash plans table published in Cm 2804, in each year since 1992–93 was:

  Year

  Per cent.

  1992–93

  0.9

  1993–94

  1.0

  1994–95

  0.9

  1995–96

  0.9

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has to increase his Department's annual funding of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. [40245]

  Mr. Evans
  It is too early to predict the outcome of the current public expenditure survey so no decisions have yet been taken on the future level of funding of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.

  Illegal European Subsidies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current situation in respect of the repayment of illegal subsidies to Belgium by Beaulieu and
  213
  its subsidiary Fabelta since the ruling of the European Court of Justice in February 1990; what level of repayment has been made to date; and if he will make a statement. [39441]

  Mr. Page
  My Department has been informed by the Commission that, in accordance with the Court of Justice's judgment of 21 February 1990, the Belgian Government took action to recover the state aid awarded to the company, which the Commission had decided was incompatible with the common market. By judgment dated 25 February 1994, the commercial court of Ghent required the company to repay the aid with interest, and to pay the costs of the proceedings. The company has appealed but, pending the outcome of the appeal and as required by the judgment of the commercial court, it has paid the relevant amount—Bfr 1,088,898,853—into a ring-fenced account. The Commission and my Department continue to monitor developments closely.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Veterinary Agencies
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of the Central Veterinary Laboratory and the Veterinary Investigation Service. [40973]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  In a written reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) on 4 May,Official Report, columns 314–16, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) announced the planned merger of the Central Veterinary Laboratory with the Veterinary Investigation Service in England and Wales to create an enlarged and strengthened executive agency. The new agency was launched on 1 October. It will be known as the Veterinary Laboratories Agency.

  The VLA is well equipped to provide my Department with a comprehensive range of high-quality veterinary and scientific support and advice, and to meet both strategy and policy objectives in the fields of animal health and welfare, food safety and the environment. The merger will enable the agency to provide a more efficient and integrated service by reducing overheads, providing greater flexibility and exploiting synergies to further research and development, diagnostic services, surveillance and the investigation of new and emerging diseases.

  Copies of the agency's framework document have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Performance targets for the VLA will be announced at the start of the 1996–97 financial year. The 1995–96 targets announced in April this year for the CVL will continue to apply to the relevant parts of the enlarged agency.

  European Fisheries Council
  Dame Peggy Fenner
  Agriculture, Fisheries and statement on the European 26 October. To ask the Minister of Food if he will make a Fisheries Council held on [40972]
  214
  Mr. Baldry
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 26 October.

  The Council agreed new measures to monitor and control fishing effort in western waters from 1 January 1996. Our objectives were to secure arrangements which will be effective in ensuring that fishing activities by all member states in western waters are managed satisfactorily and that fishing effort in these waters is not increased to the detriment of our industry. At the same time, we were concerned to ensure that the arrangements should not impose an excessive burden on the fishing industry. The agreement unanimously approved by the Council of Ministers reflected our concerns and strikes the right balance between the objectives of control and avoidance of excessive regulation. It is the package which I commended to the House on 23 October.

  The Council also agreed by qualified majority, with Germany voting against, to continue the provision of Community financial assistance to member states for fisheries enforcement for a further five years when the current arrangements expire at the end of the year. The measures include special assistance for Ireland, as agreed at last December's Fisheries Council, in recognition of the exceptional demands and costs involved in undertaking enforcement in the waters of the Republic of Ireland. These waters include the majority of the Irish box.

  Minister welcomed the agreement on straddling and high migratory fish stocks achieved in New York in August. This agreement usefully lays down rules for the effective conservation and management of stocks and I am gratified that the Council endorsed the importance of its early ratification when it opens for signature in December.

  The Council discussed the continuing negotiations with Morocco to enable Community fishermen to return to Moroccan waters. Nearly 700 Spanish and Portuguese vessels which formerly fished off Morocco have been confined to port since May. The Council agreed unanimously that payments should be made to the fishermen concerned to offset their losses. This is an exceptional measure applying for a limited period. As it will be funded from within the existing budget, it does not involve new financial provision.

  The Council also welcomed a Commission report on progress in implementing the multi-annual guidance programmes and in particular the reductions in fishing capacity that have been achieved. The Commission will now be carrying out wide consultations in preparation for the establishment of the next round of programmes to start in January 1997.

  Civil Servants (Travel Allowances)
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what rates of travel allowance may be claimed by civil servants in his Department when using their own vehicles for official business. [36373]
  215
  Mr. Boswell
  The following standard rates of motor mileage allowance are payable to staff in core MAFF and PSD who use their own vehicles on official business in 1995–96:

  Up to 1,500 cc

  1,501–2,000 cc

  Over 2,000 cc

  Up to 5,000 miles

  36p/mile

  45p/mile

  48p/mile

  Over 5,000 miles

  24p/mile

  28p/mile

  37p/mile

  Alternatively, a rate of 24.2p/mile is payable in respect of cars for which only third party insurance is held or where use of the car is not essential for official business. Separate rates are payable to the very small number of staff who ride their own motor cycles on official business.

  Agencies have responsibility for these matters and will be replying direct where their position is not covered above.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 31 August 1995:

  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on rates of travel allowance which may be claimed by staff in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (previously the Central Veterinary Laboratory). [36373]

  The following standard rates of motor mileage allowance are payable in 1995/96 to staff in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency who use their own vehicles on official business:

  Pence per mile

  Up to 1500 cc

  1501–2000cc

  Over 2000 cc

  Up to 5000 miles

  36

  45

  48

  Over 5000 miles

  24

  28

  37

  Alternatively, a rate of 24.2 pence per mile is payable in respect of cars for which only third party insurance is held or where use of the car is not essential for official business. Separate rates are payable to any staff who ride their own motorcycles on official business.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 31 October 1995:

  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), your questions regarding travel and subsistence costs for civil servants have been passed to me to respond to with regard to this Executive Agency. As you may know, the MHS was established on 1 April this year. Therefore, we have no figures to give you for previous financial years. Any such costs that were incurred in setting up this Agency prior to 1 April will be included in core-MAFF's reply. [36373]

  The MHS transferred the majority of its circa 1000 staff from local authorities. These staff brought with them under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) varying conditions of service, including vastly different mileage rates. These are now being standardised into the amounts quoted below.

  The rates of allowance for MHS staff are being set for 'casual' users at 35p per mile for the first 5000 miles in a year, and 23p per mile thereafter. We also operate an 'essential' users scheme which we inherited from local authorities for 170 of the staff who transferred to the MHS. These rates for the current financial year are up to 34.7p per mile for the first 11,000 miles, 12.7p thereafter, in England and Wales, less for smaller sized vehicles. In Scotland, the rates are 35.1p per mile in the first instance, 13.2p thereafter. Again there are lower rates for smaller vehicles. Additionally, these employees are at this time paid a lump sum of between £645 and
  216
  £1158 per annum dependent on the size of vehicle and whether they are in England, Wales or Scotland, to use their cars under this scheme. These amounts will reduce at 1 April 1996 to between £513 and £750.

  Letter from Phillip Needham to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 31 October 1995:

  The Minister of Agriculture has asked me to reply direct to you in answer to your question number 1762. In this you asked me what rates of travel allowance may be claimed by Civil Servants in his Department when using their own vehicles for official business. [36373]

  ADAS was formed as a Next Steps Agency in April 1992. The Agency employs approximately 1,600 consultants who provide a commercial service to all parts of the land related industries, as well as government customers. Wherever possible, staff are encouraged to use the hire car facilities that the Agency has negotiated.

  When staff use their own vehicles they are paid at the rate of 44p for the first 5,000 miles travelled on official business. Thereafter they are paid at the rat of 29p per mile. These payments are taxable.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 31 October 1995:

  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your question about the rates of travel allowance which may be claimed by staff in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate when using their own vehicles on official business as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible. [36373]

  In 1995/96, the following rates of motor mileage allowance are payable:

  Up to 1500 cc

  1501–2000cc

  Over 2000 cc

  Up to 15,000 miles (p/mile)

  36

  45

  48

  Over 5,000 miles (p/mile)

  24

  28

  37

  Where only third party insurance is held or where travel by car is not essential for official business, a rate of 24.2p/mile is payable.

  Although no VMD staff have used motorcycles on official business in the past, separate motorcycle rates are payable as follows:

  Engine size up to 125cc

  Engine size over 125 cc

  Up to 4,000 miles

  (a) third party insurance (p/mile)

  15.1

  23.6

  (b) Comprehensive insurance (p/mile)

  16.8

  27.0

  Over 4,000 miles (p/mile)

  5,4

  9.3

  The third party rate also applies when travel by motorcycle is not essential for official business.

  Finally, a pedal cycle allowance of 6.3 p/mile is also payable when used for official business, although no VMD staff have claimed such an allowance to date.

  Dr. Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the total cost of travel expenses claimed by civil servants using their own vehicles for official business in each of the last five years in his Department; and what would have been the saving in the last year if the maximum rate that could be claimed was set at the lowest rate. [36374]
  217
  Mr. Boswell
  The total cost of paying motor mileage allowances to those staff who used their own cars on official business in each of the last five years is as follows:

  Year

  Amount (£000)

  1991–91 (i)1

  6,698.0

  1991–92 (ii)1

  6,596.0

  1992–93 (ii)2

  3,426.0

  1993–94 (ii)2

  3,771.0

  1994–95 (iii)3

  3,798.0

  1 Figures include all MAFF Agencies.

  2 Agencies included are the Veterinary Medicines Directorate and Pesticides Safety Directorate (the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, Veterinary Laboratories Agency and Central Science Laboratory are not included).

  3 Figures are for core-Department and PSD only.

  For purposes of comparison, the costs of paying the maximum rates—standard rate mileage allowances for cars of over 2,000 cc—have been compared with the costs that would have been incurred had the standard rates applying to cars of up to 1,500 cc and 1,501 to 2,000 cc been paid instead. On this basis, the savings that would have resulted in 1994–95 are estimated at £106,000 and £47,000 respectively in core MAFF, PSD and VMD. Public transport rate has not been used as a basis for comparison as the conditions attaching to its payment are different from those for standard rates.

  Agencies now have responsibility for these matters and where their position is not covered above will be replying direct.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 31 October 1995:

  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on travel expenses claimed by staff in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (previously the Central Veterinary Laboratory until 30 September 1995), using their own vehicles. [36374]

  The total cost of paying motor mileage allowances to those staff in what was then the Central Veterinary Laboratory who used their own cars on official business in each of the last three years is as follows:

  Year

  Cost £

  1992–93

  10,710.37

  1993–94

  14,494.13

  1994–95

  14,461.62

  Previous years included in the reply from core-MAFF. For purposes of comparison, the costs of paying maximum rates (standard rate mileage allowances for cars over 2000 cc) have been compared with the costs that would have been incurred had the standard rates applying to cars of up to 1500 cc and 1501–2000 cc been paid instead. On this basis the savings that would have resulted in 1994–95 are estimated at £688 and £340 respectively for CVL. Public transport rate has not been used as a basis for comparison since the conditions attached to its payment are different from those for standard rates.

  Letter from Phillip Needham to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 31 October 1995:

  The Minister of Agriculture has asked me to reply direct to your question number 1768. In this you asked him to list the total cost of travel expenses claimed by Civil Servants using their own vehicles for official business in each of the last five years. You also wished to know the saving in the last year if the maximum rate that could be claimed were set at the lowest rate. [36374]
  218
  ADAS was formed as a Next Steps Agency in 1992. Details of claims prior to this period will be contained in the answer from the Core Department. Travel by car is undertaken by staff as part of their work providing commercial consultancy services to a broad range of clients including Government departments. The expenditure on official mileage since that date is as follows:

  1992–93: £3,087,973

  1993–94: £3,354,264

  1994–95: £3,265,352

  During the last year, if we had paid the highest rate at the lowest rate (i.e. paying all mileage at the lowest rate currently 29p) there would have been a saving of £118,814. This figure is a total for each of the three bands of vehicle engine size.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 31 October 1995:

  The Parliamentary Secretary has asked me to reply to your question about the total cost of travel expenses claimed by staff in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate in each of the last five years when using their own vehicles on official business, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible. [36374]

  I am afraid information for 1990/91 is not separately identifiable. but the details requested for the four subsequent years is set out below:

  1991–92: £5,309.49

  1992–93: £8,009.35

  1993–94: £6,617.15

  1994–95: £9,723,48

  You also asked what would have been the saving in the last year if the maximum rate that could be claimed was set at the lowest rate. Unfortunately this cannot be separately identified for the Directorate other than at disproportionate cost, but VMD has been covered in the reply to this part of your question by the Parliamentary Secretary, along with core MAFF and the Pesticides Safety Directorate.

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Dr. Lynne Jones dated 31 October 1995:

  TRAVEL EXPENSES OF CIVIL SERVANTS USING THEIR OWN VEHICLES FOR OFFICIAL BUSINESS

  You asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food two questions in relation to Civil Servants using their own cars for official business. The Minister has asked me to reply to you as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible. [36373 and 36374]

  The Central Science Laboratory (CSL) was first launched as an executive agency of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) in April 1992. As a result I can only provide annual costs of travel expenses for CSL staff using their own vehicles for official business from 1992–93. Earlier figures are included in the Departmental total. Further, CSL was re-launched as an enlarged agency in April 1994 following its merger with the MAFF Food Science Laboratories. This partly explains the marked increase in the total cost of such travel expenses for 1994–95 over the two earlier years. At the same time CSL's National Bee Unit took on additional responsibility for regional bee work and this significantly increased the number of travel claims.

  Total are as follows:

  1992–93: £57.88K

  1993–94: £71.45K

  1994–95: £156.53K

  The saving in the last year, if the maximum rate that could be claimed was set at either of the lower rates applying to cars of up to 1,500cc and 1,501–2,000cc, would have been £1,167 or £291 respectively. These figures may appear low, but a relatively low mileage was claimed on vehicles over 2,000cc. Public transport rate has not been used as a basis for comparison as the conditions attaching to its payment are different to those for standard rates.
  219
  The current standard mileage allowances for cars, which came into effect on 1 April 1995, is:

  Up to 5,000 miles

  Over 5,000 miles

  Up to 1,500 cc

  36 p/mile

  24 p/mile

  1,501–2,000 cc

  45 p/mile

  28 p/mile

  Over 2,000 cc

  48 p/mile

  37 p/mile

  The public transport rate for all cars is 24.2 pence per mile.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what factors led to the issuing of an export certificate for a consignment of sheep exported on 17 May from Shoreham to Dieppe containing a heavily pregnant ewe; and what action he proposes to take against those involved in allowing the export of the ewe to take place; [38711]

  (2) what action his Department proposes to take in respect of those occasions when the Northern Cruiser sailed from Dover in excessively rough conditions with lorries containing livestock; [38710]

  (3) what action he proposes to take over the deaths of two sheep that occurred during their export to France from Shoreham on 17 May. [38694]

  Mrs Browning
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks) on 25 October 1995,Official Report, columns 697–98.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance is issued to veterinarians in cases where illness and death in animals could result from infection by a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. [38550]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 30 October 1995]: Health and safety guidelines drawn up by the British Veterinary Association and MAFF in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive were distributed to all large animal veterinary practices early in 1990. The advisory note for farmers on BSE, issued by this Department in June 1990, was also made available to all large and mixed animal veterinary practices. Copies of MAFF's booklets "BSE and the protection of human health" and "BSE and the protection of animal health" were also distributed to all local veterinary inspectors involved with animal disease work in late 1994. I have placed copies of all of these in the Library of the House. In addition, the State Veterinary Service's own instructions on BSE are available to the general public from MAFFs Whitehall library.

  Veterinary practitioners are also encouraged to seek advice from their local divisional veterinary manager in any unusual or difficult circumstances or on matters outwith their experience.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield of 15 February,Official Report, column 715–16, if he will make a statement on the nature of treatment of specified bovine offal at rendering plants and their subsequent fate. [38560]
  220
  Mr. Browning
  The Specified Bovine Offal Order 1995 requires all rendering plants handling specified bovine offal to meet clearly defined structural and hygiene standards and to be capable of processing SBO using one of the time-temperature combination methods described in that order before being approved by the appropriate Minister. The processing methods are defined in Commission decision 94/382 which sets standards for rendering ruminant material.

  The operator of an approved rendering plant is required to keep a record of the weight of SBO delivered, the date of delivery and the place from which it was consigned for two years from the date of arrival. The operator of an approved rendering plant is required to ensure that all SBO in the rendering plant is kept and stored separately from all other material, and handled and rendered separately from all other material. Those rendering plants which have indicated their intention to continue to process SBO after 15 February 1996 will have to install dedicated processing lines for SBOs by that date to comply with the Order. These lines must also meet the standards for rendering ruminant material defined in Commission Decision 94/382.

  After the SBO has been rendered, the plant operator is required to ensure that the resulting protein and tallow are placed in separate containers labelled as holding SBO. Protein must be disposed of as specified in the renderer's approval or by burial at a land-fill site holding a current waste management licence or by sending to an approved incinerator. Tallow must be sent for purposes not connected with the preparation of food or feedingstuffs, for burial to a registered landfill site holding a current waste management licence or for treatment by thermal hydrolysis.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wakefield of 31 January,Official Report, column 645–46 what is the scientific evidence to show that the great majority of feed cases born after the ban have probably been exposed to ruminant protein in feed; and if he will make a statement. [38561]

  Mrs. Browning
  The number of animals affected with BSE that were born after the feed ban is relatively small compared with the number born prior to the ban. As at 24 October 1995, there have been 22,946 cases confirmed in animals born after the ban or—BABs—10,689 cases born in July to December 1988, 9,364 born in 1989, 2,425 born in 1990, 461 born in 1991, six in 1992 and one in 1993—compared with the total number of BSE cases confirmed to 24 October 1995 of 154,150. Of cases born after the ban, 87 per cent. are in animals born in 1988 and 1989 when feed manufactured before the ban was still in the animal feed chain.

  A number of pieces of evidence together indicate the role of feed in transmitting infection to animals born after the ban. First, the infectivity of cattle brain from animals with BSE has been demonstrated in a pathogenesis study when it is fed to calves. Secondly, the infectivity of rendered ruminant waste which included brain from clinically affected cattle has been demonstrated in experiments looking at various rendering mechanisms and conditions. Thirdly, the case control study of BABs born after 31 October 1988 found no evidence that any

  221
  methods of transmission, other than feed, which was not included in the study, was occurring at a frequency capable of maintaining the epidemic. In particular, the study found no statistically significant evidence that maternal transmission occurred. Fourthly, analysis of the geographical incidence of BSE in home-bred animals shows that the proportion of cases of BSE in the northern and eastern regions of England, where the ratio of pigs and poultry to cattle is greatest, has increased relative to the rest of Britain. This change is consistent with the contamination of cattle feed stuffs by pig or poultry feed stuffs, or ingredients used to prepare them, having occurred in premises which produce both ruminant and monogastric rations. It was permissible to feed protein derived from specified bovine offals to non-ruminant species until 25 September 1990.

  Finally, there is evidence that there have been failings in the handling of SBOs after removal from the carcase which could have resulted in these offals entering the animal feed chain. Details were given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) on 19 July 1995, Official Report, column 1467.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the number of(a) confirmed BSE cases and (b) BSE cases placed on restriction and slaughtered for the periods (i) 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990, (ii) 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991, (iii) 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992, (iv) 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, (v) 1 april 1993 to 31 March 1994 and (vi) 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995; and what compensation was claimed. [38562]

  Mrs. Browning
  The following table shows the number of BSE suspects placed under restriction and subsequently slaughtered, the number of confirmed cases of BSE and the total BSE compensation paid:

  Number of BSE suspects placed under restriction and subsequently slaughtered

  Of these, number of confirmed BSE cases

  Total BSE compensation paid £

  1 April 1989–31 March 1990

  10,275

  9,192

  4,027,644

  1 April 1990–31 March 1991

  18,479

  15,805

  10,663,129

  1 April 1991–31 March 1992

  33,805

  29,535

  20,125,665

  1 April 1992–31 March 1993

  43,411

  37,116

  32,366,239

  1 April 1993–31 March 1994

  38,186

  32,051

  37,003,654

  1 April 1994–31 March 1995

  24,163

  20,549

  19,822,185

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many BSE cases born in each month since July 1988 were subsequently confirmed. [38613]

  Mrs. Browning
  The following table shows the number of confirmed cases of BSE born in each month since July 1988:222

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  January

  —

  878

  333

  67

  2

  —

  February

  —

  377

  173

  26

  2

  —

  March

  —

  477

  154

  36

  1

  —

  April

  —

  312

  108

  27

  —

  —

  May

  —

  234

  89

  27

  —

  —

  June

  —

  506

  140

  34

  —

  1

  July

  466

  868

  272

  68

  —

  —

  August

  2,536

  1,710

  385

  76

  1

  —

  September

  3,258

  1,765

  350

  56

  —

  —

  October

  2,209

  1,115

  207

  20

  —

  —

  November

  1,270

  659

  112

  17

  —

  —

  December

  950

  463

  102

  7

  —

  —

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many(a) confirmed and (b) suspected but not confirmed BSE cases in each year were born of dams which has subsequently also been confirmed as suffering from BSE. [38563]

  Mrs. Browning
  The following table shows the number of animals restricted as BSE suspects in each year from 1989 and subsequently slaughtered, which were born of dams which have been confirmed as suffering from BSE:

  Year

  BSE confirmed

  BSE not confirmed

  1989

  4

  2

  1990

  30

  8

  1991

  91

  20

  1992

  184

  20

  1993

  281

  49

  1994

  382

  41

  1985

  159

  17

  Data are not available for years before 1989. The 1995 data are complete to 24 October.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many suspected BSE cases were placed under restrictions in the periods(a) 1 April 1989 to 31 March 1990, (b) 1 April 1990 to 31 March 1991, (c) 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1992, (d) 1 April 1992 to 31 March 1993, (e) 1 April 1993 to 31 March 1994 and (f) 1 April 1994 to 31 March 1995; what compensation was claimed; in how many suspect cases in each period the restriction order was subsequently withdrawn following further veterinary inspection; and what compensation was claimed. [38565]

  Mrs. Browning
  The following table shows the number of suspected BSE cases placed under restriction and the number of restriction orders withdrawn:

  Number of cattle placed under restriction

  Number of restriction orders withdrawn

  1 April 1989–31 March 1990

  10,855

  461

  1 April 1990–31 March 1991

  19,418

  743

  1 April 1991–31 March 1992

  35,306

  1,142

  1 April 1992–31 March 1993

  45,569

  1,754

  1 April 1993–31 March 1994

  40,500

  1,907

  1 April 1994–31 March 1995

  25,639

  1,244

  223
  The total amount of BSE compensation paid in each of the periods is set out in my earlier reply to the hon. Gentleman. No compensation is payable on animals restricted as BSE suspects but subsequently released from that restriction following further veterinary inspection.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the number of animals infected with BSE which have found their way into the human food chain. [40379]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department is aware of 1,104 cases of BSE which occurred prior to 7 August 1988 when the compulsory slaughter and destruction of suspects was instituted. Before that date it was permissible for these cattle—with the exception of the brain, which was used to confirm the clinical diagnosis—to be used for human consumption but we do not know what proportion of that total was used for human consumption. Many of these animals were sent to veterinary investigation centres, and the carcases incinerated; others would have been in such poor condition that they would not have produced meat fit for human consumption. It is not possible to make anything other than extremely speculative estimates of the number of animals which would at some stage in their lives have succumbed to BSE if they had not died for some other reason, or been slaughtered.

  From 13 November 1989, in England and Wales and 30 January 1990 in Scotland, specified bovine offals, the tissues considered most likely to contain the infective agent, have been removed from all cattle over six months of age at slaughter.

  Farmers (Suicides)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many suicides there have been in each of the three counties of Yorkshire and the Humberside farming community in each of the past four years. [39043]

  Mr. Boswell
  Deaths from suicide in the Yorkshire and Humberside farming community in each of the past four years for which firm data are available are shown in the table.

  North Yorkshire

  South Yorkshire

  West Yorkshire

  Humberside

  1989

  1

  —

  2

  3

  1990

  9

  1

  —

  6

  1991

  5

  2

  2

  2

  1992

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Suicide codes are ICD91 E950–E959 and E980–E989 excluding E988.8

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision

  Members of the farming community are defined as classification of occupation (1980) codes 107 (farm owners and managers), 166, 169 and 172 (farm workers, agricultural machinery drivers and operatives and all other occupations in farming) for the period 1989–90, and standard occupational classification codes 160 (farm owners and managers), 900, 901 and 902 (farm workers, agricultural machinery drivers and operatives and all other occupations in farming) for the period 1991–1992.
  224

  Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  Mr. Macdonald
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many environmentally sensitive area management agreements have been approved in the lake district environmentally sensitive area involving payments in year 1 of the plan of(a) £0–£1,000, (b) £1,001–£2,000, (c) £2001–£3,000, (d) £3,001–£4,000, (e) £4,001–£5,000, (f) £5,001–£6,000 and (g) £6,001 or over. [39834]

  Mr. Boswell
  The number of payments made in each band is as follows:

  Payment band

  Number of first year payments

  £0–£ 1,000

  219

  £l,001–£2,000

  183

  £2,001–£3,000

  152

  £3,001–£4,000

  79

  £4,001–£5,000

  42

  £5,001–£6,000

  34

  £6,001 and over

  114

  Total

  823

  These payments details relate to the first two schemes years of the lake district ESA—1993 and 1994.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the present effects on farming in the United Kingdom of the Chernobyl disaster; and if he will make a statement. [39757]

  Mrs. Browning
  Following the Chernobyl accident, affected areas of the United Kingdom—parts of Northern Ireland, Scotland, North Wales and Cumbria—were subjected to statutory restrictions so as to prevent the sale of sheepmeat containing levels of radiocaesium in excess of 1,000 bq/kg. These restrictions were designed to protect the food chain and ensure that normal sheep marketing practices within restricted ares could continue with minimum disruption to farm businesses. They have since been reviewed on a regular basis, and have been progressively removed wherever the monitoring of sheep has revealed residual radioactivity to have declined to within acceptable levels. Further intensive monitoring in the affected areas is nearing completion and an announcement of the results and possible lifting of some restrictions can be expected early in the new year.

  Emergency arrangements are in place to ensure that swift action can be taken to protect the food chain, should any accident of this nature occur in future.

  Set-aside Land
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the use of set-aside land for the growing of coriander for conservation into bio-diesel fuel. [39534]

  Mr. Baldry
  It is possible to grow coriander for industrial purposes as well as other oilseed plants on set-aside land under the area arable payment scheme.
  225
  However, because of its properties it may be preferable to use coriander oil in the production of specialist industrial oils—for nylons and cosmetics—rather than for biodiesel.

  Arable Area Payment Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was expenditure, in ecus, by each EU member state on(a) set-aside and (b) total arable area payments, for each year in which the arable area payment scheme has been in operation. [40153]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I understand from working papers of the European Commission that the situation was as follows: figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  000 ecu

  Member State

  Set-aside payments

  Total arable area payments

  1993

  Belgium

  6,399

  77,729

  Denmark

  57,483

  309,630

  Germany

  321,394

  1,570,326

  Greece

  2,683

  301,440

  Spain

  135,908

  589,182

  France

  517,023

  2,627,735

  Republic of Ireland

  —

  60,182

  Italy

  39,973

  520,063

  Luxembourg

  395

  4,679

  Netherlands

  2,754

  63,017

  Portugal

  6,435

  28,658

  United Kingdom

  169,948

  906,036

  Total

  1,260,395

  7,058,677

  1994

  Belgium

  6,448

  80,543

  Denmark

  58,112

  378,735

  Germany

  325,794

  2,143,926

  Greece

  2,642

  310,644

  Spain

  136,244

  1,428,319

  France

  517,093

  3,405,271

  Republic of Ireland

  —

  63,512

  Italy

  45,080

  1,000,414

  Luxembourg

  395

  5,331

  Netherlands

  2,966

  63,974

  Portugal

  6,460

  104,596

  United Kingdom

  188,913

  1,114,798

  Total

  1,290,147

  10,130,063

  Intervention Stocks
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the level of intervention stocks in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the EU, at the latest available date. [40154]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Tables showing levels of all produce held in intervention within the EU, with levels for the UK separately identified, are placed in the House at regular intervals, most recently on 5 October. The information currently held in the House Library goes back to January 1985.

  Frogs' Legs
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food what was the volume of frogs' legs imported by the United Kingdom in 1993 and 1994; and what were the countries of origin of those imports. [40265]
  226
  Mrs. Browning
  Imports into the United Kingdom of frogs legs for 1993 and 1994 were as follows:

  Imports of frogs' legs (kgs)

  1993

  11994

  Total

  21,702

  20,124

  By country of despatch

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  13,447

  12,036

  France

  5,999

  3,303

  Netherlands

  2,256

  4,785

  1 Provisional.

  Spanish Fishermen (Compensation)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is Britain's contribution to the £200 million compensation to be paid by the European Union to Spanish fishermen for loss of fishing opportunities in Moroccan waters. [40603]

  Mr. Baldry
  On 26 October, the Council of Ministers unanimously agreed that payments should be made to Spanish and Portuguese fishermen who had been unable to fish following the early termination of the EU/Morocco fisheries agreement at the end of April 1995. This was an exceptional measure applying for a limited period. The maximum cost to the Community budget will be 24 mecu, £19.9 million. The cost will be less if the fishermen concerned are able to resume fishing before the end of December. In either event, the cost will be funded from within the existing Community budget for 1995. The United Kingdom's net contribution to the Community budget for this item will be around 5 per cent. after taking account of the Fontainebleau abatement.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much compensation has been paid by the European Union to British fishermen for damage to vessels or nets by Spanish fishing vessels. [40602]

  Mr. Baldry
  Payments are not available from the Community budget to compensate the fishermen of one member state for damage done to their vessels or nets by the fishermen of another member state.

WALES

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many deaths from hypothermia took place among(a) men aged 65 years and over and (b) women aged 60 years and over in each year since 1990, by region. [34168]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 13 July 1995]: The numbers of deaths of men aged 65 and over and women aged 60 and over registered by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys with a mention of hypothermia, ICD 991.6, on the death certificate are given in the table.
  227

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Area of residence

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Clwyd

  0

  4

  2

  1

  1

  0

  4

  5

  East Dyfed

  1

  0

  1

  2

  1

  0

  0

  3

  Pembrokeshire

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Gwent

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  2

  Gwynedd

  0

  0

  2

  5

  1

  1

  0

  1

  Mid Glamorgan

  4

  7

  0

  5

  4

  3

  1

  4

  Powys

  0

  1

  0

  3

  0

  1

  3

  0

  South Glamorgan

  1

  0

  1

  3

  0

  2

  0

  5

  West Glamorgan

  0

  2

  1

  2

  0

  2

  1

  5

  Wales

  6

  15

  7

  23

  0

  11

  9

  25

  Welsh Development Agency
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library copies of the Welsh Development Agency's urban development programmes approved by his Department for 1992–93 and 1993–94; and if he will place in the Library copies of the relevant approval letters for these programmes. [39271]

  Mr. Hague
  [holding answer 24 October 1995]: No. The programme documents contain information that remains commercially sensitive; letters of approval relate back to those documents.

  General Election (Voting)
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures will be put in place prior to the general election to ensure that those entitled to postal and proxy votes are made aware of their rights as soon as possible by means of public advertising; and if he will make a statement. [39170]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 26 October 1995 by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department Official Report, column 761.

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 6 June,Official Report, column 76, to the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones), which schools in Wales or elsewhere were involved in the assisted places scheme in the last ten years. [40031]

  Mr. Richards
  Participating schools in Wales over the last 10 years have been:

  Christ College, Brecon

  Howells School, Cardiff

  Howells School, Denbigh

  Llandovery College

  Monmouth School (Boys)

  Monmouth School for Girls

  Rydal Penrhos Senior School (Girls), Colwyn Bay

  Rydal Penrhos Senior School (Co-educational), Colwyn Bay

  Schools outside Wales are a matter for the respective

  Secretaries of State.

  Grant-Maintained Schools
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 24 October,Official Report, column 573, relating to payments for capital works at grant-maintained schools, if he will list for each
  228
  capital scheme the length of time between the presentation of contractors' bills, the issue of architects' certificates and the payments of the bills. [40656]

  Mr. Richards
  No central record is kept of when contractors' bills are paid on capital works carried out at grant-maintained schools, as responsibility for this rests with the individual school governing body concerned.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the dates on which architects' certificates have been issued in respect of capital works carried out at Brynmawr grant-maintained school and the dates on which payments have been made in respect of these architects' certificates. [40652]

  Mr. Richards
  Responsibility for payments on architects' certificates in respect of capital works at Brynmawr grant-maintained school rests with the school's governing body. No record is kept centrally. The dates on which architects' certificates, known to the Department, were issued for each of the four named capital projects carried out at Brynmawr school since it became grant-maintained are as follows:

  School Canteen and Toilets Project

  Certificate No. 1: 26 February 1993

  Certificate No. 2: 12 March 1993

  Science Block Project

  Certificate No. 1: 18 August 1993

  Certificate No. 2: 15 September 1993

  Certificate No. 3: 18 October 1993

  Certificate No. 4: 13 December 1993

  Certificate No. 5: 10 March. 1994

  Certificate No. 6: 7 June 1995

  Teaching Block Project

  Certificate No. 1: 23 November 1993

  Certificate No. 2: 15 December 1993

  Certificate No. 3: 21 January 1994

  Certificate No. 4: 22 February 1994

  Certificate No. 5: 10 March 1994

  Certificate No. 6: 23 May 1994

  Certificate No. 7: 19 August 1994

  Certificate No. 8: 2 March 1995

  Certificate No. 9: 29 June 1995

  Technology Block Project

  Certificate No. 1: 14 October 1994

  Certificate No. 2: 11 November 1994

  Certificate No. 3: 2 December 1994

  229

  Certificate No. 4: 9 January 1995

  Certificate No. 5: 6 February 1995

  Certificate No. 6: 7 March 1995

  Certificate No. 7: 4 April 1995

  Certificate No. 8: 2 May 1995

  Certificate No. 9: 7 June 1995

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 24 October,Official Report, column 573, relating to payments for capital works at grant-maintained schools, if he will make a statement in the case of T. Costelow and Sons Ltd. and payment for their work at Brynmawr grant-maintained school. [40655]

  Mr. Richards
  I understand that T. Costelow and Sons Ltd. is a sub-contractor on two named capital projects at Brynmawr grant-maintained school. Responsibility for the payment of sub-contractor work rests with the main contractor.

  Welsh Health Common Services Authority
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations he has had with the European Commission concerning the placing of an advertisement in the contracts supplement of the Official Journal of the European Communities for the sale of the Estatecare division of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority; and if he will make a statement. [4022]

  Mr. Hague
  None. There is no requirement to consult the European Commission.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the progress of the privatisation procedure in respect of the prescription pricing division of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. [40726]

  Mr. Hague
  I expect that the Welsh Health Common Services Authority will he able to announce the outcome of its market test of prescription pricing services within the next few weeks.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning the arrangements for the advertisement for sale of the Estatecare division of the Welsh Health Common Services Authority(a) within the United Kingdom and (b) outside; on what occasions such advertisements have already been published; how many direct approaches to potential trade sale buyers have been made; what consultations he has had with the staff of the Estatecare division concerning their future employment and stake in future arrangements; and if TUPE will apply. [40727]

  Mr. Richards
  These are matters for the Welsh Health Common Services Authority. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member and will arrange for a copy of his reply to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Measles
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what information he has received regarding the numbers of children in Wales who have been reported as possibly suffering physical or psychological trauma as a result of immunisation against measles. [40657]
  230
  Mr. Richards
  By October 1995 the Medicines Control Agency received 56 physical and two psychological reports concerning children in Wales who received measles and rubella vaccine during the November 1994 measles and rubella (MR) immunisation campaign.

  Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine was introduced in 1988. Since 1 January 1988, to date, there have been 34 reports of adverse reactions to MMR vaccine all of which were physical.

  The number of children immunised during the MR campaign was larger than the number immunised so far with MMR. The same measles antigen is used in both the MR and MMR vaccine. The increase in reports of adverse reactions could be attributed to circumstances of a mass campaign.

  The receipt of a reaction report by the Medicines Control Agency does not necessarily mean that the reaction reported has been caused by the vaccine.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many copies of the leaflet on measles have been distributed by Health Promotion Wales on behalf of his Department in the past year. [40665]

  Mr. Richards
  None, but 550,000 bilingual—English and Welsh—leaflets were distributed by Health Promotion Authority for Wales to health authorities and schools during September 1994. In addition, translation packs in 10 ethnic minority languages were made available to health authorities for local distribution.

  European Regional Fund
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his recent consultations with the members of the commission responsible for regional development in relation to the co-option of members of local authorities on the monitoring committees for the expenditure of the European regional fund in(a) industrial south and (b) rural Wales. [40723]

  Mr. Hague
  I told Commissioner Dr. Wulf-Mathies that I was satisfied with the present arrangements for local authority membership of both the industrial south Wales and rural Wales structural funds monitoring committees.

  Market Testing
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the health services that have been market tested by or notified to his Department and won by the private sector indicating(a) the location and (b) the organisation winning the tender. [40617]

  Mr. Hague
  I am placing a list of contracts won by the private sector for 1993–94, which is the latest available, in the Library of the House.

  Surpluses and Deficits (District Health Authorities)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what(a) surpluses and (b) deficits were recorded by each district health authority in 1994–95. [40663]

  Mr. Richards
  I am arranging for the annual reports of each health authority to be placed in the Library of the House as soon as possible.
  231

  OSIRIS
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 24 October,Official Report, column 575 if he will make a statement on the main purpose of the OSIRIS office automation system for his departmental offices. [40787]

  Mr. Hague
  The main purpose of the system is to improve the administrative efficiency of the Welsh Office by enabling speedier and more effective transaction of business and improved internal and external communication. The project will provide a personal computer for most Welsh Office staff equipped with word processing, spreadsheet, database and diary, scheduling packages and an electronic mail facility. These will be underpinned by a communications infrastructure covering all major Welsh Office sites. The estimated cost of the project includes the maintenance and support of the system over the life of the contract as well as the costs of hardware and software.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Sweeney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what further measures he proposes under the private finance initiative to encourage investment by the private sector in local authority facilities. [40941]

  Mr. Hague
  I can today announce a further package of measures to encourage and facilitate private sector investment in local authority services in Wales. These change the capital finance rules to allow local authorities to harness private finance and management expertise in the upgrading or replacement of facilities.

  The changes will encourage authorities to enter into the "design, build, finance and operate" type contracts for the replacement or upgrading by the private sector of facilities such as schools, libraries and leisure centres; give authorities greater scope for financing the replacement of facilities out of the proceeds from sales of existing assets; ensure that arrangements for joint use of facilities by an authority and the private sector do not trigger financial penalties; and make it easier for authorities to use energy services packages which improve energy efficiency and reduce energy costs.

  In addition, more resources for PFI projects will be generated by reducing from 50 per cent. to 25 per cent. the rate of set aside for debt redemption arising from the sale of surplus educational assets during the two years commencing in April 1996. With other elements of the package this opens up exciting opportunities for the upgrading of local authority schools and the rationalisation of school provision.

  Draft regulations will be published for consultation within the next few weeks.

  I am considering whether there should be a similar relaxation in the rules relating to set aside in the case of receipts from the sale of county farms. A decision will be taken in the context of the rural White Paper to be published later this year.

  I hope that the new Welsh unitary authorities will take full advantage of the opportunities offered by these changes when they take up their new responsibilities in April next year.
  232

  Cardiff Bay Development Corporation
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his current estimate of the winding up date of the Cardiff Bay development corporation; and what consultations he has had with the relevant local authorities concerning the transfer of its assets and liabilities. [40551]

  Mr. Hague
  My predecessor informed the House on 7 July 1994,Official Report, column 465, that it was expected to be possible to wind up the Cardiff Bay development corporation by the end of 1999. This remains the position. Consultations with the appropriate unitary local authorities will open after the reorganisation of local government.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Peacekeeping (Low-income Developing Countries)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of Britain's direct peacekeeping expenditure is spent in low-income developing countries; and where it is spent. [40205]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Britain will contribute an estimated £144 million in assessed contributions to UN peacekeeping in 1995–96, of which £85 million relates to former Yugoslavia. The remainder is accounted for by 13 UN operations in middle and low-income countries in Africa, Asia, the middle east, the caribbean and the former soviet union.

  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British troops have served in the last two years in a peacekeeping capacity in low-income developing countries; and where they have served. [40206]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  In the last two years, British logistics support groups of some 600 troops have served with UN operations in Rwanda and Angola. During 1993 British military observers served with the UN missions in Western Sahara and Cambodia.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Ms Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 25 October at column 1002, if he will list all of those areas of the CAP which are subject to qualified majority voting. [40310]

  Mr. David Davis
  The legal base of the CAP is article 43 of the treaty, which is subject to qualified majority voting. Food legislation is on a legal base of article 100a, which is also subject to qualified majority voting.

  UNSCOM
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from UNSCOM about the involvement of Iraqi spies in its investigations. [40257]
  233
  Mr. David Davis
  It would not be appropriate to comment on the details of our co-operation with UNSCOM. We deplore all instances of Iraqi failure to co-operate with UNSCOM as required under the terms of UN Security Council resolution.

  European Union (Forthcoming Business)
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on forthcoming business in the Council of the European Union. [41048]

  Mr. David Davis
  The information is as follows:

  SUBJECT: MONTHLY FORECAST OF BUSINESS FOR NOVEMBER 1995

  1. The following Councils are scheduled:

  November 6: Industry Council

  November 7: Industry Council

  November 9: Consumers Council

  November 13: Agriculture Council

  November 14: Agriculture Council

  November 15: Fisheries Council

  November 17: Budget Council

  November 20: FAC, Culture Council

  November 21: FAC

  November 23: International Market Council, Justice Council

  November 24: Justice Council

  November 27: ECOFIN Council, Telecoms Council

  November 30: Health Council

  2. The following items are likely to be discussed:

  MONDAY 6 NOVEMBER, INDUSTRY COUNCIL AGENDA

  SME policy: oral presentation by Commission of

  (a) Communication on EU strategy for SMEs.

  (b) Communication on European secondary capital market for SMEs.

  SMEs and innovation technology—Council resolution.

  Community action programme for competitiveness of EU industry: Council decision.

  Services to business and industrial competitiveness: Council resolution.

  Industrial aspects of the Information Society: Council resolution.

  Industrial cooperation with other regions and third countries—Council conclusions.

  Competitiveness of European machine construction industry—Council resolution.

  Effect of Uruguay round on textile industry—(possible) Council conclusions.

  European policy for promotion of quality—oral Commission report.

  Industry and research—oral Commission report on task-forces.

  TUESDAY 7 NOVEMBER, INDUSTRY COUNCIL AGENDA

  Competition policy and industrial competitiveness: Commission presentation on aspects of competition policy which affect industry.

  State Aid for shipbuilding—proposal for Council regulation implementing OECD rules.

  Steel: monitoring report and opinions on Irish Steel and Austrian iron ore mines.

  THURSDAY 9 NOVEMBER, CONSUMER COUNCIL AGENDA

  Proposed Directive on the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs.

  Amended proposal for a directive on comparative advertising: possible common position.

  234

  Proposed directive on unit pricing: orientation debate.

  Proposed directive on markings appearing on the labelling of foodstuffs.

  Proposed directive on guarantees for consumer goods: Commission presentation.

  Access to justice: Commission presentation.

  Consumer education: Council resolution.

  Commission action plan on consumer protection and information 1995–1999: Commission presentation.

  Commission report on the implementation of the Council Directive on consumer credit: Council conclusions.

  Advertising products and services attributing health benefits (miracle products): Council resolution.

  MONDAY/TUESDAY 13–14 NOVEMBER, AGRICULTURE COUNCIL AGENDA

  Legislative changes to maximum residue limit Directives (possible).

  Feeding stuffs (possible).

  Meat products (possible).

  Set-aside.

  Reform of the fruit and vegetable regime.

  Reform of the rice regime.

  WEDNESDAY 15 NOVEMBER, FISHERIES COUNCIL

  Likelihood that it will be cancelled but if it goes ahead it will deal with the annual price and market regime proposals.

  FRIDAY 17 NOVEMBER, BUDGET COUNCIL AGENDA

  Second reading of the 1996 draft budget.

  MONDAY 20 NOVEMBER, CULTURE COUNCIL AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS COUNCIL

  Agendas not yet available.

  THURSDAY 23 NOVEMBER, INTERNAL MARKET COUNCIL

  Agenda not yet available but likely to include inter alia: Functioning of the internal market (Commission report).

  Citizens First (open debate).

  Molitor Report (follow up).

  Joint meeting with Central and Eastern Europeans (over lunch).

  Pressure equipment (common position—possible A point).

  Customs 2000 (common position).

  Public procurement (state of progress/orientation debate).

  Tourism statistics directive (adoption).

  Motorcycle multichapter directive (common position—possible A point).

  Flavourings.

  Food for particular nutritional uses (PARNUTS).

  Minerals waters.

  Amendment to labelling Directive (poss).

  THURSDAY/FRIDAY 23–24 NOVEMBER, JUSTICE COUNCIL

  Agenda not yet available.

  MONDAY 27 NOVEMBER, ECOFIN COUNCIL AGENDA

  Cross Border Credit Transfers (probable A point).

  Preparation of Stage 3 of EMU.

  Employment policy—preparation of Madrid European Council.

  Multilateral surveillance.

  Fraud: reports from Member States—preparation of Madrid European Council.

  Loan Guarantee Fund (possible).

  Bank Winding Up Directive (possible).

  MONDAY 27 NOVEMBER, TELECOMS COUNCIL AGENDA

  Expected Agenda:

  Directive on Interconnection—orientation debate.

  235

  Draft Article 90 Commission Directives amending Directive 90/388/EEC (a) with regard to mobile and personal communications

  and (b) regarding the implementation of full competition in telecoms markets—debate and possible Council conclusions. Directive on application of ONP (Open Network Provision) to voice telephony—final adoption (possible).

  Directive on Data Protection in telecoms sector—common position (possible).

  Decision on Data Protection in telecoms sector—common position (possible).

  Decision on a series of guidelines for trans-European telecommunications networks—common position.

  Decision on INFO 2000 programme concerning multimedia content—common position (possible).

  Directive on development of Community postal services—orientation debate or political agreement.

  WTO discussions—Commission oral report.

  THURSDAY 30 NOVEMBER, HEALTH COUNCIL

  Agenda not yet available.

  Nuclear Tests, Pitcairn Islands
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what(a) health and (b) environmental studies have been carried out on the residents of the Pitcairn islands and their habitat to assess potential radiological impact from atmospheric and underground nuclear testing in the Pacific region. [40199]

  Mr. David Davis
  No specific studies have been carried out. The resident nurse has reported that the Pitcairn islanders are in good health. The Sir Peter Scott commemorative expedition, which visited the Pitcairn islands in 1991–92, reported no environmental problems as a result of nuclear testing. We do not believe that the current programme of French nuclear tests, which are being carried out underground, should cause any danger to the inhabitants of Pitcairn.

  French Nuclear Tests
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to invoking article 142 of the Euratom treaty in order to bring infringement proceedings before the European Court of Justice against the government of France in respect of its nuclear testing programme. [40201]

  Mr. David Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 20 October 1995 Official Report, column 264.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government(a) have taken and (b) are considering taking to protect the residents of the Pitcairn islands from the potential environmental effects of French nuclear testing at Mururoa and Fangatafau. [40196]

  Mr. Davis
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) on 16 October 1995 Official Report, column 18.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation has taken place with the residents of the Pitcairn islands on French nuclear testing in the Pacific. [40198]
  236
  Mr. Davis
  The governor's office in Wellington is in regular contact with the Pitcairn island council on a range of matters. The council has not expressed any concern about French nuclear testing.

  Mr. Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what scientific analysis has been carried out by his Department on the environmental effects of the French nuclear testing programme in the Pacific. [40200]

  Mr. Davis
  None. The French Government have given an assurance that the tests will cause no harm to the environment, and have invited experts to visit the area in order to verify this for themselves.

  Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are Her Majesty's Government's priorities at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. [40023]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government's priorities are: to promote the fulfilment of the principles embodied in the Harare declaration, including a return to civilian democratic rule in all member states; to promote good government; to support reform of the United Nations and international financial institutions; and to secure a commitment for increased collective Commonwealth action against serious crime, in particular drug trafficking and money laundering.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what priority Her Majesty's Government give to strengthening the Harare declaration at the Auckland Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. [40025]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Harare declaration has become a reference point for good government principles in the Commonwealth. High priority will be given at Auckland to encouraging all member states to adhere to the principles it embodies.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter from the Prime Minister to the Prime Minister of New Zealand setting out Her Majesty's Government's priorities for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. [40024]

  Mr. Hanley
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not written to the Prime Minister of New Zealand setting out the Government's priorities for the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting.

  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for Commonwealth initiatives to support human rights and democracy. [40028]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Commonwealth Secretary-General has proposed that within the theme for the Auckland Heads of Government meeting in November—"Fulfilling the Harare Declaration"—a prime focus should be "Advancing Fundamental Political Values". My right hon.
  237
  Friend the Prime Minister will take an active role in formulating practical proposals under this heading.

  Human Rights (Zimbabwe)
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made recently to the Zimbabwean Government regarding human rights abuses in that country. [39924]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have not made any such representations recently to the Government of Zimbabwe.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Travel Services
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of travel administered through DSS travel services in the last three financial years; which company is currently operating the DSS travel service; and what target savings for the current year the present operator has been asked to meet. [39332]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table:

  Year

  Amount £

  1993–94

  3,895,339

  1994–95

  4,764,841

  Information for earlier periods is not available.

  Carlson Wagonlit is contracted to deliver travel services. The contract does not provide for specific savings targets. All travel costs are discounted under its terms, with the contractor required always to offer the lowest published fare.

  Departmental Work
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the work of his Department since 1990. [38072]

  Mr. Burt
  We have a clear strategy for social security. The principal objectives are to focus benefit on the most needy, to encourage personal responsibility, to improve incentives to work and save, to bear down on fraud and abuse and to ensure that the system does not outstrip the nation's ability to pay. Social security has cost £440 billion in real terms since 1990 and provides one of the most comprehensive safety nets in the EU.

  The Department has focused benefit on those who need it most. Disability living allowance was introduced in April 1992. Expenditure on help for customers below pension age with care and mobility needs has increased by more than 50 per cent. in real terms since 1992. In addition, the Disability Discrimination Bill will ensure that disabled people are not discriminated against in the workplace or when seeking access to goods and services.
  238
  Incapacity benefit, which replaced sickness benefit and invalidity benefit on 13 April this year, provides a better targeted and more affordable system of provision. A more objective medical test will focus help on those genuinely incapable of work because of their medical condition.

  The Department has encouraged personal responsibility and the Pensions Act 1995 encourages increased self-provision. Pensioners in all income groups have seen their income rise since 1979 and on average are 50 per cent. better off. About 88 per cent. of recently retired pensioners have incomes other than state benefits. The UK is the largest investor in private pensions in the EU, with more assets invested in pension funds than the rest of the EU put together.

  In 1993, the Child Support Agency was launched to implement the Child Support Act 1991 and to operate the new system of child maintenance for parents who live apart. The new Child Support Act 1995 includes wide-ranging improvements to the scheme which will be fairer, improve service and ensure maintenance is paid regularly. This year the Child Support Agency is on track to collect or arrange £300 million in maintenance and achieve a reduction in the bill to the taxpayer of £1.4 billion since its launch.

  The Department has improved incentives to work and save. Reforms since 1988 have significantly alleviated the unemployment trap, where people are better off unemployed than working, and the poverty trap, where net income falls even though wages go up. We will reinforce incentives as result of the Jobseekers Act 1995. This country has pioneered the use of in-work benefits. Family credit expenditure has helped to boost earnings for families on low income, and over 5.2 million awards have been made since 1990. We have announced plans for the first ever pilot of a benefit, earnings top-up, for low-earning single people and couples without children.

  To bear down on fraud and abuse the Benefits Agency has developed a security strategy ensuring that the right money is paid to the right person at the right time and has delivered fraud savings of record £706.8 million in 1994–95 against a target of £654 million.

  The Department has a proud record of efficiency, particularly following the establishment of agencies, where 97 per cent. of our staff now work. Agencies have consistently met or exceeded efficiency targets, resulting in savings of over £500 million being made over the last five years. In the Benefits Agency, output per member of staff has increased by 26.4 per cent. since 1989–90. Further efficiencies will be delivered through the Department's plan to apply an extensive and innovative range of efficiency techniques over the next three years.

  The Department is at the forefront of public sector management and service delivery. Nineteen offices of the Benefits Agency have been awarded the charter mark. The Benefits Agency achieved an 84 per cent. satisfaction level of an independent and comprehensive customer survey in 1993–94, an increase on the previous year. The Information Technology Services Agency achieved the international standard for quality accreditation for the whole of its business in 1994. ITSA was one of the first next steps agencies to achieve such recognition for all areas of its business.
  239
  Under the Government's private finance initiative, the Contributions Agency has awarded the contract for the development and operation of the replacement national insurance recording system. This was the first major IT contract to be awarded under PFI. Work is also progressing on plans to automate payment of benefit at post offices. The Benefits Agency aims to start issuing benefit payment cards during 1996. Full roll-out of the card will take two to three years and will be funded under PFI; a procurement exercise is now under way.

  Over the last several years we have undertaken many measures that have reduced the burdens on business. These include simplifying the rules and requirements of statutory sick pay and introducing from April 1996 a national insurance holiday to encourage employers to take on employees who have been unemployed for two years or more.

  We have taken steps to align the tax and national insurance schemes wherever possible. The Contributions Agency, Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise have also established an extensive programme of work which will deliver real benefits for business in practical terms by reducing bureaucracy and duplicate handling.

  By focusing help on those in need and encouraging personal responsibility we will achieve savings reaching £4 billion a year during the next Parliament, and more than three times that amount next century.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will consider holding centrally records of the number of applications for disability living allowance for babies, by Benefits Agency district area; and if he will make a statement. [39024]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format referred to. However, figures are available on claims made for disability living allowance for children under the age of two. This information is held nationally. In addition, it is possible to provide details of awards made in these cases broken down by Benefits Agency district.

  Statutory Pay
  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what was the annual was the annual cost of statutory sick pay for 1979–80; and what has been the cost in each subsequent year including 1994–95; [40090]

  (2) what was the annual cost of statutory maternity pay for 1979–80; and what has been the cost in each subsequent year including 1994–95. [40089]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table. The statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay schemes were introduced in April 1983 and April 1987 respectively.

  Statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay: government expenditure

  £ million

  Statutory sick pay

  Statutory maternity pay

  1983–84

  500

  0

  1984–85

  508

  0

  1985–86

  545

  0

  240

  Statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay: government expenditure

  £ million

  Statutory sick pay

  Statutory maternity pay

  1986–87

  757

  0

  1987–88

  840

  193

  1988–89

  898

  250

  1989–90

  949

  286

  1990–91

  941

  314

  1991–92

  700

  345

  1992–93

  683

  398

  1993–94

  689

  420

  1994–95

  25

  443

  Source:

  Figures have been taken from the Social Security Departmental Report March 1995 and earlier equivalents.

  Notes:

  (a) Expenditure is at cash price.

  (b) 1994–95 figures are estimates.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many recipients of invalidity benefit have been found fit for work under the provisions of the Incapacity for Work Act 1994 since its implementation; how many new claimants for incapacity benefit have been found fit for work; how many medical tests to determine incapacity for work have been carried out; and how many appeals against the decision that a claimant is fit for work have(a) been heard and (b) are outstanding. [39288]

  Mr. Burt
  Information is not available in the format requested. It is not possible to provide separate figures for the number of ex-invalidity benefit recipients and new incapacity benefit claimants who have been found incapable for work under the provisions of the Incapacity for Work Act 1994. Available information is in the table.

  Numbers

  Medical examinations

  1116,349

  Found capable of work

  119,188

  Appeals heard

  89

  Appeals outstanding

  6,520

  1 This includes both all work test examinations and own occupation test examinations. All data is up to 30 September.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what evidence the estimate, in the explanatory memorandum on the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations, that about 5,000 claims for family credit, disability benefits and invalid care allowance are made annually by persons from abroad, is based; and how many claims he estimates are made for each of the benefits. [40616]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  No systematic record is kept of claims made for benefits by persons from abroad. The estimate is based on an extrapolation across the relevant benefits of an analysis of child benefits claimants who came to the United Kingdom from abroad in 1994.
  241

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what grounds he proposes to abolish the entitlement to invalid care allowance for carers who are persons from abroad; and what effect he expects this to have on persons cared for by them. [40606]

  Mr. Burt
  We believe that those who enter the United Kingdom with limited leave, on the understanding that they have no recourse to public funds, should be held to that understanding for the duration of their stay here. People who have overstayed their leave or who entered the country illegally should similarly not receive Government funding through the benefits system. In all cases, person from abroad who take on roles as carers will continue to be subject to the usual understanding regarding public funds.

  Income Support
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the current position in respect of entitlement to income support for relatives admitted to the United Kingdom as sponsored immigrants where the sponsor is no longer able to support the immigrants through unemployment or other unexpected loss of income; [40442]

  (2) if he will list for each of the last three years for which figures are available, the number of relatives who were admitted to the United Kingdom as sponsored immigrants following an undertaking by the sponsor that they would be fully maintained without recourse to public funds; in how many cases a written undertaking was required and why in other cases this was not so required; in respect of how many relatives there were claims made for income support under part V of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and what was the total cost of this to his Department; and how much money was recovered through the liable relative procedures. [40441]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  People given unlimited leave to enter or remain in the UK as dependent relatives, including sponsored immigrants, currently have the same entitlement to benefits as any UK citizen. However, where a sponsorship undertaking has been signed, the Department may take appropriate steps to recover from the sponsor any income support paid to the sponsored immigrant. There is no provision to reclaim any other benefits paid.

  The immigration authorities inform the Benefits Agency of all agreements which have been undertaken. The number of formal undertakings received are set out in the table.

  Number

  1993

  2,121

  1994

  1,925

  1995 (January-June)

  1,348

  No information is recorded centrally of the number of sponsored immigrants who claim benefit or of how much money was recovered through the liable relative procedures.
  242
  The criteria for requiring written undertakings is a matter for the Home Office.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the percentage of pensioners drawing income support or supplementary benefit in each year since 1978–79. [40377]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Number of pensioners in receipt of supplementary benefit/income support 1978–79 to 1994

  Year

  (Column A) Number of pensioners in receipt of supplementary benefit/income support

  (Column B) Number of pensioners in Great Britain

  Column (A) as a percentage of column (B)

  1978

  1,593,000

  9,534,600

  16.7

  1979

  1,599,000

  9,559,700

  16.7

  1980

  1,576,000

  9,712,800

  16.2

  1981

  1,624,000

  9,810,156

  16.6

  1982

  1,683,000

  9,866,590

  17.1

  1983

  1,549,000

  9,882,301

  15.7

  1984

  1,565,000

  9,909,715

  15.8

  1985

  —

  10,021,410

  —

  1986

  1,592,000

  10,101,729

  15.8

  1987

  1,610,000

  10,172,700

  15.9

  1988

  1,431,000

  10,220,998

  14.0

  1989

  1,314,000

  10,278,565

  12.8

  1990

  1,385,000

  10,309,949

  13.4

  1991

  1,272,000

  10,355,887

  12.3

  1992

  1,318,000

  10,379,538

  12.7

  1993

  1,426,000

  10,391,426

  13.7

  1994

  1,568,000

  10,384,000

  15.1

  Notes:

  1. Source: Supplementary Benefit/Income Support Statistics Annual and Quarterly Enquiries. Office of Population Censuses and Survey mid-year estimates.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand. Percentages rounded to one decimal place.

  3. Income support replaced Supplementary Benefit in 1988.

  4. Figures are not available for 1985.

  5. Pensioners are defined as men over 65 and women over 60.

  6. Figures in column A are for claimants only and do not include partners who may be of pensionable age.

  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what would be the estimated cost of ending the capital and notional income testing rules for(a) housing benefits and (b) income support for retired people while retaining unchanged the present tests for actual income. [40378]

  Mr. Evans
  The estimated cost of removing the lower and upper capital limits and tariff income rule for pensioners is £390 million in income support and £340 million in housing benefit. This assumes that actual income from capital would be taken into account.

  Notes:

  1. Although the question refers to retired people, it has been interpreted to refer to people over 60 years of age and living in the community. The cost for those in residential or nursing care is not available because the base data used excludes those cases.

  2. Estimates are rounded to the nearest £10 million.

  3. The estimate is based on data from the 1991, 1992 and 1993 Family Expenditure Survey, adjusted to be consistent with reported data from the May 1994 quarterly statistical enquiry for Income Support and the 1994 management information system dataset for Housing Benefit.

  4. All figures are uprated to 1995–96 prices and benefit levels.
  243
  5. Given the tenuous nature of the data and the methodology used to arrive at this estimate, the figures are broad orders of magnitude as opposed to robust estimates.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what difficulties have been encountered in recovering income support paid to sponsored immigrants; what methods of overcoming such difficulties have been considered or adopted; and with what results; [40613]

  (2) how the proposed changes in the benefit entitlement of sponsored immigrants will affect those whose sponsors are unable to support them because of a fall in their income due to sickness, unemployment or old age. [40615]

  Mr. Evans
  Sponsorship undertakings have been unenforceable and sponsors un-cooperative.

  We referred proposals affecting the entitlement of sponsored immigrants and other persons from abroad to the Social Security Advisory Committee on 11 October. We expect to receive the committee's report and recommendations during December. These proposals are based on the premise that people whose leave to remain in the United Kingdom is on the understanding that they will not be maintained by the taxpayer should be kept to that understanding.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if, under his recent new proposals, an asylum seeker will be entitled to claim benefits between the initial refusal of the asylum application and any appeal against refusal to grant asylum before a special adjudicator; and if he will make a statement. [40445]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Under the proposals, a person who claims asylum immediately upon arrival in the UK will be eligible to claim income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit from the point when their asylum claim is recorded to the point when they receive an initial refusal. A person who claims asylum after arrival in the UK will not normally be entitled to any benefits. However, nationals of countries which have undergone a significant upheaval since their arrival in the UK will be eligible for benefit up to the point of an initial refusal of their asylum claim. In all cases no benefit will be payable during the appeals process.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if, under the proposed new rules regarding benefits for refugees, a genuine refugee who successfully claims asylum after entering the United Kingdom will have his or her entitlement to income support backdated to the date the claim for asylum; [40614]

  (2) if the proposed protection of the benefit entitlements of nationals of countries affected by significant upheavals will be extended to other persons claiming asylum because of a well-founded fear of persecution arising from events occurring after their arrival in the United Kingdom not amounting to a significant upheaval but affecting their families or other groups of which they are or were members. [40611]

  Mr. Evans
  We referred proposals affecting the benefit entitlement of asylum seekers and other persons from abroad to the Social Security Advisory Committee on 11 October. We will consider the position fully once the committee has reported on its consultation exercise.
  244
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he proposes to take to ensure that, when a country has undergone events giving rise to a well-founded fear of persecution among its nationals, people who may, as a result, become entitled to benefits as asylum seekers are aware of their potential entitlement. [40608]

  Mr. Evans
  The Secretary of State will be advised by the Home Secretary when a country has been listed as having undergone an upheaval, such as to give rise to a well-founded fear of persecution of its nationals. The Benefits Agency will therefore advise claimants accordingly. The Home Secretary will inform relevant asylum interest groups and asylum law organisations that the country has been so listed.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will amend the Income Support (General) Regulations so as to make income support payable to asylum seekers as from 8 January 1996 at the full rate rather than 90 per cent. [40609]

  Mr. Evans
  I have no plans to do so.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what research has been carried out into the reasons for persons claiming asylum after arrival in the United Kingdom; and what were the main findings relevant to the proposal to remove their entitlement to benefits. [40610]

  Mr. Evans
  I am not aware of any specific research project on this subject. However, according to Home Office figures, about 70 per cent. of asylum seekers claim in country having entered the UK as visitors, tourists or students. Only 4 per cent. of asylum decisions result in recognition as a refugee. Regardless of the reasons for persons claiming asylum after arrival, the Government believe that it cannot be right to pay benefits to this group. Those who claim asylum on entry to the UK will still have access to the benefits system while their asylum application is considered.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many employees of the Child Support Agency since 1993 have been(a) dismissed, and (b) faced other disciplinary action for the improper use of confidential information. [39930]

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

  Letter from Miss Ann Chant to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 31 October 1995:

  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security on the improper use of confidential information.

  You requested details regarding the number of employees of the Child Support Agency, since 1993, who have either been dismissed from employment or faced other disciplinary action for the improper use of confidential information.

  The figures are as follows:

  (a) 8 dismissals

  (b) 10 other disciplinary action

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.
Viscount Thurso Viscount Thurso—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Wylfa Power Station: Safety Arrangements
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they have taken as the sole owner of Nuclear Electric plc to ensure that the individual directors and managers are disciplined following the company's recent conviction for safety offences at Wylfa power station, and that the company's safety arrangements are rectified.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, the Government are satisfied that the key people in Nuclear Electric were, and remain, committed to maintaining a high level of safety, as was acknowledged by Mr. Justice Morland in his judgment on the Wylfa case. The Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) is satisfied with the steps Nuclear Electric has taken to ensure a similar incident cannot happen in the future.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Do the Government realise the importance of restoring local confidence in Wylfa's safety arrangements so that it can continue to be a major employer in an area of great unemployment? In order to do so, will the Government exercise their rights as the only shareholders to make sure that those responsible for the mistake are disciplined, both financially and criminally, in the same way as I should be as a single trader if I contravened the Health and Safety Executive rules or, indeed, any other rules laid down by Parliament?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is very important indeed that full confidence is maintained in the nuclear industry and in particular among those people who live near nuclear installations.
In this case, the Government believe that those who manage the plant were and are committed to the safety culture and that the right steps have been taken to ensure that such an incident does not happen again. That must be the key issue.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that a Question and Answer in another place seem to suggest that, first, Wylfa was built on the insistence of the government of the day; and secondly, that its primary purpose may have been the production of military plutonium rather than the generation of
1342
commercial electricity? Will the Minister say whether the accident was related in any way to that dual purpose?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the answer that I must give to the noble Lord is: not as far as I am aware. If I am not correct about that, I shall make it public and write to the noble Lord. But the priority must be to reassure the public that this type of incident will not occur again, and that corrective measures have been taken to ensure that.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the outrageous sensationalism to which the reporting of this incident was subject is extremely damaging to the industry? There has been talk of meltdown, danger and allowing commercial considerations to take precedence over safety, all of which were turned down totally by Mr. Justice Morland. Would it not be better if people took into account the considerable value to this country of Nuclear Electric in terms of its overseas export potential?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that one must put the incident in perspective. There was a great deal of fanciful reporting around the extremely serious issues which were raised. The fact is that this was essentially a minor incident. Of course, all incidents which have safety implications are extremely important and we fully accept that. However, the incident has demonstrated the way in which the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate works. The fact that it took a prosecution to court shows how seriously it takes its duties. The judgment given by Mr. Justice Morland provides an extremely good summary of what happened. We must put that in perspective.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that in this unfortunate incident no one was hurt, no one was put in danger, and there was no release of radioactive material?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, those facts are correct. There was a flaw in a component. It fell into the fuel channel. But there was no actual danger as a result. The reactor did not overheat and it showed no signs of stress. If it had, the back-up systems which have been built in would have come into play. That position was not reached. The fact that the incident occurred was serious. However, the key consideration here must be the moves that have been made to remedy the physical faults in the part and indeed in the operating procedures to ensure that there is no repetition of that incident.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, where will the money come from to pay the fine? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that his noble friend Lord Stanley will not have to bear even the tiniest fraction of that fine?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I fear that my noble friend may be a taxpayer. As the taxpayers own Nuclear Electric, which was the body that was fined, I am afraid that the company will bear the brunt of the fine; and in effect we are talking about the taxpayer.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, should we not take notice of the fact that Mr. Justice Morland said he was

1343
convinced that the current safety programme is thorough, comprehensive and continuous? Nuclear Electric was extremely worried, first, that the incident happened and, further, that it went to court and a judgment was given. Nuclear Electric has taken every precaution since that time. It has also sent a staff newspaper to each of its over 9,000 employees, giving the facts as they were—there was no cover-up—and explaining that the company was sorry the incident had occurred and was determined to learn from it.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. A safety culture of the very highest standard exists in the nuclear industry; and it is appropriate and essential that it should exist. The incident has shown what can go wrong if there is a physical malfunction of equipment. The incident has been fully examined by an independent body. A prosecution has taken place, and the judge has given his verdict and his summary of the case. However, he reinforced the message that there is a safety culture of a high standard within the nuclear industry.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we all agree that what this country needs is low cost power generation. If nuclear power can achieve that, that is excellent. However, the Question concerns the conviction. Does the Minister agree that the conviction was a serious matter? It is not a trivial matter if a company is found guilty of any offence of this kind. I assumed that the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, was intended—apart from asking what the Government were doing—to elicit a response which would reassure the local people. As I understand it, they are extremely worried about the position. Have the Government done anything to reassure the local people bearing in mind that most of them will not read the judge's statement and will not read Lords Hansard? They would like the Government to issue some kind of statement to indicate that they are taking such a matter seriously.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that constructive messages are put forward by the industry itself to emphasise the safety culture and safety record of the nuclear industry in this country which is of an extremely high standard. I agree with the noble Lord that a prosecution is a serious and not a trivial matter. But I believe that the way in which the board of Nuclear Electric has handled the investigation before the prosecution, and its affairs since the prosecution, show its commitment to a safe industry.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, while I accept that the safety regime in the present publicly owned industry is of the best, will the noble Viscount be able to
1344
reassure the people of Wylfa and those who live near other nuclear sites that the safety regime will be at least as stringent under private ownership as it is now?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that will absolutely be the case.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Next Question!
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I noted that the Minister's reply, like other ministerial replies recently, expressed satisfaction with the situation with which the Question dealt. Does the Minister agree that the word "confidence" is more likely to give reassurance than "satisfaction"?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not totally follow the line of inquiry pursued by the noble Lord. I have made it quite clear that the Government have confidence in the way that the nuclear industry is regulated and that it has independent regulators. We see this as the best way to run a nuclear industry. I have assured the noble Lord opposite that with privatisation of the nuclear industry—although that will not affect Magnox reactors—a strong regime will also be in place.

Stonehenge: Route for A.303
2.48 p.m.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which specialists advise the Department of Transport on archaeological matters, and why the Highways Agency is taking to public consultation proposed routes for the A.303 near Stonehenge which have not been discussed with, or approved by, English Heritage or the Department of National Heritage.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the Highways Agency has appointed Dr. John Samuels to give advice on the archaeological aspects of A.303 improvement schemes near Stonehenge. The agency has discussed the schemes with other government departments and with English Heritage and has now arranged a planning conference as a forum for debate between all interested parties. The Highways Agency is not promoting any specific route.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he explain to the House why the Highways Agency, contrary to earlier assurances, has not involved the Department of National Heritage or English Heritage in the organisation of the conference? Why is the notorious yellow route put forward in the brochure as one of the options when it was withdrawn by a previous Minister of Transport as unacceptable on environmental grounds in July 1994? Will my noble friend assure the House that there has not been a change of policy in the department on the yellow route and so direct the engineers who are running this curious conference?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I can confirm that there has been no change of policy and that the yellow and grey routes were withdrawn by my honourable

1345
friend Mr. Norris. They remain withdrawn. They are included in the brochure to show those interested what work has already been done. The brochure makes clear that the routes have been withdrawn. On the question of consultation, I must emphasise that the Highways Agency has worked very closely with English Heritage throughout the process. A large number of meetings have taken place between the Highways Agency and English Heritage. I am pleased that English Heritage will take part in the conference.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, is it not strange that the agency has put forward for public discussion routes which it no longer wishes to build and therefore presumably will not build however much the public approve of them? Is it not even more strange that the agency has not put forward for public discussion the only route to meet with the general approval of the archaeological community in the country, including the Government's advisers, and all others who care for Stonehenge as a monument, namely a long tunnel under the existing road, which would be the shortest long tunnel there could be?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord questions why a number of options have not been put forward. We have put forward the work that has been done, routes that have been worked up and those that are considered affordable. As for English Heritage's preferred route, that has changed as the process has been taken forward. English Heritage now sees considerable merit in the so-called northern purple route, which is one of the options on the table, albeit with a length of tunnel in the north-eastern corner.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this is a very important road? It is needed, but it must be right. It is not acceptable that routes should be rejected as being unaffordable, as was indicated in my noble friend's Written Answer yesterday. It would he much better not to build the new road until the Government can afford the right solution. I am sure that the Government would not wish to leave a cheap and inappropriate heirloom at this crucial site. Can we be reassured on that point?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, we have to live in the real world and have some consideration for cost. We are talking of a very long tunnel and costs of a magnitude of some £300 million as against perhaps £40 million for one of the other routes. It must be true that all the routes considered so far produce real environmental gains and real benefits for the world heritage site itself. We have not decided on a route. We are not even proposing a route at the moment. The purpose of the conference is to get everyone together to talk over the issues in a less formal setting than a public inquiry and to see if some consensus can be reached.
Noble Lords: My Lords—
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords—
Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone: My Lords, one at a time!
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am only going to ask one question at a time. The noble and learned Lord
1346
can feel satisfied about that. Does the noble Viscount agree that the inclusion of the yellow and grey routes in whatever indicative way was capable of being totally misunderstood by the local population and that it would have been better for that not to have happened? Is he also aware that we on this side of the House believe that the overriding concern must be the protection of the world heritage site of Stonehenge? Will he give a complete and firm undertaking that that will be the ultimate consideration?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the protection of the world heritage site is a very high priority. We must also consider safety, traffic and the needs of local people. There is a wide variety of issues. I can confirm that we give the highest possible priority to the great importance of Stonehenge as a world heritage site in this country.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many people find it puzzling that after 10 years of consultation about the route of the A.303—discussions in which I was involved for many years—there is now to be yet another inquiry which I gather will not be a statutory inquiry so there will have to be a public inquiry afterwards anyway?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is right. It is not a statutory process but it is a device that we have used in other circumstances where there is a clear polarity of opinion. We have chosen to take the process forward in this way because the very consultation which my noble friend described was inconclusive. We did not get any firm idea of what was the best way forward. That is why we are proceeding in this manner.
The Earl of Strafford: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the aspirations of archaeologists, important as they are, cannot be the sole criterion for judging which is the best route?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the noble Earl.

Sporting Events on Television
2.55 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to ensure that all major sporting events are made available to terrestrial television viewers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): No, my Lords. With the exception of listed sports events which cannot be shown on a pay-per-view basis, sports rights holders should continue to be free to dispose of their rights to broadcast in the way they choose. It is for them to judge the best balance between the level of income from broadcasting rights, the size of the television audience, the amount and type of coverage and the impact on potential spectators and supporters.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, when the existing television contracts for our

1347
main sporting events end shortly, Sky television will bid for the first time? There is no doubt that Sky can easily outbid the BBC and ITV. That means that some of our major sporting events such as the FA Cup Final, the Wimbledon tennis championships and the Grand National will be seen only by those people who can afford to pay £180 a year for the Sky sports channel. That is about 20 per cent. of all households. Therefore, will the Government not admit that the present situation is lamentable and that in two years' time the FA Cup Final will only be seen by those people who have Sky television? That is a disgraceful situation. I hope that the Government will do something not only about that event but about all national sporting events so as to make sure that everyone can see them without having to pay the extra fee charged by Sky.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I can only reiterate the point that I made in my first reply. It seems that the noble Lord is jumping an awful lot of hurdles in one bound in assuming that Sky will acquire these rights. There is a variety of possible interests and permutations. I can only refer the noble Lord to a report in the Independent of the 13th of this month, in which a representative of football interests says that:
"anybody who thinks Sky has it all sewn up just does not know the facts".
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a certain royal and ancient game is involved in this particular subject? Will he please consider that, while his answers so far appear to be par for the course, many of us would like to see him strike a few birdies?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his golfing question. Since I am no golfer myself I am not entirely clear what he meant. In a sense, that illustrates some of the problems in this area. There is a list of events, to which I have referred, and golf is not included on it. No doubt the golfing industry and golf in general has benefited greatly from the recent contract with Sky.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his Answer will depress millions of sports lovers who believe that the main priority should be universal access to live television coverage of the main sporting events? Is it not unacceptable that the great sporting events—the Derby, the Grand National and the Cup Final—should be auctioned off to the highest bidder, even to a minority channel, on subscription satellite? That is unacceptable, and was rejected in 1994 by the National Heritage Select Committee. Will the Minister agree to apply the simple solution—that is, to amend the Broadcasting Act 1990 so that the limitations that currently apply to pay-per-view channels may be applied to subscription satellite viewing? That would enable the poor, the elderly, the unemployed and all those who cannot afford the satellite channel to watch the great sporting events.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am interested to hear about the full nationalisation of all our great sporting events that appears to be inherent in the noble Lord's
1348
question. When we consider the number of viewers of all sports on television, the first point that is apparent is that it is not a homogeneous group. Different people are interested in different matters. How does one define it? I said that I was not interested in golf but I rather enjoy football. As soon as one enters definitions to the sweeping generalisations that we have heard, a whole plethora of problems emerges.
To return to my original reply, the sports need the money to develop young talent, to improve facilities and make it easier and better for those who pay to view when they attend the sporting occasion. No, my Lords, we are satisfied with the position we have adopted.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that, while the revenues to the sports are important, those revenues can be protected by unbundling the rights into current showing, later showing, extracts and so forth, thus protecting the revenues and leaving a wide choice on channels for a wide range of viewers?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord describes exactly one of the ways in which those who control the rights could best exploit them. It is up to them to decide the detail of how to do it.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the ability of anyone anywhere in the United Kingdom to see major sporting events lies at the heart of our public service broadcasting tradition? Will he, at the least, give an absolute assurance to the House that in the forthcoming legislation he will strengthen the provisions on broadcasting to ensure that the present protected list of events is maintained and extended?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the analysis of the noble Lord, with all his great experience of the traditions of public service broadcasting, is slightly at variance with mine. However, we keep the matter constantly under review and will continue to do so.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, leaving aside for the moment the question of extra-terrestrial viewers (whoever they may be), perhaps I may ask my noble friend whether he will refrain from taking too much comfort from the words of the Independent and ensure that we do not drift into a situation of monopoly and restriction which would not be acceptable?
Lord Inglewood: Yes, my Lords.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I am as always in the hands of the House, but I observe that we have under six minutes left with one further Question to come. Perhaps your Lordships may feel that the time has come to move on.

Cable Network Connections
3.4 p.m.
The Earl of Bradford The Earl of Bradford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have plans to make it compulsory for cable companies to connect all potential commercial and private customers within their franchise area that wish to join the cable network.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, cable operators who were awarded their franchises under the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984 are required to cable past a specified number of premises each year. The final total is intended to represent the total number of homes in the franchise area. Operators who have been awarded local delivery franchises under the Broadcasting Act 1990 and who are permitted to provide services using radio are required to serve a minimum number of homes within the franchise area each year.
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I believe that he is a country dweller, as I am. Does he therefore share the concern of those living in the countryside that we shall once again be disadvantaged, that we shall be pushed to the bottom of the list, that the cost could be unacceptably high and that we shall not be able to share in the cable revolution?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, there is no cost premium for living in the countryside as regards cable television. But my noble friend will have to be patient as to when services are available. Cable companies may not differentiate in their charging structure between rural users within a franchise area and conurbation users.
Lord Peston: My Lords, as someone who has a satellite channel, I find it difficult to be worried about the problem. All we seem to get these days are 40 channels on which nothing is worth watching. Therefore, I am not convinced that country dwellers miss that much. Do I understand the Minister's Answer to be that in the country as well as in the towns there is a definite target for numbers of connections that must be made per year once a company has been given the franchise and that the ultimate target must be 100 per cent? Were those the two central parts of his reply or did I misunderstand him?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, they were absolutely the central part where there are franchised areas. About two-thirds of the country is covered by franchised areas. It is obviously not possible to expect a commercial cable company to cover remote rural areas.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while the obligations in companies' areas should be observed, can anything be done to reduce the effects of cable-laying roadworks which lead to traffic disruption by taking out at least one lane and sometimes half the road?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the benefits of cable are substantial. Streets must be dug up, but it is vital for such disruption to be kept to a minimum. Cable
1350
operators are keen to avoid unnecessary disturbance. All cable companies are committed to best practice and the practice is improving.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, can something be done to protect the trees? Many trees have been destroyed in London by the operators' carelessness.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the Government and the cable industry are committed to protecting trees and there are guidelines in place. For example, hand digging is required around trees now rather than mechanical digging. That should certainly help to protect the roots.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, regarding the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the House passed legislation which required roadworks to be completed within a particular time. If companies failed to do so, they were to pay a penalty. Can the noble Lord assure me that that part of the legislation has been implemented by regulation?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I cannot answer that question at the moment. I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I suspect that although it was passed three years ago that part of the legislation has not yet been implemented.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill
3.8 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("include") insert ("the establishment of a body to be known as the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority ("the Authority") and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall take my usual deliberate time in order to allow those who have no interest in this important matter to leave quietly and gracefully. Amendment No. 1 and the amendments grouped with it arise from an exchange between the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the Minister at the end of the Committee stage two weeks ago. The former pointed out that although the Bill is entirely concerned with the setting up of an authority, a body, to deal with a scheme of compensation for criminal injuries, it makes no reference to the authority which is to be established. The only reference to the authority appears in the draft scheme that Ministers kindly circulated to those noble Lords concerned. The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in Committee was extremely valuable. The noble Lord said:
"I have made some inquiries as to what form it is expected to take. Will the authority have members? … The answer is that it will not. Will it have a chairman? The answer is that it will not. Who, therefore, will administer this huge undertaking? The answer is that civil servants will administer it. To whom will they be responsible? Nominally, there is an authority, but it is invisible. It does not appear to have any identifiable form at all".—[Official Report, 17/10/95: col. 731.]
The noble Lord therefore invited the Minister to consider the matter and to make the position clear before Report stage. The Minister did so. She wrote a very helpful letter on, I believe, 24th October—my photocopier is not all that good—in which she explained that there is indeed no reference to the criminal injuries compensation authority because:
"It is not necessary, whether for Parliamentary, public accountability or other purposes, for the Bill to create a statutory body corporate through which the Secretary of State's arrangements can be carried out. In law, claims officers will, unless and until a Scheme manager is appointed, carry out the functions conferred on them by the Bill with respect to the determination of claims and the award of compensation".
There are two problems with this question and with the answer given to it. The first relates to the transparency of legislation. Here I do not believe that I make a party political point. It ought not to be the case that legislation is placed before Parliament which has a hidden sub-text of this importance. We are after all dealing with some 500 staff and many millions of pounds of public money. There are precedents for non-departmental public bodies, as there are precedents for Next Steps agencies, although the recent history of the relationship between the Home Office in particular and these agencies is not particularly happy. There is of course to be an inquiry into the relationship between the Home Office and the Secretary of State and one particular agency, the Prison Service. It appears that in this area the role of policy and that of administration have, to say the very least, become confused over the past couple of years. Therefore it is not satisfactory simply to assume that everyone knows what is meant by an agency. Everyone knows what is meant by a non-departmental public body—what we normally call a quango—and what the actual effect on responsibility is.
The Minister went on to describe the rules, the management statement that such a body has to make, and the general financial accountability framework. I find all that very helpful. I am grateful to the Minister for spelling it out. However, we ought not to have legislation before Parliament which is based on a sub-text and which does not spell out what Parliament is doing in providing for a scheme of this kind. That is my first and perhaps more general point.
My second point relates to a matter which did not become apparent to me—it was entirely my own fault—until some way into consideration of the Bill. The Bill is drafted very deliberately not only to exclude statutory reference to the authority but to provide for the subsequent contracting out of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. Again, the Minister very fairly refers to this in her letter. She states that references to the scheme manager if appointed, which occur in many places throughout the Bill, are references to what would happen if the provisions of the Act and the scheme were to be contracted out. I am not sure whether the word "privatised" is appropriate in these circumstances. The possible degrees and variations are very great indeed. Nevertheless, without public recognition, the possibility of contracting out is written into this Bill. The Government tell us that they have no immediate intention of doing so, and I accept that that is the current
1352
situation. However, at least for the next 18 months this Government have the opportunity to change their mind. They are quite capable of changing their mind and have done so on many comparable occasions in the past.
Therefore, in these amendments we seek, first, to achieve greater clarity in the drafting of the Bill by writing the criminal injuries compensation authority onto the face of the legislation. That is what it will be, and everyone acknowledges that. It should be a statutory body, as indeed it would have been if the provisions of the 1988 Criminal Justice Act had been brought into force. The second aim of the amendments is to ensure no subsequent possibility, without reference to Parliament, of contracting out the functions of the criminal injuries compensation authority.
Why am I concerned in particular that this authority should not have its services contracted out? We achieved after all, by a government amendment in Committee, a very much greater degree of parliamentary control over the detail of the scheme, and indeed the tariff, than some of us had believed possible when the Bill was first introduced. The scheme is certainly very much more flexible and accountable than the one introduced in 1994 that subsequently proved to be illegal. All of that is to the good. And, presumably, the statutory controls, accountability and flexibility enshrined in the draft scheme would survive under contracting out. That is surely a function for the public sector rather than one for the involvement of private enterprise. It is a function that is inherently part of the criminal justice system.
Criminal justice systems have been a part of the public sector and part of government since the beginning of government. I cannot think of any example in this country, other than the recent privatisation of prisons, where significant parts of the criminal justice system have been contracted out to private enterprise. There were some ideologically based attempts, but they were very minor and very much at the fringes. I believe that the people of this country expect their criminal justice system, as they expect their police and all fundamental functions of the apparatus of law and order in our state, to be part of the public system and to be accountable to Parliament. For those reasons I strongly oppose the suggestion that it should be possible, and that this Bill should make it possible, for the criminal injuries compensation authority to be contracted out subsequent to the passage of this legislation.
Therefore, Amendment No. 1 refers to the establishment of a criminal injuries compensation authority. In Amendments Nos. 3, 8, 10, 19, 25 and 26 we seek to remove references to the scheme manager, if appointed, because those references, as the Government openly stated, are references to the possible contracting out of the scheme. I apologise for the fact that I was working when I produced the groupings on an earlier version, my own version, of the Marshalled List. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 20 to 22, which refer to the panel, should have been grouped with Amendment

1353
No. 2 rather than with this amendment. With that apology and that explanation of these amendments, I beg to move.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the overall purpose of the amendments is effectively to remove the possibility of the administration of the scheme being contracted out at some stage in the future. It is important at the outset of what I have to say in response to the amendments that we make the distinction between the administration of the scheme and the quasi-judicial work of the appellant body.
I recall that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, expressed some surprise in Committee—in discussions on Amendment No. 31, I believe—that the Government were even contemplating contracting out. Indeed, he inferred at that time that that was what lay behind the Government's thinking in the Bill. He made it clear that in his view it would be quite wrong for what he described as "an integral part of the criminal justice system" to be in private rather than in public hands.
We have made no secret at all of the fact that we considered that the administration of the tariff scheme might be a suitable candidate for market testing and, if then appropriate, contracting out at some future date. That view was first declared as long ago as 1993 in our White Paper Compensating victims of violent crime: changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme (Cmnd. Paper 2434), with particular reference to paragraphs 30 and 31 of that paper. Although the first tariff scheme presaged in that White Paper had to be withdrawn, we have made it clear on many occasions when talking about the new tariff scheme that we considered it to be equally susceptible to market testing.
Perhaps I may correct one comment made by the noble Lord; namely, that the Government could decide. It will not be for the Government to decide; it will be for Parliament. Any result of market testing which led to contracting out would also result in a change to the scheme, which could only be approved by Parliament.
We have also made it clear on many occasions that we have no immediate plans for such market testing. After all the upheavals of the past couple of years, we need a period of stability and certainty during which the authority can get on with the business of running the new scheme and sorting out any teething troubles which there might be and the board can get on with the business of clearing the residual old scheme cases.
But, in principle, once that is done and the new authority has established proven regimes and working practices, I do not see any reason why the administration—I emphasise "administration"—of the scheme should not be subjected to the disciplines of market testing. I should hope that by then the authority itself would be in a good position to show that it could run the scheme just as effectively, efficiently and economically as anyone else. Should that be the case, there would be no need to contract out. But if that were not the case, I fail to see why the administration should not be contracted out to someone who could do the job more efficiently and cost effectively. That could only be in the interests of those who must pay—the taxpayers.
1354
Before leaving the subject, perhaps I may say that there is no question at all of contracting out the appeals function. Unlike the administration of the scheme itself, that is a quasi-judicial function and, as such, unsuitable for contracting out to the private sector. That is why the Bill specifically precludes contracting out the appeals function (in Clause 5(2)).
Noble Lords will be well aware that it is our firm intention that the new scheme should be administered by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority. The draft scheme published at the end of August makes that very clear.
As to why the Bill itself makes no specific provision for the creation of a CICA, let me just say that it is not necessary for parliamentary, public accountability or other purposes for the Bill to create a statutory body through which the Secretary of State's arrangements can be carried out. In law, unless and until a scheme manager is appointed, claims officers will carry out the functions conferred on them by the Bill with respect to the determination of claims and the award of compensation. In practice, all claims officers will be part of the CICA, even though it has no distinct legal personality. The authority will be a recognisable entity to which the public can look in matters concerned with the day-to-day running of the scheme. It is for that reason that it is referred to in the draft scheme which will be laid before Parliament for approval.
As I said, the CICA is quite distinct from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, for which statutory provision was made in the Criminal Justice Act 1988. But things have moved on since then. The need to allow for future flexibility in the operation of the tariff scheme—in particular the need to cater for the possibility of market testing and contracting out the administration of the scheme at some future date, to which I have just referred—makes it inappropriate to replicate in the present Bill with regard to the CICA the provision made in the 1988 Act in respect of the board.
The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority will carry out an essentially administrative system for determining claims for compensation. It requires no special provision for that purpose other than those already provided in the Bill and the draft scheme.
I do not believe that there is more that I can usefully add on the subject. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with the explanation and indeed the full statement of the Government's position and intentions. I recognise that there are those who, as a matter of doctrine, oppose the whole notion of market testing and contracting out. But I am sure that the noble Lord's approach is not doctrinaire. That would not be characteristic of him. In the light of what I have said, I hope that he will not press the amendments.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister chose to reply to a number of charges which I did not make. I did not say at any stage that the Government had the intention of contracting out the appeals procedure, although she appears to think so. The whole issue of the appeals procedure is the subject of the next group of amendments, which will be dealt with by my noble and learned friend Lord Archer.

1355
Nor did I accuse the Government of bad faith in this matter, although I confess that, if one looks back at the history of criminal injuries compensation, many people might well accuse the Government at the very least of severe mismanagement of compensation schemes. After all, without going over ground that has been discussed in great detail before, 30 years ago we started with a non-statutory scheme which survived for 24 years without any attempt to put it on the statute book under governments of both parties. Indeed, it was an extraordinary enough use of the Royal Prerogative in itself, for which both the major parties must share responsibility, although the scheme worked and no one tried to privatise it.
Then there was the extraordinary situation of the Government promoting a Bill which made the scheme statutory and refusing to implement it. In the presence of noble Lords on the Government Benches I shall not go into the detail of the history of that matter. Then, when a new Royal Prerogative scheme was indeed implemented, it was so different from the original statutory scheme that it was struck down by the courts. If I were the Government, I should not be congratulating myself on the way in which this matter has been handled over recent years.
Without accusing anyone of bad faith, I return to what I did charge the Government with: namely, not telling the truth in this legislation about what they intend. I do not believe that they have positively concealed what they sought to do. I agree with the Minister that in the 1993 White Paper there was reference to the possibility subsequently of market testing and contracting out. But surely the Bill should positively state the Government's intention and require parliamentary approval other than in the form of a statutory instrument if this major step towards contracting out is indeed to be taken in the future.
On the basis that the Government argue the case now, virtually every piece of government machinery would be capable of being contracted out without Parliament having any particular say in the matter. That is a very unsatisfactory situation. The Bill does not say what it means, and what the Government mean, which is not in the Bill, is that an integral part of our criminal justice system may, without primary legislation, be taken out and sold off to the private sector. I cannot believe that that is what the majority of the Members of the Government's own party want, let alone what is wanted by the people of this country. They expect the criminal justice system to be a coherent whole; they expect it to be in the public sector and they think of criminal injuries compensation as being a part of that. In defence of that expectation and principle, I ask the House to take a view on this amendment.
3.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 157.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Judd, L.

Addington, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Airedale, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Kintore, E.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Bath, M.

Lockwood, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lowry, L.

Berkeley, L.

Macaulay, of Bragar, L.

Brightman, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Broadbridge, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

McNair, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Carter, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carver, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Chorley, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Monkswell, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L. [Teller.]

David, B. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Nelson, E.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Nicol, B.

Donaldson of Lymington, L.

Ogmore, L.

Donoughue, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Richard, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Falkender, B.

Rochester, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Salisbury, M.

Gallacher, L.

Sandwich, E.

Geraint, L.

Seear, B.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Serota, B.

Glenamara, L.

Shannon, E.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Simon, V.

Gregson, L.

Stallard, L.

Grey, E.

Stedman, B.

Halsbury, E.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Han worth, V.

Strabolgi, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strafford, E.

Haskel, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hayter, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Thurlow, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Thurso, V.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Varley, L.

Hylton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ilchester, E.

White, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Wigoder, L.

Jeger, B.

Wilberforce, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Addison, V.

Brookes, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Bruntisfield, L.

Ailsa, M.

Burton, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Butterworth, L.

Alport, L.

Cadman, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Caithness, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Caldecote, V.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Beloff, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Blake, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Blatch, B.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Blyth, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller]

Boardman, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

1357

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Mersey, V.

Courtown, E.

Middleton, L.

Cox, B.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Milverton, L.

Cross, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Cuckney, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Morton, E.

Davidson, V.

Mottistone, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Denham, L.

Moyne, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Munster, E.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Napier of Magdâla, L.

Downshire, M.

Newall, L.

Dundee, E.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Norrie, L.

Elibank, L.

Northesk, E.

Ellenborough, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Erne, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Orkney, E.

Ferrers, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Finsberg, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Foley, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Gainford, L.

Pender, L.

Geddes, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Goold, L.

Radnor, E.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rawlings, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Renwick, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Romney, E.

Headfort, M.

St Davids, V.

Henley, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Holderness, L.

Sandford, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Seccombe, B.

Hood, V.

Sharples, B.

Hooper, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Hothfield, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Howe, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ironside, L.

Stokes, L.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Kimball, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Knollys, V.

Sudeley, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Swinfen, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tebbit, L.

Liverpool, E.

Terrington, L.

Long, V.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Lucas, L.

Torphichen, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lyell, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Vivian, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Manchester, D.

Westbury, L.

Marlesford, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Marsh, L.

Wise, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.40 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 23, at end insert—
(""the Panel" means the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel under section 5(1)(b)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this group of amendments we return to a subject which your Lordships discussed in Committee. I say at once that we ended that debate on a note of profound disappointment, not because the Government rejected our argument, but because they had not grasped what it was. The reply of the noble Baroness simply did not engage with the point we were making. There are two ways of expressing that: that the noble Baroness and her advisers failed to understand what I was saying, or that I failed to make myself clear. If it will help, I readily accept the second formulation and hope that this debate will prove to be a new beginning.
Perhaps I may again declare my interest. This is a matter of deep concern to the Council on Tribunals, which I am privileged to chair. It was not initially my intention to argue it on behalf of my party but, first, my party supports the principle that is involved so that I have very little choice in the matter; and, secondly, circumstances have dictated that I speak from this Bench.
Because we and the Government never joined issue in Committee we did not then seek the opinion of the House. Perhaps I may first distinguish what is at issue in this group of amendments from a wider principle on which the House did divide. I believe that the whole Bill is deeply flawed because it fails to maintain the distinction between matters appropriate to the legislature and those appropriate to the executive. If the Government have a proposal to make which entails a change in the law, they make it to the legislature, which, if it is persuaded, legislates accordingly. That distinction becomes blurred if the Government invite the legislature in effect to say, "The executive is hereby authorised to take whatever action it likes". That is not legislating vaguely; it is not legislating at all.
Of course it is usual to leave matters of detail to be dealt with by subordinate legislation. That raises the question: what is a matter of detail? I sought to argue on Second Reading and again in Committee that, for example, in a Bill entitled the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill the definition of a criminal injury could not by any criterion be a matter of detail. On that issue your Lordships disagreed with us, and I do not seek today to reopen that question. The issue which we are now debating raises an even more fundamental constitutional principle.
It is a major premise of constitutional theory that there are three institutions of government: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. Judicial institutions and judicial processes should be established and empowered by the legislature. They ought not to depend for their power on the executive because they are watchdogs of the executive. It follows that any institutions and processes concerned with rights of appeal should be enshrined in primary legislation and not in subordinate legislation at the discretion of the executive. Both at Second Reading and in Committee I quoted from the annual report of the Council on Tribunals for 1992–93. I shall not weary your Lordships by citing that passage today but it sets out why it is wrong and, fortunately, most unusual to leave the establishment of an appeal process to secondary legislation. Yet Clause 4 of the Bill

1359
leaves the scheme, not the Bill, to establish a review process to reconsider decisions of the claims officers. Clause 5 leaves appeals from that process to be established by the scheme.
In Committee I indicated that the argument is much stronger when applied to appeals than when applied to review. The Government rejected our amendment in Committee in relation to review, but the noble Baroness did not seek to distinguish for that purpose between review and appeals. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate was kind enough to confirm that they were not seeking to make that distinction. Today, we have not sought to resurrect the argument in relation to review. We regard appeals as very much more important in this context, and it is to the appeal process that these amendments relate.
The purpose of Amendment No. 15 is simply to establish the appeal process in the Bill so that its authority derives directly from the legislature and not from or through the executive. We would have liked to have seen the principal provisions relating to appeals set out in the Bill and not left to the discretion of the Secretary of State. But I say frankly that drafting an amendment for that purpose would be difficult, given the drafting scheme of this Bill. It was our attempt to do that which created the confusion which manifested itself in Committee.
Only one provision relating to the way the appeal shall be dealt with do we seek to bring within the Bill, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, seeks to do that in relation to another provision later in our proceedings. The scheme, in paragraphs 52 to 60, provides for a panel of adjudicators rather than merely for individual adjudicators who are referred to in the Bill. We have no quarrel with that. Indeed, we approve of it, since it enables provision to be made as to how many adjudicators should sit on any given category of appeals. The noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, is to take advantage of that arrangement for one of his amendments at a later stage. It also enables provision to be made for a chairman of adjudicators. Our Amendments Nos. 2 and 16 seek to ground the authority of the panel within the Bill. So, again, we are not seeking to do something which is different from what the Government envisage. We are saying that those powers should be in the Bill and not in subordinate legislation.
There is a further issue which at present exacerbates the problem. Clause 11 sets out those ongoing matters on which the Secretary of State will require a parliamentary mandate to make changes. We find no mention of appeals. Not only are they left to the discretion of the executive; there is not even a requirement that, after initially approving the scheme, Parliament should be involved. Even if the Government, for whatever reason, resist our other amendments, surely changes relating to appeals should be among the list of matters in Clause 11(3) for which parliamentary approval is required. That is the purpose of our Amendment No. 27.
There is one other amendment about which I shall make a comment. Amendment No. 17 was intended to say that arrangements for making appointments of adjudicators should be made with the approval of Parliament. That is not what our amendment says. It says that parliamentary approval should be required for each individual appointment. That is not what we intended to say and we do not propose to move that amendment.
I hope that this time I have succeeded in making clear to the noble Baroness and her advisers what is troubling us and why we attach such importance to these amendments. In Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, expressed anxiety at the way in which over the past decade there has been an attenuation of parliamentary control over legislation. When the subject matter relates to a judicial process, that anxiety is exacerbated. I do not believe that the noble Baroness and her colleagues are plotting to drive a cart and horses through the traditional safeguards of the constitution any more than my noble friend Lord McIntosh. That is perhaps what is so worrying. There is a danger that the Government are doing that not because they want to destroy the constitution but because they fail to notice that it is there. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, in answer to the last debate, as I understand it, my noble friend the Minister claimed that one of the reasons why the Bill was drafted in its present form is that that part of the authority's work could be market tested and, if necessary, presumably put out to tender. As she knows, she did not persuade me with that view during her speech on that occasion. In the course of her speech she said that she of course made a total distinction between the scheme and the appeals procedure. She said that, whatever happened to the rest of the scheme, the appeals procedure, being a quasi-judicial matter, was clearly one that should remain within the control of Parliament. That being so, I am not quite sure what is the objection to the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I also have to confess that I am confused by some of the arguments used by the noble and learned Lord in this matter. On the face of it, the amendments seem to achieve nothing more than is already achieved by Clause 5, which makes it quite clear that the scheme must include rights of appeal against decisions taken on review under the provisions of the scheme made by virtue of Section 4—not, incidentally, as these amendments would suggest, under Section 4.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to emphasise that the scheme will give applicants a right of appeal against all decisions taken on review. Under Clause 5(1)(a) it would not be open to the Secretary of State to make provision in the scheme for rights of appeal only against particular types of decisions taken on review. The subsection does not allow him to specify particular circumstances in which an appeal will be available.

1361
I therefore see no need at all to change the present wording of the Bill which is quite express and includes adequate safeguards for an independent appeals system against any review decision. We ought not to forget in this connection that the Bill is essentially enabling legislation which, while very carefully defining the parameters of the tariff scheme, leaves the detail to be set out in the scheme itself; and, as your Lordships will have seen from the draft scheme which we circulated in August, it is a very detailed scheme. Little of that detail is included on the face of the Bill, and quite rightly in my view, since that would have made for very complex primary legislation which was not readily susceptible to refinement to meet changing needs and circumstances. The right place for the detail about the tariff, loss of earnings calculations and special care calculations etc. is the scheme. It is also the right place for the detail about the appeals provisions. I am afraid that I therefore see no need to be overly prescriptive about those provisions on the face of the Bill. The scheme quite clearly sets out what the appeal provisions will be and I believe provides more than enough safeguards for victims.
I have other difficulties with these amendments. I am not sure what is meant by requiring the Secretary of State to appoint the panel with the consent of Parliament. What is that to mean in practice? Does he have to seek Parliament's specific approval as to the precise terms of reference?
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Perhaps I may spare her the effort of reading that out because I have already said that that is a mistake and that we do not propose to move that amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for that. I would also like to say something about the last amendment, which touches on parliamentary control of the scheme. I again remind the House that the amendments we made in Committee changed significantly the degree of control that Parliament will have over the new scheme, and that has been properly recognised. First, Parliament will now have to approve the complete scheme before it can come into force. Then, if change becomes necessary or desirable subsequently, Parliament will have to approve any change whatever. The more important or key features of the scheme will require approval by the affirmative resolution procedure, while, as noble Lords know, all other features will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The executive will no longer have any power to change any aspect of the scheme, however minor, without securing Parliament's approval in this way.
When the noble and learned Lord introduced these amendments, he constantly referred to the executive being almost a free spirit out there, making decisions one way or another. The executive can act only in relation to a scheme properly approved by Parliament and any change whatever, however minor or major, will also be subject to parliamentary approval.
It is of course a matter of judgment as to which features of the scheme should require approval by the affirmative resolution procedure and which by the
1362
negative. Clearly, Parliament ought not to be overburdened by minor points of detail. We have accordingly made a judgment as to what might reasonably be regarded as the so-called key features of the scheme. These are set out in Clause 11(3). In the main, they relate to the tariff itself and to matters bearing on quantum.
The last of this group of amendments would bring matters relating to appeals procedure and the status of the appeals body within the ambit of subsection (3). In practice, this would bring more or less the entirety of that part of the scheme which deals with appeals within the subsections. We are not convinced that the entire appeals function needs to be singled out for special consideration in this way. In our view this amendment is unnecessary and over-prescriptive. We suspect that the main matters relating to appeals are likely to be no more than minor points of detail, and we would accordingly be reluctant to require Parliament to have to approve them by affirmative resolution. Therefore, we believe that the negative resolution procedure provides quite adequate parliamentary control over this and the other non-key features of the scheme.
What is a legitimate debate is what should be a key or non-key feature of the scheme. But as regards all the other amendments, I hope that they will not be pressed.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, that again is a disappointing reply. I suspect that the noble Baroness drew aside the curtain and allowed us to see into the Government's mind for an instant when she said that the Bill is essentially enabling legislation. We knew that. We knew that that was the essence of the Bill and that the Government were asking Parliament to say that the Government shall do substantially as they like as regards criminal injuries compensation. That was a fairly frank admission.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I have not pulled any curtain back or hid behind any curtain in the course of these debates. There is no secret whatsoever that the Bill is mainly an enabling piece of legislation. Indeed, we have gone out of our way to express why it is that the scheme is to be subject to the negative and affirmative resolution in order to afford the flexibility, transparency and speed with which one may need to respond at some time in the future.
There is nothing devious or malign in the thinking of either myself as a Minister in the department or the department itself. One either accepts that or one does not. We either go for very complicated primary legislation with everything on the face of the Bill or we have the distinction between enabling legislation and the scheme. But there is no way in which any government, any Minister or any part of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority or the appellate system can operate outside of the scheme, which is properly approved in the first place by Parliament. Subsequently, any change, however minor or major, is also approved by Parliament. That is not government acting deviously in any way whatsoever.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the word "devious" was not my word—it came from the noble

1363
Baroness—and neither does it represent what I ever suggested. What I do suggest is that we are in danger of galloping again over the course which we have been over on some three occasions as to whether the merits of flexibility extend to a scheme which virtually invites Parliament to write a blank cheque. The noble Baroness shakes her head: we have been over this before. We know that blank cheques are more flexible than cheques by which we limit what we are agreeing to. I do not propose to repeat those arguments because we have been over them before.
The noble Baroness is now emphasising, in a way which she has not done previously, that the Bill is essentially and substantially enabling legislation. She went on to say that where we differ is that the scheme is the right place for the appeals procedure. That is indeed where we differ. We believe that even enabling legislation—whatever label one gives it—should have some matters which are essentially matters for primary legislation. We are saying that one of those matters is the establishment, the empowerment, of judicial procedures. As I have said, that seems to be the view even of this Government in most of the legislation that we have seen in the past few years.
The noble Baroness asked why we should change the wording of Clause 5 which already says that there shall be a scheme and that the scheme shall provide for an appeal. There is a distinction between saying, "There shall be an appeal", and saying, "The Secretary of State shall make a scheme in which he provides for an appeal". If the noble Baroness does not see that distinction, I am not sure that we can take the argument very much further. One can either see what is before one's eyes or one cannot.
On Amendment No. 27, I agree that the difference is between having the positive resolution procedure and the negative procedure. The noble Baroness was not born yesterday and she knows that there is a very important different procedurally. With negative resolutions, one is in the hands of the government business managers; with positive procedures, the Government have to provide the time. That is a very important distinction. At the moment the effect of the Bill as drafted is that changes in the scheme, including changes relating to the appeals procedure, can be made simply by negative resolution. If the noble Baroness does not agree with us on the other distinction that we are making, we would invite your Lordships to say that at the very least the appeals procedure ought to be in that part of the Bill which requires an affirmative resolution.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am happy to respond, although not definitively at this stage. I know the strength of feeling with which the noble and learned Lord is arguing about what should come under the affirmative resolution procedure and what should come under the negative resolution procedure. I wonder
1364
whether he will allow me to take this away, to consider what has been said during this exchange and to report back by the next stage.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, the noble Baroness cannot say fairer than that in relation to Amendment No. 27, and after a rapid consultation with my noble friend Lord McIntosh, I can assure her that we shall not be inviting the House to divide on Amendment No. 27.
However, that does not address the essential argument that we are advancing in relation to the other amendments in this group. We had hoped for a more forthcoming reply, but I think that we have made at least an advance and that the noble Baroness appreciates what we are seeking to argue. However, it appears that, having appreciated it, the Government reject it. In those circumstances, the appropriate course is to invite the opinion of the House.
4.3 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 147.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Addington, L.

Hughes, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hylton, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Ilchester, E.

Barnett, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Bath, M.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Judd, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Kintore, E.

Carter, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Lawrence, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Lockwood, B.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

David, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Desai, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Diamond, L.

McNair, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mason of Bamsley, L.

Donoughue, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Monkswell, L.

Erroll, E.

Morris of Castle Morris, L

Ezra, L.

Nelson, E.

Falkender, B.

Nicol, B.

Falkland, V.

Ogmore, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Gallacher, L.

Richard, L.

Geraint, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Glenamara, L.

Rochester, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Sainsbury, L.

Gregson, L.

St. John of Bletso, L.

Hanworth, V.

Seear, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Haskel, L. [Teller]

Serota, B.

Headfort, M.

Shannon, E.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Simon, V.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Stallard, L.

Hooson, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

1365

Strabolgi, L.

Varley, L.

Strafford, E.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Wharton, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

White, B.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Wigoder, L.

Tordoff, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Henley, L.

Addison, V.

Holderness, L.

Ailsa, M.

HolmPatrick, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Hood, V.

Alport, L.

Hooper, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Hothfield, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howe, E.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Huntly, M.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Beloff, L.

Inglewood, L.

Blake, L.

Ironside, L.

Blatch, B.

Kimball, L.

Boardman, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Knollys, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Bruntisfield, L.

Liverpool, E.

Burton, L.

Long, V.

Butterworth, L.

Lucas, L

Cadman, L.

Lyell, L.

Caldecote, V.

McColl of Dulwich, L

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lore Chancellor.]

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Manchester, D.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Mersey, V.

Colnbrook, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Constantine of Stanmore, L.

Milverton, L

Comwallis, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Courtown, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cox, B.

Morton, E

Cross, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cuckney, L.

Mountevans, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V.

Munster, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Norrie, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Downshire, M.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dundee, E.

Oxfuird, V.

Eccles, V.

Palmer, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Elibank, L.

Pender, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Elles, B.

Prentice, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Radnor, E.

Elton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Erne, E.

Rawlings, B.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Ferrers, E

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Foley, L.

Renton, L.

Gainford, L.

Renwick, L.

Geddes, L.

Rippon of Hexham, L.

Goold, L.

Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

Goschen, V.

Romney, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

St Davids, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Seccombe, B.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Sharples, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Shaw of Notthstead, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harrowby, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Stodatt of Leaston, L.

1366

Stokes, L.

Tugendhat, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Sudeley, L.

Westbury. L.

Swinfen, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Terrington, L.

Wise, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Wyatt of Weeford, L.

Torphichen, L.

Wynford, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.11 p.m.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 [Basis on which compensation is to be calculated]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert ("and the age and sex of the person applying for the award").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment returns to an issue that we debated in Committee. I do not apologise for that because I have better information now with which to deal with it. In Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made a very helpful intervention and I am sorry that she is not in her place today. I argued then that the age and sex of the applicant are enormously important in establishing the real damage done by any particular injury. We all recognise that the tariff is a rough and ready approximation and that it is deliberately intended to be a rough and ready approximation in order to establish a basis on which compensation can be calculated more speedily by less expert people—in other words, by claims officers rather than lawyers—and at less public expense. We do not underestimate the benefits of speed and administrative efficiency.
The basis on which the tariff has been established is different from the tariff scheme which was subsequently declared illegal. In that scheme there were 187 separate injuries identified; in this scheme there are now over 300. No doubt over the years the number will go up as we learn to distinguish more closely the actual damage done, both psychologically and physically, as a result of different kinds of criminal injury.
But however it has been improved, the tariff scheme still fails to recognise a fundamental series of differences—the differences caused to people of different sex and of different ages.
I take ages first. Clearly, with a very large number of injuries—particularly those which are visible—more serious damage is done to those who are young and perhaps beautiful than to those who are old and certainly not beautiful. More serious damage is done to those who will have to live with the physical results of their injuries over a number of decades than to those who are perhaps in their last decade or couple of decades. That is common sense, as everyone here—of whatever age—will agree.
Similarly, some injuries—particularly those which relate to fertility—have a differential effect. For the sake of this argument we do not need the injuries to have a greater effect, but a differential effect, on women than they do on men. Certainly, injuries which are visible

1367
have a differential effect on women than they do on men. No one doubts that these are real differences, and no one has contended that these differences are recognised within the tariff.
Indeed, when we consider the relationship of the tariff scheme with the rest of personal injury damages at law, it becomes evident that the tariff without reference to age or sex is woefully inadequate. There are people—I am not making a party point—who will wish, if the tariff scheme works, to apply it to other forms of personal injury, whether injuries at work, injuries caused by medical negligence, or whatever. There may be some justification for that. It may be that the advantages of speed and economy would also apply to such injuries. There is no self-evident reason why that should not be so, although many personal injuries lawyers might be put out of work were it to happen.
As soon as you start to think about applying a tariff of this kind to injuries other than injuries caused by criminal activity, you realise that differences of age and sex, and the seriousness of injury caused to different people of different ages and of either sex, is such that you could not extend the tariff scheme to cover other personal injuries now covered by the common law. The point I am making is that if the tariff scheme is viable, and if it is to be made viable and made applicable to forms of personal injury other than criminal injury, then at some stage it must recognise differences of age and sex.
I had the advantage—I am grateful for it—of a meeting with the Minister and her officials between Committee stage and Report stage. I asked whether information on the age and sex of applicants, of victims was available. It was a question to which I did not have the answer in Committee. The basis on which the tariff was drawn up is statistically sound. Twenty thousand cases were examined and analysed. The median award made for each identified separate injury was identified and used as a basis for the tariff.
To the other question I was asking—about occupation—the answer was that there was no evidence of occupation in the survey of 20,000. But there was evidence of age and sex. In other words, the age and sex of the applicant had in each case been recorded and transferred on to the record sheet which was used as the basis for drawing up the tariff.
So it is physically possible for age and sex to be included in the tariff scheme. That would mean—if you look at the tariff—that where there is a single column of figures on the righthand side of each page opposite each identified injury there would have to be a multiple column of figures to distinguish between the old and the young and male and female.
It may well be—I speak now as a statistician—that the sample of 20,000 is not adequate for each injury for a very wide range of ages. I cannot imagine that it would not be good enough to distinguish between men and women. It is possible to do that. The evidence is available on which to do it, and if necessary the evidence could be extended. The 20,000 sample could be extended and brought in as a criterion. It is common
1368
sense that the age and sex of the applicant—the victim—sis a relevant consideration. I do not think that the Minister will seek to deny that.
If the amendment is to be opposed, it will be opposed on grounds of complexity or practicability rather than on the basic principle underlying it. I have sought, with the help of the Minister and her officials, to show that it is possible to do what we want: that the scheme would be enormously improved in its approximation to real life if it were to be improved in this way. I do not wish to press the amendment. What I want from the Minister is a recognition that there would be an improvement, and that some serious effort will be made in subsequent versions of the scheme to provide for what we are asking in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have every sympathy with what was said by the noble Lord and the way in which he said it. Perhaps I may ask for some clarification. Is not the noble Lord's concern capable of being assumed by subsection (5) within the words:
"or the circumstances in which it was sustained"?
The circumstances include the age and the sex. "Circumstances" provide the widest possible term.
Perhaps I may ask my noble friend the Minister, whether if I am right, and I may not be, the injury would be so described in the tariff in this way, which accommodates the concern of the noble Lord, because, if so, the amendment would not seem to be necessary. However, I am not sure that I am right.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, one has a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and the speech that he made. However, regrettably it seems that he was really arguing for the end of the tariff. I would welcome that outcome. I have always argued that it is factors such as age, occupation and sex that a tariff cannot account for in deciding the appropriate volume of compensation. I thought that, sadly, we had all moved on from there in view of the major concessions made by the Government in their second attempt to introduce a new criminal injuries compensation scheme as against their original abortive attempt. I believe that it had been accepted that, for the majority of offences, a tariff of some kind should be introduced, certainly for the simpler offences.
That being so, I find it difficult to understand how the amendment could work. I accept that scarring or injury to the face of a young girl may be worth a considerably greater degree of compensation than on a middle-aged man. I put it no higher than that. If it is said to be consistent with the tariff, does the noble Lord seriously suggest that under the statement in the scheme for something like a nose—there are several different varieties of broken nose or deviated septums set out in the scheme already—it would be possible to put: "(female)", "(male)", and "(over 30)", "(under 50)", "(over 50)", and "(under 30)" with a different price against each?
If we are to have a tariff system, we cannot add that degree of complexity to it without making it unworkable. I was sad that the noble Lord did not support the amendment that I tabled in Committee. It

1369
was to allow a band of figures rather than a single figure, so that there was a degree of discretion within the band. Although I sympathise with the proposal's aim, I believe that it is impractical for it to be in the tariff; and if it is not to be in the tariff, but at large to change the tariff figure because of age or sex to some other figure which the claims officer thinks most appropriate, then it strikes at the whole root of the tariff system. As I said, having persuaded the Government to change to the degree that they have, that system has been accepted as a central part of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, again, I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. It is a question of whether we move back towards the common law scheme and away from the tariff scheme. The Bill presently provides that the basic tariff award should be determined by reference to the nature of the injury alone. This amendment would additionally require that award to take account of the age and sex of the person applying for the award.
As we have made clear all along, there is no "right" amount of money that can compensate a victim for the pain and hurt they have suffered as a result of criminal injury—or most other types of injury, come to that. Any figure is essentially arbitrary. In our tariff scheme, therefore, we are no longer aiming to provide finely judged compensation on the same basis as hitherto; that is, with the aim of in some way trying to restore the victim to the position he or she would have been in had the injury not occurred. What we are aiming to provide is a tariff payment to reflect society's sense of responsibility for, and feelings of sympathy with, the blameless victim of a crime of violence. That is why we have gone for a straightforward tariff-based approach under which all applicants are treated in the same objective and transparent way and under which all receive a payment based on the injury they have received.
That is also why we have resisted persistent calls to adopt approaches which, in some way or another, will make the scheme more subjective and more complex. As your Lordships well know, these approaches have taken many forms—from selecting an award from somewhere in a wide band, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Carlisle, to giving percentage increases in certain circumstances, and to dealing with certain categories of case outside the tariff altogether. And now we have the suggestion that the award should take account of the applicant's age and sex.
All these suggestions would involve subjective judgment or, alternatively perhaps, reference to some sort of matrix of tariff awards which the typical applicant would find bewilderingly complex. All these suggestions would make the scheme more complicated to administer. They would all provoke more argument about what level of award would be appropriate, and that would in turn lead to more appeals. They would also, inevitably, lead to increased costs for the taxpayer, and greatly increase the difficulty of predicting what those extra costs were likely to be in any one year. And all these ideas would also slow the system down,
1370
negating some of the main advantages we see in a simple tariff approach; namely, speed, simplicity and certainty.
My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway asked about the word "circumstances" in subsection (5). That refers to the circumstances in which the criminal injury occurred as opposed to whether the person was beautiful or ugly, young or old, or whatever. My imagination is pretty fertile about a panel, however expert it may be, making subjective judgments about beauty and ugliness. It would be a minefield for subjectivity, would give rise to a great deal of concern among applicants, and would put an onerous task on the appeals panel.
We think that the tariff approach is the right one. It offers a simple, broad brush scheme that the average claimant can readily understand. I call upon noble Lords to reject the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister does herself and the scheme much less than justice. She appears to believe that it is much less sensitive and flexible than it is, thanks partly perhaps to parliamentary pressure. It is a great deal more than a tariff scheme and it has many virtues which have been introduced by the Government since the setting up of the previous scheme.
The amendment provides that after subsection (2)(a), which reads:
"a standard amount of compensation, determined by reference to the nature of the injury",
shall be added the provision:
"and the age and sex of the person applying for the award".
That is not subjective; it is entirely objective. It requires no further exercise of discretion, judgment, delay or anything else which moves away from the tariff principle.
I was surprised to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, in describing the amendment as being the end of the tariff. It improves the tariff in the extent to which it maps against reality. It is not an improvement which in any way threatens the principle of the tariff. I repeat that it does not require claims officers to make subjective judgments. It requires them to work on a fixed tariff basis on objective criteria. They can make their judgments taking into account age and sex as simply as they can by identifying the injury.
The amendment does not require that as regards the different ages and sexes there should be a difference in the award that should be made, any more than there is a requirement that each individual injury should have a different amount of compensation. The tariff lists more than 300 injuries and only 23 bands of compensation. Many different injuries fall into the same band, and that would remain the case. I open the tariff at random and see "Torso: loss of spleen". I cannot imagine that as regards loss of spleen there would be a difference between the different sexes or ages. As regards "Torso: damage to testes", clearly that applies to only one sex. As regards "Torso: dislocated hip—full recovery", one would not need to make a distinction between the

1371
different ages and sexes. However, as regards a visible injury or an injury related to the physical sexual characteristics, there is the possibility of making such a distinction.
With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, it does not mean that the list of 310 injuries will suddenly become a list of 3,100. There could be a single column list because the level and the tariff payment map 100 per cent. against each other. It would mean that in the space of the single column there would be a number of columns for each of the same number of injuries. There is no threat to the tariff scheme, nor to the ability of claims officers—even those relatively unskilled in the law or medicine—to assign injuries to a particular band and therefore to make speedy judgments.
The argument for the amendment is that it is in favour of a tariff scheme which accords more closely with what we all know to be the reality. I am deeply disappointed that the Government have not felt it possible even to recognise that in the future and in the interests of the tariff scheme they may wish to introduce an amendment along these lines.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene on that point. It is not necessary for the Government to speak their mind on what may or may not happen in the future. If enacted, it would be possible under the Bill for the authority to decide. If as it carries out its duties over time it becomes aware that there is a category of injury which should be properly recognised and incorporated in the tariff, there is a proper mechanism for doing so. It would then be for the authority to recommend that to my right honourable friend, who could recommend to Parliament a change in the tariff scheme.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept that and am grateful for it. However, would it not have been better if the Bill had recognised that there is no defect—indeed, that there is a positive advantage—in having a tariff scheme which is recognisably real and recognises real differences? Let us hope, as with many of these arguments, that in the future the Government will see the light more clearly than they have in the past. This is not an issue on which I believe your Lordships should take a formal view, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) an additional amount of compensation to be paid to a woman to whom a standard amount for rape has been awarded and who has become pregnant as a result of the rape, which amount may be different in the case of each of the following events—

(i) a child born alive which she intends to keep;

(ii) a child born alive which she has given up or intends to give up for adoption;

(iii) the pregnancy has ended in miscarriage;

(iv) the pregnancy has ended in an abortion.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is different from that which we introduced in Committee when we were concerned about the effects of the criminal injury of rape. In many ways the law relating to rape is still evolving and is unsatisfactory. After all, it became clear only in recent years that under English law rape in marriage is illegal. However, many aspects relating to rape appear in the scheme in an almost medieval form. The scheme refers to the victim's character and conduct, which could well be interpreted by a malign authority—I do not say that the authority will be malign—as meaning that those engaged in the sex industry or in criminal conduct are less entitled to the protection of the law than other women. The fundamental principle behind our approach to injuries resulting from sexual offences should be that all women—and, indeed, all men—are entitled to the protection of the law.
The scheme allows claims to be disqualified because of delays in reporting to the police or claiming compensation. That is the essence of the time-limit argument. It is difficult to see where in the scheme there is adequate recognition of the trauma which arises as a result of sexual abuse, sexual offences or of the fear which the victim may have not only of the offender but of the reaction of the police in reported rape. Those are serious matters and there is plenty of evidence to show that women are afraid of the perpetrator of the offence, of the possible reaction of the police and of what may happen during the course of the trial. I wished to restate those facts of life as regards sexual offences and the effect on the victims of such offences.
The amendment refers to a particular aspect which is inadequately dealt with in the tariff. It is the amount of compensation to be paid to a woman who has been raped. There is provision for a standard amount of compensation for rape and there is a figure for pregnancy as a result of the rape. However, we suggest in the amendment four different outcomes from pregnancy as a result of rape—there may be more—which deserve separate recognition in the tariff.
The first is rape resulting in a child which the woman intends to keep. The second is a child born alive which is given up or intended to be given up for adoption. The third is a pregnancy that has ended in miscarriage; and the fourth is a pregnancy that has ended in abortion. The differences may be traumatic in the case of adoption; they may be financial in the case of a child who is being kept and brought up; or they may be physical in the cases of miscarriage and abortion where the effect on fertility may take a long time to emerge.
Although there are attempts to recognise and provide a flexibility for some of the different outcomes of rape, it seems to us that there is a case for recognising more formally the different outcomes as a result of criminal rape.
Again, this is not an amendment which I wish to push to a vote because it is not necessarily a matter which would have to appear on the face of the Bill although we have to treat it that way in order to have a debate on the matter. I am looking for a recognition by government that there are those different outcomes; that

1373
they deserve special recognition in the tariff; and that there are very significant financial differences. We are looking for a tariff that accords more closely with reality. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may say at the outset to the noble Lord that there is no standard amount for rape because the tariff as it is now set out is extremely sensitive to the different situations in which rape may occur.
This amendment considerably extends the provision in the 1990 scheme, which we have carried forward into the new one, whereby if a woman bears a child as a result of rape and decides to keep it an additional £5,000 is paid to her.
As has been widely recognised, we have incorporated many of the elements of the current common law damages scheme in our draft proposals. But I am afraid we must resist novel extensions of the kind put forward here. The rationale for the present position is that a woman who keeps a child in these circumstances is likely to be put to some additional expense which, while not quantifiable in precise terms, ought to receive some tangible recognition. This amendment, as the noble Lord explained, attempts to address the trauma associated with other outcomes of pregnancy following rape. But these outcomes will already be reflected to a degree in the tariff award for the rape itself, since that figure is based on the median award from a wide range of circumstances considered under the 1990 scheme.
Furthermore, where the rape has resulted in mental trauma of the kind covered by the provisions in the tariff scheme for shock, the award would be increased. Indeed, there might be cases where the mental trauma itself attracted the highest award for shock—namely, £20,000. One cannot be wholly definitive. I do not know whether a subsequent situation such as infertility arising as a direct result of the injuries would be a matter for reconsideration by the authority. But certainly rape is a criminal injury and is dealt with very sensitively in the scheme. I believe that trauma also encompasses many of the other aspects referred to by the noble Lord. Therefore, I hope that he will not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister is right that if you take together the series of references in the tariff to sexual assault and to shock, it may mean that there is a level of flexibility. But of course, that is achieved only by, in effect, shock opting out of the tariff. Shock is dealt with only in the form of note 4 to the tariff which sets out the range of components of shock without actually saying what the tariff band should be.
It is true that there are six different levels of banding for sexual assault ranging from minor indecent assault to non-consensual intercourse. To that extent, the Minister is right to say that there is no standard tariff for rape. Indeed, there are three different payments according to whether there was one or more attacker and whether there are other serious bodily injuries. But that still does not recognise the range of financial effects which occur in the four different cases of pregnancy after rape to which I referred. In all of these amendments the Minister will accept that we are not
1374
attempting to be destructive or to break away from the tariff and deny the advantages of an enhanced tariff scheme. We are seeking to make the tariff better. I still believe that the tariff is woefully inadequate in the consideration of the effects of pregnancy after rape. I still believe that in the end the tariff scheme will have to recognise the factors to which I have drawn attention in the amendment. I gladly give way to the Minister.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, perhaps I may correct one assumption which the noble Lord made; that is, that shock is relegated to no more than a note at the end of the tariff. There is an attempt to describe ranges of shock from disabling temporary anxiety right through to permanent mental disorder with awards extending from £1,000 up to £20,000. There is an additional note as to what can be taken into account when considering a shock award.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is right but I wanted to spare the House a listing of the very crude distinctions made in the five categories of shock which are allowed: disabling but temporary mental anxiety medically verified; disabling mental disorder confirmed by psychiatric diagnosis with three different time bands; and permanently disabling mental disorder confirmed by psychiatric prognosis. When those criteria are applied to the huge range of forms of shock which are set out in the note, it will be recognised that we are at a very early stage as regards including adequate recognition of shock in the tariff. The Government recognise that because they know and have acknowledged—I give them credit for it—that the Criminal Law Revision Committee is still working on the issue and will make recommendations which I imagine will have to be incorporated in the tariff. I appreciate that we are not there yet.
With this simple and obvious amendment, we are hoping to anticipate what might come from the deliberations of the Criminal Law Revision Committee. I have put the issue on record in Hansard. That is the best we can hope to do at the moment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) standard amounts of compensation to be paid to persons who have sustained criminal injury by stabbing other than to internal organs, tendons or ligaments.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an issue to which we did not refer directly in Committee. However, the issue of stabbing is still causing anxiety to those concerned in particular with personal injury law who feel that the tariff is inadequate in one respect.
In consultation with the department we have been told that stabbing, particularly stabbing to the torso, is recognised by references to injuries caused to organs and that stabbing other than to the torso, or indeed sometimes to the torso itself presumably, can be recognised by injuries to tendons or ligaments. No one

1375
with as little knowledge of human physiology as I have should stand at the Dispatch Box to move an amendment of this kind but I am assured that there are results of stabbing other than injuries to internal organs, tendons and ligaments which are recognised in common law; which attract compensation when they arise as a result of accidents at work or medical negligence—because stabbing need not be deliberate and criminal—and which could, without too much difficulty and without stretching too greatly the tariff, be recognised in the tariff. This, again, is an amendment to the Bill because that is the way we have to deal with it. We are not looking for it to be on the face of the Bill; we are looking, because this is a probing amendment, for some recognition that there are injuries resulting from stabbing which are at the moment excluded from consideration and could well be considered. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord makes a wrong assumption in that injury caused by stabbing can of course include damage to internal organs but it can also include scarring and trauma. All of that can be taken into account when an application is made.
The approach in the tariff, both in the description of injuries and the standard amounts of compensation assigned to each one, is taken from current practice in personal injury cases. It focuses on the effects of the injury, as that is what compensation is for, rather than the means by which the injury was inflicted. Thus, in relation to puncture wounds, which of course may be caused by any number of methods and implements, the tariff provides for scarring, soft tissue damage (tendons, ligaments etc.) and damage to internal organs, with special provision for laparotomy where an abdominal wound has required internal surgical investigation.
That is the correct and logical approach. To attempt to single out stabbing as a separate category, in cases where no significant internal damage results, would be inconsistent with current practice. There is no reason to differentiate it from all the other extremely unpleasant ways in which a person may be violently attacked. Compensation must be based on the physical and mental injury caused. The tariff represents a massive survey of the injuries which the board has actually come across in its work. For example, in the case of injuries to the upper limb (hand, arm, shoulder), the tariff lists numerous injuries, including paralysis, permanent serious impairment of grip and scarring—which may well have been caused by stabbing or some other means. Nevertheless, if a new injury cropped up which could not rightly be placed in one of these descriptions, as I have said before, it could be added under the procedure for new injury descriptions. The amendment, as well as being inappropriate to the Bill—the noble Lord has made that very point—could not assist in shaping whatever changes might be required to the tariff in the future. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was never my intention to press the amendment, as I made clear when I moved it. The Minister is, of course, correct in
1376
that fundamentally the tariff must reflect the effect of the injury rather than the way in which the injury was caused. We accept that. What we are doing is taking this as an example of the way in which the tariff is as yet in an incomplete state. The Minister recognised that when she referred to the provision for the inclusion of new injuries. I suspect that something along these lines may well have to be included in the tariff as a new injury in the coming years. It may not be described as stabbing, because of course stabbing is the means rather than the effect. There are gaps here as regards human physiology which may not have arisen in the extensive sampling to which the Minister referred but which will undoubtedly occur in the future. I do not regret having drawn attention to the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Claims and awards]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 7, after ("Scheme") insert ("and for such periods to be extended in the circumstances of any particular case if in the opinion of the person determining the claim it is just and reasonable to do so").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 7 refers again to the issue of time limits for the submission of applications. When I proposed in Committee the extension of the normal time limit from two to three years I was politely mauled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, who suggested that applicants tend to wait until the last minute and would do so until the eleventh month of the third year just as much as to the eleventh month of the second year. I was not entirely convinced by that argument, despite the noble Lord's undoubted expertise. It seems to me that if people think they will get any money out of the scheme they will want it as early as possible rather than leaving it to the last possible minute. Nevertheless we withdrew the amendment on that occasion. We are not seeking here to change the fundamental time limit, but we are drawing attention to the point which was effectively brought home by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, when he said that extensions to the time limit should be allowed only in exceptional cases. He described clearly to the Committee the legal definition of "exception" and the limited way in which it is intended to be applied in the law.
I am no lawyer, as I am evidently no human physiologist, but nevertheless I was impressed by the noble and learned Lord's arguments. It seemed to me that, rather than use the word "exceptional", which is what the scheme uses at the moment, there ought to be some way of providing a more ready extension in suitable cases. One of the suitable cases—this matter was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—is the recognition of injuries which become apparent only when the victim reaches the age of 18 or more. I refer particularly to child abuse and child sexual abuse. I still think that that is not adequately covered in the wording. If we used the phrase, "just and reasonable", which I understand has a legal meaning different from "exceptional", perhaps we might make progress.
Again this is a probing amendment. If carried, it would put on the face of the Bill matters which could properly come into the scheme and achieve parliamentary control in that way. We look for an indication from the Minister that this is a failing in the scheme as at present drafted and that the Government recognise that failing and are prepared to make attempts to remedy it. I beg to move.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, as far as I can recall there was a fair measure of harmony in regard to this subject because the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, while adhering to his view that two years was a reasonable period, added to the situation by saying that a proper degree of discretion must be provided to the appropriate authority to extend that period where necessary, and "exceptional circumstances" was generally accepted—I think by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate—to he a restricted phrase which needed looking at again. This is what appears to have occurred here: there is a wide measure of discretion while compromising in accepting the two-year period. I would respectfully suggest to the Chamber that that seems a reasonable approach to have taken.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I understand—or I hope—that the Minister will say that the sensible proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will now find their way into the scheme and the words "just and reasonable" may possibly replace "exceptional circumstances". Having pleaded guilty to stretching the words "exceptional circumstances" quite unreasonably on every occasion that I consider these matters, I suggest that, if it is the intention of the Government, as they have indicated, to change the current scheme in certain ways to meet the proposals in the new scheme as regards structured settlements, they might take the same opportunity to change the words in the current scheme. In that case I shall not have to indulge in such an acrobatic performance every time that I find exceptional circumstances have been met, when clearly, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, said, no such thing has occurred at all.
5 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am aware from the thoughtful debate that we had on the issue in Committee that many noble Lords are unhappy with the wording in the present draft of the scheme which says that time limits can be waived "in exceptional circumstances". There was a feeling that, although that term was generally interpreted sensibly and liberally under the present arrangements by my noble friend Lord Carlisle—who has just made a confession on the issue—such a liberal interpretation might not always be applied and the term might be considered too restrictive.
We have thought hard about this issue since then, and I can tell the House that we shall be offering an alternative form of words in the next draft of the scheme. The words we envisage being part of the scheme are as follows:
"A claims officer may waive the time limit where he considers that, by reason of the special circumstances of the case, it is reasonable and in the interests of justice to do so".
1378
That wording is not too dissimilar to the words offered by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his amendment, but perhaps I should explain briefly why we have chosen those rather different words.
First, we believe that there needs to be some reference to the circumstances of the case, which, if not exceptional, ought at least to be different from the ordinary run of cases, and to that extent special. Secondly, it needs to be reasonable for the time limit to be waived, by which we mean, among other things, that there must be some prospect of securing sufficient evidence to support the claim without disproportionate effort or cost on the part of the CICA or anyone else. Thirdly, it must be in the interests of justice that the time limit be waived. We have gone for that phrase rather than the simple word "just" because we have used the phrase elsewhere in the draft scheme.
In the light of that assurance and explanation, I hope that all noble Lords, and in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, my noble friend Lord Carlisle and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, who proposed the amendment, will accept that we have done our best to address this very real point of concern.
Perhaps I may also take this opportunity to say that, if it had not been for preparing for this stage of the Bill, it is possible that the most recent draft of the scheme would have been available to noble Lords. I promise that the scheme will be seen by noble Lords before Third Reading so that they will have an opportunity not only to see the words on the page but also to see for themselves other parts of the tariff and the scheme.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down I wonder whether she will consider changing "special circumstances" to "particular circumstances". I should have thought that that would ensure that one has regard to the particular circumstances of the case and does not look for those circumstances to be special. It is my recollection that on the previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, referred to how frequently in child abuse cases the period was overrun. If one uses the word "special" it may prove a stumbling block in that type of case.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, on the face of it, I can see no reason to oppose the suggestion. However, the noble and learned Lord will understand that I must check that with officials. Certainly I shall give the matter consideration.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, again, before the Minister sits down, since we are at Report stage—and I shall respond to her other points later—perhaps I may ask her on the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, whether we can be sure that, whatever wording is finally adopted, whether it is "special" or "particular", there is explicit recognition of the kind of injuries which become apparent only a very long time after the offence has taken place. I am thinking in particular of the appearance in adulthood of the effects of child abuse and child sexual abuse. Will the noble Baroness bear that in mind, as she has undertaken to consider the wording?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, throughout the afternoon I have been extremely remiss in not asking

1379
the leave of the House to intervene on such questions. I do so on this occasion. I say to the noble Lord that of course we will go away and think about anything that is suggested from the Dispatch Box. However, I believe that we need to leave it to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority to make judgments about a particular case. Clearly, evidence to support a claimant will be a very important consideration for the authority in considering a claim.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful for that response. The Minister has sat down. She has not been at all remiss in not seeking the leave of the House. She has spoken only entirely in accordance with the rules. On the last two occasions she has done so without formally resuming her seat. That is entirely proper and does not require the leave of the House.
Clearly, we have achieved as much as we can expect on this issue. I am disappointed to find that it is my fault that the draft of the scheme did not come before your Lordships before Report stage. I did not think that I was creating so much work with the amendments that we have put down as to affect the timing of the scheme. We are glad to learn that the draft scheme will be available before Third Reading. We hope that it will be available tomorrow or on Thursday so that we can give it adequate consideration in time to put down amendments, if necessary, for Third Reading. However, we are pleased that the details of the scheme will be available.
Regarding the new wording which the Minister is considering, these are clearly moves in the right direction. I shall not go further than that. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow Lord Carlisle of Bucklow moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert ("; or
(c) by not less than two members of the Board of Adjudicators in any case that may be referred to them for determination by the Scheme manager or the claims officers.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this amendment we move away from the issue of the tariff and turn to that part of the Bill which deals with how claims are to be dealt with. The purpose of the amendment is to allow for the possibility that, rather than an application having to be considered on paper by a claims officer, where appropriate it could be referred immediately to a hearing by two or more adjudicators.
The situation is clear. In this aspect the Government have made a deliberate change from the present situation. What is proposed is set out in paragraph 46 of the draft, which states:
"The application will be determined by a claims officer and a written decision sent to the applicant or his representative".
Paragraph 22 of the current scheme begins:
"The initial decision on an application will be taken by a single member of the board or by any member of the board staff to whom the board has given authority to determine applications on the board's behalf'.
It continues—and this is where the difference occurs because these words are not included in the new scheme:
"It will also be open to a member of the board or a designated member of the board staff, where he considers that he cannot make a just and proper decision himself, to refer the application for a hearing before at least two members of the board".
I believe that such a provision will be found in practice to be essential in the tariff scheme.
That is a power which we have at present. I am told that in the past year we used it on something like 960 occasions. That may seem a large number. However, when taken against a rate of application of 60,000 to 70,000 cases a year it means that it is used in about 1 to 2 per cent. of the cases that come before us. I believe that it is vital in those cases. It would strengthen the Bill enormously were the same provision to apply in this case.
There are two types of case where I believe such a power would be helpful. The first is where there is a complete conflict of evidence, and the second (and this should appeal to the Treasury) is where there are substantial and complicated claims for damages.
To deal with the first, often in practice there are cases where one is faced with two totally conflicting accounts of an alleged assault. The applicant claims boldly that he was assaulted. His alleged assailant makes an equally bold assertion to the police that he was acting in self-defence. The CPS decides that in the circumstances there is insufficient evidence to prosecute, and the police may not wish to express any view as to which account they give veracity to.
In those circumstances, it is difficult to decide on paper whether one should make an award. Surely, it would be far better for the matter immediately to be referred to a hearing—as it can be at the moment—so that members of the adjudication panel in future, or members of the board at the moment, should have a chance to assess the matter in deciding whether to accept the person's account and whether or not to make an award.
Noble Lords may say that that could always be avoided because in such cases the application could originally be refused by the claims officer and the man could be forced to apply for a hearing by way of appeal. I should have thought it more just and reasonable that one should have the powers that we have at the moment immediately to refer it to a hearing in the first place.
The second type of case in which the power is important is that where complicated claims for damages are involved. I take the case of someone who has been seriously injured and a claim is put in for future care or future loss of earnings. I am glad to say that under the tariff as against the original abortive tariff, provision is made for loss of earnings and future care. However, I believe that many cases will be found in practice to be of a complicated nature where it will be impossible to decide on the real figure without some form of oral hearing.
What happens in the case of a claim for loss of earnings or future care is that the applicant puts in a schedule. It sounds impressive. It is a schedule of future

1381
loss based on a statement that the man is unable to work. A schedule is promptly put in saying that he will be unable to work for life. It states that the appropriate multiplier is 15, that the multiplicand is £10,000 a year, and that the claim therefore is £150,000. Equally, in a case for future care, those who have been involved in that type of work will know that there are certain highly experienced professionals who put in magnificent schedules on the additional care required for a person who is likely to be permanently invalided as a result of the injury he suffered. These can be schedules of changes required to accommodation, or of the amount of extra help needed, and matters of that nature. Often, when probing such cases by questioning the individuals concerned, one may sometimes find that the schedule bears little relation to real life. A person claiming many thousands of pounds for future care has, it turns out, been coping perfectly happily over the past so many years with a much lower level of assistance and intends to continue doing so in the future.
In cases for loss of earnings and for future care, we on the board have found that by referring an individual to a hearing so that the individual, his counsel or his representative can be questioned on the basis of the schedule, on some occasions at least the final award is considerably different from the original sum asked for.
If claims are merely to be dealt with on the basis of what appears in the papers, I do not see what alternative the claims officer will have other than to accept at its face value every schedule put before him. I believe that the Treasury, among others, will regret that there is no power to refer those types of cases to scrutiny by examination and questioning by the people who have to make the awards.
Therefore, I cannot see the Government's great objection—as I understand it to be—to the proposal. I am told that it is twofold. First, I am told that it is vital that those who are at the appellate level should have nothing to do with the original decision. However, so far as I know, we have not been criticised in practice for the system that has now been running throughout the life of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. That appellate body or the body which holds the hearing always consists of two or more members and is, of course, itself subject to judicial review. I do not believe that unfairness has been occasioned in any case because the decision has been taken immediately at the hearing stage rather than originally at the papers stage. The second reason for the objection is, I understand, to do with market testing. Should market testing mean that the authority was eventually "farmed out"—if that is the phrase—to an outside body, one could not have any connection whatever between the panel and the claims officers. Again, I cannot see that that is a valid argument against what I believe to be a sensible provision.
I add that since the administrative costs of the board run at slightly under 9 per cent. per annum, I am not sure what body will be anxious to take it over in the private sector after the market testing has taken place. That apart, even if the process were put out to tender, I cannot see why it should affect the right of a claims officer—who will he the individual looking at the papers in the first place—to decide that a certain aspect is one
1382
which he cannot justly and fairly decide on the papers and that it is necessary for him to see in person the applicant and his representatives. It is in an attempt to improve the administration of the scheme that I move the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I hope that I can be helpful to my noble friend. As he knows, under the present scheme individual members of the board and, where appropriate, its staff take the initial decision in a case on documentary evidence alone. Appeals against such decisions are considered by a number of board members at oral hearings. Where a board member considers that he cannot take an initial decision on the papers, he may refer the case for an oral hearing before a number of members. That decision is final and there is then no right of appeal against the board's decision.
Under the tariff scheme, however, the arrangements will be different. There will be a clear separation of the initial decision taking process and the appeals function. The initial decision will be taken by a claims officer in the criminal injuries compensation authority. Appeals against those initial decisions will, following review, be considered by the appeals panel. That is a completely separate and independent body.
Under the tariff scheme, it is for the claims officer alone to take the initial decision and for a more senior officer in the authority to carry out any initial review of that decision. If the authority were able to refer cases directly to the appeals panel for first decision there would then be no further body to which the claimant could appeal if he were dissatisfied with the panel's decision. We consider a completely independent appellate body to be a central element in the new arrangements and one that can only be in the interests of claimants. To allow an initial determination to be made by the panel itself would risk compromising that independence.
We accept that there are bound to be more complex and more difficult cases such as those described by my noble friend in speaking to this amendment. If the authority felt it appropriate, therefore, there is absolutely no reason why it should not itself arrange a "hearing" on an informal basis to help a decision to be reached in a particular case. We should not expect there to be many such cases, since a refusal would normally follow if the authority was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that a claim had been established. The claimant would then be able to exercise the right to request a review and, if necessary, to appeal to the appeals panel, which would not in any way have been involved in the earlier decisions. The informal oral hearings could be arranged by the board and, depending on the outcome of that deliberation and determination by the authority, the decision could be challenged. A review could then take place of that decision. Clearly, if the claimant continued to be unhappy, the whole of the rest of the appellate procedure could be put in train.

1383
Therefore, in a way, we have not only met the concerns of my noble and learned friend; we have added a sophisticated appeal system which is an improvement on the present system.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend the Minister accepts that there will be cases that require an oral hearing. I am not convinced that an oral hearing before the claims officer, who will perhaps be—I say this without any derogatory intention—a quite junior civil servant, would necessarily be of a higher standard than a hearing between members of the adjudicating panel, who, as I understand it, will be drawn from the public and will include lawyers, doctors and others. At least I have made the advance that it is accepted that some cases will require a hearing rather than being able to be dealt with on paper. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—

Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill

  MULTIPLE INJURIES
  (". The Scheme shall provide for the calculation of the standard award for a person who has sustained two or more criminal injuries (provided each of these would otherwise attract a Tariff award at level 12 or above) to be made—

  (a) for the most serious injury, at the full standard amount for that injury determined in accordance with the Tariff;

  (b) for the next most serious injury, at 50 per cent. of the standard amount; and

  (c) for the third most serious injury, at 25 per cent. of the standard amount.").

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we debated the issue of multiple injuries at some length in Committee. I am not returning with the same proposition. I return to the matter, however, because outstanding questions arise from the consideration of multiple injuries in the tariff as at present drafted.
  We proposed in Committee that there should be special consideration for multiple injuries at level 7 and above. We are now saying that there should be special consideration other than that presently proposed for injuries at level 12 and above. Examples of injuries at level 12 would be, for instance (taken at random), serious disfigurement of the face from scarring or permanently impaired balance as a result of injury to the skull. Both of those injuries would give rise to compensation of £7,500 and so on to larger amounts.
  In Committee, we queried whether the proposal to give for a second injury 10 per cent. of the award that would otherwise he made, for a third injury 5 per cent. of the award that would otherwise be made and for any subsequent injury nothing at all was just. It was clear that the decision was arbitrary. I do not deny that the 50 per cent. that we propose for the second injury and 25 per cent. for the third are also arbitrary. The justification for the 10 per cent. and 5 per cent. has been given; namely, they arise from the sampling process. That may well be so. But the numbers of cases in the 20,000
  1384
  sample of multiple injuries, and certainly the number of cases of multiple injuries at level 12 or above, will be so small that the sampling process is quite inadequate.
  When we were told that the 10 per cent. and 5 per cent. were generous in relation to the findings of the sampling process, it was admitted that the sampling process had covered injuries at all levels, right down to the minimum level of £1,000. Therefore I do not believe that evidence from the 20,000 sample is at all relevant to the case that we put forward. It is not based on sampling; it is based on a common sense recognition that people who have two or more injuries as serious as the two examples that I gave—and there are dozens, if not hundreds, more in the tariff—will be seriously affected.
  Quite apart from anything else, if there is more than one injury at that level, the trauma of the physical attack itself may not be recognised as a trauma under the provisions for shock. It may not be psychiatrically diagnosed; or there may be no psychiatric prognosis. However, it must still be pretty serious. It must have been a violent occasion when the injury took place, and it must have had a very considerable effect on the victim's future, on his or her self-confidence and ability to lead a normal life.
  Therefore, without claiming anything magical for the figures in particular, I draw attention to the differences between this and the amendment that we put forward in Committee. I draw attention to the fact that we refer only to quite serious criminal injuries. I suggest that the suggested levels of 50 per cent. and 25 per cent. are much more realistic and much more in accordance with what we know to be the case.
  Finally, on a point about public expenditure, it was made clear that the numbers with multiple injuries are quite small. The numbers of multiple injuries at level 12 and above will clearly be very small. I suggest that the public expenditure consideration will not he of great import. I beg to move.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, very briefly, I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on this amendment. When we debated this matter in Committee, I suggested to the Minister that in the cases decided under the tariff scheme that we had to review we found that the one area of real unfairness was the way in which the approach to multiple injuries had worked in practice. Of course I accept that originally the proposals were based on a review of awards by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. But in most multiple injury cases, two injuries are related to each other. A second injury may mean very little difference compared with the original injury. In other words, if you have a broken nose and a scar on the lip, although there are two injuries, the second injury may have little effect.
  The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, refers to a case where there are two major injuries which of their nature are likely to be totally distinct. For example, to take level 12 in the tariff, it seems very hard to say that the person who is partially permanently blind in one eye and at the same time has a fracture of both femurs should receive only 10 per cent. of what would be reasonable compensation for the fracture of both femurs.

  1385
  The fact is, such an injury will be just as grave to him whether or not he has been partially blinded in the same attack. Therefore I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the aims of this amendment. I hope that they will try before Third Reading to come forward with a proposal that is more generous than the 10 per cent. and 5 per cent. levels that presently exist, and particularly where the types of injury are completely distinct rather than in any way related to each other.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. The second injury may prove, by reason of the first injury, to be more disabling than it would have been on its own, and a fortiori the third injury because the vulnerability of the person injured has been increased by the second injury and increased again by the third. There can therefore be circumstances where even the 50 per cent. and 25 per cent. amounts will be poor compensation. To keep to the Government's figures is to add insult to injury.
  5.30 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, we had considerable discussion on this matter in Committee. At that stage my noble friend made it clear that there could be no question of assessing multiple injuries other than on the basis of the tariff and that the formula proposed in this draft scheme had been chosen after careful analysis of the data obtained from the extensive sampling exercise undertaken to set the original tariff.
  I recognise that the amendment deals with a rather more limited range of injuries. Nonetheless, it is right to stress that the figures that have been put in, which on the face of it may be thought by some of your Lordships to appear slightly mean, have not been arrived at by some whim. They have been put in as a result of a study and analysis of the practice of the board. That shows that there is little evidence that multiple injuries have led to larger awards. In fact, as was said on the last occasion, the median award for two more serious multiple injuries was in fact less than the median award for one such injury. Three injuries or more produced median awards only 10 per cent. higher.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Is he saying that the analysis which he describes was of more serious injuries? I thought that the analysis was of all qualifying injuries.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the multiple injuries were what we were concerned with.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is that at all levels?
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the median award for two more serious multiple injuries was in fact less than the median award for one such injury. That is what the study showed.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: What, my Lords, does the Minister mean by "more serious"? At what level is it more serious?
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, at the moment I cannot give that to your Lordships by reference to one of the levels of the tariff. Maybe I shall be able to do so if the information is made available.
  1386
  In order to make quite sure that this was not some freak that had been thrown up by the analysis, care was also taken to consider the Judicial Studies Board's approach to damages for multiple injuries. The guidelines there also showed that in cases of multiple injury, most of the award was made for the most serious injury with very little added on for additional lesser injuries. That explains why the formula that is in the scheme has been adopted. It is even possible to say, in the light of the analysis, that the formula errs on the side of generosity. I am informed that more serious injuries were those which attracted an award of more than £1,000.
  It has been said, and stressed by my noble friend Lord Carlisle, that there may be cases where there are two very disparate injuries—for example, the loss of an arm and a leg. It was perhaps that kind of situation also that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, had in mind. I accept that that is so. But it is also right to say that a study of the pattern of injuries dealt with in the scheme shows that such injuries are in fact extremely rare and far more often the injuries are closely connected. Therefore, it is on that basis that we have proceeded.
  If, on the other hand, such a rare combination of injuries were to arise and either the authority or indeed the appeals panel felt that they should be included as a new category of injury—in the same way, for example, as the loss of one leg and the loss of two legs are regarded as separate categories of injuries in the proposed scheme—the authority is quite free to make an appropriate recommendation to the Secretary of State in terms of paragraph 20 of the draft scheme. If my right honourable friend shares that view, he can then invite Parliament to add the new injury description to the tariff. In the meantime, the authority will he able, in terms of paragraph 21, to make an interim award of up to half the amount which was recommended as the appropriate tariff for the new injury.
  It was also said that the financial consequences of adopting the noble Lord's amendment would not be great. But I am not going to put any great stress on it. But it is fair to say that the estimate is that it would add another £2 million annually to the cost of the scheme. That is not a great amount in the overall context, but when one is dealing with various claims for funds to be used in various ways it is nonetheless a sum which we cannot overlook.
  We have said—we have made no secret of the fact—that a major intention of the Bill is indeed to keep the costs of the scheme under control. Inevitably, that involves some compromises. This is one area where we believe that overall the balance of the scheme is right, the matter having been dealt with, as I indicated, on an analysis of the practice of the board hitherto.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was an extraordinary answer. First of all, the Minister attempted to say that his analysis was of more serious injuries. When challenged, he had to admit that it was not an analysis of more serious injuries but an analysis of all injuries from band 1; in other words, all those included in the tariff which is £1,000. The brief ought not to have used the phrase "more serious" when in fact it relates to all injuries in the tariff.

  1387
  Secondly, the Minister said that those multiple injuries were extremely rare. We knew that. That is the basis on which I said that there was no significant increase in public expenditure. Particularly at level 12 and above, which is what I was talking about in the amendment, they will be extremely rare. They will be a tiny proportion of the multiple injuries at level 1 and above, which include multiple minor injuries, that the Minister was analysing to give support to his conclusion that 10 per cent. and 5 per cent. were generous figures.
  I am afraid that the analysis simply does not add up as an answer to the case that has been put. It certainly does not add up to combine in the same answer the admission that these cases are extremely rare and the claim, the estimate, that the cost will be £2 million. I do not believe that the Government could possibly know that it will cost £2 million. I do not believe that they have done an analysis of multiple injuries at level 12 and above. To be fair, I do not think that they have had time to do it since the amendment was tabled. If they had done an analysis of the multiple injuries at level 12 and above, they should have been able to come forward with an estimate of what the awards would have been under a common law scheme.
  No, the answer is self-contradictory. It does not hang together at all. I am sorely tempted to take the opinion of the House on the matter. In fact, I shall do so.
  5.39 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 66; Not-Contents, 131.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L. [Teller]

  Healey, L.

  Addington, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Airedale, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Bancroft, L.

  Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Kilbracken, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Kintore, E.

  Broadbridge, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Brookes, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

  McNair, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Monson, L.

  Dean of Beswick, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Derwent, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Donoughue, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  ogmore, L.

  Dubs, L. [Teller]

  Rea, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Richard, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Robertson of Oakridge, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Gladwin of clee, L.

  Seear, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Grey, E.

  Slim, V.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  1388

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Wigoder, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

  White, B.

  Young of Dartington, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Addison, V.

  Layton, L.

  Ailsa, M.

  Leigh, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Liverpool, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Long, V.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Blake, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord chancellor.]

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Massereene and Ferrard, V.

  Brookeborough, V.

  Melville, V.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Mersey, V.

  Burton, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Butterwoith, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Cadman, L.

  Montgomery of Alamein, V.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Mountevans, L.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Chaiteris of Amisfield, L.

  Munster, E.

  Chesham, L.[Teller.]

  Newall, L.

  Clark of Kempstoan, L.

  Norrie, L.

  Clinton, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Courtown, E.

  O'Cathaian, B.

  Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

  Oxfuird, V.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Parkinson, L.

  Cross, V.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Pender, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Prentice, L.

  Demon of Wakefield, B.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Dilhorne, V.

  Rawlings, B.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

  Downshire, M.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Renton, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Renwick, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Rodger of Earlsferry, L.

  Elles, B.

  Romney, E.

  Elton, L.

  St. Davids, V.

  Fairhaven, L.

  Saint Oswald, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Sanderson of Bowden, L.

  Finsberg, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Goold, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Grimston of Westbury, L.

  Stevens of Ludgate, L.

  Harding of Petherton, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Stokes, L.

  Harmsworth, L.

  Strathcarron, L.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

  Henley, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Hertford, M.

  Tebbit, L.

  Hogg, B.

  Teynham, L.

  Holderness, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  HolmPatrick, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  Hood, V.

  Tugendhat, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Ullswater, V.

  Hothfield, L.

  Vestey, L.

  Howe, E.

  Vivian, L.

  Huntly, M.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Inglewood, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Ironside, L.

  Westbury, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Wise, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Wyatt of Weeford, L.

  Kingsland, L.

  Wynford, L.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  5.48 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 12:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  INJURY FOR WHICH NO PROVISION IS MADE IN TARIFF
  (".—(1) If an application for compensation is made in respect of an injury for which no provision is made in the Tariff, but which appears to the claims officer to be sufficiently serious to qualify for at least the minimum award, the claims officer shall refer that application to the chairman of the body of adjudicators appointed under section 5(3) for determination.
  (2) The chairman of the body of adjudicators may make a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to the amount of compensation which that injury should attract if subsequently included in the Tariff.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 12 returns in a different way to an issue which was debated at some length in Committee. I refer to the issue of injuries for which no provision was made in the tariff; that is, for gaps in the tariff.
  The scheme recognises that gaps will inevitably arise in the tariff. There is no shame in that or reason for disagreement about it. The number of injuries recognised by the tariff has increased, from 187 to 310, since the first tariff was drawn up in 1994. There is no doubt that that process will continue as we refine our understanding of the nature of injury to the human body. It will certainly continue if the Law Commission report on psychiatric injury results in a completely new range of mental injuries in addition to the physical injuries already recognised in the tariff.
  The scheme makes provision for those injuries. It makes provision for when a judgment is taken by those running the scheme that an interim payment should be made of 50 per cent. of what is considered to be the relevant amount under the tariff. There is then a procedure for consideration as to whether the new injury should be included in the tariff and, if so, at what band. There is a provision also—it is not entirely ungenerous—that if it is decided that such an injury should not be included and therefore there should not have been a payment, the 50 per cent. payment will not be taken away; but that if such an injury should be included and it is given a band higher than the amount already paid, the amount shall be paid at a higher rate.
  So far, so good. It is a reasonable first stab at an attempt to compensate for injuries which are not already included in the tariff. What we are suggested here is that it could be done better. Without in any way breaking the rules under which the tariff is set up and administered under the scheme, we are suggesting that the claims officer, the person at the first level responsible for identifying this new injury,
  "shall refer that application to the chairman of the body of adjudicators… for determination".
  In other words, the chairman of the body of adjudicators shall determine that particular application and make an appropriate payment. The second part of the amendment states:
  1390
  "The chairman of the body of adjudicators may make a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to the amount of compensation which that injury should attract if subsequently included in the Tariff".
  In other words, the payment has been made; it has been made in good faith; it has been made at the highest possible level within the system; and the way is open for amendments to the tariff to be introduced with the leave of Parliament if the matter is considered sufficiently important.
  It is not a matter of enormous importance. I do not suppose that new injuries will appear on the tariff more than perhaps half a dozen times a year. The amounts of money concerned are not very great. But what we suggest enables a swift determination of a claim which is thought by the chairman of the body of adjudicators to be reasonable to be made; and it enables the full amount which is thought by the chairman of the body of adjudicators to be reasonable to be paid without delay to the person making the claim, without waiting, as the scheme presently provides, for parliamentary approval before the second 50 per cent. of the final amount is paid to the individual. In other words, parliamentary delays should not be the occasion for delays in payment to the applicant—to the victim of crime.
  I suggest to your Lordships that there is no significant effect on public expenditure but I suggest also that there is a worthwhile improvement to the practical way in which the scheme is administered and thought to be just. I beg to move.
  Lord Airedale: My Lords, the admitted gap in the tariff is liable to occur because of the sheer pace of medical research and the need to invent new medical terms to describe the new medical discoveries. We do not want a situation where the tariff is admittedly lagging behind but the application is refused because the language in which the applicant's doctor describes his injury is in terms which have not yet arrived on the tariff. We need an interim period to deal with this little problem. That is why we on this side of the House consider that an amendment of this kind is necessary.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, indicated, there was some debate on this matter at Committee stage. What I shall say will reflect much of what was said then. Everyone recognises that from time to time—presumably especially in the earlier years—some novelty will come to light which has not been provided for and where it will be necessary, therefore, to have some new entry in the tariff scheme. We all recognise that. It is also recognised that a means has to be devised for dealing with those matters.
  The approach taken in the amendment is to suggest that such a matter would be referred to the chairman of the body of adjudicators, who would determine it and who might at least subsequently make a recommendation to the Secretary of State as to the amount of the compensation. The scheme envisaged in the amendment would involve a decision being taken by the chairman of the body of adjudicators. As has been said on a number of occasions, we take the view that there should be a clear distinction and separation

  1391
  between the initial decision-making process and the appeals process. The authority alone must be responsible for the initial decision and any decision taken in review. The appeals panel is then fully at liberty to consider any subsequent appeal by the claimant without the impediment of any earlier involvement in the initial decision-making process. We consider that such a demarcation line is of importance.
  What is also involved in this line in the amendment is that someone who came forward would be given an award merely on the decision of the chairman of the body of adjudicators, who might not necessarily get it right. For example, the award might not eventually be incorporated in the scheme when the matter was put to the Secretary of State and then before Parliament. When we are dealing with the tariff scheme it does not seem right that any individual should get an award which is different from that which is subsequently approved by Parliament. The scheme envisages a way of dealing with this matter, which is that the person can be awarded half of what is thought to be the appropriate award and then, when the matter is subsequently dealt with by the Secretary of State and Parliament, if the award is confirmed the amount recommended will be paid. Even if it turns out to be less than what he has been awarded, he is entitled to keep it.
  As the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said, there is in the scheme some measure of generosity. I think that we are here trading off what might be a slightly swifter resolution of any particular case with the desirability that in all cases there should be awarded a sum which has been approved as the appropriate sum by the Secretary of State and by Parliament. We think that the scheme as envisaged is more satisfactory than that which is envisaged in the amendment.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Lord Advocate says that the chairman of the body of adjudicators may not get it right. That is true. The Government have been insistent throughout that many of these awards may not be right. There is no absolute standard of rightness. What we are trying to do in all of these things is to make the best of a bad job.
  The tariff is being adopted, as opposed to the common law scheme, because it is thought to be quicker and easier to understand and because it is the basis on which there can be a better control of public expenditure. We have accepted all those arguments and we have accepted at the same time that there is no such thing as an absolute test of rightness for any particular award. What we are saying here is that it is possible to make improvements in the tariff scheme, even within the context of the tariff scheme. The improvement which we suggest, which enables a determination to be made at the highest administrative or quasi-judicial level possible without reference to Parliament, is fairer to the applicant than forcing the applicant to wait, in all probability for 50 per cent. of his award, until Parliament has given approval to an amendment of the scheme. That is the only point we are making. It is not an issue on which to divide the House although I still believe that it is right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 13:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
  (".—(1) Where, at the time when the injuries which are the subject of the application were sustained, the applicant and any person responsible for those injuries (whether or not that person actually inflicted them) were living in the same household as members of the same family, an award will be withheld unless the person responsible has been prosecuted in connection with the offence, except where the person determining the claim considers that there are good reasons why a prosecution has not been brought.
  (2) For the purposes of this section, a man and a woman living together as husband and wife shall be treated as members of the same family.").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is another amendment, which in form is an amendment to the Bill, but its purpose is to seek to improve the scheme. I paraphrase paragraph 15 of the scheme which says that where the victim and the person responsible for the injuries were living in the same house as members of the same family, then an award will be withheld unless the person responsible has been prosecuted.
  The scheme states in paragraph 15(b) that,
  "in the case of violence between adults in the family, the claims officer is satisfied that the applicant and the person responsible stopped living in the same household before the application was made and are unlikely to share the same household again".
  Your Lordships will have observed by now that our amendment repeats what is in that paragraph, but omits paragraph 15(b). As I understand it, the reasoning behind paragraph 15(b) is that if the victim of domestic violence is compensated for an injury by someone with whom he or she is living as a spouse or a partner, then the perpetrator of the offence is likely to benefit from the compensation. We understand that and have no quarrel with any safeguard designed to ensure, as far as possible, that that does not happen.
  The provision as it is now formulated ignores the present situation relating to living accommodation. If someone who has been assaulted by a partner could simply leave the house and find accommodation elsewhere, there would be no real problem. However, finding other accommodation at an affordable rent is no simple matter. Unhappily, the days are past when the local council was possessed of a substantial housing stock and could make accommodation available. Not only are the regulations governing housing benefit designed not to provide a rent at a moment's notice, but the Government's proposal will bear hardest on those who have already been dealt a rough hand. For that reason we hope that the Government will think again about a provision which will have the effect not of encouraging the victim to leave the home, but of depriving the victim of compensation because she cannot leave the home. I beg to move.
  Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I hesitate to display my ignorance in such august legal company as Members of

  1393
  your Lordships' House who are considering the Bill. But as a layman in this subject, I was a little surprised to see the wording of the amendment. It states that,
  "For the purposes of this section, a man and a woman living together as husband and wife shall be treated as members of the same family".
  Is that something which has to be spelled out? Under what circumstances would they not be treated as members of the same family? The noble and learned Lord referred to paragraph 15(b). Does the position have to be explicitly stated in this legislation?
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the issue was debated on a previous occasion. The position which we have adopted in the draft scheme is that which was adopted in all versions of the scheme since 1979. It resulted from a report by an inter-departmental working party which reported on the scheme as it existed in 1978 and analysed the various problems. The recommendations were accepted by the then Labour Home Secretary and implemented by the Conservative Government of 1979. Those provisions have been in existence since then.
  I recognise that there can be occasions when it is difficult for, let us say, the woman to leave the home where she has been subjected to violence. I fully understand that. Nonetheless, if she is someone who is subjected to violence and a domineering husband, and she remains in the home, those are precisely the circumstances—and there is no getting away from it—where it is likely that any award which she obtained would not go to benefit her, but would be liable to be taken over and used by the man whose violence caused the award to be made in the first place. It is because of the grave risk that the perpetrator of the crime would benefit by it that the rule was introduced and maintained. I accept that there may be cases where the provision works somewhat harshly in the circumstances which have been mentioned. However, overall we believe that the rule is right for the reasons which we have given.
  As for the particular form of the amendment, it is partly because it is an Opposition amendment. It is often useful to have to say exactly in what circumstances people are regarded as living in the same family.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Stewartby, was not asking the Opposition to translate the wording because it comes from the scheme, and those are the Government's words. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is right in that the words are hallowed by having been used over a long period. What has changed is not the meaning of the words, but the housing situation against which they have to be considered. The fact is that in the past it would not have been impossible for the victim to find other accommodation at a rent which was within the victim's means. Unhappily, that is no longer true.
  I agree that we have to set against that the argument very properly used by the noble and learned Lord, that an award may be taken away by the perpetrator of the offence. It may be that together we can find a formula which will enable the claims officer, or whoever was dealing with the claim, to take into account whether that
  1394
  was likely to happen. Because there is this difficulty—we have to steer a course between Scylla and Charybdis—I certainly would not wish to persevere with the amendment today. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will indicate that the Government have taken on board the difficulty to which we seek to draw attention. It may well be that together we can find a course which will meet those difficulties. For the moment I am content to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 14:
  After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
  SPECIAL EXPENSES
  (". Where the applicant has lost earnings or earning capacity for longer than 28 weeks as a direct consequence of the injury or, if not normally employed, is incapacitated to a similar extent, additional compensation in respect of special expenses, payable from the date of the injury shall be awarded for—

  (a) loss or damage, as a direct consequence of the injury, to property or equipment belonging to the applicant on which the applicant relied as a physical aid;

  (b) the cost other than by way of loss of earnings or earning capacity of attending for medical or dental treatment;

  (c) the cost of private medical or dental treatment, hut only if the person determining the award considers that, in all the circumstances, both the private treatment and the cost of it are reasonable;

  (d) the reasonable cost of special equipment or adaptations to the applicant's accommodation or of care, whether in a residential establishment or at home, which are not provided or available from the National Health Service, local authorities or any other agency free of charge, provided that the person determining the award considers such measures to be necessary as a direct consequence of the criminal injury; and

  (e) where the care referred to in paragraph (d) above is or has been provided for no or nominal payment by a relative of the applicant which relative has suffered financial or other detriment as a consequence of the provision of such care, the award of special expenses shall be made in such sum as the person determining the award considers reasonably reflects that financial or other detriment.").

  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, again, this amendment raises a principle which was discussed in Committee, again in terms which are an amendment to the Bill, but intended to improve the scheme. We simply seek to repeat what is in paragraph 23 of the scheme about special expenses. We do so with the addition this time, and not the omission, of a further provision in our subsection (e). Our intention is to meet the situation where a victim requires care in consequence of the injury and that care is provided by a relative without charge. The victim has suffered no financial loss in respect of the care and cannot be compensated for that under the scheme, but the relative who has provided the care may have suffered loss. He or she may have lost remunerative employment. That is not a loss to the victim, but in compassion and common sense it seems something that should he compensated for under the scheme.
  If the relative had charged for providing care, that would presumably be recoverable under paragraph (d) as a reasonable cost of care. As drafted, the scheme will have one or other of two consequences, both of which

  1395
  one would have thought were to be avoided. It will encourage relatives to make a formal charge for providing care—that would be artificial and counter-productive to the Government's declared aim of encouraging stronger family bonds—or it will encourage relatives to refuse to provide care, leaving the victim to employ professional carers who may well charge more than the relative. The victim will then claim that as an expense under paragraph (d), so the expense of the scheme will be greater. In Committee the noble Baroness said that the scheme was not intended to include peripheral loss, but I think that it was agreed between us eventually that this is not a peripheral loss. However, in so far as it is a peripheral loss, that is precisely what paragraph 23 seeks to provide—and rightly. It would be monstrous if it failed to do so.
  We simply seek to eliminate an irrational distinction between the care provided by a neighbour or professional who makes a charge and the care provided by a relative who, because he or she is a relative, does not make a charge. That seems to be a distinction which is based on no rational principle. I beg to move.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, it is always a pleasure for me to be able to give something to the noble and learned Lord in reply to his eloquence and I am happy to be in that position on this occasion. We have received a number of comments on the provisions of the draft scheme particularly in relation to the care that is provided free or at nominal cost by a relative or friend. As was said in Committee, we had considered that that element was covered by the draft scheme. However, to put the matter beyond doubt, the relevant passage in the next draft will be amended to make it clear that unpaid care provided by a relative or friend of the victim—I am thus able to go a little further than the noble and learned Lord asks—can be compensated. I hope that in the light of that assurance the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, it is a pleasure doing business with the noble and learned Lord. I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 5 [Appeals]:
  [Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Ackner Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 3, line 43, at end insert (";and
  (c) for such appeals to be determined only after oral representations by or on behalf of the applicant if the applicant so desires.").
  The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is an attempt to breathe a little compassion and humanity into this admittedly inflexible piece of legislation. It seeks to provide that, where an applicant desires oral representation, he shall be entitled to have it. I urged such a provision in Committee, but unsuccessfully. I said at the end of my observations then that I would withdraw the amendment with a view to reading the exact justification and that I might return to the charge.
  1396
  I have re-read the observations and I have taken considerable heart from what I have read because the usual resistance to this type of amendment giving an automatic right to an oral hearing is that it opens the floodgates and therefore makes the administrative position impossible. Fortunately, that is not the case here because the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said:
  "Let me say straight away that we envisage that in the vast majority of cases an oral hearing would be heard by the panel".— [Official Report, 17/10/95; col. 716.]
  Therefore, we are not dealing with floodgates; we are dealing with the vast minority, which is the consequence of having been told that the vast majority will be covered by the oral hearing.
  Therefore, the only resistance which is put up is the simple resistance, which was again provided by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, who said that it was envisaged that there might be "unmeritorious" cases where there would he a requirement for such a hearing.
  The noble and learned Lord indicated that that would be the plain and clear case in which there was clearly no viable right of appeal.
  In the course of my submissions on the last occasion I sought to recall the wise words of Mr. Justice Megarry, who himself was dealing with that very contention in a case, the contention being that,
  "the result is obvious from the start".
  The case for which I was searching was that of John v. Rees in 1970 Chancery 345, at page 402, where the learned judge said:
  "As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow, were not; of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered; of inexplicable conduct which was fully explained; of fixed and unalterable determinations that, by discussion, suffered a change".
  We are dealing with a body of would-be applicants, many of whom are not highly articulate and who will have difficulty in setting out in writing with any great clarity their grounds of appeal. Those who are dealing with such cases will no doubt become highly professional in their approach. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said (again at col. 716) that, if that automatic right was given, it would involve,
  "a great deal of time and energy on a matter which could not succeed".
  I have dealt with the proposition "which could not succeed", but surely,
  "a great deal of time and energy",
  is an extraordinary observation. The notice of appeal ex hypothesi reveals that there is no arguable case. That will appear in a minority of cases. You can group them together in a day or week and, if you have any tact or expertise, you can say to the applicant, "We should very much like to help you, but the tact of the matter is that we have no power to do so because …" and, if that is spelt out simply, that is the end of the matter. It might take a couple of minutes. You might be able to deal with 20 cases conveniently in an hour. That means that one

  1397
  can deal with 100 cases quite simply in a day. Where is the
  "great deal of time and energy"?
  In my respectful submission, once one accepts the wise words of the noble Baroness—that this legislation inevitably does rough justice—one tries one's best to make the roughness acceptable—and acceptable to an injured person. In those circumstances, it is not asking a very great deal to permit this automatic right.
  The Government have been at pains by reference to other countries—and with some justification—to pat themselves on the back for their generous approach to this area of compensation. For this amendment to be permitted, it is not asking for that generosity to be extended to any great degree. Stirred on by the helpful observation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate about the vast majority getting a right of appeal, I suggest that this amendment is not straining generosity. I beg to move.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, there has been discussion and correspondence between myself and my noble friend the Minister about my proposals at Committee stage to amend the draft scheme to reflect the spirit of this amendment. My noble friend has explained and amplified the objections of my noble and learned friend Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, with whom I took issue. There is no amendment on the Marshalled List to implement my proposals, which seem to me—and, informally, to some of your Lordships—not to be wholly unreasonable. But it is not possible to carry in such an amendment, as far as I am aware, to a draft scheme which is still in draft.
  The argument to be advanced by my noble friend the Minister is understood, albeit with reluctance. It is conceded that the spirit of the amendment of the noble and learned Lord is not without attraction. It is said, however, that the great majority of appeals will be about eligibility as distinct from quantum but that where eligibility is established and compensation is refused, to afford an oral hearing would be no more than a false gesture affording and generating a false expectation. I am not so sure, and I think Mr. Justice Megarry would share my doubts.
  There are also questions which will be put forward as to detriment to expedition and the question of resources relevant to an estimated 10,000 oral hearings a year, the cost of which includes the reimbursement of the appellant's travelling expenses. So, although this has an element—and a strong element—of administrative convenience in it, it cannot fairly be said to be exclusively related to administrative convenience.
  In any event, my proposals are not acceptable. They were advanced on the basis that I could not support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord which carried the right of this oral hearing onto the face of the Bill. I have already given the reasons, which were advanced in Committee (Hansard col. 715), and that remains my position today. I cannot pretend that the situation is entirely satisfactory.
  Lord Airedale: My Lords, in my limited experience a litigant is inclined to go home and say, "I lost my case
  1398
  but at least I had my say". That is a great consolation to him, and for that reason I suggest that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord is to be welcomed.
  Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I would like to add a word of support to the noble and learned Lord. Your Lordships may recollect that under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 an asylum seeker who is refused asylum may appeal to a special adjudicator. At the time of the Bill the Government sought to say that, if the Secretary of State certified that the appeal was without foundation, it should be dismissed without a hearing. In the face of widespread representations, the Government relented. Schedule 2, paragraph 5, of the Act now provides that, if the Secretary of State certifies that the appeal is without foundation, that issue is itself tried at an oral hearing before a special adjudicator.
  I have been privileged to attend some of those hearings. They work fairly and no one suggests that they occasion undue delay. I would like to know—and, as I have not given the noble and learned Lord notice of the question, I fully understand if he cannot answer today—what proportion of those appeals from a certificate that they are without foundation actually transpire to he without foundation. One thing of which I am pretty certain is that there are some. They are not all found to be without foundation. If the question arises at a later stage in our deliberations, perhaps those statistics may be available.
  I do not believe that without an oral hearing any appeal can be said to be without foundation. Certainly to say it to the proposed appellant will do exactly what the noble Lord said a few moments ago—it will send the appellant away convinced that he has not had a hearing.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, the proposal that appeals should be refused without a hearing is one that we have at the moment under the criminal injuries compensation scheme. We have had it for the past few years, and in relation to the whole of the criminal justice scheme it has been shown to have its advantages. I think I am right in saying that there were 644 cases last year where applications for a hearing were refused and no hearing took place. We get a great number of very frivolous and hopeless applications, partly because we have no sanctions against anyone who choses to make an application. I therefore accept that the power has to some extent been useful.
  I notice that for the first time in the new scheme there will be a power against frivolous applications. In future if in the opinion of the adjudicator an appeal is frivolous or vexatious, he can reduce the amount of compensation to be awarded by such amount as considered appropriate. In the long run that will prove a greater deterrent than the refusal of any hearing at all.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, we are considering this evening a matter which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, raised on a previous occasion. As I said on a previous occasion, I understand very well the thinking behind the noble and learned Lord's amendment. Nevertheless, having given the

  1399
  matter due consideration between the Committee stage and now, the Government feel bound to maintain our position, that this amendment should not be accepted.
  We think that there should not be a universal right to an oral hearing for the reasons I explained on the previous occasion—and they are reflected in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Carlisle—that there are presented, and will be presented in the future, appeals which are simply without foundation. I fully accept that history shows—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, quoted a passage which talks of this, and we all know of cases—that people have succeeded when initially it was thought that they could not succeed. But that having been said, there plainly are cases where the appeal is hopeless because the person does not meet the eligibility rules. A clear example might be where an injury occurred abroad. I take an extreme example. The question in such cases is whether an oral hearing is a proper way of dealing with the matter.
  The noble and learned Lord said that the hearing would not need to last long. On his analysis, we might get through 20 such hearings an hour, which looks as though they would take, on average, three minutes. To invite someone to attend, perhaps raising that person's expectations, and then to deliver the judgment and put him out within three minutes is unlikely to go far in assuaging his feeling that he has been hardly done by.
  It is open to question whether a system such as that envisaged by the noble and learned Lord would help in the way that he suggests. As he said, I do not put a great deal of stress on the number of such hearings because I believe that they would not be large. It is not a question of 10,000 hearings but 10,000 hearings altogether. The figure will be more like the one of which my noble friend spoke. We feel that it would not be likely to assist the feeling of disappointment which the noble and learned Lord is seeking to assuage.
  Against that, we have to set the fact that, although the number will not be large, such cases will, nonetheless, occupy part of the new body's time which could be used to deal with and dispose of more meritorious appeals. Taking an overall view, we believe that it is not right to have a universal right to make oral representations, but we anticipate—I repeat this—that in the vast majority of cases a hearing will be held. We believe in that situation the balance is right. I cannot reply to the question about figures asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, but I dare say that I can find them and write to him.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Ackner: My Lords, I observe from the reply from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate that he is no longer saying that to allow such an appeal would involve a great deal of time and energy. If that had been his continued case, the answer would be simple. If it turned out that a great deal of time and energy was being wasted on meritless appeals, the scheme could be altered. There could be a negative resolution explaining that that is why automatic appeal was going to be withdrawn.
  1400
  Secondly, the suggestion has been made that this would be no solace to the appellant who went away having failed in his appeal. I do not know how things are done in Scotland. My recollection and experience are down here. Having sat for three years in the court of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and having heard the way litigants in person were easily dealt with in three minutes by a simple, courteous explanation as to why the remedy being sought could not be given, and having observed that they queued up for the opportunity of appearing before him and having lost went away with a song in their heart, it seems to me that that type of situation can easily be dealt with here because we are dealing with a narrow subject in which the officials concerned should become expert very quickly.
  This is a most ungenerous reaction to a situation where the very decisions themselves, even though justified, will in many cases cause deep resentment, and to let that resentment fester will merely mean that, quite unfairly, the scheme will get a tarnished reputation which could so easily be avoided.
  I do not propose to divide the House. I am satisfied that I have won the debate in your Lordships' Chamber, and that if I put it to the test noble Lords would come in their scores, wondering what it was all about and asking which way they should go to vote—perhaps not the best form of democracy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 19 to 22 not moved.]
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 23:
  After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
  CALCULATION OF FUTURE FINANCIAL LOSS
  (". Where the calculation of an additional amount of compensation requires a calculation of future financial loss, that calculation shall be made by reference to the actuarial tables (together with explanatory notes) for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases issued from time to time by the Government Actuary's Department.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a somewhat inconclusive debate on this issue in Committee. The amendment is concerned with the calculation of future financial loss. The basis upon which the scheme proposes that future financial loss shall be calculated is by means of a note to the scheme which sets out years in five-year bands and multipliers in a diminishing proportion.
  I am not enough of an algebraist to he able to turn that into a algebraic formula, although there must be such an algebraic formula. Fortunately, I do not need to because there are perfectly good actuarial tables which exist for that purpose (the Ogden tables). They could perfectly well have been used.
  In opposition to that alternative it was urged that that would be long and complicated, that the tables covered many pages and that they had not yet been used in legislation because the Civil Evidence Bill, of which they form part, had not at the time we discussed the matter been through Parliament. I answer that point in a number of ways. First, when the crude table in the note

  1401
  to the scheme was criticised we were told, "Oh, we did not really need it. It is only going to be used as a guideline. It is not actually going to be used for calculation. It will simply give the adjudicator an idea of what sort of amounts should finally be awarded". I thought that the whole purpose of the Bill was to avoid such discretion and to make the scheme as simple to administer as possible; so I was not impressed by that argument. You do not put down a table which is expressed in mathematical terms and then say, "We are not really going to use it".
  On the second point, I looked again at the Ogden tables. In their full form they contain a large number of tables and they could be complicated, although people use them successfully. However, we would not need to use all of them for this purpose because we would need to take only a particular example and incorporate it in the scheme, or in the note to the scheme, to use it for the purposes of the Bill.
  On the third point, I was told that, although the tables exist and it is proposed that they be included in legislation, the Civil Evidence Bill has not yet been passed. I looked up the Civil Evidence Bill, and here I am puzzled, because on examining the progress of government legislation I found the Civil Evidence Bill was supposed to have reached its final stage in the other place yesterday. It would have been legislation by now, although it would not have received Royal Assent until next week. When I looked in Hansard yesterday I could find no reference to the Civil Evidence Bill and I wondered whether it was lost. I wonder whether anyone knows what has happened to it because, according to the timetable of future business that I was given, it should have received its Report stage and closing stages on 30th October. I was told, "We would not like to lead in this matter. We would not like this to be the first Bill to put down tables of this kind in legislation". Does it matter?
  The point is that it has been accepted that these tables are going to be used in legislation. It is capable of being accepted that they can be used for this purpose in a simplified form. It is clear that even if the Civil Evidence Bill did not achieve its Report and Third Reading yesterday it will be enacted in that form. I should have thought that common sense would indicate that we should now enact in the scheme a formula which works and which can be adhered to rather than something that is so crude as to be only a guideline. I beg to move.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, we considered most carefully what was said by your Lordships in Committee and what was said in consultation on the new scheme. As a result, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that a number of changes will be made to the relevant parts of the draft scheme. The next draft will therefore illustrate not only the approach to the calculation of future loss with greater clarity—that is, the multiplier and multiplicand tables will be set out more fully, as we discussed—but also and perhaps most importantly it will stipulate that reference may be made to the actuarial tables as defined in this amendment. It will not state that they must be
  1402
  used but that reference may be made to them. When the missing Bill is found it will be seen that it does not prescribe that the Ogden tables have to be used but merely that reference may be made to them. I do not believe that on this issue it matters whether we shall be in the lead or behind but your Lordships have the reassurance that the actuarial tables will be available.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that that is the best that I am going to get and it is certainly an advance on what we were told in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 24:
  After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—
  PROTECTION OF ANNUITIES
  (".—(1) Where for the purposes of providing a qualifying award an annuity is purchased from an authorised insurance company within the meaning of the Policyholders Protection Act 1975, sections 10 and 11 of that Act (protection in the event of liquidation of insurer) shall have effect as if any reference to ninety per cent. of the amount of the liability, of any future benefit or of the value attributed to the policy were a reference to the full amount of the liability, benefit or value.
  (2) In this section "qualifying award" has the same meaning as that given in section 329C(1) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this issue was not raised in Committee because it had not then been drawn to my attention. Your Lordships will know, because you read of such things every day with your morning tea and toast, that the Law Commission in its report Structured Settlements and Interim and Provisional Damages
  (Command Paper 2646) made a number of recommendations about the treatment of structured settlements, in particular about the protection provided by the Policy Holders Protection Act 1975. That Act ensures that policy holders receive 90 per cent. of the sums due under an annuity in the event that the life assurance company goes into liquidation. The Law Commission recommended that the proportion protected should be extended to the full 100 per cent. in the case of annuities purchased for the purposes of providing a structured settlement.
  It will be argued that the matter should be dealt with as part of a comprehensive damages Bill, which incorporates all of the Law Commission's recommendations. However, we have a case in which injustice is occurring and which could be put right with relatively little difficulty in the context of this Bill. I shall refer to only one case; that of Philip Anthony Johns. In an accident in 1989 he received serious spinal injuries resulting in permanent paraplegia. In 1992 he received an award of £479,000, plus contributory negligence. Of that amount £202,000 was structured, producing an annuity of about £800 per month.
  The insurer, who insured the defendant, was Municipal General Insurance Company Limited. It went into voluntary liquidation in 1994 and declared a claims

  1403
  payment moratorium. At the point of settling the case it had purchased an annuity from Sun Life for the sum of £202,000, which was the structured part, and it continued to receive the monthly payments due under the annuity. Every attempt has been made to recover the money for Mr. Johns but every potentially legally responsible body refuses to accept any duty, whether legal or moral, to ensure that the insurance industry, which continues to receive the benefit of the annuity contract, pays out Mr. Johns. The liquidator is joined in that refusal. The matter will come before the court in the spring of next year. That is a particular case of an injustice which needs to be put right.
  In the course of the past week and since I tabled the amendment, we have received a press notice from the Department of Trade and Industry. The President of the Board of Trade has announced that he will make changes to the Policy Holders Protection Act 1975, including provision for 100 per cent. protection in the case of an annuity provider failing in the context of a structured settlement. He has said that the amendments will require primary legislation which he will bring forward when parliamentary time permits.
  It may be thought unsatisfactory for such matters to be dealt with piecemeal. However, when a particular source of injustice can be corrected now in line with a Law Commission report and the Government's response to it, I believe that we should seize the opportunity. The amendment will do no harm whatever to the structure and content of the Bill and will provide a real benefit for a small number of people. I beg to move.
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the Policy Holders Protection Act 1975 provides a system of compensation for certain policy holders of failed insurance companies. It is administered by the Policy Holders Protection Board. As the noble Lord indicated, if an insurance company goes into liquidation the board is required to arrange that insurance liabilities to policyholders are met in full where insurance is compulsory. For private non-compulsory general insurance and long-term life assurance policies the board is required to secure the payment of 90 per cent. of outstanding claims and to arrange continuity of life insurance with benefits at 90 per cent.
  On 23rd October my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade announced the Government's intention of extending the 1975 Act to provide structured settlement beneficiaries with 100 per cent. protection. I can say that the Government intend to seek an early opportunity to do that. Nonetheless, as the noble Lord rather anticipated, we take the view that this particular amendment would extend 100 per cent. protection to annuities purchased under this scheme and would amount to singling out awards under this particular scheme. We do not believe that that approach is right. It would give special treatment in the case of criminal injuries compensation awards by anticipating a legislative change which is to be made in respect of structured settlements as a whole.
  1404
  On the basis that the Government intend to seek an early opportunity to bring in legislation to extend the protection in the way that I have indicated, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he indicating that the Government intend to produce this legislation in the next parliamentary Session? If he is not giving that undertaking, he will realise that, if the amendment is not carried today, the interests of victims of crime could be jeopardised seriously for a significant period ahead?
  Lord Rodger of Earlsferry: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that I cannot anticipate the contents of the Queen's Speech or go further than that which I have stated. However, I reiterate that the Government intend to seek an early opportunity to introduce legislation.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I fail to see the logic of the Government's attitude. They have accepted that something is wrong and that the Royal Commission is right in its prescription of what is wrong. They have accepted that it must be put right. They are now saying that it can be put right only when it can be put right for everybody. This is a clear case which could be put right now for perhaps a limited number of people. It would not be at government expense because it would be a reform within the rules of the insurance industry. That could be done and nobody would suffer at all. I do not believe that anybody who has to wait for the rest of the legislation will object if victims of crime, who are supposed to be high on the Conservative Party's list of priorities, were given a little precedence and were allowed to have what is accepted to be right before the rest of those who have structured settlements.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that we do not even have power at present to make any structured settlements at all and that therefore there cannot be any victims under the criminal injuries compensation scheme who are in that situation?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a different point. Nobody denies that the scheme which is proposed with the inclusion of structured settlements is an improvement on the previous scheme. That has always been said and we have said so from these Benches in our response to the scheme as a whole. That is not the same point.
  The point is that, when there are structured settlements, they can be improved. The Government are missing an opportunity to do that. I do not say that the Government will fall on this issue but they are significantly failing victims of crime when they could help them. I very much regret the Government's response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 9 [Financial provisions]:
  [Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
  Clause 10 [Jurisdiction of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration]:
  [Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
  Clause 11 [Parliamentary control]:
  [Amendment No. 27 not moved.]

Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Nicol.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD LYELL in the Chair.)
Clause 1 [Kicking, beating, impaling, burning, crushing or drowning wild mammal]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, after ("person") insert ("intentionally and").
The noble Lord said: This is a vital amendment. Unless it is made, it will mean that innocent people would really be at risk of unjustifiable prosecution because, as Clause 1 stands, it creates absolutely liability and makes no mention of the intention with which the act is done. The mere use of the word "cruelly" is objective to the result upon the animal. It is not subjective as to the person who does those things. But if we include the words "intentionally and", which have been used frequently in other statutes, the matter is made abundantly clear.
I repeat briefly that, if we do not do that, the Bill will have results which I do not believe its promoter ever expected. I gave a number of examples on Second Reading. The principal example that one should mention is that if a lorry driver or a driver of any vehicle in a stream of traffic happened to run over a hedgehog, for example, he would be guilty of an offence under the Bill whether or not he knew the hedgehog was there. That would be an absurd situation. If we put in the words Intentionally and", that clarifies the matter and leads to greater justice. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: I independently arrived at the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Renton; namely, that the words "intentionally and" should be inserted into Clause 1. That is why I took the liberty of adding my name to the amendment. I hope that it will be accepted for the reasons so well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Mancroft: I too support the amendment. As my noble friend said on Second Reading, great concern was
1406
expressed on all sides that an offence of strict liability had been created. Under the amendment proposed by my noble friend, there will be a requirement to show that the act was deliberate. It is an important improvement to the Bill and I very much hope that the noble Baroness will accept the amendment.
Baroness Nicol: It may assist the Committee at this stage if I make it clear that we have had a number of discussions between the previous stage of the Bill and this evening. We have managed to reach agreement on all the amendments before the Committee with the exception of the last amendment because the wording of it was not available to us when we had our meetings. Therefore, we may need to discuss that amendment at greater length.
I am happy to accept the amendment before the Committee moved by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. In our earlier discussions, that was a major worry. I take the opportunity to repeat now, as I did then, that, as the promoter of the Bill in this Chamber, I can say that it is not the intention to make life difficult for farmers and landowners going about their lawful activities. I welcome the inclusion of the amendment and am happy to accept it.
Baroness Mallalieu: We are extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for accepting the amendment because it was the major worry in the Bill. This change is essential and I am delighted that she is able to accept the suggestion made.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 6, at beginning insert ("nails or otherwise").
The noble Lord said: It may be of help to the Committee if I explain the purpose behind the amendment. I shall try to be as brief as possible. The Bill as currently drafted makes it an offence cruelly to impale a wild mammal. I believe we are all clear that this Bill is designed to prevent that kind of act of cruelty. We all remember the dreadful case that was presented to the Chamber of a live squirrel being nailed to a tree. However, the 1993 New Shorter English Dictionary defines "impales" not just as the transfixing of a body with a stake, etc: it also provides a rarer definition of enclosing with pales, stakes, etc. or surrounding as with a palisade. I do not think any of us intended that it should be an offence to surround or enclose a wild mammal. Therefore I believe that this amendment is necessary to make it clear that the archaic definition of impales is not intended to apply to this offence. I accept that this is only a modest improvement to the Bill but I am grateful that the noble Baroness felt it was useful and that it would make the Bill rather more acceptable to all. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: May I ask the noble Lord if he can explain what is meant by nailing a mammal? If that is a form of impalement, surely it is already covered by the existing wording. But I have never heard the verb "nail" used in that way. I, too, consulted the dictionary and find that it means to fix or fasten with nails; to

1407
pierce with nails‹—but that is obsolete—to fix something firmly to something with nails; or to fix or keep fixed in a certain place. I do not understand under what circumstances a wild mammal is likely to be nailed.
Lord Mancroft: The noble Lord asks an extremely reasonable question. It is for that very reason that we are all here and this Bill is before us. I am afraid that people commit the appalling act that the noble Lord has just described. They take nails and transfix small animals to trees. It is for that reason that we have tabled this amendment alongside the word "impaling" because impaling has another meaning—as I believe I described a moment ago—besides transfixing. It also means to surround with a palisade. For the sake of clarity and to help the courts, we needed to make it clear that in this case impaling meant transfixing. Regrettably one of the weapons that is used to transfix small animals is a nail; hence the use of the word "nail".
Baroness Nicol: I am happy to accept this amendment. It clarifies the Bill and removes any possible doubt about the use of the archaic word.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exceptions from offence under the Act]:
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, leave out lines 10 to 13.
The noble Lord said: Paragraph (a) of Clause 2 is totally redundant. One can only suppose it was lifted wholesale, along with other more relevant paragraphs, from some existing Act of Parliament and incorporated into this Bill by accident. Apart from anything else, taking as such is not an offence under Clause l of the Bill. If no other amendments had been tabled this evening, I suppose we could reluctantly have let it stand, but, as it has been agreed that certain improving amendments ought to be made—and indeed have already been accepted—it is only sensible to make this improvement too. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: At the risk of boring everyone, I am happy to accept this amendment too. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, there was no offence of taking a wild mammal to begin with, so the paragraph was unnecessary. I am happy to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Monson Lord Monson moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 16, at end insert—
("(bb) the killing, in a reasonably swift and humane manner, of any such wild mammal if he shows that the animal had been injured or trapped in the course of either lawful sporting activity or vermin extermination;").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I should have made it clear earlier that, although I did not take part in the Second Reading of this Bill because of a long-standing prior commitment, I fully support the admirable aims of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, in trying to outlaw the sort of sadistic practices and sadistic behaviour involving hedgehogs and other animals which she
1408
described so well in her Second Reading speech. The purpose of this amendment is only to try to eliminate any accidental loopholes or ambiguities which extreme proponents of so-called animal rights might exploit to hinder or render impossible traditional farming and other rural activities.
If prosecutions for the offences created by this Bill could be initiated only by the Crown Prosecution Service, there probably would not be much of a problem. However, for better or for worse, private prosecutions can be brought. Even if over 95 per cent. of such prosecutions result in acquittal, we know that the acquitted person is then at risk of receiving obscene telephone calls and possibly letter bombs and threats to his or her children. Therefore the fewer loopholes or ambiguities that can be exploited by those with extreme views, the better.
The purpose, more precisely, of this amendment is, first, to protect those who shoot, either for sport or for the purposes of vermin extermination and who then dispatch a slightly wounded hare or rabbit. That set of circumstances would not be covered—as I interpret it—by Clause 2(b). Secondly, the amendment would protect ferreters whose dogs had caught an unwounded rabbit, and, thirdly, it would protect those whether in the town, the country or the suburbs who have caught mice or rats in a trap which they then wish to dispatch, most usually by drowning.
That might appear, at first sight, to be covered by Clause 2(e) but that paragraph is ambiguous and could be construed so as to protect the trapper—if I may so describe the owner or user of a trap—only so long as the rat or mouse is in the trap. I have followed the rest of the wording of Clause 2(b) as far as possible. The word "swift" is used both in the sense of quick and in the sense of prompt, or, as the Shorter Oxford Dictionary expresses it, "performed without delay". The words "reasonably" and "humane" are self-explanatory.
I had originally ended the amendment with the words, "or rodent extermination" but to confine it to rodents would exclude rabbits. I believe that would he undesirable and therefore I have substituted the word "vermin" which, contrary to my earlier assumption, I have been told is legally sound and unambiguous. If the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, were minded to accept Amendment No. 8, that would achieve the same objective far more concisely. I await with interest her comments on that. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: I support this amendment. It is, as I understand it, clearly the intention of the promoters of the Bill to draw a distinction between people who beat animals gratuitously and those who are attempting to dispatch animals as humanely as possible, particularly those which have either been injured or been trapped. There is a danger to which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has just referred, that a Bill of this nature may be employed to bring private prosecutions for purposes which were not intended by its promoters. It seems desirable that the purposes of the Bill should be absolutely clear on the face of the Bill. This amendment

1409
seems to me to serve an important and a useful purpose in making abundantly clear where the Bill is intended to apply, and for that reason I support it.
Lord Kilbracken: I do not see the need for this amendment, because it seems to me that, if a person acts in such a manner and kills any mammal in a swift and humane manner, he cannot possibly be said to have acted with cruelty, and he has to act cruelly in order to be guilty of an offence.
Lord Mancroft: While I support the intention of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I think that some of the other amendments which we may be able to secure to the Bill will deal with some or all of the points which he made. As regards trapping, there is already an exemption for the lawful use of a trap for the purpose of killing or taking a wild mammal under Clause 2(e). I hope that addresses the noble Lord's concern. More generally, however, I support the need for clarification but I believe that is only necessary in respect of the verb "beats" in an offence.
This is an issue to which we shall return with Amendment No. 8. However, I believe that specific clarification in respect of that verb would be more acceptable to the noble Baroness than a rather more general defence such as that set out in Amendment No. 4.
Baroness Nicol: I am remiss in not having had the two amendments grouped, because the debate is very much the same and there is a likelihood of conflict. I do riot know whether procedurally I can suggest that at this point we debate Amendment No. 8, but I believe that it would be wise because we can make a decision on the basis of having heard all the arguments. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, would like to speak to his amendment, Amendment No. 8.
Lord Mancroft: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the Committee for allowing me to do so. It may be for the clarification of the Committee if I do that. I hope that I shall not go over old ground.
The Bill makes it an offence to cruelly beat a wild mammal. At Second Reading the noble Baroness Lady Nicol gave examples against which that provision is aimed. She reported the case where six youths battered a wild rabbit to death by throwing a coat over the screaming animal and beating it with sticks. No one would dispute the need to prevent cruelty such as that. However, there may be times when it is necessary to kill a wild animal such as a rabbit or a hare by a blow to the back of the head. At present that is, quite rightly, lawful and humane. However, if more than one blow is inflicted does such an act of dispatch automatically become beating, and if so, would such beating be cruel? On recourse to dictionaries, I am advised that even a single blow may fall within the definition of "beats".
Our concern is to ensure that normal sporting and pest control activities are not caught by this provision. As I said at Second Reading, we are on difficult ground if we do not make clear which activities are prescribed. It may be argued that the courts would not find normal pest control activities to be cruel. But if an animal is dispatched by a blow to the head in the course of a sport which is opposed by animal rights groups, they would
1410
contend that the act of dispatch was unnecessary and therefore cruel. That would produce an argument in court. It may also be said that the Crown Prosecution Service would not entertain a prosecution in those circumstances. However, as I said at Second Reading and as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, in moving his amendment, our concern is the use to which this legislation might be put by animal rights groups in pursuing private prosecutions for their own political ends.
The ADAS and Local Government Reference Manual for Pest Control recommends that,
"trapped squirrels are run out into a sack held over the cage entrance. Once in the sack they are moved into a corner and dispatched by a sharp blow on the head with a short heavy stick".
That is the official guidance, but it may well be that animal rights groups object to the dispatch of squirrels by that method. As a matter of fact, there is very little difference between that official prescription for dealing with squirrels and the description that the noble Baroness gave of a blanket being thrown over a rabbit and it being beaten. The difference, of course, is that in one case pest control staff would attempt to dispatch the squirrel with one blow, but in the other case the youths may have intended to punish the rabbit by repeated blows. In terms of what actually happens, the gap between the two activities is very narrow indeed.
I am certain, and I am advised by my legal advisers, that a statutory clarification is necessary. That is the purpose of my amendment. I have no wish to prevent the prosecution of people who cause unnecessary suffering to animals. It may be argued that this clarification would impose an additional burden on the prosecution since defendants might claim that they were trying to dispatch the animal with reasonable expedition. I reject that. I do not think that a magistrates' court would have difficulty in distinguishing between a responsible sportsman or pest controller on the one hand acting with "reasonable expedition" and a group of youths acting gratuitously on the other. Frankly, if it is suggested that the magistrates would have such difficulty in distinguishing between the two, that would only add to my anxieties about the word "beats".
It has also been suggested that to define "beats" would be invidious because none of the other verbs is defined. In fact, the Committee has already accepted clarification of the word "impales". None of the other verbs gives rise to any doubt. We all know what "kicks", "burns", "crushes" or "drowns" mean, but it is not clear what "beats" means.
It has also been suggested that no definition of "beats" is provided in respect of the protection afforded to domestic animals under the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which already makes it an offence to cruelly beat an animal. That argument completely misses the point that domestic animals are not dispatched by blows to the head. It is precisely the failure to understand the difference between what is done to domestic and to wild animals that underlines the need for clarity in legislation of this kind.
As she told the Committee, the noble Baroness kindly chaired discussions with the RSPCA and the League Against Cruel Sports before the Committee stage and

1411
after Second Reading. We reached a consensus except, as the noble Baroness said, on this issue. However, the very presence of the League Against Cruel Sports at that meeting gives me great cause for concern. This Bill is no longer meant to be aimed at country sports which the league opposes. So why does it have an interest in its provisions? That makes me doubly determined to ensure that, without weakening in any way the main purpose of the Bill, none of its provisions can in any way be used against legitimate countryside activities.
The league suggested at the meeting that there might be circumstances in which it would wish the provisions to be used to stop an attempt to kill an animal with a blow to the head if the animal was of an inappropriate size or weight, or the instrument used was not sufficient. Where will the objections end? Since the league, which has taken out many private prosecutions in the past, objects to the coursing of hares, for example, what happens if a hare coursed legally is caught and needs to be dispatched by a blow to the head? What guarantee do we have that the league will not prosecute that activity? We must have clarity on the face of the Bill, and we must protect legitimate countryside activities.
The noble Baroness has shown tremendous flexibility and great courtesy in the way she has piloted this Bill, and the Committee will be grateful to her for that. I am grateful to her for taking on board what I hope she will agree have been legitimate concerns, expressed gently but firmly from many sides of the Chamber. I must emphasise again that I wish to see the Bill go forward to the statute book. I do not want to create obstacles. This clarification, which is merely, in the words of the amendment itself, "for the avoidance of doubt", in my view and that of all my legal advisers, is absolutely essential.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: Having spoken in relation to Amendment No. 4 perhaps I may now speak in relation to Amendment No. 8. Looking at the amendment, it seemed to me necessary to consider it very closely to see whether, first, it proposed changes which were necessary and, secondly, whether they were desirable. So far as concerns necessity, it seems to me on reflection that the amendment covers a situation which is omitted from Amendment No. 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, where, for example, an attempt is made to kill a wild mammal by beating it with a stick or club when it is neither already injured nor trapped. Obvious examples would be a mole emerging on to a lawn or a rat running out of a pipe. Amendment No. 8 seems to cover all the situations which the earlier amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was intending to deal with, and also that additional situation.
The question which then falls to be considered is whether it is necessary to interpret further the word "beats", given that no such attempt is made in relation to any of the other words in Clause 1. On reflection, the amendment does not seek to define the word "beats" but
1412
simply indicates an activity which will not constitute cruel beating under the Bill. That seems to me a desirable step.
The last question which troubled me in relation to the amendment was whether it would produce an unreasonable obstacle to prosecution in proving an accused person to be guilty of cruelly heating. Repeated blows which fail to kill an animal with reasonable expedition will not provide a defence in a case where the court takes the view that the accused person was not in fact trying to kill the animal swiftly. That would be a matter of fact for the court to determine on the evidence, no doubt depending in part on the number and nature of the blows and the surrounding circumstances. In any event, following the amendment which the Committee has just made to Clause 1 of the Bill, the court will have to determine the intention of the accused before there can be a conviction. It seems to me that the amendment would impose no additional burden on a prosecuting authority in that respect. For those reasons, having already spoken in favour of the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I believe that Amendment No. 8 both encompasses that amendment and deals with matters which would otherwise have been excluded. It is therefore the more desirable of the two.
Lord Boardman: We are debating Amendments Nos. 4 and 8 but I wonder whether it is necessary to separate them. Are they not both aimed at the same purpose? Could they not both live comfortably in the Bill in order to achieve the objectives which all Members of the Committee seek?
Baroness Nicol: Did the noble Lord, Lord Monson, wish to comment on Amendment No. 8 before we reach a decision?
Lord Monson: I have no objection to Amendment No. 8. My only worry is whether it covers the drowning of mice and rats. If the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, speaking on behalf of the Home Office, could assure me that Clause 2(e) is not ambiguous—and I suggested that it was—hut protects householders, whether rural or urban, in such circumstances, I should be delighted to withdraw my amendment and support Amendment No. 8. Perhaps the Minister would like to comment.
Lord Renton: I speak for myself and do not expect everyone to agree with me. I believe that Amendment No. 4 by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is the preferable of the two amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I am not sure that I can throw any more light on the subject. My own view is that there is no cause for worry; and the Government were satisfied that nothing in the Bill would prevent the continuation of normal humane methods of killing such creatures. However, I have to say that a sufficient element of doubt has been introduced into the debate as the discussion has progressed. My noble friend quite rightly pointed out that a definitive interpretation of what the clauses mean will be a matter for the courts. No one here can properly pre-empt how the provision would work in practice. For those reasons, I believe that the more

1413
clarification, the better. We remain neutral over the Bill. It is for the promoter to decide whether the amendments are acceptable.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before my noble friend sits down, I realise that this is the Committee stage and I have not taken part in the Bill so far. However, both amendments incorporate the concept of "reasonable". Amendment No. 4 says "reasonably swift" and Amendment No. 8 states "with reasonable expedition". Surely that is a subjective concept. Is it not possible that one magistrates' court would interpret "reasonably" rather differently from another? Would it not, therefore, be better to omit the words "reasonable" and "reasonably" altogether?
Lord Monson: Perhaps I may intervene again. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for his support and also to the noble Lord, Lord Boardman, who seems to have suggested an excellent compromise. It was to have both belt and braces. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, also hinted that that might be a better way of going about matters.
My only worry is whether it would impede the swift passage of the Bill. If another place found that one or other amendment was not to its liking, of course, we would not dream of insisting upon it. I await the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, on that point, because we do not wish to impede the passage of the Bill during this Session. If asking for acceptance of my amendment were to do so, I should happily withdraw it. Perhaps she would like to give her opinion on it.
Baroness Nicol: I find it difficult to do so. After hearing the debate, my first reaction is that there is a certain amount of overlap in the two amendments. I do not see why we need both and if I have to choose between them it seems to me that Amendment No. 4 by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is more likely to succeed in another place than Amendment No. 8.
At this stage I am prepared to accept Amendment No. 4 and perhaps when we come to the final debate on Amendment No. 8 we will see how the Committee feels about accepting it also. If I have to choose between the two, I feel that I must choose the first and I am happy to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("unavoidable").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. Concern has been expressed by the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners' Association and many noble Lords at Second Reading that the defence provided in Clause 2(c) may be too narrow as it stands. As drafted, it states that:
"A person shall not be guilty of an offence … by reason of … the unavoidable killing or injuring of any wild mammal as an incidental result of any lawful action".
The problem is the concept of avoidability. As the noble Baroness conceded in her Second Reading speech, there may be many situations where farming activities, while
1414
being lawful, are avoidable. An example would be if a landowner were asked not to burn heather on the grounds that it might cruelly burn wild mammals in it. If the landowner, rightly appreciating that heather burning is an essential part of the process of regenerating moorland and conserving wildlife, nevertheless proceeds with his burning, his action is not unavoidable. It is possible to conceive of a prosecution in those circumstances. Plainly that would not be acceptable. By removing the too harsh test of avoidability, the defence would be of more use in normal farming situations. I believe that the amendment substantially improves the Bill and I very much hope that the noble Baroness will once again be able to accept it.
Baroness Nicol: Yes, it is a sensible amendment and I am happy to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 21, leave out ("or trap") and insert ("trap or dog").
The noble Lord said: By now Members of the Committee will be aware of my concern that it should be made clear that the Bill is no longer designed to attack legitimate country sports. I know that that is the noble Baroness's intention, but I was concerned on Second Reading that, in the examples she gave as to why the Bill was needed, she mentioned that the RSPCA had found mutilated foxes that,
"had been set upon by dogs".—[Official Report, 19/10/95; col. 863.]
That suggested that there was something in the Bill which would prohibit such activities. Lawyers have said that it was possible that any use of a dog or hound to control wild mammals could be prosecuted if it was held that the animal was crushed in a dog's jaws. To make it clear beyond doubt that the Bill is not to be used in that way, the amendment specifically exempts the lawful use of a dog for the purpose of killing or taking any wild mammal. The lawful use of snares or traps is already exempt for the same reasons.
I believe that the noble Baroness might welcome the opportunity to clarify her position as the promoter of the Bill in this House by saying that it is neither her intention nor the purpose of the Bill to make any part of the legitimate practice of country sports unlawful. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that it is a sensible amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Nicol: There was considerable discussion on the point. Although I found it difficult to believe that anyone could suggest that inviting your dog to crush an animal meant that you had crushed it, nevertheless, it seemed to me that people were worried about the matter. I understand that none of the organisations concerned is opposed to the amendment, and I am happy to accept it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Interpretation]:
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 25, after ("any") insert ("wild").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is necessary in order to bring Clause 3 within the terms of the Long Title. The Long Title refers to "wild mammals", not merely to "mammals". Also the amendment would remove a doubt as to whether the Bill applied to a domestic animal which had either gone wild or was born in the wild. Such animals could then become "wild mammals" and be protected by the Bill. Therefore I believe that the amendment should be made. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: Again we had considerable discussion on this addition to the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, succeeded in convincing us all that it was necessary. I therefore accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mancroft Lord Mancroft moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt, "beats" does not include an attempt to kill a wild mammal with reasonable expedition.").
The noble Lord said: So as not to risk testing the patience of the Committee and the noble Baroness, I shall not go over the ground again. But I feel it is important to make one or two points. The purpose of this amendment is very simple. It seeks to make this area of the Bill as clear as possible. We were originally concerned about it when the Bill came to this Chamber from the other place. Two different sets (if that is the word; no doubt I shall be corrected) of leading counsel gave the opinion that the specific word "beats" was a dangerous area and needed clarification.
The reason that we could not reach a conclusion at the meetings held before Committee stage was that, after we discussed the amendments to come before us, we returned to counsel to ask their opinion. Even taking into account those amendments, they flagged up for us as firmly as they could that this is the great area of contention. That is why I press this point.
Noble Lords will understand—as we have all in our time paid the odd lawyer's bill—that there is very little point in taking very expensive and detailed legal advice, not once but on two or three different occasions, and then ignoring that advice. This is the strongest piece of advice that we received in relation to this Bill.
I shall not ask the Committee's pardon for making again another point that I made previously. It is that this is the area in which our enemies (I do not say "opponents" in this case), the enemies of country sports, are keenest to preserve intact. That raises even greater concerns.
The year before last, for nine months I watched a very close friend of mine dragged through the courts by animal rights people on an entirely spurious private prosecution under a former piece of legislation that came before this Chamber and in which I was involved; namely, animal welfare legislation. We had been given assurances by the promoters in this Chamber and in another place that this would never happen and that the Bill would not be used against legitimate country sports. That very close friend, a Master of Hounds, spent 18 months waiting to see whether he would go to prison. When the case came to the Crown Court he was told that the prosecution should never have been brought. That was the fifth, or possibly the sixth, case to be brought under that legislation. Therefore this is the area about which we are most concerned.
I consulted widely with my noble friends and with other friends outside this place who are concerned about this matter. It is in this area that we need to be most resolute. Therefore, without going over the arguments, I ask the noble Baroness to look favourably upon this amendment. It may be one dot too many to the "i" on that side of the fence; but from this side of the fence it is the dot to the final "i" that we would like in order to ensure that we are 100 per cent. comfortable with this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I greatly appreciate all that my noble friend Lord Mancroft has already done to try to improve this Bill. Up to now I have agreed with him. However, it seems to me that the word "beats" is perfectly plain. "Beats" could mean either with one stroke or with several strokes.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and accepted, seems to me to deal with the situation that my noble friend Lord Mancroft has in mind; namely, an attempt to kill a wild mammal with reasonable expedition. Amendment No. 4 refers to,
"the killing, in a reasonably swift and humane manner".
The other parts of Clause 2 also help. Therefore, although I do not disagree with the intention and spirit of what my noble friend proposes, we have to be careful not to clutter the Bill with words that are repetitive or unnecessary.
Baroness Nicol: I find myself in some difficulty over this point. Although I appreciate the worries of the noble Lord about frivolous or vindictive prosecutions, there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said, a degree of repetition which is probably not very sensible and which may cause problems when the Bill returns to another place. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there is still an area that is not quite covered by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. Therefore, I am willing to accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

London Local Authorities (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the Commons amendments considered and agreed to.

London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
A message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the Resolution of this House on 26th October.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eight o'clock.

  Thefts from the House of Lords
  Thefts from the House of Lords
  IGC Study Group Preparatory Meetings
  IGC Study Group Preparatory Meetings
  Blood Products: Sale
  Blood Products: Sale
  Attendance Centres: Inspections
  Attendance Centres: Inspections
  Attendance Centres: Rules and National Standard
  Attendance Centres: Rules and National Standard
  Hereford: Designation of Unitary Authority
  Hereford: Designation of Unitary Authority
  Hazardous Chemicals: Local Authority Powers
  Hazardous Chemicals: Local Authority Powers
  Lindane and Phenylmercury Acetate: Effects of Spillage
  Lindane and Phenylmercury Acetate: Effects of Spillage
  Toxic Chemical Spillage: Public Health Surveillance
  Toxic Chemical Spillage: Public Health Surveillance
  Road Tax Rates for Tractors and Lorries
  Road Tax Rates for Tractors and Lorries