Sitting of 18 April 1996

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BODMIN MOOR COMMONS BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday 25 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY

    Taxation
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much tax revenue has changed since 1990. [24303]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Receipts of taxes by Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise were £174 billion in 1995–96 compared with £138 billion in 1990–91.
    Mr. Pawsey: That answer underlines, if nothing else, the substantial improvement to the United Kingdom economy over the past six years, an improvement that has been fuelled by low inflation and low interest rates, which in turn have reduced unemployment substantially. Will my right hon. Friend reject any appeals to increase taxation to ensure that he is not taken short?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have an almost uniquely favourable set of economic circumstances at present, including low inflation, steady growth and falling unemployment. We have recently cut income tax. We have no policies from Opposition Front Benchers on Treasury matters, but we have a hint from the Opposition spokesman on transport. My hon. Friend was probably referring to that. We all know that Labour Governments increase taxes. If the Opposition Treasury team does not know that, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) obviously does.
    Dr. Bray: Will the Minister say whether the receipts from value added tax, being lower in the outturn than they were in the Budget forecasts over a period of years, are due to errors in forecasting or to failures in the collection of VAT? If so, what remedial measures are the Government taking?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Actually, the VAT receipts for the year just ended, 1995–96, have come in very
    826
    slightly under the Budget forecast made last November, but considerably under the forecasts made a year before that. The reason for that is not clear. If there has been an increase in avoidance schemes, that will be actively investigated by the Treasury. In the Finance Bill, which has just completed its passage through the House, we put a stop to a large potential avoidance scheme to prevent any erosion of the VAT tax base.
    Mr. Michael Brown: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not be too hard on the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short). Should we not congratulate the hon. Lady on at least being the authentic voice of the real Labour party? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that most of us regard her as the real voice of the Labour party, whose voice would ultimately be heard if the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) were ever to be Chancellor of the Exchequer?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree with my hon. Friend. The hon. Lady has been hauled up and silenced for speaking the truth about Labour tax plans.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Is not the truth of the matter that the Paymaster General and his right hon. and hon. Friends have a right nerve talking about tax when it is they who are in breach of all their general election promises? They increased taxes, costing a typical family £800 extra last year. Is it not the reality that, despite those increases and impositions, tax revenues have not increased as quickly as the Government predicted, landing the United Kingdom with a £32 billion bonanza public sector borrowing requirement? That proves that, just as the public cannot trust the Tories on tax and living standards, they cannot trust them on public borrowing either.
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is still no indication from the Opposition Front-Bench team of its tax plans. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have cut and are cutting taxes. This month, wage earners and salary earners will see a further cut in their standard rate of income tax. A quarter of all taxpayers are now paying tax at only 20 per cent.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman also that, when the Conservative party took office in 1979, the standard rate of corporation tax was 52 per cent.; we brought it down to 33 per cent. Small company corporation tax stood at 40 per cent., which we have reduced to 24 per cent.

    Interest Rates
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on current levels of interest rates. [24305]
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I cut base rates by a per cent. to 6 per cent. on 8 March. That cut in rates was the third in four months, and was based on the improved outlook for inflation.
    Mr. Winterton: When my right hon. and learned Friend visits Macclesfield tomorrow, a borough whose Conservative-controlled council manages its affairs as prudently as he seeks to run the national affairs, will he listen to the views of local business men and women, whose views I share, who believe that low interest rates

    827
    and low inflation are essential to the future success of our country? Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept from me that, although there has been a modest improvement in the housing market, a further improvement, which would also enhance the opportunity of the Conservative party being re-elected at the next election, would be gratefully assisted if he were able to reduce interest rates by a further; a per cent. as soon as possible?
    Mr. Clarke: I am looking forward to hearing the views of the business people of Macclesfield tomorrow, as they are usually so forcefully put by my hon. Friend. As he will know, Britain has the lowest interest rates—the best run on interest rates—that we have seen for 50 years or so. Business expects to see a combination of low interest rates based on sound management of the public finances and low inflation. The combination of circumstances that we have now produced is the best of that kind that we have seen for a long time.
    The housing market is beginning to show the first encouraging signs of some improvement. It is—I agree with my hon. Friend—small at the moment, but it is encouraging that house prices are beginning to go up and that turnover appears to be improving. I trust that, if we keep the present conditions in place, housing and construction will recover and begin to enjoy the increased prosperity that other sectors of the economy are obviously now feeling quite strongly.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is the Chancellor aware that one of the few encouraging aspects of his chancellorship has been that he has been winning the battle with the Governor of the Bank of England? Given the extremely high level of the public sector borrowing requirement, will he adopt an even more robust attitude in his meetings with the Governor to ensure that interest rates do not rise?
    Mr. Clarke: The Governor and I are joined in battle, side by side, to achieve the Government's inflation target—which we plainly will achieve—of 2; per cent. It is that which is giving Britain the best inflation record that it has had for a generation and more, and it is that which is making the present recovery so strong and likely to be sustained.
    The Labour party cannot even say what inflation target it would set if ever it got into government, and that is because the whole history of Labour Governments, including the one in which the right hon. Gentleman served, has been one of taking inflation through the roof—which has been destructive of all industrial recoveries in recent times.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, with the lowest mortgage rates in 31 years, the property market in my constituency in Sutton is undoubtedly shifting and, with that, the morale of property owners is going up? Is that not good news for his policies?
    Mr. Clarke: It is very good for the people in my hon. Friend's constituency and in mine, and throughout the rest of the country. I am extremely glad that the number of people suffering from negative equity is now plainly on a downward path, but I am sure that my hon. Friend and I are both agreed that that must continue. Those are the
    828
    encouraging signs for the housing industry, but it needs years of this, and years of this means sticking with the policies of this Government and avoiding the danger of a party that does not even have a target for such things ever coming to power.

    Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
    Mr. MacShane: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate for the PSBR for the rest of 1996; and if he will make a statement. [24307]
    Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the change in the level of Government borrowing over the last financial year. [24313]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): The provisional outturn for the 1995–96 PSBR is £32 billion. Excluding privatisation proceeds, that is £8 billion lower than the previous year.
    An updated forecast of the 1996–97 PSBR will be published in the summer economic forecast in a couple of months' time.
    Mr. MacShane: Is not that answer proof positive not just of the ideological disarray on the Treasury Benches but of technical incompetence? In the Red Book for 1995–96 we were promised a PSBR for this year of £21 billion, yet in the press release issued today that has increased to £32 billion. The Treasury was not able to account for £10 billion, which now has to be found. If any company were responsible for that, its finance directors would be sacked. I suggest to the Chief Secretary that perhaps Sir Richard Scott should be asked to set up an inquiry into where that money has gone.
    Mr. Waldegrave: The expenditure controls have come in exactly on target yet again. For every year in which we set a new control total, we have hit it exactly. I do not think that there was any year under the previous Labour Government, except when the International Monetary Fund was running things, of which that could be said.
    The Labour party has voted against every one of the expenditure control measures that we have taken. It has voted against them, lobbied against them and gone into the outside world and argued against them. Under Labour party policies, and under what it would have done if Labour had been in power, borrowing would have been much higher, as it would be if ever Labour got to power.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is the Minister aware that, as a proportion of gross domestic product, the national debt is now more than 50 per cent., which is about the same as it was in 1979–80, despite the fact that he has had more than £100 billion of revenue from North sea oil, plus all the revenue from privatisation? This year's PSBR will cost about £3 billion, and every year into the future, just to pay the interest on it. That is accumulating deadweight debt. Is that responsible finance?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It is extremely helpful to have support for Conservative economic policies from anywhere in the House and it is wonderful to hear Opposition Members arguing in favour of lower spending,

    829
    lower debt and lower taxes. The trouble, however, is that we all know that that is wonderland. If the Labour party came into power, it would be just like it was when Labour was in power before: higher borrowing, higher taxes, higher spending—and I am advised that the hon. Gentleman has his tie on upside down.
    Sir Peter Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to keep the PSBR as low as possible to keep interest rates low, otherwise it would be impossible to have tax cuts, but is it not pretty rich for the Opposition to talk about the PSBR when, as a proportion of GDP, the PSBR was so high under Labour that the Labour party collapsed into the arms of the IMF on two occasions?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I agree with my right hon. Friend. He is clearly right. Many people are asking—many supporters of the Labour party are asking—what on earth is the point of a party of, allegedly, the left that argues the same case as the Conservatives? Where has the dialectic of politics gone? The truth is that it has not gone at all. If the Labour party ever got back into power, we would have higher spending, higher borrowing, higher taxes, as we always do under a Labour Government, and higher unemployment, too. There has never been a Labour Government who did not leave unemployment higher than they found it.
    Mr. Legg: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the progress that he has made in reducing the PSBR over recent years? Is he aware, however, that if Britain were part of a single currency, the current deficit would be unacceptable, the United Kingdom would be subject to fines, and the timing of tax increases and public expenditure reductions would no longer be a matter for the Chancellor and the approval of the House? Does he accept that such a reduction in the powers of Her Majesty's Ministers and the authority of the House would be unacceptable?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We are doing what we believe to be right for this country, and we would be doing it in any circumstances and shall continue to do it. It is noticeable that the debt to GDP ratio in the United Kingdom has fallen since 1979, whereas it has up to doubled in the other big countries of the EU. The sensible policies followed by the Conservative Government over the past years, which will be continued whatever happens, seem to me to stand on their own merits.
    Sir James Molyneaux: Will the Chief Secretary consider recommending raising the retirement age and thus make a big contribution to reducing the public debt?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point—which, incidentally, is referred to in the IMF world report which was published today. That report reveals the long-term strength of the United Kingdom's position, thanks to our funded pensions. We have almost no "contribution gap"—if I may use the jargon—whereas a number of other countries, especially those that follow the Opposition's policies of implementing the social charter and high social spending, among others, now face severe difficulties.
    Mr. Gallie: Will my right hon. Friend tell us how important the recent successes of the car industry have
    830
    been in dealing with the continuing pressures on the public sector borrowing requirement? Following the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), will he also tell us what effect such ideas, if implemented, would have on car ownership?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We seem to have witnessed the shortest ever half-life of a Labour policy. Yesterday, a policy relating to punitive taxation of company cars was leaked; it has already been withdrawn today, in the Evening Standard.
    My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are now a major car manufacturing and exporting country again: we are exporting and producing as many cars as we were in the early 1970s. The proposals advanced by Labour's transport spokesman would damage that position.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: In an interview with Sir David Frost in September 1994, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that a public sector borrowing requirement of £30 billion was no basis for cutting taxes. Where does that leave the Government's tax-cutting strategy today, given that we now have a PSBR of £32.2 billion? Has the Chancellor abandoned his previous position, or has the Government's strategy collapsed?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is labouring under a misapprehension. The figure that has just been reported relates to the last year; the taxes that we have introduced will affect next year.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Would not the PSBR forecast for this year have been much lower without the costs of the bovine spongiform encephalopathy scare, stoked up so disgracefully by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I suspect that my hon. Friend is right. [Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh; they are laughing at the damaging of livelihoods by the scares caused largely by Labour's health spokesman, which I do not consider a laughing matter.

    Public Spending Targets
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to review his public spending targets. [24309]
    Mr. Waldegrave: The Government's objective for public spending is to reduce it as a share of gross domestic product over time, and in particular to reduce it to below 40 per cent. The last Budget set out plans to achieve that in 1997–98. If we can go further than 40 per cent. we will, and the target is constantly reviewed.
    Dr. Wright: Is the Chief Secretary aware that Opposition Members follow the Chancellor's predictions with considerable interest? We particularly enjoyed his recent prediction that, because the electors of South-East Staffordshire now felt so good about the Government's economic policies, they would show their appreciation in the usual way. In view of the current state of the Chancellor's predictions on both growth and borrowing,

    831
    is it not the case that he will be able to deliver a pre-election tax bribe only at the expense of public spending cuts of a savagery that he personally would find unacceptable? Although Opposition Members might understand that, has the Chancellor the slightest chance of explaining it to the ideological warriors seated behind him?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We do not follow either the predictions or the opinions of Opposition Front Benchers with much interest, because they have no predictions or opinions. That is one of the problems of debating economics in the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has delivered an economy that is working more strongly and stably than, perhaps, at any point in my lifetime, and I think that he and the House should be proud of that.
    Mr. John Marshall: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. It will be warmly welcomed by most people, who realise that lower taxes will come only from lower Government expenditure. Would not public expenditure soar under a Government whose members approached every problem with a blank cheque?
    Mr. Waldegrave: We have hit our spending targets in each of the past four years, although they have been tough, and I intend to ensure that we hit them again this year. I do not think that any serious economic commentator believes that Labour could keep spending at the levels that we have planned, but we will do so.

    Taxation
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from the public on current levels of taxation. [24312]
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor has received a number of representations on current levels of taxation, including some from residents of Plymouth welcoming the tax cuts made in his November Budget.
    Mr. Jamieson: Can the Minister confirm that, by the end of this financial year, a typical family, even in Plymouth, will have paid £2,000 more in taxes since the general election? Will she also confirm that she supported those 22 tax rises which have confirmed that the Tories are instinctively a party of higher taxation?
    Mrs. Knight: I will confirm that, as a consequence of the November Budget, tax changes are worth £190 this year to couples with children. The improvement in the economy means that they are likely to be £450 better off and, since 1979, they are £4,500 better off. That is our record. When the hon. Gentleman's party was in power from 1974 to 1979, people were better off by only £80. They are £4,500 better off under the Conservatives.
    Mr. John Townend: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government intend to have plenty of clear water between themselves and the Opposition on taxation policy? I urge the Government to cut spending so that
    832
    they can safely continue to cut taxes and make it clear to voters at the next election that we are still the party of low taxation and Labour is the party of high taxation.
    Mrs. Knight: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall be prudent in everything we do. We are aware that successful countries are those that tax less and spend less, and we propose to make this a successful country. I can also assure him that a recent survey of 600 executives concluded that most of them forecast higher taxes, greater unemployment, a diminished international standing and a resurgence of the left if Labour came to power. The Opposition are not fooling people, I am glad to say.
    Mr. Darling: Can the Economic Secretary confirm that a typical family is now paying a higher effective rate of tax than it did in 1979, and that the only Tory instinct on taxation is to mislead and distort? Far from getting a tax bonanza, as the chairman of the Tory party claimed today, Britain is getting a tax nightmare for millions, and that nightmare is about to be experienced by rather a large number of the Minister's colleagues.
    Mrs. Knight: I can confirm that we have the lowest basic rate of tax for over 50 years, that people will be better off this year as a result of the combination of the Budget and the improving economy and that people are substantially better off since 1979. When Labour had its chance, it crucified people and companies with taxes. That is why people left the country and why businesses were doing so badly. Under us they are not doing that: they are doing well.

    Film Industry
    Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures have been introduced by Her Majesty's Treasury since May 1979 to assist the British film industry; and if he will make a statement. [24315]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): Before 1979, there were no special tax rules for the film industry. Since then, the Government have provided a number of special tax concessions to help the industry.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Does my hon. Friend agree that since 1979 the Conservative party has been the true friend of the British film industry? Will he remind the House of some of those tax policies, such as income matching, and of the economic policies that have helped one of our most successful industries to prosper?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend speaks with considerable knowledge because of his involvement in the film industry. He is right to underscore the fact that, as I said in my answer, before 1979 there was no special tax help for the industry. Now the system of income matching, which we introduced, means that tax relief of up to £80 million a year is given to the industry. My hon. Friend may care to note a point in addition to tax, that Mr. Tony Scott, who recently bought Shepperton studios, told Barry Norman's "Film 96" that one of the reasons he made "Judge Dredd" in this country was that production costs were some 33 per cent. lower than in America. Goodness knows what that would be if Labour implemented the social chapter.

    Taxation
    Mr. Mullin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for tax reductions; and if he will make a statement. [24316]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The Government are committed to making further progress towards a 20p basic rate of tax when it is right for the economy to do so.
    Mr. Mullin: We know that the Chancellor comes from the civilised wing of his party—possibly the Chief Secretary does as well. Does the Chancellor agree that it would be wholly irresponsible to attempt to purchase the result of the next general election with tax cuts? Will he take this opportunity to make that clear to his hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), his right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and their mean-minded friends on the Benches behind him?
    Mr. Clarke: I confirm that it would be wholly wrong to attempt to buy the next election by irresponsible tax cuts, and we have no intention of doing so. We aim to lower taxation as part of our policy of producing a strong industrial economy. The hon. Gentleman comes from the civilised wing of his party, as does the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short)—that section of the Labour party that believes in higher taxation, higher expenditure and higher public borrowing. Those hon. Members would revert to such a system if the present Labour Front Benchers—who are completely vacuous and empty on all these subjects in public—ever took Labour back into power.
    Mr. Budgen: Has my right hon. and learned Friend received any advice recently from one of the most distinguished Labour statesmen, Lord Healey, who said in 1977 that he intended to squeeze the rich until the pips squeaked?
    Mr. Clarke: I have not recently had his advice but, like my hon. Friend, I well recollect the experience of having Lord Healey as Chancellor, when the top rate of tax on earned income was 83 per cent. In addition, by taking the public sector borrowing requirement as a proportion of gross domestic product to 7 per cent., Labour was really deferring yet more taxation which would have come in had the Conservatives not taken office in 1979. We must avoid, above all else, a repeat of that experience.
    Mr. Gordon Brown: Given that any statements that the Chancellor makes about tax and borrowing have been about as accurate as his forecast of a Conservative election victory in South-East Staffordshire, and given that the forecasts of public borrowing in the Conservative Budget at the previous election have been exceeded over the past four years by £46 billion—forecasts that were used to justify tax cuts that could not be sustained—does the Chancellor therefore now agree that his borrowing forecast for November should be subject to an independent audit by people outside the Treasury so that the Conservative party can never mislead the people of this country about tax and borrowing again?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman advised his party not to vote against the tax cuts that I was able to introduce in
    834
    the last Budget, one of the few wise decisions—indeed, one of the few decisions of any kind—that he has taken since he started shadowing me. The borrowing forecast for next year will be below the £30 billion that the Liberal Democrat spokesman—[Interruption.] I know of no one who believes that it will be above £30 billion. It is clear that our borrowing requirement is on a downward path towards balance in the medium term, and that is the foundation of our policy. I forecast that we would move towards balance in the medium term, that we would move towards an inflation rate of 21/2 per cent. and that we would make progress towards a 20 per cent. basic rate—all that is coming true, as is my —forecast that we would have the strongest economic recovery in western Europe. The hon. Gentleman's history of forecasts used to be dreadful, when he made any, but he has not made one for a year or two.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the real debate is about whether the Government agree to what degree, how much and when we reduce taxation, as opposed to the Opposition, who wonder to what degree they can resist raising taxation? In line with that, has he received any quiet submissions from anybody in Birmingham, Ladywood?
    Mr. Clarke: We know that tax reductions go in line with the proper control of public spending and that tax reductions have to be seen as part of an overall policy of creating a healthy enterprise economy. That is a clear and consistent policy that is producing results. I have received no representations from any Opposition Member, and it would be hopeless to expect any comment from Labour Front Benchers. I look forward to a reshuffle of shadow posts, because the shadow Secretary of State for Transport obviously has views on the subject—they lie in a tax-raising direction. Perhaps the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) might have to devote himself to roads and tramways for a year or two to come.

    Finance Bill
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the Finance Bill on job security. [24317]
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Government policy is to promote a climate for high living standards and employment growth. Yesterday's unemployment figures, which showed a fall of 25,700, demonstrate our success in achieving this. The Finance Bill contributes to job security because it allows people in work to keep more of what they earn and lowers the tax burden on employers.
    Mr. Cunningham: Will the Minister confirm that 42 per cent. of those in employment are in temporary jobs and, at the same time, that the number of permanent jobs is dropping?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is nothing shameful about part-time work. The labour force survey shows that the great majority of those in part-time work like it because it suits their lives and because, very often, they are bringing up children. The hon. Gentleman, who clearly believes that the only real job is full-time, permanent, male employment in a heavy industry,

    835
    has been overtaken by modern patterns of employment. The important thing is that we have more people in work than any other major European country and that unemployment has been falling year after year.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what most improves job security is to see unemployment go down by 800,000, as it has over the past two years, decreasing by 25,000 in the last month alone? Has he noticed the recent report of the independent Employment Policy Institute, which stated that the minimum wage would wreck job prospects in the economy as a whole and would have an unduly bad effect on smaller companies, which account for the vast majority of job creation?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is quite right. The first security that people look for is a job and we are providing those jobs. The second security comes from keeping more of what they earn and save, and we are providing that too. On the issue of over-regulation and red tape costing employment, the evidence is here for all to see. Unemployment is falling in this country, but it is going up in European countries that have an over-rigid labour market.
    Ms Primarolo: Does the Minister agree that security is also based on a belief that one will keep one's job and that half the work force now feel insecure in their job? Like the electorate in South-East Staffordshire, they do not believe the Government when they say that the economy is coming right. Can the Minister explain why those workers continue to feel insecure and what impact it is having on the economy?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have explained to the hon. Lady that security comes from rising employment, falling unemployment and reducing taxes so that people can keep more of the fruits of their labour. We are providing all those things.

    Economy
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from representatives of manufacturing industry in East Anglia about the level of economic activity. [24322]
    Mrs. Angela Knight: Treasury Ministers regularly receive representations on wide-ranging aspects of the economy including economic activity in manufacturing industry.
    Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind that prospects for the economy and for jobs in East Anglia are improving—the Government should take credit for those improvements—the overriding concern of business men and industrialists in East Anglia and Norwich is communications. Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that a financial priority—it must also be a priority for our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport—is the final dualling of the All link road between Norwich and London? That is vital. Will she take that into account, and will she visit Norwich to discuss it with local business leaders?
    Mrs. Knight: I assure my hon. Friend that I will visit Norwich in early June as a consequence of the representations that he has made on behalf of his businesses. I will pass on his comments about the A11 to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I assure my hon. Friend that the new method of financing roads will help communications in all parts of the country.

    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
    Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will assess the impact of the BSE crisis on his Budget policies. [24324]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I will take account of any financial and economic consequences of BSE in framing my proposals for my Budget in November.
    Mrs. Clwyd: As the Government have made such a ghastly mess of this whole issue, and since Goldman Sachs is predicting that it will add £1 billion to the public sector borrowing requirement in the next year, does the Chancellor think that that is why the Prime Minister has had to rule out tax cuts with which to bribe the electorate in November?
    Mr. Clarke: The Government are handling this extremely serious crisis for the British farming industry most effectively. We are seeking to restore public confidence and to intervene effectively in the farming and food industries to keep them in good shape for the eventual recovery of the beef market. There will be costs, because we have carefully targeted compensation and joined in proposals for intervention measures to ensure that the farming and food industries do not suffer because of a short-term shock that was beyond their control.
    We do have a reserve to cover just such unforeseen contingencies, and I expect to be able to meet the costs of any measures that we have to take to deal with the BSE crisis without breaking the new control total or our public expenditure plans.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: Despite the disgracefully anti-British behaviour of the European Union over the British beef problem, has my right hon. and learned Friend been heartened by the fact that over this period the gilt edge market has remained entirely robust, thus indicating the confidence of the international investment community in Britain and in this Government?
    Mr. Clarke: There is no scientific reason, as we all know, for the fears about eating British beef. The Government have had to counter the hysteria in this country and abroad that has led to falls in consumption at home and bans on our beef in America, Australia, New Zealand and the European Union. We are determined to ensure that the reputation of British beef is restored throughout the world. Indeed, the British beef industry deserves to be as healthy as the bond market. I agree with my hon. Friend that the confidence of the bond market and the gilt edge market in our conduct of the British economy should eventually be reflected in beef industry sales and in confidence in the good quality of British beef.

    Taxation
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of current levels of taxation on (a) individuals and (b) the economy. [24326]
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: A family on average earnings is expected to be around £450 better off this year. I expect current levels of taxation to help to sustain a good level of recovery for the economy, with rising employment and rising prosperity.
    Mr. Hoyle: Will the Chancellor confirm that the average family paid less total tax in 1979–80 than it does today? He says that cutting taxes is not a priority, yet the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) says that taxes must be slashed. Who is right? Is it any surprise that The Daily Telegraph today states that the Government are a disaster?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman's proposition is wrong. The average family in 1979 paid less tax than now because it earned so much less and was much poorer. The average family today, after tax and inflation in today's money, is more than £4,000 a year better off than in 1979. It is true that in that year the Labour Government had got the percentage of taxation down to a low level, but they combined that with a 7 per cent. of GDP public sector borrowing requirement—which is merely taxation postponed. Indeed, the Conservative Government had to raise taxes in 1981 to pay for that. Now, taxation is falling, the economy is growing and personal living standards are rising. That would never have been achieved by the former Labour Government and will never be achieved by a future Labour Government.
    Mr. Forman: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take every opportunity in his next Budget to see what further improvements can be made to the regime of corporate taxation, as it is vital that this country has a corporate tax regime that is competitive with the most competitive countries in the world?
    Mr. Clarke: We continually look for ways to lighten the cost burdens on those who create employment and wealth. We already have the lowest rates of corporate taxation in western Europe, and we have a particularly low rate for small businesses. But I agree that this must be given a high priority in future policies if we are to continue to build up the kind of healthy enterprise economy that we want.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Did I miss it, or did the Chancellor blunder into the admission that the share of tax take is higher now than it was in 1979?
    Mr. Clarke: It is much lower than the average during the previous Labour Government. The economy is bigger, personal living standards are higher and taxation is now corning down. All that will be reversed if we return to the policies of the former Labour Government. I thought that only people like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) sing the praises of the last failed Labour Government and claim that they will base themselves on that Government's policies, which took
    838
    public debt and inflation to record levels, increased unemployment and brought this country to ruin-from which only a Conservative Government could rescue it.

    Decimalisation
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long the decimalisation of the United Kingdom's currency took from its inception to its complete implementation. [24333]
    Mrs. Angela Knight: The decision to go ahead with decimalisation was announced in March 1966. The first Decimal Currency Act was passed in July 1967. Decimalisation took place on 15 February 1971. I still refer to 50p as 10 bob.
    Mr. Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that the British people do not want, after fighting two world wars for freedom, to give up their pound for a single currency? Is she further aware that the lot opposite would sign everything away to Europe? Is it not a fact that we are the party of the Union Jack and that it is the party of the skull and crossbones of Brussels?
    Mrs. Knight: Nobody can ask such questions as well as my hon. Friend. Not only do I agree with him—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as regards the attitude of the lot opposite, but it would impose a jobs tax on all of us. Thanks to the opt-out negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Maastricht, the United Kingdom will not take part in a single currency unless that is in the interests of the United Kingdom.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April. [24304]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in the Ukraine, ahead of the G8 Moscow summit on nuclear safety and security.
    Mr. Dykes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I much agree with his anxieties about the need to avoid creating an unnecessarily heavy bureaucracy in London? However, in view of the excellent Evening Standard campaign for the notion of just an elected mayor and the fact that millions of Londoners do not want that concept to be the preserve of one or more than one political party, will my right hon. Friend think again about that proposal and return with further thoughts in due course—bearing it in mind that London, like other capital cities, needs to be famous and have an elected mayor?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The Government have explored that idea but it would be realistic to say that no hon. Members on either side of the House gave it overwhelming acclaim. Opposition came from Members of Parliament and from the local authority community. It is apparent that one can move to a directly elected mayor

    839
    only with a root-and-branch overhaul of London's local government structure, including the relationship between local and central Government. I do not believe that there is a public appetite for that, facing the real and urgent issues that the Government are addressing with such success for London.
    Mr. Prescott rose—
    Hon. Members: Middle class.
    Madam Speaker: Order. Calm down.
    Mr. Prescott: Please.
    Does the Deputy Prime Minister remember his shrewd analysis of November 1990—that the only way to restore the fortunes of the Conservative party was to dump Prime Minister Thatcher? Following the Tories' humiliation in South-East Staffordshire last Thursday, what is the right hon. Gentleman's analysis now?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman because I have a new analysis. This week has seen three blows to the middle classes. First, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) admitted that the Labour party will put up their taxes. Secondly, we learned that Labour will tax company cars. Thirdly, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) has become a member of the middle classes.
    Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman should realise that all classes voted for Labour in South-East Staffordshire. Will he explain to the House why, if it was right to dump Prime Minister Thatcher in 1990 when the Tories were so unpopular, it is not right to dump Prime Minister Major now when the Tories are even more unpopular?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, all classes gave this Prime Minister the biggest popular vote in the history of the Conservative party, and because the conditions are now in place to secure a fifth Conservative victory. There are excellent economic forecasts and improving standards in education, and we shall see the current Prime Minister back in his job after the next general election.
    Mr. Prescott: Is not the real problem for the Tories the fact that whatever they do will not make a scrap of difference, because, as The Daily Telegraph—the bible of the middle classes—said today:
    "this Government is a disaster."?
    Is it not time that the Deputy Prime Minister realised that the only answer is for him, his Government and the country to be put out of their misery by calling a general election now?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Not only has the right hon. Gentleman joined the middle classes; he has started reading a middle-class newspaper. The fact is that, however much one may disagree with much of today's leader in The Daily Telegraph, one thing I can agree with wholeheartedly is that it realises that a Government formed of Opposition Members would be infinitely worse.
    Mr. Harris: What assurance can my right hon. Friend give fishermen from my constituency and from ports all
    840
    round the coast of the United Kingdom who have come to London today—they are sailing up the Thames now—about the future of the industry? I agree with my right hon. Friend that we cannot withdraw unilaterally from the common fisheries policy and remain a member of the European Union, but does he agree that the common fisheries policy is inflicting huge damage on the industry and that it must be torn up and renegotiated?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is as well informed on fishing issues and policy as anyone in the House. I have just had a word with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibilities for fisheries, who is to receive a delegation from the wider delegation that is in London today and who will be exploring its concerns. We have already dealt with some of its concerns. We are working closely with scientists on, for example, conservation to find more effective means of dealing with its concern. We have also made it clear that, in the context of the intergovernmental conference, we shall be raising the issue of quota hopping. We shall listen extremely carefully to the representatives of the fishing industry.
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April. [24306]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is not the Deputy Prime Minister's real objection to the idea of a mayor for London that he loves new titles only when he can have them?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: Having moved from being President to Deputy Prime Minister, it may not seem to be an advance now to become a mayor. If, on the other hand, by the united view of the House I were to be offered the job, I would have seriously to consider it.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend have a sneaking respect for those good, honest socialists who are stinking rich but who are prepared to argue that the rich should pay higher taxes? Would he, therefore, like to remind such people—Ben Elton, Maureen Lipman, Ken Follett and Melvyn Bragg—that nothing is stopping them now from voluntarily contributing more taxes? If we are to take the Ladywood line, anyone who is tempted to vote Labour who is currently earning a Member of Parliament's salary of £34,000 or more can start paying extra taxes now if they want to, because there may not be a future Labour Government to force them to do so.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a most important point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, the House will note, is in his place, mentioned to me that anyone who wants to get in touch with him and make a gesture pro Bono publico will be warmly received. But the PSBR is coming down anyway, so there is no immediate need to make any request of that sort.

    841
    The serious issue for the House is not whether there should be higher or lower public expenditure or tax but whether an Opposition party can systematically refuse to answer any questions about whether it intends to raise taxes, and for whom. An Opposition spokesman was literally clawed off the airwaves on a day when she should have been dealing with her major responsibility on the privatisation of British Rail because the Labour party was terrified that she would not tell the truth but repeat the truth.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April. [24308]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: On the subject of tax, the figures that we heard this morning showed an outturn for the year just gone of a PSBR of £32 billion against a projection of £21 billion. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the Chancellor, who on "The World at One" today said that if before the next Budget the figures for the year that we have just started showed that the real PSBR was still £30 billion or higher, there would be no scope for tax cuts? Does he accept that that will mean that in the history of this Administration there will not have been tax cuts under the Tories, there are not now tax cuts under the Tories and, if all independent fiscal advice is prudently followed, there cannot be tax cuts before the next election under the Tories?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As I understand Liberal policy, the hon. Gentleman should support the Government in the Lobby. The Liberal party constantly seeks to increase tax bills, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will make judgments about the proper balance between public provision and tax reductions. What everyone knows, and what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's last Budget made clear, is that when it can be prudently done, a Conservative Government will reduce taxes. That is why there has been a significant improvement in people's real disposable income in the past few weeks, as taxes have come down under this Conservative Government.
    Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 18 April. [24310]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Michael Neubert: Does my right hon. Friend bank at Barclays? Was it not an awful waste of the bank's money to send the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) all the way to Hong Kong—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must ask the Deputy Prime Minister questions on matters for which he has responsibility as a Minister.
    Sir Michael Neubert: With UK share prices hitting record highs, with unemployment coming down yet again this month by 27,500, and with price rises at their lowest levels for a generation, would not the hon. Member for Hartlepool do more to his own advantage by staying closer to home?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject because it is apparent from an article in The Times that the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) had a task that could be interpreted as being in support of Government policy. He said:
    "We must step up our efforts to promote the town"
    of Hartlepool.
    "I am pleased to announce that during Easter I am travelling to Japan, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore to beat the drum for investment in Hartlepool."
    That is Government policy. The problem is, of course, that the trip was paid for by Barclays bank and it has a different view. It said in the article:
    "The trip had nothing to do with Hartlepool. The only connection we have with Hartlepool is a branch in the High Street."
    Mr. Galloway: Has the Deputy Prime Minister had time to see the devastating pictures of the shattered United Nations peacekeepers' base in the south of Lebanon? In the past few hours, more than 50 Fijian soldiers, Lebanese and Palestinian refugees—men, women and children—have been slaughtered by the Israeli invasion force. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that this morning, some hours earlier, a mother, her four-day-old child and her six other children were killed by an Israeli air raid on her home in south Lebanon? Does he agree that the flames now burning in Lebanon run the risk of burning to ash all the hopes of the peace process in the middle east? Will the British Government support an emergency meeting of the Security Council to try to bring the cycle of devastating violence to an end?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the subject of that appalling human tragedy, which shows all of us in the House how fragile peace processes are and how innocent the victims can often be. I have personally seen Fijian soldiers serving in the interest of the United Nations. They are an immensely impressive force and they do a wholly desirable task on behalf of a wider world. But when one considers the issues involved in south Lebanon and the attacks that Hezbollah has made on Israel from there, it is apparent that one is facing a near intractable problem of the deepest concern to the international community. The Government will do all that we can to play any part in accelerating the processes of peace and the restoration of a ceasefire. That, I understand, is the Israeli position and we strongly support that position. I am sure that the House will extend its sympathy to the relatives of those who were so unfortunately killed in today's incident.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 APRIL—Consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill.
TUESDAY 23 APRIL—Conclusion of consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill.
WEDNESDAY 24 APRIL—Until 12.30 pm, debate on the National Heritage Committee report on the British Film Industry, followed by a debate on the reports from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Social Security Committee on the Child Support Agency. Followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
In the afternoon, consideration in Committee of the Family Law Bill [Lords]. Followed by remaining stages of the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill.
THURSDAY 25 APRIL—Consideration of any Lords Amendments that may be received to the Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill.
Followed by remaining stages of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
FRIDAY 26 APRIL—Private Members' Bills.
On a more provisional basis, the business planned for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 29 APRIL—Progress on remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
TUESDAY 30 APRIL—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Housing Bill.
Motions relating to the Education (Grants for Nursery Education) (England) Regulations and the Education (Grants for Education Support and Training: Nursery Education) (England) Regulations.
WEDNESDAY 1 MAY—Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Elections (Northern Ireland) Order. Followed by a motion on the Deregulation and Contracting Out (Northern Ireland) Order.
Followed by remaining stages of the Licensing (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.
THURSDAY 2 MAY—eading of the Arbitration Bill [Lords].
FRIDAY 3 MAY—The House will not be sitting.
The House may also be asked to consider any Lords messages that may be received.
On this occasion, I can even go so far as to give the House some helpful information about the following week. Monday 6 May is a bank holiday and the House will not be sitting.
I am trying to make my announcements on European Standing Committees a little more user-friendly. The House will wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 24 April to consider European Community documents as follows:
844
European Standing Committee A: There will be a debate on agricultural strategy for the European Union and the associated countries of central and eastern Europe.
European Standing Committee B: There will be a debate on five documents relating to economic and monetary union.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
It may also be for the convenience of the House to know that it is proposed that European Standing Committee A will meet on Wednesday 1 May to debate natural mineral waters.
[Wednesday 24 April:
European Standing Committee A—European Community Document: 12503/95, Agricultural Strategy: EU and the Associated Countries. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 51-vi (1995–96).
European Standing Committee B—European Community Documents: (a) 11987/95, Progress towards Convergence; (b) 10380/95, Employment in Europe; (c) 11417/95, Effect of Currency Fluctuations on the Internal Market; (d) 11478/95, Social Security and Related Expenditure; (e) 12633/95, Exchange Rate Relations in Stage Three of Economic and Monetary Union. Relevant European Legislation Reports: HC 51-v (1995–96) and HC 51-x (1995–96).
Wednesday I May:
European Standing Committee A—European Community Document: 12712/95, Natural Mineral Waters. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: HC 51-viii (1995–96) and HC 51-xiv (1995–96).]
Mrs. Taylor: May I thank the Leader of the House for that information and in particular for the notice of the provisional business for the week after next? Will he build on that good will by giving as early an indication as possible to the House of the likely date of this year's summer economic debate? That would be of interest to all hon. Members. May I also ask him to ensure that the House is kept fully informed of any developments on bovine spongiform encephalopathy? He knows that there are still unresolved issues following Tuesday's statement. It is important that hon. Members should be able to continue to express their views and concern on that vital issue.
We now know that next Wednesday, European Standing Committee B will consider certain EC documents. The Leader of the House will be aware that I have raised with him the concerns expressed by Members on both sides of the House and by the Select Committee on European Legislation, that those matters should be debated on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee. As the issues involved include the impact of currency fluctuations on the internal market, progress towards convergence and exchange rate relations in stage 3 of economic and monetary union, may I ask him, even at this late stage, to reconsider his decision that those issues should be dealt with in Committee? If he will not change his mind on that, will he remind hon. Members that any Member can attend and participate in that Committee's discussions?
Will the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on the future of the electricity industry? It is vital that the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report

845
currently sitting on the desk of the President of the Board of Trade is published and debated as soon as possible. All Members need access to that report, and it is important that the House should make an early decision on the best way forward for the electricity industry.
Finally, on another extremely important matter, will the Leader of the House ensure that there will be time in the near future for Ministers to come to the House and make it clear what action has been taken since last year's water supply crisis to protect the interests of families and industry throughout the country, especially in Yorkshire? We should be given a proper assessment by Ministers of what has been done since last summer and Ministers should be prepared to intervene as soon as action might be necessary to conserve water for this year. The Government cannot abdicate their responsibility for the health and economic implications of severe water shortages. We should debate the matter and there should be action by Ministers before another crisis occurs.
Mr. Newton: I note with appreciation the hon. Lady's introductory remarks and, as always, I shall seek to give the House the earliest possible indication of the summer economic debate.
On BSE, I think that everything that has happened in the past two or three weeks shows my willingness, and, indeed, that of my right hon. Friends, to keep the House closely informed of developments. Of course, we shall maintain that posture.
On the debate in European Standing Committee B, I doubt that the hon. Lady harboured hopes that I would change my mind at the Dispatch Box this afternoon. I cleave to the view that, in general, the very fact that Ministers can be closely questioned gives those debates some advantages over a conventional debate on the Floor of the House. I underline her reminder that another advantage of the format is that, although they would not be able to vote if there were a vote, any hon. Member can attend and speak at such meetings.
I have no plans for a debate in Government time on the electricity industry. The hon. Lady will be aware that consideration of MMC reports is undertaken by the President of the Board of Trade, who acts in what virtually amounts to a semi-judicial capacity. The time to contemplate such a debate, if there were such a time, would be when a conclusion had been reached on those reports.
I imagine that the hon. Lady's request for Ministers to make clear the current state of the water supply industry is influenced in part by her understandable and legitimate constituency considerations. I shall bring her remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, I note, will be in the House to answer questions on Tuesday 30 April.
Sir Jim Spicer: My right hon. Friend will have heard the reports of the speech made last night by the Commissioner responsible for farming, which make it clear that the meeting on 29 April will not result in the lifting of the ban on British beef. Against the background of the crisis that that fact poses for our farming community, does my right hon. Friend think that it might be possible for us to find time for a debate not on BSE but on British beef and its future? Given that we still import 30 per cent. of our beef from overseas and the
846
European Community, is it not time that we told the public how they can help us to cut that import figure from 30 per cent. to nil and to increase the consumption of British beef to 100 per cent.?
Mr. Newton: I certainly think that many of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members would welcome the debate that my hon. Friend has proposed, even though I cannot say snap immediately to his proposal. I, too, would welcome any opportunity to remind people that scientists say that British beef is safe; the World Health Organisation says that British beef is safe; the Agriculture Commissioner says that British beef is safe; and in my view, British beef is safe. I am continuing to eat it.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I join other hon. Members in thanking the Leader of the House for the maximum advance notice of forthcoming business.
We have heard today's formal announcement that a total of two days will be given for proceedings in the House on the Bill on the Northern Ireland elections at the end of May. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, that is the second piece of legislation that he has had to bring before us in recent weeks that has been subject to an extremely tight timetable and has been rushed through, by any definition. May I ask him to give us an undertaking, if not today, at a later date, that if we are ever asked by his or any other Government to pass emergency legislation, the old precedent will apply, whereby it will stand on the statute book for one year only and can have a longer duration only if it is properly debated without a guillotine in due time?
Secondly, there is obvious interest in the House about the future structure of local government, with different views on both sides about mayors for councils and the structure of local government. After the local elections this year, may we have a debate about local government and its future, so that the range of options for the best running of it can be aired without the influence of the party Whips?
Mr. Newton: I shall bear both points in mind, as is entirely right and proper. In respect of any Bill, whether emergency or otherwise, one can consider points such as that raised by the hon. Gentleman only in relation to the nature of such legislation.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement of the debates next week, on the Adjournment of the House, on the film industry and the Child Support Agency, although both those subjects merit a full day's debate rather than a half-day one? May I also support the call from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor), the shadow Leader of the House, for an early date for the summer economic debate, not least so that we can hear from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) her views on increased taxation, because many of us on the Conservative Benches believe that increased taxation is prejudicial to a healthy and growing economy?
Mr. Newton: The second part of my hon. Friend's question was characteristically helpful, and I shall bear it in mind. On the first part of his question, no doubt the Chairman of the Liaison Committee—with whom those

847
matters are normally discussed and on whose recommendations we normally proceed—will have considered what it is appropriate to suggest. I am glad that we have been able to provide time for debates on those two important matters.
Mr. Greville Janner: May we please have an early debate on the alarming rise of arson attacks in the county of Leicestershire, which are up from 273 in 1988 to 1,385 in 1995? As five arson attacks have been made against schools in my constituency in the past three months—the latest of which caused grave damage to Beaumont Leys school—will the Leader of the House plead with the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to find a way in which schools can be helped to take security measures without cutting into their budgets, which are already far too short?
Mr. Newton: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised that matter and others like it on a number of occasions. He will know that it is a matter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment takes seriously. I shall bring to her attention the fact that he has raised the issue yet again, in an entirely responsible and balanced way. However, I hope that when he refers to crime in Leicestershire, he will acknowledge that recorded crime in the area fell by some 6 per cent. last year, including some important falls in quite significant crimes.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I ask my right hon. Friend for a debate next week on the decision of two London local authorities—both of which are Labour controlled, and including Ealing council—to take travel passes away from disabled people, including deaf people and severely disabled people, to save a few thousand pounds, despite the fact that they have been given millions of pounds for their standard spending assessments by the Government? Bearing in mind the great suffering of the people involved and their huge distress, could we have a debate next week to expose those councils and seek to have their miserable behaviour reversed?
Mr. Newton: I cannot promise a debate but, as ever, I point my hon. Friend in the direction of Wednesday mornings. I share his regret about the reports that he made, as I am a former Minister for the Disabled.
Mr. Harry Barnes: We have had several statements on BSE and we have been promised more. The other place has also debated BSE. Should we not have a debate about BSE before Whitsun? If there is a problem about the wide-ranging nature of the debate, could we not have debates on specific areas? For example, could we debate live tests on animals that would allow us a way out of the problem?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will know that the issue of live tests has been put to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a number of occasions. He has explained the scientific and practical difficulty that no such test currently exists nor is in sight. However, I shall bring the point to his attention again. We have already had one
848
debate on BSE, which I arranged at an early stage—and I acknowledge that it was for only three hours. I think that there may well be a case for a further debate at some stage, and I shall very much bear that in mind.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that following the excellent package on BSE that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced on Tuesday and the welcome news that the Euro ban is to be challenged, there is a case for a debate on this matter, on the particular issue of how to restore confidence in British beef and the eating thereof? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a debate could demonstrate the concerns that members of the public have about the damage caused to our beef industry by hysteria and by the selfish attitude shown by our European neighbours and their Governments? We ought to have a debate to encourage consumers and to promote the eating of British beef—which can be done with pride and not with apology.
Mr. Newton: I have already commented on that matter. I take note of what my hon. Friend said. We shall press our points very hard within the European Union. On the question of confidence, I hope that my hon. Friend will take some encouragement from the fact that the latest reports suggest that beef consumption is at roughly 85 per cent. of pre-crisis levels and that cattle throughput in markets is nearing 60 per cent. of pre-crisis levels. While that is a long way short of what we would like, it is quite good progress.
Mr. Andrew Welsh: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the statement made by European Commissioner Fischler that he has no objection, in principle, to ending the ban on beef exports from specialist areas such as Scotland and Northern Ireland. Is he aware that there is legal precedent for that and that the only stumbling block is the failure of the British Government to press the case? I ask the right hon. Gentleman for an urgent statement or debate, either on the Floor of the House or in the Grand Committee, bearing it in mind that no Scottish Office Minister has made himself answerable on that important issue.
Mr. Newton: On the latter point, Scottish Office Ministers, including very much my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, have been active in developing the measures that have been announced. My right hon. Friend is available to answer questions during the period covered by my statement. As for the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman places on the remarks said to have been made by Commissioner Fischler, I have not seen a complete report of those remarks. I am aware, however, that many people would not share the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman has sought to place upon them.
Mr. John Marshall: May I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange an urgent and early debate on early-day motion 728?
[That this House notes the honesty and integrity of the honourable Member for Birmingham, Ladywood, in stating her view as an honourable Labour Member that people earning more than £34,000 should pay more tax; agrees with her contempt for the ruthless arrogance of the staff of the Leader of the Opposition; and finds this latest episode shows Labour has not changed, in contrast to its marketing managers.]
Such a debate would enable me to praise the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short) for observing that many people would pay higher taxes under a Labour Government. If such a debate were to take place, the hon. Lady might not be silenced by the Leader of the Opposition, but I doubt it.
Mr. Newton: I shall bear my hon. Friend's request very much in mind. I, too, welcome the candour of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), who has at least been willing to acknowledge things that we all know, but which no one else has been prepared to say.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Leader of the House will have heard the question put to the Deputy Prime Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), about the incident today in southern Lebanon. May I draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention early-day motion 731?
[That this House deplores the air strikes by Israel against civil Lebanese targets, including Beirut, and the collective threat forcing 400,000 Lebanese civilians to flee from their homes, and while in no manner giving any support to armed action by Hizbollah, notes the illegality of Israel's occupation of South Lebanon in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 425; welcomes initiatives to bring about a cessation of Israeli military action; and urges the United Kingdom Government to act in co-operation with France and other willing European countries to broker a ceasefire and to explore the widest range of options which could lead to a just and lasting settlement on the basis of UN resolutions.]
The motion draws attention to Israeli action in Lebanon and expresses the concerns of many Members on both sides of the House about what is happening and the approach of the Israelis to the problems in the Lebanon. If we do not have a debate, let us at the very least have a ministerial statement at the earliest opportunity, so that there is a chance for Members to speak directly and to question a Minister on policy on an important matter.
Mr. Newton: I heard the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). I heard also the reply of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, which I thought entirely appropriate and balanced. I do not think that I would wish to add to it.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the observations of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh)? It is particularly important that we have a debate so that people such as myself can draw attention to the fact that the National Farmers Union of Scotland and other organisations have made it clear at public meetings that I have attended that they think that we must find a United
850
Kingdom answer, and that anything that is done to divide us is likely to damage our long-term prospects in the negotiations with the rest of our partners in the Union.
Mr. Newton: I simply say that I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what I thought to be sensible remarks.
Mr. Paul Flynn: May we have a debate on the constitution, so that I can find a better answer to a question asked of me by a 10-year-old constituent of mine on television? He aspires to a certain job, but I had to tell him that he would never achieve his ambition because he is British. He could realise his ambition if he were American or a citizen of many other countries. Would it not be useful if we had a debate on the constitution, so that we could discover why the job of Head of State is confined to members of one undistinguished family?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to follow him down that path. I have no plans for such a debate.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: May we have an urgent debate on the relationship between the Home Secretary and chief constables, following great concern caused to several Warwickshire Members about what appear to be allegations against the chief constable of the county by the Home Secretary during an interview last Friday, when he suggested that the view of the chief constable and the police authority, that there was a financial crisis in the Warwickshire constabulary, was a myth and that someone was making up figures?
Mr. Newton: I have no direct account of my right hon. and learned Friend's remarks. I would not for a moment go along with the interpretation that the hon. Gentleman appears to be putting on them. It seems entirely appropriate for my right hon. and learned Friend, in that or any other context, to remind people of the increased resources for the police that have been steadily made available by the Government.
Mr. Peter Hain: Will there be an opportunity for a debate next week on the appalling level of racial violence in south Wales? According to Home Office figures, the number of reported racial incidents has increased by 29 per cent., which is more than three times the average across England and Wales in police authority regions and is extremely serious. What action do the Government intend to take on that?
Mr. Newton: In a way, that links with the previous question. The Government have made clear their commitment to increasing the resources and to various changes in policy and legislation designed to strengthen what is shorthanded as law and order. That would very much include our wish to see a reduction, indeed a removal, of incidents of racial harassment. The hon. Gentleman may wish to bring his concerns further to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who is here to answer questions on Monday week.

Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).
  3.55 pm
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill, and the election for which it provides, are a means to an end. Together, they open a gateway into all-party negotiations. It is the only gateway available. I will describe why the Bill is needed.
  All-party negotiations, comprehensive in their agenda, inclusive in their composition and successful in their outcome, have for years been the Government's objective. I believe that they have also been the objective of the constitutional political parties of Northern Ireland.
  The history and background are well known. To promote negotiations, I know that political risks have been taken by many of Northern Ireland's politicians, sustained by the fervent wishes of the people of Northern Ireland. I am glad to acknowledge that today, and with considerable admiration.
  Yet always at the root of the problem has been lack of confidence: lack of confidence that proper negotiations on the way ahead were possible between all democratically mandated parties. That lack of confidence has been built on generations of corrosive mistrust in the intentions of one community towards another, and on 25 years of terrorist activity, fundamentally hostile to democracy and reconciliation.
  By proper negotiations, I mean negotiations whose participants all conform to the language used by the two Governments in paragraph 10 of the Downing street declaration made 28 months ago. That language spoke of parties which establish a commitment to exclusively peaceful methods, and which have shown that they abide by the democratic process. Those, it is said, were the parties that were free to participate fully in democratic politics, and to join in dialogue in due course between the Governments and the political parties on the way ahead.
  In a democracy. nobody can be expected to sit down and negotiate politically with people who do not meet those requirements. As to that, there has never been any doubt as to the proper commitment of the two Governments, nor of the parties that represent the overwhelming majority of people on all sides of the community in Northern Ireland.
  The House will recall the consistent efforts that have been made to bring such negotiations about. I will not rehearse them now. The Bill, however, offers a new way forward, to bring all parties together in negotiations on 10 June. It was an idea endorsed, as a confidence-building measure, by Mitchell. It was an idea for an elective process, which would give a mandate to participate in all-party negotiations, notwithstanding that prior decommissioning had not begun.
  852
  We concluded that that was, in the event, the only available route offering a viable, direct and speedy way into negotiations. So broad proposals were set out in the joint communiqué which followed a meeting between the Prime Minister and Mr. Bruton on 28 February. The Bill stems directly from that communiqué.
  I now turn to the Bill and to the Command Paper published with it. The Bill is rightly entitled a Bill for "entry to negotiations". At its centre is a scheme for the elective process to which we committed ourselves in the communiqué of 28 February. Its motive is the creation of a mandate to sit down and negotiate with all parties, and to create thereby in all the parties the confidence to do so.
  The Bill itself provides in detail for elections, for a forum, and for referendums. It does not itself provide for negotiations. It is, as I have said, a gateway for negotiations, not a blueprint for them. Therefore, following a useful and constructive process of consultation, we published at the same time a Command Paper setting out the best judgment of the two Governments, who will be participants as appropriate, as to the most suitable and broadly acceptable ground rules for all-party negotiations, beginning on 10 June. The negotiations referred to in the Bill are those described in the Command Paper.
  At the outset, we state the purpose of the negotiations: to achieve a new beginning for relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands, and to agree new institutions and structures to take account of the totality of relationships. Any participant in the strand in question, therefore, will be free to raise any aspect of the three relationships, including constitutional issues and any other matter that it considers relevant.
  Miss Kate Hoey: This is obviously a very important Bill, and it is very important for the people of Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Secretary of State should delay his speech a little, as no hon. Member from the second largest party in Northern Ireland seems to be present.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I propose to proceed with the speech that I have been called on by Madam Speaker to deliver.
  I must here make a most important point about participation. I take it from paragraph 9 of the Command Paper. Both Governments are agreed that participation of Sinn Fein in negotiations requires the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. By the IRA terminating its ceasefire, and by its abominable attacks thereafter in London, it has totally excluded itself from political negotiations. I shall return to that.
  Mr. David Wilshire: My right hon. and learned Friend has stated again that Sinn Fein-IRA will have to reinstate their ceasefire. Will he make it clear that, this time, it will have to be permanent, that it will have to he declared to be permanent and that there must he no weasel words that fall short of saying that they will never ever return to violence?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The Governments have agreed that there shall be an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994, but there is a difference, and that

  853
  is the requirement for the removal of the self-imposed exclusion that exists at present on Sinn Fein entering negotiations. What is new is that the Governments also agree—this is set out in the communiqué—that, at the beginning of those negotiations, it, like every other participating party, must make it clear that it is totally and absolutely committed to the six principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the Mitchell report, and at the same time additionally address the proposals made in that report for decommissioning.
  Mr. Wilshire: I apologise for pressing this point, but, although my right hon. and learned Friend rehearsed the general terms, he did not address whether or not this time Sinn Fein-IRA will have to make it crystal clear that any ceasefire is permanent, for real and for ever.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I repeat the language of the communiqué and of the two Governments. There must be an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. That, in the ordinary English interpretation of the language, means one that admits of no other interpretation. That is the agreement of the two Governments.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I note that the parties listed in the schedule as able to stand in the elections include Sinn Fein, while other Northern Ireland parties which have stood in elections—such as the Workers Socialist party and the Irish Republican Socialist party—are not included. Have they not been prepared to make an unequivocal statement that they are committed to Northern Ireland?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: Following the consultation paper, all parties that have asked the Government to include them have been included, along with those listed in the original Government paper. No party that has asked to be included has been excluded.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: As the Secretary of State will realise, this is important to those of us who come from Northern Ireland. How will he decide that the IRA ceasefire—if it comes—is for real, if it comes only a few hours before he calls the meeting on 10 June?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I appreciate the importance of the question, but I think it sensible to view the circumstances that prevail at the relevant time in their entirety. I do not believe that it is possible to give a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question of that kind, or that it would be prudent to do so. I think that the participants will want to take into account all the circumstances that obtain at the relevant time.
  Sir James Molyneaux: Can the Secretary of State throw some light on the list in the second part of the schedule? Are all these parties with funny titles of western European origin? Some of us support the Westminster Foundation for Democracy in Eastern Europe, but I had no idea that we had been quite so successful.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will discover that he has wrought better than he knew, but the organisations that appear in the second part of schedule 1 constitute, for the purposes of the Bill, the parties that will participate in the election.
  854
  The agenda for the negotiations will be open, with no outcome either predetermined or excluded in advance. A meaningful and inclusive process of negotiation must be genuinely offered to address the legitimate concerns of all traditions and the need for new political arrangements with which all can identify. That language is taken from the communiqué of 28 February, and we hold to it.
  The two Prime Ministers described that as a confidence-building measure, but two other confidence measures were also said to be necessary, and they bear importantly on the process of the negotiations. The Command Paper sets them out, stating:
  "all participants would need to make clear at the beginning of the discussions their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence set out in the report of the International Body. They would also need to address, at that stage, its proposals on decommissioning."
  Mr. Robert McCartney: One of the confidence-building measures that are required is that the parties address the principles of the Mitchell commission. What exactly does that mean? It clearly does not mean that they must decommission; it does not imply any executive action on their part. "Addressing" may merely be nodding. Could it be that certain parties could progress through the negotiations having addressed the principles for decommissioning on several occasions, but never having addressed them right to the end?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: Gently and in the interests of accuracy I shall correct the hon. and learned Gentleman's nomenclature. There are principles and proposals in the Mitchell report. The principles are those of democracy and non-violence: I think that they are in paragraph 20. Thereafter, there are proposals for decommissioning: they are in paragraph 34, and, I think, in paragraphs 39 to 45.
  It will be necessary in relation to the latter, because I think that the hon. and learned Member's question centres on the proposals, for consultation to establish a means by which they are addressed. That can be done in more than one way, but it should be noted that both Governments stand four square on the ground rules in paragraph 12, which I have just read to the House, of the communiqué of 28 February.
  Thereafter, those principles must be addressed. "Thereafter" does not mean that that will be done other than at the beginning of the negotiating process. We shall have to secure greater clarity about the way in which that will be implemented, and it is important that the consultation should take place, and should take place soon.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: The Minister spoke about the principles being addressed. Are those to form the first item on the agenda, and must they be overcome, or will they be addressed throughout the negotiations? I am confused by what the Minister said.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: Once again, I draw the distinction between the principles and the proposals. The principles are those of democracy and non-violence, and the proposals are about decommissioning. In the words of the communiqué and of the ground rules paper, the decommissioning proposals have to be addressed at the beginning of the negotiations along with the signing up to the principles that I have identified.

  855
  How that is to be done is a matter for further consultation, and it will ultimately be a matter for agreement between the participants. In the light of the language that was agreed by the two Governments, it would not be sensible for me at this juncture to attempt to be more precise than that. It is a matter for consultation, which needs to take place soon. I have read to the House the passage from paragraph 12 of the communiqué.
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State again. He alluded to the section in Cmnd. 3232 which mentions participants in the election making an absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence. Does he not recognise that those have long been a requirement of people who are involved in local government in Northern Ireland, and that that commitment has not been worth the time that it has taken to sign the piece of paper?
  Does the Secretary of State recall an incident that affected me, in which a Sinn Fein councillor on Dungannon district council, Martin McCaughey, was conspiring to murder those of us who sat in the council chamber with him? Martin McCaughey was ultimately killed by the security forces as he was about to commit a murder. Is it not time that there was something tangible in terms of these commitments? If that cannot be found, we may finish up with a procedure that is a mockery of democracy.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's experience in the forum that he describes and in many other forums, including the military one in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to him for that. As he says, those who wish to participate in local government have to make a declaration. The principles of democracy and non-violence, which are set out in the Mitchell report and which I shall, if the House permits, read out in a minute in their totality, go much further than that. They must have some significance in addition to what the hon. Gentleman describes, because Sinn Fein has carefully and resolutely refused to sign up to them since Mitchell was published. The Government immediately signified their acceptance of those principles, but Sinn Fein did not, because it found that it would be considerably inconvenient to do so. It should do so at once.
  It follows from what the Governments have set out in the passage that I have just read that any participant who refused to sign up in that sense to each of the six Mitchell principles would forfeit the right to continue in negotiations with the Governments, and, in our view, with the democratic political parties.
  I think that I am justified in reminding the House of the total and absolute commitments that the joint communiqué requires. They are: to democratic and exclusively peaceful means of resolving political issues; to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations; to agreement that such disarmament must be verifiable to the satisfaction of an independent commission; to the renunciation for themselves, and the opposition of any effort by others, to use force, or threaten to use force, to influence the course or the outcome of all-party negotiations; to agree to abide by
  856
  the terms of any agreement reached in all-party negotiations, and to resort to democratic and exclusively peaceful methods in trying to alter any aspect of that outcome with which they disagree; and to urging that "punishment" killings and beatings stop, and taking effective steps to prevent such actions.
  Those are the Mitchell principles, which go much further than what is required of those in local government. Much significance can be attached to Sinn Fein's refusal to accept them although they are fundamental—as Mitchell says—to any democratic society.
  As the Prime Minister has said, Mitchell's proposals on decommissioning cannot be ducked or left to the end of negotiations. The communiqué stated that these must be addressed also at the beginning of the discussions. As the Prime Minister said in this House:
  "The question of decommissioning must be addressed at the beginning and progress must be made. There must be parallel decommissioning, as the Mitchell principle sets out. As the talks proceed, the decommissioning must proceed in parallel with the talks. The precise manner of that is a matter to be determined at the beginning of the talks."—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 505.]
  How that shall he done must be a matter for further discussions with the participants.
  I come now to the detail of the Bill. Clause 1 provides for the holding of an election to provide a pool of delegates. The detailed provision on the election is set out in schedule 1, which will be supplemented by an order to be made under it. The order will be subject to approval in draft after debate in this House and another place, and we envisage it being taken, if the present Bill is approved, in the week beginning 29 April.
  Five delegates will be elected from each of the 18 parliamentary constituencies by a list system, and a further 20 for Northern Ireland as a whole. As a necessary corollary of the constituency list system, the second part of schedule 1 sets out those who may participate. The list has been drawn up following a consultation exercise. We have taken account of the representations made to us, and have sought to achieve as inclusive a system as is practicable.
  It has not been possible to please everybody—indeed, it may not have been possible to please anybody, but that is the nature of the problem with which we are confronted. It is, in our view, the best way forward in what the Prime Minister has described as a unique situation.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not strange that a party that might get 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. of the vote will receive two representatives—the same number as a party that gets 1 per cent. of the vote? How can the Secretary of State describe that as democracy? The party that gets 1 per cent. of the vote might get no one elected to the forum, yet could get two people into the negotiations.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's point, and I admit that it is one of the sorenesses.
  One of the interesting things about the consultation process was the wide degree of agreement that the smaller parties should find a means by which their voices could be heard in the negotiations. That was widely accepted. Of course, there was great divergence on how that should be achieved and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced earlier, we decided that the best way to do it would be to allow representation on a Northern

  857
  Ireland-wide basis to the extent of two seats for those parties which are among the top 10 in the aggregate of votes cast for them. We felt that it would not have been right to allow that Northern Ireland-wide constituency basis to be limited to the smaller parties.
  Mr.A.J.Beith: I can save time by putting two points to the Secretary of State. If delegates are being elected in multi-member constituencies of five seats, it would have been better to allow preferential voting, because the single transferable vote system is familiar in the north and the south, and avoids the top-up mechanisms to which the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) has just referred. Does the Secretary of State recognise that it is important that there should be maximum participation in the elections, and that anything that can be done to maintain voter registration up to the time of the election is important?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: Voter registration is important, and we shall be circulating appropriate literature.
  I appreciate the point that has been made, and it can be made cogently and strongly. We made it clear that we wanted an election system which commanded the widest possible support. We consulted, and it proved impossible to reach universal agreement on any system, including STV.
  I will not take the House's time by going through who wanted what and their views, but in light of the views given to us, we devised the system in the Bill, which seeks to combine some of the virtues of each of the main alternatives put to us and to give the people of Northern Ireland the clearest possible choice in the polling booth. I cannot pretend to expect applause from any quarter, but I hope that it will be sufficient to secure that all parties take their place in the elections.
  Mr. Harry Barnes rose—
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I must get on.
  Much has been said, quite understandably, about the complications involved. It is not complicated for the voter. The voter puts one cross against one party. The problems come for others after that.
  Mr. Barnes rose—
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I really must get on, because I know what a bore it is when Front-Bench speakers take too long in opening a debate of this character.
  When the election is called, the nominating representative of each party which wishes to stand will submit to the chief electoral officer a list of between two and five candidates for any or all of the constituencies of Northern Ireland, and can also submit a regional list of up to 10 candidates, at least two of whom would be names not on any constituency list. Regional seat allocation will help small parties which secure sufficient Province-wide support but which might fail to secure a seat in a constituency to have a chance to be represented. I am required by clause 5 to identify those nominating representatives, and I shall do that after consultation.
  As I have already said, the voter's choice is simple. He or she casts a single vote for a single party. Lists of candidates will be on display, and ballot papers will show party names. It has been suggested that, where a large
  858
  number of parties appear, there may be scope for confusion. There is force in that suggestion, but there are many competing interests that must be served.
  A variety of methods are practised for apportioning seats in countries that regularly conduct elections by party list. None of them appears inherently superior to the others, and, after consultation, we have decided on the system set out in the schedule. It is well recognised, and, I am informed, has been employed in several European countries over the years.
  I have already mentioned the aggregation process that will lead to the two additional delegates, and I need not repeat that.
  We intend that the disqualification provision for candidates should be the minimum necessary. Only offenders in prison, people detained on account of mental illness and those not of voting age are disqualified by paragraph 17 of the first schedule. The franchise is the same as that for local government elections in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: If the election is to be based on parliamentary constituencies, why is the franchise not based on the parliamentary franchise?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: We thought it desirable to use a local register; that is what we are going to use.
  Mr. Taylor: Why?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: Because a local representation seems a desirable thing. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to pursue that point, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with it more fully in the wind-up.
  Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have already given way twice to the hon. Gentleman, and survived. I am not going to push my luck.
  Moving back to the body of the Bill: clause 2 provides for the selection, from among delegates returned, of teams to participate in the negotiations, the proposed ground rules for which are published in the Command Paper. The Bill defines the negotiations by reference to that paper. We want all parties that have shown that they have sufficient electoral support to be involved in the negotiations.
  Nevertheless, as both we and the Irish Government have consistently made plain, whether Sinn Fein takes its place in the negotiations is for the republican movement to decide. So that the position is clear, the Bill provides that I shall refrain from inviting nominations from any party where I consider that the requirements in the Command Paper are not met. I shall exercise that discretion, as was stated in the proposals of 21 March, after consultation, as appropriate, with the Irish Government.
  Clause 3 speaks for itself. As the Bill itself makes plain, the forum is a deliberative body; it is no sense a legislative or proto-legislative one. Its purpose will be the discussion of issues relevant to promoting dialogue and understanding within Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I have given way frequently—
  Mr. Canavan: Not to me, you haven't.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I cannot give way to everyone.

  859
  The forum has no executive or administrative functions of any sort. Nor has it power to determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations; but it may, by agreement among the participants in the negotiations as determined by their rules of procedures, consider matters referred to it by the negotiators.
  Mr. Canavan rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has made it clear that he is not giving way.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am sorry; I have given way an awful lot, and now I must get on.
  I believe that the forum has a most valuable role, neither threatening nor favouring any part of the community. It offers a new opportunity for people from differing political backgrounds to talk, and to listen to the views of others whom it may invite to address it, in order to promote dialogue and understanding. I believe that the forum offers real opportunities for constructive advance.
  Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I am sorry, but I have taken a long time over clause 3, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will permit me to continue. Indeed, I have already been speaking for nearly 35 minutes.
  Schedule 2 sets out a number of points about forum procedure. I shall not go through all the detail, but I should recall that the Government have already made clear their view that the forum should proceed by broad consensus. At the start, it will have a set of rules of procedure provided by me. The forum will then be empowered, as is right, to propose its own rules. They must be agreed by at least 75 per cent. of those participating in any vote, and they will then require my approval. The forum is also to elect its own chairman. For that too, a 75 per cent. majority will be required in any vote; until it has made its choice, the chairmanship falls to a member nominated by me.
  Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to be so persistent, and I do appreciate the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given way generously, but he has just raised one of the most controversial areas at stake. I refer to moving away from the criteria in paragraph 24 of the Command Paper—about rules of procedure having to have the support of both communities—and towards a system based on a weighted majority.
  Why have the Government departed from what was stipulated in the Command Paper? If, say, the official Unionist party abstained from the forum, its cause might be lost because a 75 per cent. majority could not be reached. We need representation of both communities.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: The written statement published after consultation made it clear that we believe that the forum should proceed on the basis of broad consensus. The hon. Gentleman will note in schedule 2 that, when a chairman or when rules of procedure are selected, a majority of 75 per cent. will be required. It will be for the
  860
  participants to determine what they wish to propose, and for the Secretary of State to determine whether or not to approve the rules.
  Clause 4 provides for referendums. Its provisions are broadly cast, sufficiently to permit consultation on any arrangements emerging from the negotiations. Any such proposals for a referendum would need to be approved by Parliament, and there is no encroachment on the provisions for a poll in section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
  After careful consideration, we have concluded that the case has not been made for a referendum to be held at the same time as elections. Clause 6 provides for payment of allowances to delegates for their participation in the negotiations or forum. Clause 7 gives one year as the life of the forum, but it may be continued in effect for a further year by order. It may also be suspended, and the Bill obliges me to provide for the forum to cease if negotiations are concluded or suspended—although it could be brought back into being if they subsequently resumed.
  I regret the reasoned amendment. I know that the electoral system proposed in the Bill was not the first choice of any party, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained, none of the systems put forward by the different parties had the support of major parties representing each of the main communities. The Government have sought to consult on the detail of the scheme, and we are grateful to the various parties for their responses.
  In Committee next week, we shall have more opportunity for detailed scrutiny. I accept that the electoral system is novel, but I reject that it will be confusing for the electorate. The voters will simply have to put a cross against the party of their choice—one vote for one party, which seems very simple.
  I have spoken of the opportunities that the Bill opens up for the political parties in Northern Ireland, and of the challenges with which it provides them, but I have not yet spoken of one other sector in Northern Ireland—the people. So often in the past, the men and women of Northern Ireland have had no role in the political part of the peace process. Too often, they had simply to stand by and watch, while politicians and Governments talked behind closed doors. For them, the Bill provides the greatest opportunity and challenge.
  The Bill, through the election process that it makes possible, changes that previous pattern. It gives the people of Northern Ireland a direct role in setting the negotiations in progress and providing the context and the mandate for them. Above all, that will give them a chance, by the strength of their votes for their chosen parties, to demonstrate the great yearning that exists on the ground to see talks taking place, understanding increased and an acceptable accommodation found. The Bill, for the first time, gives the people of Northern Ireland a voice in that talks process. I believe that they will not waste that chance.
  4.32 pm
  Ms Marjorie Mowlam: I endorse the Prime Minister's comments earlier today about last night's bomb. There is no way that parties can bomb their way to the negotiating table—that lesson must be learnt. We all share the view that such actions will not stand in the way of the peace process.

  861
  The Opposition welcome the package of measures, including the Bill, that is designed to enable negotiations to proceed on 10 June. We are pleased that the Government have come to share our view that it would be unfair to expect the parties in Northern Ireland to make judgments about the Bill without knowing the other proposals on offer. I am pleased that the Secretary of State spent some time this afternoon explaining the Command Paper on the ground rules for negotiations, which covered many of the issues that we consider important—such as decommissioning.
  We recognise and support the considerable determination that the Secretary of State has shown in trying to produce a broadly acceptable package. It is widely recognised that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's efforts have made a significant contribution to the search for some kind of agreement on the Bill. It was self-evident from the interventions made during the Secretary of State's speech that, as he indicated, it is impossible to please all the people all the time—but the Bill may be the best bet on offer in moving the peace process forward towards the negotiations on 10 June. That is why beginning negotiations on that date is so crucial, and why the elections are so important—I fully accept that they are not ideal—to ensure that the negotiations take place.
  Given the opportunity, as we have already seen, many hon. Members would have chosen different routes to arrive at the current position. That fact is recognised in the amendment tabled by the official Unionist party—
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Get the name right.
  Ms Mowlam: I am sorry—the Ulster Unionist party. I apologise profusely to the right hon. Gentleman for making such a serious error.
  The reality is that we are on the road to talks by the method that has been proposed, so it is common sense for us to go down that road. Many pitfalls remain, not the least of which is the danger that the parties will use the election to become entrenched in their positions and to undermine the spirit of compromise and accommodation on which rests the eventual success of the negotiations. That would be regrettable, and the people of Northern Ireland would not thank anyone if the parties took such a stance. We appeal to the parties to think of the future and to embrace this opportunity in the spirit in which it has been presented.
  We have supported the Government on Northern Ireland—not only on this Bill—because their approach, as the Bill shows, is based on agreements with the Irish Government: the Downing street declaration and the joint framework document. Our established policy of unity by consent is one option in those documents, and it provides a firm basis on which to build a consensus for a balanced settlement that can command the support and allegiance of both communities. We would try to build that consensus, just as the British and Irish Governments are attempting to do.
  There are many anxieties about the influence of the House's political arithmetic. In some senses, those fears are understandable because political arithmetic has so often affected the politics of the island of Ireland and we must do all that we can to stop it happening again. I do not share the view that promises have been made—
  862
  as many people have suggested in the past 24 hours—but it would perhaps be helpful to the House if the Government and parties made it clear that no deals or pacts have been made.
  Bipartisan support means putting peace above party interests, but it does not mean simple acquiesence to whatever the Government say or do. We have had our differences with the Government over the past 18 months. We would have made progress differently in different spheres. Our approach would have included protecting the basic rights of both traditions, a different strategy for training and economic development and having fair employment and fair treatment guarantees in the public and private sectors.
  We have also argued for the transfer of prisoners to Ireland—north and south—to ease problems of family contact. In particular, we are aware of the continuing controversy over the case of Patrick Kelly. We know of no reason why he cannot be transferred immediately.
  We have proposed changes to improve community identification, which we think could operate in parallel with the Bill. Those changes would be important in building cross-cultural communication and support between the communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) has put together a consultation paper on policing, but we have yet to see the Government's contribution to that debate.
  Our concrete proposals have greatly helped the process forward and we shall continue that help with constructive yet critical support for the Bill.
  Had we shouted some of the differences in approach a little more openly—from the roof-tops, so to speak—it would have signalled to the parties that it might be worth holding back or procrastinating and hoping for a change in Government, although I know that not all the parties would have reacted in such a manner. I believe that such a stance would have been irresponsible, dishonest and in some senses damaging to the peace process. In future, however, as the general election nears, it will obviously be necessary for us to make our views clear in public more often than before.
  The proposals in the Bill, and the Command Paper to which it refers, are the product of a long and tortuous process. As the Secretary of State said, we have gone through the Downing street declaration, the joint framework document, the decommissioning issue, the twin-track approach and Senator Mitchell's report. We can go back to the communiqué of 28 February and see how we have arrived at the position that we are in today.
  It is clear that at times the Opposition would not have chosen to proceed in precisely the same way as the Government have done, but we are acutely aware of the difficulties that we face. We are equally aware that the only game in town is one that seeks to bring about meaningful negotiations which have a hope of success and to bring a new future based on peace and justice for Northern Ireland, the island of Ireland and these islands as a whole. That is what we want to see and that is why we shall support the Bill today.
  At times in this arduous process, the stress has been on bringing the parties in from the fringes; at other times, it has been on building up the centre ground in Northern Ireland. In a sense, the processes that the Bill sets in train will offer an opportunity to do both. However, if Sinn Fein wants to be in the talks to represent its community, the restoration of

  863
  the IRA ceasefire of August 1994 is essential. The British and Irish Governments are clear on that, and they have our full support. There is no excuse. A meaningful, inclusive process of negotiations is being offered and a date for the talks to begin has now been set.
  Mr. William Ross: I thought I heard the hon. Lady say a moment ago that the Labour party would require the restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. The Secretary of State said that he would require the Mitchell principles to be applied. Those are two very different things. Can we be assured that when the hon. Lady referred to the ceasefire of 1994 it was merely a slip of the tongue and that she will not allow Sinn Fein to come into the talks so long as it continues crucifying teenagers on wooden fences?
  Ms Mowlam: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. My understanding of what the Secretary of State said this afternoon was that he would require a return to the ceasefire of August 1994. He went on to discuss in some detail the six principles and the proposals of the Mitchell commission. Let me make it clear that we agree with the ground rules for negotiations, which state clearly not only that there must be a return to the August 1994 ceasefire but that the Mitchell principles are an essential part of the process of participation in the negotiations of 10 June.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Much emphasis has been placed both by the hon. Lady and by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on a return to the ceasefire of August 1994, but that ceasefire was patently vulnerable and it failed. So without something much more solid than a failed ceasefire, there can be no prospect of success.
  Ms Mowlam: Thank you very much. We have said clearly that the August 1994 ceasefire has to be reinstated and that the Mitchell six principles are an essential part of the development of the negotiations of 10 June. So it is clear that a process is being set in train of which the Mitchell six principles form part. I hope that that answers the hon. and learned Gentleman's question.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The six principles include decommissioning. Is the hon. Lady saying now that as well as accepting the six principles, the IRA must move immediately to decommissioning?
  Ms Mowlam: I agree with the Secretary of State's analysis of the statement of August 1994 at the time of the ceasefire and of the Mitchell six principles as the procedure that we follow, as outlined in the ground rules. The statement said that decommissioning had to be addressed. Questions were put to him by hon. Members on both sides of the House who sought to find out the detail and when it would be addressed. He made it clear, and I agree that it is the only way in which we can move forward in any rational way, that the way to proceed was to get to 10 June, put the ground rules document on the table and see where the elected representatives of the Northern Ireland parties can move forward to.
  Mr. Wilshire: Would the hon. Lady like to have a go at answering the question that I asked my right hon. and
  864
  learned Friend the Secretary of State? If the ceasefire is reinstated, does it have to be clearly declared as permanent and for ever before it is accepted as real?
  Ms Mowlam: Members of Parliament, the Government and the Opposition have tried with the Bill and the ground rules document to put in place a mechanism to give the process momentum. Having sat through numerous statements to the House by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, the hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties that we have faced in the past 18 months in keeping the peace together and putting momentum back into the peace process. We went through definitions of "permanent" and a host of options. In the August 1994 ceasefire statement, in the ground rules document and in the Mitchell six principles, we have a mechanism and a process by which it is possible to move forward in the negotiations. I have clarified to Unionist Members that it will be for the parties in Northern Ireland to find a mechanism to move forward in negotiations. We think that that is a constructive way forward.
  The House could try to define terms and put other statements in place. I hope that we are all engaged, and I perceive that the Bill and the ground rules for the negotiations are engaged, in seeking to provide some parameters to allow the parties in Northern Ireland—at present only those which are constitutionally elected and committed to the democratic process as the way forward—to participate in trying to obtain a settlement with which everyone can live. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) can keep coming back at me, and I shall with pleasure allow him one more intervention, but it is patently obvious from the Secretary of State's response that the hon. Gentleman will not move the process forward by trying to force the Secretary of State, me or any Northern Ireland Member into a definition in the House this afternoon without the benefit of the consultation that the ground rules document will give us the chance to undertake.
  Mr. Wilshire: That is the longest way I have ever heard of saying, "No, it does not have to be permanent." So we now know the score. Both the Government and the official Opposition say that another temporary, tactical truce is acceptable and that on that basis they will let Sinn Fein-IRA into the talks. Has it not occurred to the hon. Lady that the talks will not start on that basis?
  Ms Mowlam: If the hon. Gentleman wants to interpret comments in a way in which they clearly were not meant, he can do as he wishes and is entitled to do. I give the hon. Gentleman exactly the answer that I gave to his last question. The August 1994 ceasefire statement and the ground rules document address the principles and proposals in the Mitchell report, which addresses many of the questions that are crucial to building the trust and confidence between the parties in Northern Ireland that is needed to move the talks process forward. That is advantageous.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: When the hon. Lady says that she will address the principles and the proposals, does she mean that she would implement them?
  Ms Mowlam: The word "address"—a verb that has caused great debate and discussion among all of us in the past few months—is included in the principles and the

  865
  proposals to enable the parties in Northern Ireland to find a mechanism by which "addressing" can take place. As the ground rules for the negotiations make clear, it has to take place at the beginning of the process. "Addressing" is a mechanism which permits the parties to consider these questions. That is what is stated. Those are the parameters that we hope will allow the elected representatives not to ask me the answer, but among themselves to find a mechanism with which they can all agree.
  Mr. Clive Soley: This is an important point, which has been pursued with both the Government and the Opposition. It may be appropriate to say why the two Governments agreed to the wording in the communiqué and why the opposition agree that there should be an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire. We did not go further forward with the wording precisely because both Governments and both major political parties in the House want negotiations to proceed. We know how to stop the negotiations: it is by putting ever more conditions on them, which would serve the interests only of those in Northern Ireland who want to continue the killing. We are opposed to the killing. That is why that wording was used. That is why the British Government and the Opposition are agreed and why I hope that they will not get trapped into additional factors which would bring chaos to Northern Ireland.
  Ms Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful clarification. I have made the point about the August ceasefire clear and I hope—so that the hon. Member for Spelthorne will not misquote my words—that I have also said that any participants who refuse to sign up to the six principles set out in paragraph 20 of the Mitchell report would forfeit their rights to continue in negotiations. I hope that that clarifies that point.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Mowlam: No, I will not take any more interventions. I have debated and discussed the point for some time, as did the Secretary of State, and I hope that that will allow us to move forward in the debate.
  The process that the Bill will set up offers the opportunity for us to seek—[Interruption.] Are you very unhappy? Come on then.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Before we proceed, I remind the House that all Members here are hon. Members. Perhaps pronouns could be left outside the Chamber.
  Mr. Robinson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for attempting to keep me happy. Is she aware that in the past few days it has been clearly shown in court that during the ceasefire the London bomber was preparing to cause devastation and death in this capital city? Is that the kind of ceasefire that the hon. Lady wants reinstated?
  Ms Mowlam: We all condemn—and have done repeatedly—the murders of than Bashir and John Jefferies at Canary wharf and hope that the future will not see the deaths and injuries that we have seen in the past. A return to the August 1994 ceasefire would allow us to move forward—which is what I hope that everybody wants to do, rather than adding other preconditions to the process.
  866
  I wish to address a part of the legislation that the Opposition think is rather controversial, and we seek to amend it. In a speech in Coleraine last November, I said:
  "It may be that some kind of electoral mechanism or index would help to bring all parties into the negotiations, but this must not lead to domination of the negotiations by one community nor be seen as a form of internal settlement."
  At that time, like many others I was aware of the need to build trust and confidence to bring parties to the table, but the issue of decommissioning was becoming in some senses a logjam to moving the process forward. I was trying to identify an alternative approach.
  I envisaged elections being a passport to the negotiations, and nothing more. The Bill, however, in clause 3 and schedule 2, would establish a forum with a deliberative function only and with no legislative, executive or administrative functions. The Opposition have urged that if a forum has to exist, its functions should be clearly subscribed in that way. That is to prevent any forum from becoming a blueprint or pilot for an assembly, which should come about only at the end of the negotiations if agreed as part of a balanced settlement dealing with the totality of relationships. It is also to prevent an elected forum from developing into an alternative negotiating arena.
  We are puzzled, therefore, about why it is necessary for the body to have any decision-making powers. For pragmatic reasons, it may be necessary for decisions on the choice of the chair and the adoption of rules of procedure to occur on the basis of a vote. It appears to us, however, if we understand the remit and function of the forum correctly, that beyond those decisions the forum could proceed on a similar basis to the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation held in Dublin, in which issues were deliberated, understanding was increased, evidence was heard from outside groups and reports were published. Indeed, on 21 March the Prime Minister agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) that
  "the forum will be similar"—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 504.]
  to that held in Dublin.
  It was understood in the Dublin forum that if certain parties did not agree with the final reports, they would simply make their dissent clear by not signing them. Why must the forum in Northern Ireland operate on a different basis, unless its remit is not as we understand it from the Bill? We would welcome clarification from the Secretary of State on that point.
  We would also welcome clarification of the process by which the list of parties in schedule 1 was arrived at. The Secretary of State mentioned earlier that parties were included on the list on the basis of complaints from parties that they were not on the initial list. Is there any mechanism for other parties to appeal so that they could be put on the list that is currently printed in schedule 1?
  Also under schedule 1, the Secretary of State has the power to make provision by order in the event of an equality of quotients—a tie. Will he tell the House how he intends to make a judgment in that eventuality?
  The Bill will give the Secretary of State many discretionary powers in relation to the process. We wish to learn, either later tonight or in the debate next week, how those powers will be exercised. Under schedule 2, there are proposals for the timing of the first meeting of

  867
  the forum. We should be interested to ascertain how and when the Secretary of State will judge that the first meeting should take place.
  The Secretary of State announced today that in his view there was insufficient support for a referendum to be held before or in parallel with the elections. It would be helpful if that position were clarified.
  In clause 4, in relation to enactments, it is very unclear what the Secretary of State will be empowered to do. We would welcome clarification on that point and especially on its impact on decisions made in a referendum. Under clause 7, the Secretary of State has the power to restore the forum to life if it has been suspended. Will he assure the House that he would not exercise that power unless negotiations were also under way?
  I know that the issue of the under-representation of women in political life in Northern Ireland is close to the hearts of many Members from Northern Ireland. Many of us would like to see greater participation by women. Does the Secretary of State have a view about how parties could be helped or encouraged to include more participation by women in the political process in Northern Ireland, in the list or by other mechanisms?
  We also wish to learn how the Secretary of State intends to assist the parties and the public in Northern Ireland with the provision of information and other assistance in the course of the election campaigns. The Secretary of State stated in passing in the House this afternoon that literature would be provided. It would be useful if more information were given about how that process will work.
  The issues that I have mentioned, and many others, are unclear from the Bill as it stands. We believe that the House would benefit from further clarification on those points. This is a deeply sensitive period in Northern Ireland. We are now operating against the volatile backdrop of parades and marches. We have proposed that the Secretary of State establish an independent commission to address that issue and to make recommendations to the Chief Constable to aid his decisions on the holding and routeing of marches. I am disappointed that as yet there has been no reaction to that suggestion as it is widely regarded as a sensible and practical step.
  We have made it clear that we will support the Bill tonight. Elections in Northern Ireland are now a part of the process and the Government want and need to pass the legislation to make them possible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) has already made it clear that he will not stand in the way of the legislation.
  Mr. McNamara: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is in a position to answer the question about the contradiction between paragraph 24 of Cmnd. 3232 and the provisions in schedule 2 to the Bill. Under paragraph 24, as the Minister said earlier in answer to questions, a clear majority is needed in both communities; but schedule 2 contains provisions for a weighted majority.
  Ms Mowlam: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I hope that I made it clear—it may have been missed in the general discussion earlier—that we are concerned that the forum should function as a deliberative
  868
  body. I talked about how it would gather evidence and I explained in some detail how the mechanisms by which the forum could reach conclusions could be achieved. I hoped that I was making it self-evidently clear that I did not think that a voting mechanism was the way to achieve that. I stated that I thought that there might be a case for that in respect of rules and procedure, but as my hon. Friend suggested, paragraph 24 of the ground rules is in the spirit of what I would like to be the mechanism within the forum for discussion between parties. I hope that that answers his question. I made it clear that we would amend the Bill on that point because it is causing us great concern.
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am sorry to pursue the point, but the Command Paper states:
  "in all case… any decision taken will be supported by a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland."
  Rules and procedure will determine the agenda. Are we going to support an amendment which embodies the principle contained in the White Paper for those rules and procedures?
  Ms Mowlam: I hear what my hon. Friend says and I agree with his point. I do not think that we disagree on this. I said that we need to amend schedule 2 in the spirit of the ground rules document as he quoted it. I hope that in the days ahead we shall be able to consider that.
  In conclusion, as I have tried to argue, we agree with the Bill in principle. There are many aspects on which we would like further debate and there are parts that we would like to amend. In the end, however, we welcome the fact that the Government published the Bill, along with the ground rules for negotiations, because that gives most hon. Members a chance to examine in detail what is on offer—what they are buying into. We hope that that will give us a chance to achieve the objective that we all share of starting inclusive, meaningful negotiations on 10 June. Those talks are only the beginning of the real goal of securing through negotiation a new settlement that is balanced and fair and has the support of both communities.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: It would be reasonable to argue that the appearance of this Bill should be regarded as a significant landmark in the process that started with the Downing street declaration, not least because the objective for more than three years has been the establishment of all-party negotiations with the opportunity that that provides for an agreement. One might therefore have expected the launch of the Bill to be accompanied by at least some rejoicing and a sense of achievement. I must confess, however, that that does not appear to have happened. Notwithstanding the tacit support of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam), I do not detect much, if any, enthusiasm for the Bill; nor do I detect much enthusiasm among some of those who are likely to take part in the negotiations to start their business.
  It is perhaps not difficult to see why. Last night confirmed, on the assumption that it was indeed an IRA bomb, that the Provisionals are very far removed from being committed to exclusively peaceful methods and demonstrated that those who argued that the ceasefire was

  869
  a de facto ceasefire were wrong. Optimism about the final agreement is in short supply perhaps because areas of disagreement clearly outweigh areas of common ground. Nevertheless, it is right that the process should go on—and right that it should go on without Sinn Fein.
  As for the Bill and the elective process forum for discussion that it establishes, I will be brief. During the debate on the merits of the various electoral systems, I argued for an 18-constituency single transferable vote election. That debate is over. It is widely acknowledged that the elective process that the Bill offers is not ideal, but, as we know, none of the favoured options was likely to have commanded widespread support and the Government therefore had no choice but to come forward with an alternative that could lead to meaningful multi-party talks. No one may much like the elective process proposed in the Bill, but it is equally hard to understand how anyone could so dislike it that they would totally reject it, not least because it is the only way on offer that can lead to the desirable objective of extensive negotiations.
  The elective process in the Bill can be likened to that freak of nature and extraordinary creature, the duck-billed platypus. Like the platypus, it is a peculiar mixture. Its pedigree is complex, its existence a challenge, it has a strange appearance and some peculiar features. Nevertheless, like the platypus, 1 expect that it will prove extremely functional.
  I believe that we can be satisfied that the Bill will effectively achieve its purpose. I have questions, but I am generally satisfied with the provisions for elections, with the prescription for drawing participants for the negotiations from the elected delegates and with the power given to the Secretary of State to hold a referendum.
  I welcome the changes in the ground rules that have emerged since the consultation paper of 15 March. Paragraph 4 of that paper corresponds to paragraph 4 of the final draft. I was glad to note that the controversial reference to a
  "new and more broadly based agreement"
  which would develop and extend the Anglo-Irish Agreement has been omitted. Those words pre-empted debate, anticipated a conclusion and were therefore out of place.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the replacement of those words by a eulogy to the framework document is unacceptable, as the framework documents are not acceptable to the community in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Hunter: I find it acceptable because it was made clear at the launch of the framework documents and thereafter that they were not inclusive but a suggestion open to debate. Both Governments made it clear that alternative proposals were acceptable. I do not find the reference to the framework document objectionable.
  Paragraph 7 of the final draft is also new. It clearly divides the negotiations from the forum. I appreciate that for some participants in the process that is an important point and I have no objection to it being made clear in the ground rules. I am not yet persuaded that those who regard the divide between forum and negotiations as less important can validly object to the divide being made in that way.
  870
  Paragraph 16 of the ground rules also appears for the first time in the revised draft. It demands:
  "All participants in the negotiations will take part in good faith, seriously. address all aspects of the agreed agenda, and make every effort to reach agreement."
  I understand that the Irish Government were anxious that the ground rules should contain that demand and it is surely right and reasonable that it should be included. Above all, it makes nonsense of Sinn Fein's propaganda claim that the Government are not committed to the negotiations.
  Greater participation by the political parties in each strand is the common theme to the additions to paragraphs 19, 20 and 21: in strand 1, through being consulted about liaison arrangements; in strand 2, through involvement in drawing up the procedural rules: in strand 3, through consultation, briefing and being able to put forward their views. I regard those alterations as healthy and acceptable. One cannot, however, ignore the related paragraphs 9, 13 and 14, and I share much of the concern that has been expressed by other hon. Members.
  I continue to believe that paragraph 9, which deals with the participation of Sinn Fein, could cause difficulties. I listened carefully to my right hon. and learned Friend's comments, which were very reassuring. I hope that we will receive yet further reassurances during the winding-up speech. The day after a bomb has exploded in London, it may seem an academic exercise to express concern about the conditions under which Sinn Fein might be readmitted to negotiations, but there remains the possibility, however remote, that another ceasefire may be declared before 10 June.
  We are aware that the ground rules impose as a condition to that readmittance the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of 31 August. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) that that ceasefire was wholly deficient. It was neither complete nor permanent. We have had rehearsed to us many times the fact that during those months the IRA's structures remained in place and that it recruited, trained, targeted and raised money. It also researched and developed home-made weapons and its members threatened, intimidated, tortured and murdered. At face value, it appears that the ground rules suggest that those are the conditions to which the IRA must return, and which are therefore acceptable. That cannot be the case.
  Another difficulty is that one can imagine that some participants in the process may be more willing than others to accept the genuineness of a second ceasefire. Then, the problem is who arbitrates in that dispute. That is why I think it is unfortunate that there is not less ambiguity and greater clarity in paragraphs 13 and 14. Yes, the Secretary of State reminded us of the confidence-building measures mentioned in the communiqué of 28 February, and again quoted in the ground rules, but again we come back to the ambiguity of the words "to address" and precisely what that means, as well as the ambiguity in the meaning of the words "in accordance". That uncertainty is disturbing.
  If I understood the hon. Member for Redcar correctly, I find it hard to expect at least 10 political parties to come to an agreement on an issue on which two Governments have failed to find agreement.

  871
  On 21 March, the Prime Minister's reply to the hon. and learned Member for North Down was unambiguous, because he said that there must be parallel decommissioning and that it
  "must proceed in parallel with the talks."—[Official Report, 21 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 505.]
  I hope that that is the case, but I am yet to be convinced that that is the Irish Government's understanding of the ground rules. Nevertheless, I welcome and support the Bill, although I continue to have that major reservation about one aspect of the ground rules.
  5.12 pm
  Mr. David Trimble: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which unnecessarily introduces a wholly novel electoral system which is not properly thought out, contains unfairness and anomalies by introducing bogus political parties while omitting existing political parties and is complicated and designed to confuse the electorate."
  The main provisions in the Bill are for elections and for a forum, in addition to referendums and negotiations. We welcome the provisions for elections. When I say we welcome them, I am referring, of course, to the genuine, authentic Ulster Unionist party, not the bogus Ulster unionist party that the Secretary of State has included in his Bill. The listing of bogus parties in the Bill is part of the reason why we have tabled the reasoned amendment.
  The Government have moved, for the reasons that they have mentioned, to introduce an entirely novel electoral system. They had the choice of two systems on the statute book already, but they moved with great haste to introduce another one. List systems are not unusual—most of Europe votes by list systems—so there are list systems that could have been borrowed and used, but we do not even have a proper list system. I am not thinking in terms of the curious features of constituency lists and regional lists, although I shall refer to them again. The essence of a list system, in whatever variation it is adopted, is that it is a system of voting by reference to parties. If one is voting by reference to parties, one must have a clear legal basis for those parties and a form of regulation of the existence of parties and the use of party names. That is what happens in every other list system in the world where they are operated. There are procedures to regulate parties and the use of party names. That is foreign to British electoral law, which does not recognise the existence of parties. The Government have taken a novel step by moving in that direction; they have done so in a cack-handed and ineffective manner, which will cause difficulties.
  It is all very well for the Secretary of State to say that it is simple for the elector to put an X against one name. We already have 30-plus names on the list, and that list may by no means be closed, so we will have the opportunity for confusion, particularly as some of the names used are not familiar even to me and my hon. Friends. They involve things that we have not heard of before. It may be that we have been inattentive and that things have come into existence without our appreciating them.
  I was a little confused when I saw the name of the No Going Back group, and wondered whether it was the group with a similar name that exists in the Conservative party.
  872
  Members of the Liberal Democrat party will appreciate, however, that there is a serious issue involved. If, in the European elections, a significant number of electors—some 10,000 in that case—cast their votes in a way that, in all probability, by far the greater number did not intend because of the similarity of names on a ballot paper that was comparatively short and where the name of the candidate was in clear, bold type and the party name in quite small type, will not the risk of confusion be greater if candidates' names do not appear, although I think that they should, and all we have is a long list of names of parties, many of which will be unfamiliar? That is the problem.
  If we are to have a list system, either the Government should introduce a proper statutory scheme for the regulation of parties and the use of party names or, as they said they intended to do when they brought out their first paper, they should have a mechanism to regulate the parties by a statutory list. Having made that suggestion, however, they retreated from it and opened the door to a number of others. The proposed process should be looked at seriously. Because we consider it a matter of considerable importance, we have tabled a reasoned amendment calling for re-examination.
  There are a number of possible solutions. I shall not go into all of them now, but the use of deposits could be one way of resolving the problem. When the issue came up originally, it was said that there would be no need for deposits on candidature because there would be statutory regulation of names and only genuine parties would take part. Now, however, independents, or a group of people, who decide to form a political party can put themselves up provided they can find two persons to stand in a particular constituency so as to get them on the constituency list. Those persons will then be entitled to the free postal delivery of election communications. The likelihood is that that will be a considerable temptation—not just to the 30-odd names on the list, but to others as well. It is to restrain people from exploiting the public service in that way that deposits are used in British electoral law. There is every reason to extend the use of deposits to the proposed elections.
  Mr. Beith: May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that someone whose intention was to confuse would be ready to raise the money to do so and invent some variant on the Ulster Unionist party just as the variant Literal Democrat was invented by someone who soon found the money for the deposit?
  Mr. Trimble: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point and I appreciate that my suggestion is not watertight. We need the procedures that exist in countries that use list systems whereby either only those who have statutorily registered names are used or people can challenge the misuse of a name. There would then be some form of judicial process whereby those matters could be resolved. That would be by far the better way to proceed, but time is short.
  Mr. Maginnis: Is it not the case that, as there is a separate election in each constituency, under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal there would be a need for a deposit in each constituency? That would place a considerable burden, over 18 constituencies, on any individual wanting to pervert the course of the election by nominating two people under his name—an independent or whatever it may be—in each constituency.
  Mr. Trimble: My hon. Friend's point is well made: these are the ways in which the deposit requirement could be made effective. It is important for us to look at that.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: Perverting the election in one constituency could have an impact overall, and it is no more acceptable that someone who can raise a deposit for one of the 18 constituencies should get off in that way, as was the case with the Liberal Democrats. Would it not be better if there were a requirement to have a significant number of assentors to the nomination as well as a deposit? We put that proposal to the Northern Ireland Office.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion—it is a good idea. They are the sorts of things that should be done. We should be examining ideas of that nature, and the ones that I have mentioned, as a way of restraining the abuse of the system that has been adopted here. I hope that there will be an openness on the part of the Government, come Monday and Tuesday, to look at this seriously.
  By putting forward our proposals, we are not trying to wreck the opportunity that exists for the people of Northern Ireland to express their views at the ballot box—we want elections and we want them to take place in a coherent manner and in a way that will reflect the wishes of the people.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the minutiae. Is he aware that, in January, some of us went to observe the elections in Palestine? In the city of Gaza, where I was stationed, the ballot paper contained 92 candidates and people had to make 12 choices. However, 94 per cent. of the people turned out and voted and chose, against many urgings of the large parties, a balanced assembly. Is it not better to focus on enthusing people for the process of democracy so that they choose wisely rather than get involved in the minutiae of one system or another?
  Mr. Trimble: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that suggestion and for pointing out how successful the elections were in Palestine. He said that there were 92 names on the ballot paper. I hope that the Government Front Bench listened carefully to what he said. That example shows that it is possible to have a large number of names on a ballot paper, which would enable the provision that we have asked the Government to make—to put the names of candidates on the ballot paper. That would reduce the danger of confusion arising from misleading names. As we are dealing with constituency-based elections—where there will be only up to five names on the list of any one party—it would be possible to put the names of all the candidates standing in that constituency on the ballot paper.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is a world of difference between voting in Israel, where the list system and all its refinements has been a feature for some time—
  Mr. Beith: The Palestinians had never voted before.
  Mr. McCartney: I am speaking about the Israeli elections. As I understand it, they have had a list system.
  I shall move on to another point raised by the hon. Gentleman—why there may be some smaller parties that have no political validity and are entirely new. There are
  874
  some small parties, including my party, that have managed to get someone elected to the House. They are now faced with having to field not one, but two, candidates in every constituency in order to get a Province-wide vote. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that small parties should be penalised and perhaps excluded by reason of a deposit system in every constituency?
  Mr. Trimble: I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that the example given earlier by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) referred to Palestine, not Israel. In Palestine, they do not have the same experience of using list systems as Israel. Israel is not a good advertisement for list systems because the way the system operates there has not been beneficial to the development of democracy or to the peace process.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the problem for his party. I am happy to distinguish between his position and that of other small parties. My use of the term "bogus parties" was not by any means intended to refer to the hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. Friends. I appreciate that if he wants to field candidates in all the constituencies, he will experience the difficulties that inevitably exist for smaller parties. I was once a member of a small party; and I am familiar with that experience.
  We have to have a system that will do something to whittle out those groups that have no real support, particularly as one of the features of the list system—this is something that should be of interest to all hon. Members—is that it will shred the Unionist vote and shred the vote generally. This is exactly the feature that mars Israeli politics.
  The single transferable vote system would have allowed people to express preferences and would have allowed votes to consolidate in a way that would have produced a much more coherent result. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said, when and if we get to 10 June and find ourselves with 10-plus parties there, as well as two Governments, it will be much more difficult for the talks to move forward in a positive way, particularly when we bear in mind—as we do—the experience of 1992 when the efforts that we made at that time did not develop in a positive way.
  I shall now consider some other areas in which we have reservations about this operation. The Command Paper entitled "Northern Ireland: Ground Rules for Substantive All-Party Negotiations" has been mentioned. I am sorry to see that the preamble contains statements that would mislead people who are ill informed and not familiar with the background. I refer to the phrase "following consultation".
  The paper was originally produced with no consultation whatsoever and some small improvements have since been made. However, it still contains a scheme that we do not find acceptable. It is simply wrong to talk about this paper containing a broadly acceptable set of rules. It does not. It is largely a reproduction of the set of rules—in so far as there were rules—that operated in the 1992 inter-party talks and which largely contributed to the failure of the inter-party talks in 1992.
  The Secretary of State may recall that the only times when we had any genuine progress in the 1992 talks was when we departed from the rules that are the basis of these rules. I think there lies a lesson that we want to do things

  875
  better than we did in 1992. We do not want to exclude the consideration of issues. The paranoia that has been displayed by some nationalist politicians on this matter is quite wrong.
  We are quite prepared to address the whole range of issues, but we want to do it in a more fruitful way than we did in 1992. This set of ground rules, by leaning so much on the experience of 1992, is likely to be an obstacle, particularly as we find commentators in Dublin stating that these are now immutable and unchangeable. The Secretary of State is shaking his head. I hope that this will be made clear during the debate; we are not dealing with an immutable set of rules, but something that is still open for development and consultation, because we wish to see it develop. We wish to see changes towards the more fruitful ideas that we have explored.
  There is reference in the ground rules to the unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire of August 1994. I shall not repeat the points that have been made in this regard as they have so ably been made by other hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Basingstoke and by the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) in his intervention. The ceasefire of August 1994 was not a genuine ceasefire. We cannot be content with the restoration of that equivocal operation and the matter must move on to more secure ground as rapidly as possible.
  We should focus our attention on paragraph 13 of the Command Paper, which is in fact a paragraph taken from the communiqué issued by the Prime Minister and the Irish Prime Minister on 28 February. It is that joint communiqué that we should regard as the basis on which to strengthen and make genuine the ceasefire. That is the basis on which we should proceed. The quotation, in paragraph 13, of the communiqué is followed by a couple of paragraphs of turbid Anglo-Irishese, which do not add to the paragraph's meaning and are best ignored. We are best concentrating on the communiqué itself. If we follow that course, matters become clear.
  There has been much discussion about "address" and what it means, along with other matters of that nature. There was complete lack of clarity in that discussion. The starting point is the beginning of the communiqué, which states that "all participants"—I assume that "all participants" will individually have to indicate their position—
  "would need to make clear at the beginning"—
  that is unequivocal, because "at the beginning" means at the beginning, and that is the first item—
  "their total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy and non-violence."
  In my view the key phrase is "total and absolute commitment". That is "total and absolute commitment" to the Mitchell principles, which include the principle of
  "total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations"
  and the renunciation of the use of force, as well as the ending of "'punishment' killings and beatings". That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross).
  The Mitchell principles go far beyond the ceasefire of August 1994. It is the Mitchell principles that constitute the key. Similarly, total and absolute commitment to the
  876
  principles is the key. There must be a procedure, and it must be sorted out well before 10 June. It is not sufficient, as the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) said, to leave matters until 10 June for the participants who then turn up. The result would be a shambles. We need, well before 10 June, to have a clear agreement on how a total and absolute commitment will be expressed. That must be done in clear and unequivocal manner.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Gentleman able to think of any good reason why, in relation to absolute commitment to the principle of democracy in Northern Ireland and the need to address at the same stage decommissioning proposals, the words "need to" should be replaced by "must"?
  Mr. Trimble: Is there any difference? I am not sure that there is. The
  "need to make clear … total and absolute commitment to the principles of democracy"
  suggests "must". It has to happen. It has to happen in a clear and unequivocal way. To make a total commitment to the principles of non-violence, including the disbandment of all paramilitary organisations, means more than uttering a form of words or signing one's name on a declaration, as is done in local government. It means following that commitment through with actions. That is made clear by the sixth principle, of ending paramilitary killings and beatings. The principles are not merely stated, because they must be followed by action. Therefore, there must be agreement. That is the significance of "address". There must be agreement on how actions will take place.
  We must not expect actions to take place instantly. We expect that they will proceed, as the Prime Minister said, alongside talks. However, one expects to see at the beginning, or as the communiqué states, "at that stage", clear commitments on the actions that will follow to demonstrate that there is in truth a total and absolute commitment. It is essential that, well before 10 June, there is a discussion between the constitutional parties and the two Governments on the exact procedures that we shall follow on 10 June so that we can be sure that there is a commitment, that it is given in a clear way and that we do not find things disappearing in a cloud of obfuscation and Anglo-Irishese.
  There is certainly one matter that the Governments must address urgently. One of the Mitchell principles is the need for disbandment or decommissioning to take place to the satisfaction of an independent commission. As the Mitchell principles state, that commission must have a clear legal basis. If any decommissioning of weapons is taking place, those who are giving up weapons have to be given a degree of immunity from criminal prosecution for possession of the weapons that they are surrendering. That requires legislation. My colleagues and I have drawn attention to that over a long period.
  I understand that the Government have prepared legislation. I would welcome a response when the Minister replies. I was given to believe that it was intended that such proposed legislation would be introduced at the same time as the Bill, and that the two measures would proceed through the House at roughly the same time. Such legislation has not yet appeared. I should like an explanation for the delay.
  Similarly, I would welcome an indication of the position on equivalent Irish legislation. If anything, that is more important. If decommissioning is to take place,

  877
  the bulk of it will take place in the Republic of Ireland. That is where the bulk of the weapons and bombs are. We need to have legislation to enable the international commission to inspect and verify decommissioning and the limited and tightly circumscribed amnesty that will run alongside it.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford (Mr. Taylor) and I raised these matters, along with my hon Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis), with the Irish Government on 11 March—more than five weeks ago. We underlined the necessity for prompt action by the Irish Government. Since then, we have heard nothing. The Government should tell us this evening what success they have had in encouraging the Irish Government to bring forward the necessary legislation. That legislation must be in place before 10 June so that the commitments and undertakings that must be given on 10 June, along with undertakings relating to parallel decommissioning, are not frustrated.
  I hope that there is no thought on the part of people in government that they might let Sinn Fein-IRA off the hook by not having the necessary legislation in place so that decommissioning cannot take place, even if that is what is wanted. I hope that there is no support lurking for that. It will be demonstrated that there is no support for that by bringing forward the necessary legislation as speedily as possible.
  Mr. William Ross: My hon. Friend will be well aware that IRA-Sinn Fein say constantly that there must be forensic examination of any weapons that are ever surrendered. Will my hon. Friend dwell for a moment on the reasons for that? Is it that the IRA might be trying to hold back some weapons that have been identified? If it handed over some weapons, it could say, "That is all." If there were to be no forensic examination, there would be no means of identifying the weapons that had been used.
  Mr. Trimble: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It will be interesting to hear what the Government have to say. There must be a limited amnesty when it comes to the possession of weapons that are decommissioned—it must be tightly limited. For the reasons that my hon. Friend has set out, we must be careful about conceding to absence of examination. The object of the exercise is to ensure that weapons held by paramilitary organisations are decommissioned and that there is total disarmament of those organisations. The purpose of the verification procedure is to ensure that we achieve that objective. In that context, forensic examination is something that we should bear in mind.
  The issue of a forum has given rise to unnecessary controversy. It should not be regarded as controversial. Indeed, it should be understood as a key element that will, I hope, make a fruitful contribution to the process that lies ahead. It is necessary to have a body in which public debate can take place. There will not be confidence in the community in Northern Ireland in a process that operates solely behind closed doors, in secrecy. If confidence is to be built in the community, there has to be a public element, a degree of transparency, which public debate will give.
  Furthermore, the public debate itself will be fruitful in terms of possibly changing the approach, or developing the approach, of the participants. The effect of
  878
  engagement in debate on those who are there is not to be overlooked. That, presumably, is why we treasure this institution. Surely we believe that the debates that we have in the Chamber make a contribution to our own thoughts as well as to the public view. We should not, therefore, treat so dismissively having a similar debating opportunity in Northern Ireland.
  It was never part of the intention of my hon. Friends and others who put forward this proposal—we are happy to acknowledge the contribution to the thinking that we have received from others such as the Alliance party and the Democratic Unionist party in this matter—that the body to be created would in some way control and determine the negotiations. I find it amazing that anyone should think that that would be the case. Exactly the same people will be in the forum and in the negotiations. Exactly the same parties will be there. The decisions that are taken by agreement in one will be replicated in the other. If there is agreement in the negotiations, I expect there to be similar agreements in the forum. How could it be otherwise if the same people are in both channels? If there is disagreement in one area, I expect the disagreement will be replicated elsewhere. I cannot envisage that the same people in two channels will instruct themselves in one area how to behave in the other. That is simply not a situation that we need worry about.
  I hope that the negotiations will be fruitful. I also hope that the debate in the forum will be fruitful. The additional advantage of the forum is that it can take evidence from the public. It can involve the public in the process. That is something that I hope the public and interest groups in the community in Northern Ireland will do.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: With regard to consulting the public, does the hon. Gentleman expect that the forum will be confined to one location or that it will be a roving commission going from community to community and holding meetings in those different communities?
  Mr. Trimble: I very much hope that that option is available to it. Whether it is depends to a certain extent on whether the Secretary of State is prepared to make the resources available for that to happen. I hope that that will involve not just a matter of going within the community in Northern Ireland, but going outside Northern Ireland to take evidence from people elsewhere in the United Kingdom or even in the Republic of Ireland as well. That could be a beneficial exercise and one should not decry the opportunities that are there.
  I am happy to see that some commentators in the Dublin press are beginning to appreciate that there may be merit in the operation of the forum. I am thinking of articles in the Irish Independent today by Dr. Maurice Hayes and in The Irish Times by Mary Holland, both of whom are beginning to appreciate that the forum can make a useful contribution. I hope that it will, and I hope that the process on which we are engaged will be moved forward in a positive way, but we must be realistic about it. In being realistic, we must acknowledge that what happened on 9 February and subsequently did happen and has an important bearing on the process.
  I appreciate why some hon. Members focus so much on Sinn Fein, but the indisputable evidence is that there is not a commitment to peaceful means within Sinn Fein and the IRA. We have talked about the Mitchell principles. One of

  879
  the Mitchell principles is to oppose any effort to use force to influence the course of negotiations. What on earth was the bomb of 9 February if it was not an attempt to use force to influence the course of negotiations? What on earth was the bomb in London last night, set off just before this debate, if it was not the use of force as an attempt to influence the course of negotiations?
  Let us have no illusions about this. The opportunity is there for Sinn Fein-IRA if they are to have a road-to-Damascus conversion between now and 10 June. If they are to realise the error of their current ways, the opportunity is there, but let us be realistic about it. It would be false to build too many hopes on that. The likelihood is that, when 10 June comes, should Sinn Fein arrive at the talks, which it very well may not, the duty of most of us would probably be to remind it of the need to make this absolute and total commitment to the Mitchell proposals and to ensure that it is shown the door if that is not the case. It will be for Sinn Fein to decide whether it takes that road. The principles are there and it would be quite wrong for us to distort or change them.
  There is also a positive opportunity here. During the past 18 months, the refusal of Sinn Fein-IRA to demonstrate good faith prevented any political progress. Their refusal to move on the issue meant that nothing happened. Now, in the future, should they continue to fail to demonstrate good faith, their refusal will affect only their own position. The process is there and can be carried on by the other parties.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew indicated assent.
  Mr. Trimble: I am glad to see the Secretary of State nodding in agreement with that. That opportunity is there for those who are committed to democracy and peaceful means. Those who are committed to democracy and peaceful means have an obligation to take this opportunity and to move forward even if it means leaving behind those small groups that are mired in terrorism. That is what we must look forward to in June; to carry forward the process in a way that will benefit the people of Northern Ireland—the 85 to 90 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland who do not support the use of violence and who have enjoyed, yes, the absence or relative absence of violence during the last couple of years and who look forward to the creation of political institutions. That is what we must do. It is the duty of all those who believe in democracy to proceed in that way.
  5.46 pm
  Rev. Ian Paisley: It always amazes me how Members of the House who have never fought an election in Northern Ireland, who visit it only occasionally, know the mind of the people of Northern Ireland. It simply amazes me. If I stood up in the House and told the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) that I knew what her constituents were thinking, she would tell me to get lost, perhaps in stronger language that I would not use in the House. The people of Northern Ireland resent greatly that Members of the House can investigate their minds and their thinking and tell the House authoritatively what they are thinking.
  The hon. Lady asked what would be the difference between this forum and the forum in Dublin. The difference is that this will be a democratic forum. People
  880
  will go not because they were chosen by the Government, but because people made the choice for them to go. That is why. We are talking about democracy. We are not talking about rigged assemblies to obtain the kind of decision that the hon. Lady thinks should be made.
  We are also told that the people of Northern Ireland are keen on certain things. The Secretary of State is very good at telling us that in Northern Ireland. We listen to him often and he seems also to get inside the brains of the Ulster people. I remind him that his party ran a candidate in the European Parliament election and he canvassed for her. I beat that candidate by 155,000 votes and she forfeited her deposit, so evidently he did have the mind of the people of Northern Ireland.
  There are great differences in the Conservative party. Some members of the Conservative party do not want their candidates to run in this election. I was arguing with its chairman today the right of Conservative party members to run in this election. We welcome the fact, and we hope that they do run. Then I was told by him, "If they do run, they will never get to the negotiating table because we are doing the negotiations." So they will be discriminated against and not get to the negotiating table. So there is one party already outside the negotiations, and that is the Conservative party.
  Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman urged us not to read too much into the minds of the people whom he understands better, but I ask him not to read too much into the comments of individual members of my party, because not necessarily does one person speak for everybody else, not even the chairman.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman includes the chairman and the Secretary of State in that. I shall leave members of the Conservative party to have within their ranks their own debate about that. I welcome the fact that Conservative candidates can stand at the election, but regret that the Labour party, which seems to know about Northern Ireland, will not be fielding candidates.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is a rather unfortunate departure from traditional democratic principles when the Secretary of State can decide in advance of an election which parties are allowed to contest it?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the amendments that my party has tabled, he will have the answer to that point. I hope that he votes for those amendments. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. All the parties in the House and all the parties that were called to the negotiating table made strong representations on various issues that we are not satisfied about. Someone asked how I know. I tested the people of Northern Ireland a little over 18 months ago on the Downing street declaration. I ran an election on it and topped the poll with more than 163,000 votes, so I know something about what people in Northern Ireland think on these issues.
  The Bill exposes the Government's view that we must undermine the ordinary elective process and thus weaken real democracy in Northern Ireland. The way forward for Northern Ireland is real democracy. We must not weaken or dilute it, but we must support it and believe in it. I am

  881
  one who said that we should get as many as possible of the smaller parties to the table, but not by rigging an election. We should get them to the table, if they can make it, by the democratic process. We also put it to the Secretary of State that the number of people contesting the election could be limited simply by asking every candidate wishing to stand to produce at least 200 assentors. If every candidate could get 200 names, they would have at least a little chance.
  I put that to one of the smaller parties, and it said: "Would we have to go out and canvass so many names? We couldn't do that. We couldn't get them." In that case, their candidates should not be standing. Look at what those parties will cost the Government, with their manifestos, all delivered free, the printing of ballot papers, and so on. The Government should pay attention to what was said and do something to ease the problem. That does not mean that I am against independents standing, but they should have to put down a deposit.
  When the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) stands, he has to put down a deposit. If he goes into another constituency, he has to put down a deposit. There is no easy way in the election, and one must be prepared to lose the deposit. Some good men have lost their deposits in the past and eventually gained an ear in the House. That is the way of democracy, and we must stick to that.
  We see in the Bill a rigging of the system. We also see a great conspiracy to weaken the forum when it is elected, and that is a tragedy. I regret what the hon. Member for Redcar said, because the forum will be a marvellous opportunity for the parties in Northern Ireland to express their views in the light of day, not behind closed doors. People could test in public, through debate, what their views were. I have never heard of some of the people on the list. I do not know who they are. I do not know what they are. In fact, they themselves hardly know. The parties just thought of a name and got it in just in time. Now they will be faced with the difficulty of finding two candidates for one constituency. It would be good if they could get together if elected and discuss those matters in public.
  Why is the House against a forum that will have an opportunity to discuss in public matters that are important to the people of Northern Ireland? Why does the House want to cast away the opportunity that the forum could give? After all, the people at the negotiating table will be the leaders and representatives of the people in the forum, so there will not be such a great difference between what is said at the negotiating table and what is said in the forum.
  If we do not have the forum, the election will be in vain, because we shall be allowed only three negotiators, and three people sitting behind, and that will apply to the small parties as well. Irrespective of whether someone gets 30 per cent. or 15 per cent. of the vote, they are reduced to the size of the smallest party. The only way to balance that democratically is to have the forum and to have it working properly. Why should it not work and vote? What is so wrong with voting? We do it all the time in this House.
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be far better to have a forum/assembly/Stormont that was the result of all-party agreement rather than impose one, when it quite clearly would not have the full confidence of the majority of people in Northern Ireland?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall correct the hon. Gentleman. We are not talking about a new Stormont or a new assembly, and neither was anyone who made this proposal. We all said that the forum would not have any legislative or administrative power. It would be the forum in which Ulster people could say what they wanted.
  The Government have been meeting representatives of Sinn Fein and the IRA, and the so-called loyalist paramilitary groups, behind closed doors time and again. The ordinary people of Northern Ireland ask, "When are we going to have a say?" The only way in which they can have a say is through the forum. It is their negotiating body, reflecting their views. It is ridiculous for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we would try to set up some new Stormont in this way. The forum will have no power whatever. We do not want it to have any power. We have made it perfectly clear to our people that they need not look upon themselves as Members of Parliament in embryo. They are nothing of the sort. They are just delegates to their negotiating forum.
  Dr. Godman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the view voiced a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, that the forum should be given the means to allow it to meet outwith Belfast, elsewhere in the United Kingdom, even in Dublin?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: We have said that the forum can meet in any part of the United Kingdom. No doubt, if it wanted to go to Dublin, it would. I would not go with it, by the way, if it did. I think that it is in the ground rules that there is no restriction on where it can meet.
  Mr. Peter Robinson: The Government supplied the political parties in Northern Ireland with a paper during the consultative process, in which they laid out clearly the role that such a forum would have, and proposed that it would be able to meet in various places and in various forms. I know of no party that has objected to that proposal.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Another proposal was that committees of the forum should sit like Select Committees of this House and investigate problems, which are bound to arise during negotiations. We have a problem at the moment, for example, in local government. Surely there should be a committee to examine local government in Northern Ireland.
  We have many problems. The forum should continue with its work, and then feed the results to the negotiators. That, surely, would lead to consensus—the consensus that has already been achieved by committees. There is much work to be done. The main thrust of the policy of both the SDLP and the Dublin Government, however, has been that the forum is not really important. It is a case of telling people, "Stand for election and then go home; we do not want you, and we are sorry that we ever heard of you."
  I resent the part of the Bill that refers carefully to making
  "provision for elections in Northern Ireland for the purpose of providing delegates".
  Why does it not say "for the purpose of electing a forum from which delegates shall be drawn to participate in the negotiations"? The Government want to put the forum

  883
  down. The trouble is that people fear that there will be a Unionist majority on it—and there will. Most people who are sent to this House, under its own rules, are Unionists; those who do not like that will have to lump it. I once said to Mrs. Thatcher, "You have been elected by the people of the land. Millions hate you, but you are still the Prime Minister. You hate me, but I have been elected by the people, and I will speak for the people." It is not possible to do anything else.
  What is wrong with the people of Ulster having their say in an election, and subsequently in debate? They have no powers. They cannot legislate; they can only give an opinion, having established that opinion through select committees. Moreover, there is to be a referendum, so that the result of all the discussions can be put to the people. If that result is not passed by the forum, it will never be passed by the people of Northern Ireland. That is the litmus test. If the result cannot get past the forum, we can forget about it.
  If the House is foolish enough to say goodbye to the forum's opinion and call a referendum, and if the result of the discussions is overwhelmingly rejected, we shall find ourselves in an even worse position. Why is the House so adamant about de-horning the forum? It should be able to deliberate and vote. I am glad that it is to be allowed to appoint its own chairman; there was a big fight about that. I think that some Ministers thought that they should chair the forum, but subsequently realised that that was not on, and that we were entitled to choose our own chairman. It would be possible to have weighted majorities. The European Parliament has weighted majorities, and there is nothing undemocratic about that.
  I am sorry that the Government wish to neuter the assembly. Clause 1 spells out the purpose of the elections: they are to provide
  "delegates from among whom participants in negotiations may be drawn."
  It does not, however, spell out the fact that the purpose of the elections is to provide the people of Northern Ireland with a genuine stake in a matter from which they have most to lose or gain.
  Clause 2 deals with the first task that must be undertaken immediately after the elections. I note that the Government intend to invite negotiating teams to participate. Where will those teams come from? They will come from the forum—but the forum will not meet. That is the first thing that must happen: the forum must meet, and it must meet before 10 June. It cannot be muzzled; it must be heard, and it will be heard.
  Unfortunately, the Government have already fixed the meeting place for the negotiations. They must do that, because they spend so much money on making rules—and on giving Gerry Adams a beautiful suite of offices with his name on the door. Dick Spring has an even bigger suite. He said that his table was not as big as the Secretary of State's, and that there must be equality. I was given a room, which I have never seen; so was my party, and so was the Ulster Unionist party. Stormont used to be anathema to the republicans, but that is no longer the case. There are those wonderful rooms, and the small parties that have told us that they will never give up their weapons—that they will never hand in one gun—are welcome. The leader's name is on the door, and they all sit there in state.
  884
  Let me remind the House that the loyalist paramilitaries take the same line as Sinn Fein: they refuse to decommission. I, for one, will not sit down with them until they abide by the Mitchell principles and start handing in the weapons that have committed murder, just like the weapons of Sinn Fein. If hon. Members think that Unionists can be bullied into sitting down with a hunch of gunmen, they had better be disillusioned immediately. We cannot negotiate with those who are killing people and brutalising Northern Ireland.
  That is still happening today. I am amazed that the House does not realise what is happening in our Province. A young Roman Catholic boy, Martin Docherty, was actually crucified: spikes were put into his hands and feet, and he was left bleeding by the IRA. Then hon. Members ask me to sit down with the IRA's representatives, and to talk about peace. That cannot be done, and no self-respecting politician will do it.
  That is why I have asked the Secretary of State how he will prove that IRA representatives are genuine. Even the deputy leader of the Ulster Unionist party said that he was convinced that the ceasefire was real: his gut had told him that. No doubt his stomach has now taught him another lesson—that the ceasefire was not real. The Secretary of State said that he "perceived" that it was real, and was making a working assumption. His working assumption was balderdash; it was not "working" at all. At the very time when he was saying that, churches were being burnt on both sides of the community. Orange halls were being burnt, and the police were being attacked: 590 petrol bombs were thrown at them. Some peace.
  Beatings were also being carried out. The House should ensure that no representative sits at the negotiating table until those dreadful beatings have stopped. They are an outrage, but they are happening repeatedly, and not just one side is responsible. This year alone, the loyalists have already carried out 33 punishment beatings and the republicans 45—but they have a room at Stormont with their leader's name on it, and they are sitting negotiating with the Government. What sort of democracy is that? Since the ceasefire, the IRA has carried out more than 210 such attacks, while the loyalists have carried out 125. What about the Lurgan man, Mr. Maguire, who was attacked by the IRA on 12 April? Mr. Maguire, a grandfather, was covered in petrol and then set on fire. We can have nothing to do with people who do those things, or with their spokesmen.
  The Secretary of State promised that he would first ask the leaders of all the parties to make a declaration—he was not entering into negotiations—that they were tied to the Mitchell principles, and would proceed to carry them out. The Mitchell programme is decommissioning: the arms must go. What has Martin McGuinness told us? He has said that no gun will ever be surrendered by the IRA, and Gerry Adams has said the same. The Protestant paramilitaries have also said that no guns will be surrendered.
  What will the Government do on 10 June? Will they say, "Affirm where you stand," or will they invite everyone to come to the table? There seems to be a difference between what is in the joint communiqué and what the Government are saying. I hope that the worst fears of the Ulster people will not be realised and that the Government will be firm and say that no one can come to the negotiating table until he has signed up to and proved by his actions that he will abide by the principles of the

  885
  Mitchell report. Only on that basis can there be satisfaction. If there are guns on the table, under the table and outside the door, people cannot negotiate freely, because they will always be under threat.
  I hope that we can amend the Bill and put right some matters that are entirely wrong. The Bill cannot ever be perfect, but at least it gives the people of Northern Ireland the opportunity to put a mark beside the names of those whom they want to represent them at the table. Some people think that we do not want talks or negotiations. Why should we not? The part of the community that I represent has suffered most. We have a strong case for saying that we must get these talks going and that they must succeed. We have the motivation to get them for our people, but they must be on a proper basis. I have gone to all the talks, even though other parties did not go. I was at the Atkins talks and I went to the assembly when the Ulster Unionists would not. I have tried to put my case.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is wrong: it was the SDLP that boycotted it. We were present.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman's party was out of the assembly twice. It went in and out like a yo-yo. The Ulster Unionists came to the assembly only because a Westminster election had been called. They knew that if they boycotted the assembly, they would not do well in the election.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the assembly's remits was to prepare a report on how Northern Ireland should be governed. Because others were not prepared to do that work, we abstained until they became sensible.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is not adjudicating on any of this.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not propose to go into why they did not attend the assembly, but it had nothing to do with what the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has said.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Read the record.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I have read the record.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with the Bill.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: You took the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it was not made by me.
  If the basis of the negotiations is not right, the outcome will not be right. I plead with the House to let the people of Northern Ireland speak. Make the changes that need to be made in the Bill. I hope that the Government will not ramstam the Bill on a guillotine to get it through the House, but that there will be adequate time to discuss it. I emphasise that, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionists, also made that point. We are not here to wreck the Bill. We want an election and it was my party that originally proposed one. But it must be on a basis that will lay a foundation not of sand but of rock, so that a solid outcome will result for all the people of Northern Ireland.
  886
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann spoke about the method of the election. I was told by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister that if the parties could reach broad agreement about the method of the election, the Government would accept it. I thought that the Government wanted us to do that, so I went to my party's opposite, the SDLP. We had big differences, but we sat down and found that we could bridge the gap by having a list system. We went to all the smaller parties and they also agreed to that, but the Ulster Unionists and the Alliance party said no. We did our best to get broad agreement.
  The leader of the Ulster Unionists eulogised the single transferable vote system. I hope that he will suggest STV for elections to this House, because that would enable Unionists to express themselves without splitting the vote and fracturing Unionism. Some seats in Northern Ireland are not fought by the DUP or the Ulster Unionists because if the Unionist vote was divided, the republicans would get the seats. If STV operated for elections to the House, the numbers would be different on both sides.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: The legislation is totally unnecessary because it purports to pave the way for all-party negotiations. But such negotiations could and should have started a long time ago, and could have been based on earlier electoral mandates. I am not opposed in principle to elections in Northern Ireland or anywhere else—no democratic politician could oppose elections—but in this instance the Government are putting the cart before the horse by saying that elections should be the passport to all-party negotiations. Elections should be the outcome of all-party negotiations and should be based on a new constitutional framework that has been agreed at all-party negotiations.
  The idea for elections did not come from the Mitchell commission. It was an Ulster Unionist idea, and it is therefore understandable that the nationalist community in Northern Ireland fears a resurrection of Stormont and a return to majority rule. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) insisted that he never wanted the forum to have legislative or executive powers. He said that he wanted it to be simply a forum for all the people of Ulster. I am not sure about that, because I see no provision in the Bill for the inclusion of representatives from the people of Cavan, Monaghan or Donegal.
  Clause 3(3) states:
  "the forum shall not have any legislative, executive or administrative functions, or any power to determine the conduct, course or outcome of the negotiations mentioned in section 1."
  That is fair enough, but perhaps the Minister can explain subsection (4):
  "But if, in accordance with any rules of procedure adopted by them, the participants in the negotiations refer any matter to the forum, subsection (3) shall not be taken to prevent the forum from considering that matter."
  I hope that, when the Minister replies or in Committee, we shall get a satisfactory explanation of that point. If the forum and the negotiating body are to be separate, we are entitled to a clear commitment that there will be no statutory link between the forum and the negotiations.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): Paragraph 7 of the ground rules papers permits that any reference or interaction with the forum

  887
  "to be convened following the elective process held to determine which parties will participate in the negotiations may take place solely by agreement among the negotiating teams to this effect and only at their formal instigation".
  At the agreement of the negotiators, a reference can be made to the forum. It would be very wrong if there was a provision in the Bill that prevented the forum from considering that which had been referred to it by agreement following the negotiations under the ground rules.
  Mr. Canavan: I understand the Minister's point, but there is a fear that in-built Unionist majorities in the negotiating body and in the forum could be almost tantamount to a Unionist veto if the negotiating body decided under the ground rules to refer something to the forum. We may return to that matter in Committee, but I am not satisfied at this stage with the Minister's response.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that he has not heard at any time from any pro-Union Member of Parliament in the run-up to this debate any suggestion that there should be a return to a Stormont form of majoritarianism, or any suggestion at any time that any such elected body should have any administrative or legislative powers? If that is the case, is there any foundation for any fear that there will be a return to a Stormont form of administration?
  Mr. Canavan: The hon. and learned Gentleman should read in detail the Hansard report of the speech made by the hon. Member for North Antrim, whose position seemed to be that, as there is a Unionist majority, that majority should prevail. That is not my perception of democracy. It is a case not simply of the majority prevailing, but of the majority respecting the rights of minorities within the community. That is the only basis on which any democratic settlement can be reached in Northern Ireland.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I would like to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that the negotiating bodies will not have a Unionist majority, because all parties will go into the negotiations with the same number of people. Unionists will be overwhelmingly in the minority at the negotiating table. That must be said clearly. We are entering into negotiations where the Unionists are in a permanent minority, and they should not be in that position.
  I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that, if the Labour party has a majority in this House, it should govern the country. Surely the majority in a democracy must have a special place, although that does not mean that the minority do not have rights.
  Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman may be anticipating the results of the elections, which brings me to my next point—the method of the elections. The hon. Gentleman and I might reach at least a partial agreement on this matter.
  The Government claim that they consulted all parties, and concluded that they could not please everybody. They have now produced this hotchpotch scheme, and have ended up apparently pleasing nobody. This is probably the first time in UK history that such an electoral system has been tried—it is probably the first time in world history.
  888
  The Government are laying themselves open to accusations that they have shifted the goalposts, and not just with regard to the system of elections. For example, they are deciding what is a party, and putting down in statute what constitutes a party. I take the view that any party—however large or small—should be able to contest the elections, but the Government are saying what a party is in the schedule. In addition, the Government are giving the Secretary of State the power to decide who is the leader of that party. I can imagine the derision that would result if the Prime Minister were to be given powers to decide who the Leader of the Opposition was to be.
  Mr. Ancram: He might choose the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Canavan: Yes, it might be me.
  Mr. Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in all previous United Kingdom elections, the candidates have been people who happen to be members of parties, whereas it is now the parties that are contesting the elections—a fundamental change? Is he also aware that the Secretary of State is giving himself powers to exclude equally legitimate political organisations from contesting the elections? What we have here is the introduction into United Kingdom law of a kind of political censorship that has never existed before.
  Mr. Canavan: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct. The Bill is in danger of bringing the United Kingdom's electoral system into disrepute.
  About the only positive thing that I can see emerging from the Bill and the White Paper is the firm commitment—I hope it is a firm commitment—to start all-party negotiations on 10 June.
  I would also like to refer to paragraph 24 of the White Paper, and the Minister may be able to respond to this point. It says:
  "The negotiations will operate on the basis of consensus … (The rules for establishing sufficient consensus will be agreed in advance of negotiations by the participants and such rules will ensure that any departure from the rule of unanimity is within minimal limits and will, in all cases, ensure that any decision taken will be supported by a clear majority in both the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland.)"
  How on earth will it be determined whether a decision is supported by "a clear majority" of the communities? We are entitled to some explanation of that point.
  I hope that, despite the Bill, all the relevant parties will get together on 10 June. When I say relevant parties, I mean those parties which accept the six principles of the Mitchell report. Like other hon. Members, I hope that Sinn Fein is able to deliver an absolutely unequivocal ceasefire on the part of the IRA, because it would be a tragedy if the people who vote for Sinn Fein in the elections find themselves disfranchised and not represented at the negotiating table.
  Once all the parties get round the table on that basis, I hope that there will be a new constitutional settlement put by way of a referendum not just to the people of Northern Ireland but, in accordance with what has been agreed by both Governments, to an all-Ireland test on both sides of the border. It would be helpful if both referendums were held on the same day.
  I hope that what emerges is a new deal for the people of Northern Ireland, and that they can live in peace and harmony while respecting each other's differences in

  889
  terms of culture and religious beliefs and building meaningful and constructive relationships across the communities and across the border on an all-Ireland basis.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: Using elections to select negotiating teams has to be right. Permanent peace and justice for all in Northern Ireland will, I suspect, come only through democracy. If the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) will allow me, I will assert some views of the people of Northern Ireland. These views, I believe, have the wholehearted support of the overwhelming majority of those I meet in Northern Ireland, and, if I understand the messages coming from the political parties in Northern Ireland, they have the total support of all the major parties in the Province.
  I am totally committed to an exclusively democratic approach to solving the difficulties in Northern Ireland, and it is because of that that I am an enthusiastic supporter of all efforts to press ahead with a real peace process. We must do all we possibly can to hold all-party talks as quickly as possible, for exactly the reasons given earlier by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). It is also for those reasons that I am happy to back this attempt to hold elections. It follows that I am happy to vote for the Bill's Second Reading.
  I must offer an apology to the Ulster Unionists on the Opposition Benches because I do not feel able to support their amendment. I believe that we need elections as quickly as possible, and that the best approach is to try to change the detail during the debates next week. There is one other reason why I consider it useful to explain why I will not support them. It does me no harm at all once in a while to take the opportunity of proving that I am my own man, and that I am not an unofficial member of either of the Unionist parties. So I will not be supporting the amendment.
  Having said that, I caution the House against believing that the Bill, the elections or the proposed talks will guarantee the permanent peace we want, or justice for all. My reading of the past 18 months suggests that the Bill, the elections and the proposed talks will not achieve what we all want. My reservations about the entire process have been far too well recorded over recent months for me to need to repeat them now. Suffice it to say that my reservations remain, and were well and truly reinforced last night by yet another atrocity in London.
  I note, rather surprisingly, that in Northern Ireland and the Republic there are some who are against elections in general and this scheme in particular. The people I have in mind are Sinn Fein-IRA, whose representatives regularly explain that they are against elections. I also have in mind a significant number of Irish Members of Parliament whom I meet in Dublin, who also explain that they are against these elections.
  I find it extraordinary when I hear in Dublin that there is a body of opinion in the Republic which considers that "elections are not appropriate in Northern Ireland". All I can say is that such sentiments are deeply damaging and dangerous, and the people concerned should be ashamed of themselves for saying such things.
  We are all familiar with Sinn Fein-IRA's regular denunciation of these elections. I can only assume that they are so opposed because they wish to prevent the world from being reminded of how few people vote for
  890
  Sinn Fein in a secret ballot. They may also be anxious that the world should not be reminded that their power comes from the bullet and the bomb and not from the ballot box.
  All I can ask of those who are against elections is: "What are you afraid of? Could it be that you are afraid of democracy? Could it be that you are afraid of the people of Northern Ireland?" I have always believed that the best and really the only test of a true commitment to democracy is one's ability and willingness to accept from the people a verdict with which one does not agree. That is the exact opposite of the message we are receiving from those who oppose the elections.
  Although I wholeheartedly welcome the elections and the principles that underpin the Bill, I suspect that it will come as no surprise to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that I am yet another person with reservations about the detail. I hasten to reassure my hon. Friends from the Whips Office that none of my reservations will bring me remotely close to wanting to oppose the Bill. However, some of my reservations will lead to amendments, and I will probably want to divide the House on Monday or Tuesday next week.
  I have two major reservations: the electoral system that is proposed in the Bill and the use of a Command Paper to avoid putting the detail of the negotiations and the process into the Bill. I had hoped that the parties in Northern Ireland would have agreed on the way forward for the electoral system. That would have meant that I would simply have had to support them. I suppose, on reflection, that that was rather too much to hope. Therefore, I have to decide for myself on the best way forward.
  I am nervous about extending the precedent of using proportional representation in United Kingdom elections, although I probably concede that we have to on this occasion. I am not persuaded that using individual constituencies is the best approach. I am opposed to any scheme that adds in the unelectable as an afterthought just to make up the numbers.
  I sense that all those reservations could have been overcome if we had used a single constituency, because, above all else, that would avoid having to give seats to losers-people who could not get themselves elected by the people of Northern Ireland.
  Using a Command Paper to spell out the detail is very worrying. It means that the detail in the paper is not really debatable, and it is certainly not amendable. If anything is undemocratic, I believe that it is that process. That is why I have it in mind to table amendments that will bring into the Bill the detail that is in the Command Paper. We can then have a full debate on the detail, and seek to amend it if we wish to do so.
  Happily for hon. Members present today, there is only time for me to mention my four main concerns about the Command Paper. However, I do not want my right hon. and learned Friend and others on the Front Bench to think that I do not have more than four. Monday and Tuesday next week will be the time for that.
  Paragraph 4 contains a significant change from the draft, because it now refers to the framework documents. My visits to Northern Ireland leave me in no doubt that the framework documents are totally unacceptable to the majority of those I meet in Northern Ireland. They are seen to this day as a green agenda and a sell-out to Dublin,

  891
  making a united Ireland unavoidable. The tragedy is that most people on the mainland have long since lost sight of them and believe that they have gone away. To bring them back in this fashion risks ruining any prospect of talks before they even start.
  Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will confirm that a clean sheet of paper will start the agenda for the talks, that the only things that will get on to the agenda will be there with the consent of the parties, and that the framework documents will not be pushed on to the agenda because it is what the two Governments want.
  Paragraph 9 of the Command Paper refers to the restoration of the Sinn Fein-IRA ceasefire. For the avoidance of doubt, let me repeat what I said in my interventions—that reinstating the previous temporary truce is simply not enough. I asked my right hon. and learned Friend and the Opposition spokesman whether any new ceasefire would have to be permanent. I am willing to give way to them if I misunderstood what I heard, but I noted that neither was prepared to insist that all participants renounce for ever the use of violence if they do not get their own way.
  Sir Patrick Mayhew: I hope that my hon. Friend will not overlook the fact that I have made it clear that, at the very beginning of the negotiations, once a ceasefire has been restored in the terms of August 1994, it will be necessary for Sinn Fein and all other parties to give an absolute commitment to each and every one of the Mitchell commission's principles on democracy and non-violence. Those principles were dwelt on at great length and to great effect by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will not overlook the true effect of that.
  Mr. Wilshire: I note what my right hon. and learned Friend says. I think that the record will show that my interpretation was correct. What I have just heard again suggests that the Government will consider allowing into the start of the talks a party that has restored only a temporary truce; only then will there be discussions as to permanence. That confirms my point. The participants will not first be required to renounce violence for ever.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that neither the Secretary of State nor the Opposition spokesman will use the dreaded word "permanent", because they are both well aware that if they use the word there will be no prospect of getting Sinn Fein into the democratic loop of discussions? It may not be wanted, but it will certainly never come in if it is required to give an assurance that it will never return to violence, because violence—in the absence of a real mandate—is the only card it holds.
  Mr. Wilshire: I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Unfortunately, far too few people understand that fundamental point. That is why I chose to remind the House of the importance of permanence.
  I have never had any doubt—if anyone else has, he should look at the evidence—that Sinn Fein-IRA have, to this day, only one objective. They will use discussion if
  892
  they believe that that will help them, but if they think that it will not help them, they remain committed to bombing and shooting into submission anyone foolish enough or weak enough to believe that it is possible to humour evil terrorists. That is the message on which the hon. and learned Gentleman and I wholeheartedly agree.
  Paragraph 17 refers to the six Mitchell principles, but it stops short of insisting that all participants sign up to all six principles, without exception. It also stops short of insisting that they sign up to them before anything else happens. I am not reassured by the word "addressing". It would be perfectly possible to arrive at the negotiating table every day of the discussions, to say "good morning" to the document containing the principles, and then to carry on. It simply will not do.
  I know that some will say that I am attempting to introduce preconditions, but that is a sterile debating point. The fact is that, without a permanent ceasefire and without complete acceptance of the Mitchell principles, there will not be all-party talks. Some will say that I am demanding that Sinn Fein-IRA, or the Protestant paramilitaries for that matter, make a concession. I am not ashamed of that; for the past 18 months, the Government and this House have given concession after concession to the men of violence, and they have yet to concede a single thing. So I am not worried by the accusation that I may be asking for a concession: it is about time there was one.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the joint communiqué from both Prime Ministers spelled out clearly that there must be more than just an "addressing" of the Mitchell report. It said that the parties were to sign up to the Mitchell report, and deal with decommissioning as well. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is a tendency to weaken those requirements in the new structures set forth by the Government.
  Mr. Wilshire: That has certainly been my understanding of what has been said time and again, which is why I am deeply suspicious of what I read in the Command Paper. I see no such requirements set out there. I have long since learnt that such omissions are not due to sloppy draftsmanship. I must therefore ask myself why the requirement has been omitted. Hence the need to amend the Bill.
  My fourth basic worry arises from paragraph 10, which refers to the validation of any all-party talks by means of a referendum. In rather strange language, this paragraph mentions
  "referendums in Ireland—North and South",
  not in Northern Ireland and the Republic. Until that is changed, I shall remain deeply suspicious of what is intended. I have been involved long enough to know that every word and phrase in every Northern Ireland document is there for a purpose. I should be most interested to hear my right hon. and learned Friend explain this phrase.
  Another worry about paragraph 10 is that it does not commit either Government to accepting the verdict of the people. The Bill and the document merely make provision to ask the people for their views. Nowhere that I can see do they confirm that the assent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland will be binding. That must be put right on Monday and Tuesday of next week.

  893
  I have, as I said, a number of other reservations too, but they are best left to our detailed discussion on Monday. Both the Bill and the Command Paper need serious clarification next week if they are to be acceptable to us. Much of the detail in the Command Paper must find its way into the Bill itself. I therefore urge the Government to look hard at ways of doing that over the coming weekend.
  I also believe that the electoral process proposed is far from ideal, but I am resigned to the fact that we are too far down the road to reverse now. Despite all these reservations, I still believe that democracy offers the only real hope for the future of Northern Ireland. The elections are the essence of the democracy that we want for Northern Ireland, and in that spirit I will be voting for the Bill tonight. I look forward to helping to improve it next week.
  6.49 pm
  Mr. Eddie McGrady: I apologise to the House and to the Secretary of State for the absence of my colleagues and myself during the opening moments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's address, but our deputy leader was taken ill. He apologises for not being in the Chamber this afternoon. In that regard, I understand that the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) made a critical comment about our absence, but I am sure that she would not have done so if she had been aware of the circumstances.
  I speak about the Bill as the representative of the party to which the majority of nationalists living in Northern Ireland give their support and as the representative of a community whose consent to the structures in place over them historically was never asked, earned or given. My colleagues and I have spent a political lifetime combating the violence that flowed from that political failure, due in large measure to the mistakes made over the years around the British Cabinet table and in the House. Our electors have learnt from their particular bitter experience to approach the prospect of legislation by Westminster not with hope but with trepidation.
  For more than a year and a half since August 1994 we had an opportunity to approach the negotiation table free from the immediate shadow of violence. The Prime Minister will remember from his reception in the town of Downpatrick in my constituency how much he was then seen as the bearer of hope. Sadly, that hope has dissipated and confidence has gone. I cannot pretend to disentangle the motives that produced so much energy to put the brake on the political momentum that could and should have come from the peace era, but there was a manifest need to build on that momentum and underpin the ceasefires through immediate unconditional negotiations and agreement. I can understand that a Unionist leadership might want to exploit the tactical advantage, but it is their nationalist neighbours, not them, whose aspirations have been denied expression. I understand that the Unionists might be tempted to follow their inherited instinct that the consent of their nationalist neighbours does not matter much. They have successfully shifted the focus of what might feature in the negotiations to whether there should be negotiations at all.
  Two parties out of the total number have refused to negotiate, and those two parties are represented in the Chamber this evening. There will be an election involving
  894
  33 parties because the British Government were drawn or, for all I know, entered willingly into a Unionist-led agenda. The nationalist community took the message about the Government's priorities and, tragically, the devaluation of the ceasefire became a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  In striking that note, I do not want to detract from the great importance of the setting of 10 June as a fixed date for all-party talks. I want only to stress how costly has been the delay, and that the wariness and misgivings felt in my community are justified by experience, including our recent experiences. I want to stress also that the preliminaries put between us and that date in the form of the Bill make the task of negotiations more difficult and uncertain than it need have been.
  The predictability of Northern Ireland's election results is proverbial. All the serious parties already have mandates. We have had 21 elections in the past 20 years, and we know that elections are deeply polarising in our community and always have been. They are about victory and defeat. An election is fought, but negotiations are about common interests and striving for compromise. However, those two contradictory things have been grouped together in the proposals, only because the Unionists wanted the ritual comfort of confirmation that there is a Unionist majority and a nationalist minority in Northern Ireland, and because the British Government failed to assert leadership in the wider common interest.
  As a result, the electors are faced with an election that will distil and combine the worst features of the list and proportional representation cum constituency system. The electorate will have to choose from an array of more than 33 options in a list that reads as though it was concocted on 1 April. The Government's plans also ensure that about 70 people will be involved in each negotiating session. The mind boggles at that concept. Nevertheless, the Social Democratic and Labour party is well used to fighting and winning elections in the most difficult circumstances, and the ballot box has not and will not hold any fears for us. If the negotiations are to be truly meaningful, that unnecessary and exasperating detour may be a price worth paying—provided the negotiations seek a real and permanent solution.
  More disturbing, and the part of the Bill about which I have the greatest reservations, are the provisions relating to the proposed forum. We have from the beginning made clear our strenuous opposition to the creation of an elected body within the negotiating process. Our fundamental concern is that no matter how innocuous a proposal might appear on paper, and no matter how circumscribed by legislation, we know historically that reality can be quite different. The history of such initiatives in Northern Ireland gives ample justification for our fears. Each time a consultative assembly has been set up in Northern Ireland, it has inevitably been used as a vehicle for Unionists to assert their dominance. Irrespective of the intention of British Ministers, Dr. Jekyll has the habit of becoming Mr. Hyde. Our anxiety is that a body with an in-built Unionist majority might seek to influence and control the negotiations, even if it is formally prevented from doing so. It could in those circumstances, and given certain events, poison the atmosphere through the adoption of declarations and resolutions, making progress in the real negotiations much more difficult. The negotiating process will be difficult enough without the forum acting as a rival political focus or a counterpoint to negotiation in the search for accommodation.

  895
  Any hon. Members who think that I am exaggerating should consider previous speakers' comments on the forum. I am glad that the deputy leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), is in his place because I want to quote his comments broadcast by RTE yesterday. He said:
  "we went over this on several occasions with Michael Ancram during the course of today. That does not stop the forum putting forward proposals which could be the same as those proposals being considered by the negotiators, and making a view known of those issues. And I'm saying that, from our party's point of view, we would not enter into any agreement, not finalise any agreement in the negotiations, which had not been endorsed by the forum"—
  there by giving the forum a life and existence that the Bill alleges it will not have.
  That attitude has been expressed despite the fact that we anticipate that the outcome of the negotiations will be validated by the referendum. It seems to us that the intent of the two Unionist parties—it has been expressed not only in tonight's debate—is for the forum and not the negotiating table to be the ultimate endorsement of what happens in negotiations.
  The Northern Ireland Office paper of 21 March sought to allay such fears, and we understand that was its purpose. The paper said that the forum's purpose would be to promote dialogue and mutual understanding and, most important, that it would be required to proceed on a basis of broad consensus.
  The requirement for broad consensus was potentially of great significance. It offered some measure of protection against majoritarian exploitation of the forum. That protection has now entirely disappeared. Schedule 2 to the Bill simply states:
  "The rules of procedure of the forum shall include provision for a quorum."
  It contains no requirement whatever that the forum must operate on the basis of broad consensus. We believe that there is an urgent need to include a requirement for broad consensus, as specified in paragraph 24 of Cmnd. 3232.
  Schedule 2 to the Bill also proposes:
  "A decision on the election or removal of a chairman or the adoption or alteration of rules of procedure shall not be regarded as taken by the members unless—

  (a) no member present has objected to it, or

  (b) it is approved on a vote by at least 75 per cent. of those voting."

  It requires a vote by not 75 per cent. of the membership but by 75 per cent. of those voting.
  We were assured that the forum would not be a body with legislative, administrative or executive functions but that it would be a consultative and deliberative body charged with promoting dialogue and mutual understanding. Taking decisions on a majoritarian basis, even on a weighted basis, is surely entirely at variance with the spirit of dialogue and mutual understanding. In its procedures, the forum should practise what it is expected to preach.
  What decisions will the forum take on which it should not have to operate on the basis of consensus? What dialogue and mutual understanding will be found by voting down even a quarter of the people engaged in that search
  896
  for dialogue and understanding? If the negotiations—which will deal with much more difficult and decisive subjects—are to proceed on the basis of consensus, it is hard to understand why the forum should not operate on the same basis.
  I almost hesitate to refer to the Dublin forum, which was a non-elected body. In that forum, as many as 13 very diverse delegations managed, with a little common sense and a bit of give and take, to conduct the business of a body that is very similar to the one that has been proposed. The Government recognise that, in certain contexts, consensus is efficient and a necessary element for progress. To prove the point, the White Paper on the European Union states that the Government
  "does not accept that the unanimity provisions for CFSP are a constraint on its development."
  So let it not be a constraint on the forum's development.
  The fundamental error that the Government are making is to apply the logic of a decision-making body or assembly to a body or assembly that is of a quite different character, which will of course heighten concerns that their protestations about the body's nature and functions are not entirely sincere. The importation of majoritarian procedures into a body that is being operated in parallel with the negotiations creates a serious risk that the whole process could be infected or affected by those procedures.
  In the interests of the negotiations and of the great goal of peace and agreement, which is the ultimate prize, members of the SDLP seek—despite the extent of our reservations about the elective process—to take a fair and positive view of the overall package that has been presented to us. Should the Bill be enacted unamended, it will be much harder for us to persuade a very suspicious nationalist community that a serious and meaningful process is on offer.
  In their communiqué of 20 February, the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach agreed that
  "an elective process would have to be broadly acceptable and lead immediately and without further preconditions to the convening of all-party talks".
  No sooner had the proposal of an election been nailed on the agenda—in a form that cynically devalued any concept of broad acceptability of nationalist views—than we had forced on us the further stage of a proposed forum, which is unwelcome to everyone in the nationalist community and discards the commitment to "consensus" and "broad consensus" that had been flagged in two formal Government papers.
  Even if this forum were not a precondition for negotiations—I should expect the Prime Minister, under the terms of the February communiqué, to confirm that it is not—the loss of the element of consensus will damage, perhaps fatally, the capacity of any nationalist leader in Northern Ireland to persuade the nationalist community to view negotiations in a positive light, or other than as a threat or advance instalment of a process aimed at directing the negotiations to a totally and exclusively internal solution. We shall table amendments at the appropriate stage on those key points, but I should like to tell the House now that its decision on this issue will have a very significant symbolic and practical impact on nationalist attitudes to the proposed forum.
  On behalf of my party, I welcome the publication of the Bill because it marks a staging post on the route to 10 June. I do not welcome the Bill itself. The process it defines is

  897
  unnecessary, divisive and deeply flawed. I am confident that the Bill has the potential to cause major difficulties in the future that could prejudice and jeopardise the negotiations' progress. It remains to be seen whether the Government have led us into a long and unnecessary detour or into a quagmire. Nevertheless, despite their strange decision to proceed to negotiations by this twisted and possibly potholed route, we acknowledge that the journey has begun with the Bill's introduction.
  A document that is perhaps of greater relevance to the real needs of the situation was published on Tuesday as "Ground Rules for Substantive All-Party Negotiations". It essentially defines the negotiations' scope, purpose and processes. It is vital that the two Governments, acting together, have a common view of the parameters of the negotiations. My party welcomes the fact that, following a period of consultation, the Governments have reached a definitive common judgment on the most suitable and broadly accepted ground rules.
  It is reassuring that the ground rules paper is, in most respects, broadly unchanged from the consultation document that was circulated to the parties on 15 March last year. The purpose of negotiations will be to achieve a new beginning for negotiations in Northern Ireland, in the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands. The purpose will also be to agree new institutions and structures to take account of the totality of that relationship. I hope that the three-stranded structure agreed in May 1991, which reflects the equal weight and independent standing of those three relationships, remains in place. Likewise, the vital principle that nothing will be agreed in any strand until everything is agreed in the negotiations as a whole has been preserved. The central role played together by the two Governments in the overall management of the negotiation is also essential.
  It is important, however, that paragraph 7 of the paper makes it explicit that the conduct of the negotiations will be exclusively a matter for those involved in them. Any reference to or interaction with the forum may take place solely with the agreement of the negotiating teams to this effect, and only at their formal instigation—and, we hope, on the basis of consensus, as stipulated in paragraph 24 of Cmnd. 3232. It is essential that this necessary separation is preserved and, if possible, strengthened. There can be no breach of the integrity of the ground rules as a package by seeking to process the negotiations through an internalist and majoritarian filter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course there can."]
  It is also encouraging that the two Governments have included in the ground rules paper an explicit reference to the framework document. This serves to refocus us on the core issues to be resolved in the negotiations. For too long, quibbles over mechanics and technicalities have got in the way of discussions on the real issues. The framework document sets out the broad outline of a possible settlement that nationalists and Unionists could accept as their own.
  The four guiding principles in the framework document must underpin any agreement and inform the search for that agreement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Another precondition."] Perhaps hon. Members will agree with them when they hear them. They are as follows: the principle of self-determination set out in the joint document; that the consent of the governed is an essential ingredient for stability in any political arrangement—as we have said often, acceptance by most nationalists of the principle of
  898
  consent to any change in the status of Northern Ireland does not equate with the acceptance of the status of Northern Ireland itself—[HON. MEMBERS: "A good let-out."]; the necessity that agreement be pursued and established by exclusively democratic, peaceful means without resort to violence or coercion of any nature; and that the new political arrangements must be based on full respect for and protection of the expression of the rights and identities of both traditions in Ireland and evenhandedly afford both communities in Northern Ireland parity of esteem and treatment, including equality of opportunity and advantage. [Interruption.] I understand that those four principles are generally accepted by both Unionists and nationalists as a fair way forward, so I cannot understand the sedentary comments of disagreement from behind me.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that people such as me endorse parity of esteem on an individual basis—that is, equality before the law, equality of opportunity and the affording of any civil right on an equal basis to every individual, no matter what his religion or political outlook? That form of parity of esteem is acknowledged in every democratic country, in some by means of a written constitution, but I know of no democratic process whereby the political rights of a minority to determine the political identity of a state—the parity of esteem that the hon. Gentleman claims—is an accepted principle.
  Mr. McGrady: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for asking that question. The sum of the individual attitudes is the sum of the attitudes of the community as a whole. He referred to parity of esteem as in some way negating the rights of the majority. That is contrary to what I have just been saying. If he wants me to repeat it, 1 shall say that we endorse the evolution of whatever political outcome we reach by acceptance on the basis of consensus and majority. What is the problem? Back in 1970, long before it became fashionable in the House or in the hon. and learned Gentleman's party or indeed, my previous party, article 4 of my party's constitution accepted that the status of Northern Ireland could not be changed without the consent of the majority in Northern Ireland. That is part of my party's constitution.
  We believe that no agreement can be achieved or can endure if it does not honour and reflect the vital principles that I have emphasised. A number of important points relating to the negotiations remain to be resolved or filled out. We shall endeavour to ensure that nothing is done that will weaken the negotiating structure set out in the ground rules. We accept that the multiplicity of participants who are likely to be involved may make it necessary on rare occasions—I am cautious on this one—to move away from the rule of total unanimity and towards sufficient consensus. That will be a very difficult area to define. However, it is important that, as signalled in the ground rules paper, the rules for establishing sufficient consensus are clearly agreed in advance and that any decision must have clear majority support in both communities—not cross-party support, but cross-community support within the republican tradition and the Unionist tradition.
  The chairmanship of the north-south strand has to be determined. It will be a crucial appointment to confidence in the negotiating process. The SDLP looks forward to the appointment of an experienced, authoritative chairperson of proven integrity and independence of judgment.

  899
  We feel that what precisely will happen at the opening of the negotiations needs to be fleshed out further, in particular with regard to decommissioning, which has been mentioned many times tonight. The SDLP strongly and unequivocally supports the subscription of all participants to the habitual principles of democracy and non-violence.
  The international body's proposal on decommissioning must also be given high priority, as it was envisaged in the communiqué of 28 February and in the ground rules paper. We reiterate once more that the people who most want to see total decommissioning of all paramilitary weapons are the Irish people as a whole. At the same time, if decommissioning is reimported into the negotiations to serve as a road block or obstacle to the discussions on the full agenda of political questions, there will be two certain consequences. First, there will not be serious negotiations and, secondly, there will not be any decommissioning.
  Parties that may be tempted to strike postures on the issue of decommissioning should think carefully about what they are doing and what they could condemn the people of Northern Ireland to. The reality is that political progress and progress on decommissioning will proceed in tandem. To seek total satisfaction on decommissioning at the beginning of the negotiations before moving to any other issue would be at variance with the further confidence-building requirement identified by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach when they say:
  "Confidence building would also require that the parties have reassurance that a meaningful and inclusive process of negotiations is genuinely being offered to address the legitimate concerns of both traditions, and the need for new political arrangements with which all can identify."
  No party can have a veto on the agenda and, as stated in the ground rules paper, all topics must be fully addressed. It is vital, therefore, that the Government live up to their commitments in the ground rules paper with regard to their determination that the structure and process of the negotiations will be used in the most constructive manner possible in the search for that agreement. They will need to match their words with vigorous action in their management of what will inevitably be a tortuous process.
  The SDLP's focus is, accordingly, on the negotiations themselves. That is the big picture and the context in which we judge the Bill. It is essential that we move immediately and directly from the elections into negotiations and that those negotiations proceed without direction from or interference or second-guessing by those not involved in the negotiation process or who may wish to deflect the negotiations from their proper purpose.
  We disagree with many parts of the Bill. We will table a series of amendments that will show that disagreement. I would like to think that, in the context of what I have said tonight, the Government will consider those amendments, see their validity and accept them as amendments to the Bill in its totality.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Peter Robinson: This would be a great opportunity to follow the points made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), but given the limited time that I have available I would have no time to make any comments of my own. At the outset, I wish
  900
  to express—on behalf of my colleagues and, I am sure, everyone in the House—genuine wishes for a full and speedy return to health by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).
  I must tell the hon. Member for South Down that there has never been any unwillingness to enter into negotiations on the part of either of the two Unionist parties that he mentioned. There has been an unwillingness—rightly—to enter into negotiations with those who are terrorists and an unwillingness to find ourselves in a process for which others had set the agenda, which was tilted to allow only one conceivable outcome. It is proper for any responsible political party to ensure that when it enters negotiations, it does so on the basis of a suitable agenda and with those that it is possible to respect as constitutional and legitimate political parties.
  The birth of this process comes from the failure of the Government to initiate the process that they had desired through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, on through the Downing street declaration and into the framework document. The Government recognised that they could not, through that process, get the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. After many failures, the Democratic Unionist party directed the attention of the Government to the necessity of imbibing the principle of consent as the core to any successful outcome to any negotiations. Unless that principle of consent is accepted by those who take part in negotiations—principally by the Government—there can never be a successful outcome.
  On that basis and foundation, my party put forward a proposal in 1993 for a constitutional convention. I happily claim ownership of that concept. There is nothing to be ashamed of in putting forward a proposal for an elected constitutional convention. Why would any hon. Member of this democratic House think that there was something untoward about such a proposition? Undoubtedly, those who are nationalists do not like anything that reminds them of the awkward fact that there are a lot of Unionists in Northern Ireland, but that is the reality. If it is recognised that government cannot take place without consent, it is necessary to gain the consent of those who are the majority as well as those who are the minority.
  We argued to the Government that, through an elected process, negotiations could take place that could test the validity and weight of arguments and whether there was any consensus for any proposals that the negotiators might produce. Some years later, however, the Government have come forward with an emasculated form of convention with a rigged election, a bridled forum and a stacked negotiating process with predetermined ground rules.
  I will discuss the election system first. The Government set the criteria. The Prime Minister said in the House that if there was a broadly acceptable electoral process, it would be endorsed by the Government. We set out to meet the criteria that the Prime Minister laid down. In my view, we met those criteria when a Province-wide list system was agreed as the method for going forward.
  The Government recognised that there were two main propositions—I emphasise the word two—and they put forward a further consultative paper pointing out that there were two main options: a list system or a single transferable vote system. The parties were asked to choose between those two systems. Overwhelmingly, the parties—those who represented 70 per cent. of the electorate in Northern Ireland at the election—supported

  901
  the list system. For whatever reason, however—and I do not seek to draw attention to any problems that the Government may have with some of their Back Benchers or the fact that they wanted to bring along parties such as the Ulster Unionist party and the Alliance party—the Government decided to abandon that broad acceptability and turn their back on it. To justify that, the Prime Minister came to the House and said that three systems were being considered, not two. He sought to divide the Social Democratic and Labour party's position from that of my party, but the agreement that we had was for a list system. The other minutiae could have been decided by the Government, but instead of a system that was broadly acceptable they came forward with one that was totally unacceptable to all the parties.
  The Government managed to bring together all the worst aspects of each election system and none of the good aspects. It has been said that the process would be the first time perhaps anywhere in the world that such a system was used, and I trust that it will also be the last. To the constituency list has been added a regional list in which no differentiation will be made between those who have substantial support and those who have next to no support at all. That shows that the Government have decided what they would like the results of the election to be and have determined a system that will produce the result that they want.
  I understand—more, I agree with—the concerns of the Ulster Unionist party. It has looked at the list and seen the possibility for widespread confusion. Someone could come to the ballot booth, look at one of the names and be justified in believing that he was voting for the Ulster Unionist party as represented in the House when in fact he would be doing nothing of the sort. Anyone who came into the ballot booth might look at the name of the Ulster Democratic party and think that he was voting for the Democratic Unionist party. He might read the name of the Independent Democratic Unionist party and think that he was voting for the Democratic Unionist party. There would be a lot of scope to confuse the electorate.
  If there is a long list on the ballot paper—it will be a yard long by the time the process finishes—with names of political parties and independents on it, it is essential that there should be as clear a definition as possible of the parties for which people wish to vote. The Government have no alternative but to allow the political parties to put their names on the ballot paper in the way that they believe will ensure that there is no confusion. The Government must also set in place a system in which an appeal can be made if a political party feels that some other group has come forward with a name that is merely an attempt to steal its clothes and its votes. The Minister must recognise that there is cause to believe that some political parties are named on that list for that very purpose. The Province-wide list should be abolished. If it is not abolished, it should be democratised as far as possible by scaling the number of representatives from it on the basis of the strength of the parties' votes in the constituency lists.
  The other element of the process that leaves me less than content is the way in which the Government have dealt with the forum. The hon. Member for South Down referred to comments that I made on Radio Telefis Eireann about the forum. No Bill can be so worded as to guard against the ingenuity of some people and to ensure that democratic principles will ultimately be adhered to.
  902
  I make no apology for saying that this elected forum of the people of Northern Ireland should not have a role in determining whether there is sufficient consensus for proposals made by a fixed group of negotiators with no democratic content. They are not there on the basis of the strength of their vote but in the same numbers, whether their vote is large or small. There is clearly a need to ensure that there is a test of the views that the negotiators have expressed and agreed. No one should run away from the fact that the forum should be the litmus test of what the negotiators deem should be the proposals for constitutional change.
  Mr. McAvoy: I want to ask a variation of the question that I asked the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) earlier. What confidence does the hon. Gentleman have that that assembly—or forum or Stormont; it is only a name and not a system that I am talking about—would get the confidence of the nationalist community for a consensus on the future of Northern Ireland when every such body has failed in the past?
  Mr. Robinson: There has been no body of this sort in the past. The hon. Gentleman is thinking of bodies that have nothing to do with the negotiating process that the House is setting up tonight. This process allows for a primarily deliberative forum, but it would be a testing ground for any proposals that others generate. It will be able to test whether they have sufficient consensus and are therefore likely to pass the ultimate test of a referendum of the people of Northern Ireland. Paragraph 23 of the document produced by the two Governments, quote, unquote, as the hon. Member for South Down mentioned, states:
  "The negotiations will proceed on the principle that nothing will be finally agreed in any strand until everything is agreed in the negotiations as a whole."
  On Radio Telefis Eireann, I simply said that we would not be satisfied with a final agreement unless we were happy that it would stick in the community. The only way that that can be tested is by finding whether it obtains a sufficient consensus among the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland.
  To bring in the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy), we proposed a weighted majority to determine whether there was sufficient consensus. There was not to have been a 50 per cent. plus vote but a requirement that there should be a weighted majority that could not be reached unless there was support from nationalist representatives.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in the past—for example, after the Sunningdale negotiations—the failure of negotiators to consult their constituencies meant that ultimately the package that they had agreed was rejected by the community and that one of the benefits of having the forum consider and validate the proposals of the negotiators would be in avoiding that situation?
  Mr. Robinson: Yes. History has perhaps done more to confirm the hon. and learned Gentleman's comments than anything that I might say. If that lesson has not been learnt by now, it never will be. We saw the terrible tragedy of those who believed that they could defy the wishes of the

  903
  people. They came to agreements in smoke-filled rooms—perhaps their arms were twisted, perhaps promises were made—but they reached agreements for which they could not secure support in their communities.
  The forum is a way in which we can test whether something will have sufficient consensus. I know that that is not excluded by the Bill, but I believe that it should be expressly included. There is no threat to the negotiators in that process. I should have thought that having a body which can determine at any stage, on any proposition, the degree of support that might be generated in the community as a whole would be a positive factor on which the negotiators would want to draw. I trust that we shall not end up having a forum and a negotiating process which are locked against each other. They should use each other to further the process and to try to reach agreement.
  Mr. McGrady: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the provision in the Bill for a referendum on any agreement would give the ultimate democratic approval and ensure that the people, who are the ultimate arbitrators, have the final say?
  Mr. Robinson: It will be the ultimate say, but I am sure that the Government will not be too happy at the prospect of having a multiplicity of referendums at the whim of negotiators who say, "Let's try this one on the people." To have a referendum, the negotiators must be fairly certain that the question that is to be put will get the support of the people. If they are not satisfied about that, or if they are not satisfactorily informed about what the views of the people are likely to be by the forum, the proposition will not be sound. The forum has an excellent role as a litmus test for proposals. If they are to succeed, many of the proposals will have to be novel. That will be essential. If we dredge up the failures of the past, we shall fail again.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Was not this lesson taught to the House after Sunningdale? The Government said that there would never be a referendum and then the Heath Government fell. Mr. Fitt is on record as saying that that was the tragedy. It went to the people and every Opposition Member was wiped out except Gerry Fitt. The united Unionist coalition carried the day. The people spoke and that was the end of the Sunningdale agreement. Everyone argued about whether the people were aware of what was going on. Mr. Faulkner was busy selling it around the country, but he was swept away and became a leader without Indians.
  Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend makes a point similar to that of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney). They reinforce the fact that the forum has a meaningful role to play, but that is not its only role. It also has a useful role in terms of informing the negotiators of issues, giving them views after it has met and questioned members of the public, community groups, women's organisations, Churches, trade unions and others on the various subjects with which the negotiators will have to deal. That ensures a grass-roots involvement in the process. I trust that that at least is something in the process that the hon. Member for South Down would welcome.
  I trust that the Bill's course will not be marked by the refusal of the Government or of hon. Members to recognise that there is a useful role for the forum and that
  904
  it should be trusted with the minimal role of expressing its opinion and being able to test the weight of support for various propositions. I fear, however, that the wording—perhaps the number of previous Bills, orders, Command Papers, documents and communiqués that the Government have produced makes me suspicious—in talking about the role of the forum being only deliberative, suggests that it may not even be able to determine the issues that it is to discuss. Rather than saying what the forum is not allowed to do, the Government should give us some indication as to the things that the forum can actually do, so as to ensure that it has a meaningful role.
  I have exactly the same fears as those that I believe were expressed by the hon. Member for South Down. When one looks at the list, it is conceivable that at least 76 people will be around the negotiating table. Each of the top 10 parties on the list, according to the Bill, will have three negotiators as well as three people behind them, but the two Governments will have five people behind them. That means that a stadium full of people will be present while a negotiating process is supposed to be going on. Does anyone really believe that with 76 people present there will be meaningful negotiations? Of course not.
  We were in a much smaller body during the last talks process and it was not long before we discovered that we had to reduce that body still further. We had not operated that smaller body for a week before we realised that it was far better to get one or two people to go off and talk in the corridor and see what degree of agreement could be reached. Let us not suppose that the proposed body, when it meets collectively, will negotiate. The very most that it can do will be to register what agreements have been reached and to report on what has taken place in terms of the real negotiations—the bilateral, trilateral and other meetings that will take place in the rooms of the negotiating teams.
  If the negotiations are to be based on the ground rules that the Government have published in Cmnd. 3232, I believe that they will be far from successful. The Government cannot get away with that one. They cannot come to the House and say that the guidelines are broadly acceptable. Broadly acceptable to whom? The Ulster Unionist party has said that it does not accept them and the Minister knows that my party does not accept them—we have told him that often enough. Some ground rules within the guidelines are totally acceptable, but others are not. It is clear that the first thing that the negotiators will have to do when they meet is to determine the basic ground rules that will govern their proceedings.
  Even the ground rules as set out in Cmnd. 3232 leave a great deal of additional work to be carried out. For instance, the most fundamental questions in the ground rules are these. What is consensus, what is sufficient consensus, and what is agreement? And what is the measure of that agreement within the negotiating process? If one cannot agree on what agreement is, there could be major difficulties in the days ahead.
  I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) that it is essential that some work is done, perhaps even between the political parties in Northern Ireland before we get to those negotiations, to see if we can reach a consensus on what agreement, consensus and sufficient consensus should mean. The difficulty for me is that painful experience suggests that when we have broad

  905
  agreement among political parties in Northern Ireland, the Government turn their back on it. Therefore, the Minister reaps what he has sown by his refusal to accept broad agreement when it existed.
  The ground rules are being imposed by two Governments, quote unquote, which means that two of the players in the negotiations have met together before the negotiations are to take place, decided what is best for themselves and imposed it on the others. They have ensured that they have ground rules which will lean towards the kind of outcome that they want. They even flagged their desired outcome by saying, "Look, we have signed up to a framework document, boys, and we are almost committed and bound by that: that is the way you should be going." If that is what the Minister thinks, he will be bitterly disillusioned in the meetings that take place after 10 June, because I must tell him and the hon. Member for South Down that Unionists do not see the framework document as the basis for an agreement for the future of Northern Ireland and its relationship with the Government of the Irish Republic.
  Let me be clear about this. Unionists want to have a stable means of government for Northern Ireland and they want to have a co-operative and friendly relationship with the Government of the Irish Republic. They trust that the Government of the Irish Republic will face up to what Unionists see as the main obstacle to that: the territorial claim in the Irish Republic's constitution. I can abide by the commitment being sought in paragraph 16 of the ground rules, which asks that all negotiators
  "will take part in good faith"
  and
  "seriously address all aspects of the agreed agenda".
  It is not in the interests of any Unionist not to take part in the process in good faith. We want to ensure that we have a process that is built upon a sound foundation, which is capable of producing a satisfactory result for all people of Northern Ireland, and one that can generate the necessary support from the people in our community at a referendum afterwards.
  The Bill as currently drafted is deficient in many ways. Indeed, it is deficient in so many ways that it will be impossible to vote in support of it tonight. I trust that the Minister will be open enough in Committee on the Bill to recognise that serious concerns must be taken on board. He must recognise that changes can be made to the Bill and that it simply cannot be pushed through the House, even with the use of the guillotine, should the Government decide to use that procedure. That would ignore the wishes of the elected representatives from Northern Ireland.
  Changes could be made to the Bill to make its proposals worth while so that the people of Northern Ireland can have faith in them. The onus will be on the Government, however, and we shall see from their behaviour on Monday, when we debate the Bill in Committee, whether they are prepared to make the changes that will make the Bill a worthwhile measure for the people of Northern Ireland.
  7.46 pm
  Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who has expressed a considered point of view that there is the prospect of genuine dialogue between the parties in Northern Ireland.
  906
  I should like to endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam). I should also like to thank and congratulate the Secretary of State and his team on the work they have put into the Bill. In the past, I have had my doubts about the veracity of the Tory party in a general election year, especially given its track record of making deals with the Ulster Unionists to sustain itself. I still support that view, although one cannot condemn without some evidence. I accept that my view, which is based on a suspicion—but founded on history—is, nevertheless, only a suspicion. By presenting the Bill and the ground rules, however, I accept totally the sincerity and genuineness of the Secretary of State and his team. It is clear that they were looking for suggestions and assistance and that they had an open mind about how to proceed in the aftermath of the events in February.
  It would be easy to pick holes in the Bill and criticise the logic of certain parts of it. All sorts of phrases have been used to describe the contortions in it. Those very contortions and manoeuvres, which are meant to try to find something acceptable to all parties, reveal the genuineness of the Government's attempt to try to move the process forward. I have no doubt that Monday and Tuesday night will offer an opportunity to try to improve the Bill through amendments designed to tackle those bits about which many of us are not happy. It must be said, however, that the Bill represents a genuine attempt to move forward, and it should be supported.
  Although every party, especially those from Northern Ireland, can pick faults with the Bill, surely the facts of life mean that if the Government came up with a set of proposals that were totally acceptable to one of the parties in Northern Ireland, by definition the other parties would not appear at the negotiating table. The Government, by not pleasing everyone, including the Opposition, have certainly shown that they are trying to get people around the negotiating table.
  I strongly support, as does the Labour party, the six principles in the Mitchell report. I fully understand the reservations and trepidations of our Northern Ireland colleagues in relation to paramilitary participation and negotiations. I take the point of view, as does the Labour party, that any organisation that signs up to the six principles in the Mitchell commission report and then totally abandons them will lose all credibility and support from within the community that originally supported it.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Sinn Fein-IRA have never had the slightest difficulty in dealing with any lack of credibility from the community generally in relation to their activities? Does he also accept that probably 90 to 95 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland, from both communities, abhors Sinn Fein-IRA activities but that that does not seem to deter events as recent as that of last evening?
  Mr. McAvoy: I totally condemn violence in a modern democratic society—there is no excuse for it—but the fact is that X number of people vote for Sinn Fein. I do not like that, but they have the right to do so. We must try to get the political representatives of that section of the voters into the negotiating process—that is what I am supporting, but I am not supporting the inclusion of violence. It is all right to say that they have a record of violence—I fully accept that. That is why I speak with trepidation in front of our Northern Ireland colleagues—they have lived with the situation for the past 25 or 26 years.

  907
  If we are going to move forward, we have to try to get those people who vote for Sinn Fein to join in the democratic process and not to support a party that condones or supports violence. If we can get Sinn Fein to agree to the six Mitchell principles and then it reneges, the vast majority of people who vote for it will cease to do so—that would destroy its credibility. It has been said that Sinn Fein has no credibility, but that is not quite true.
  We know that Sinn Fein has a certain amount of credibility in the international community-I do not agree with it or like it—because it is seen to represent a "victimised" section of the community in Northern Ireland. We should try to move forward and get Sinn Fein there, so long as it accepts the six Mitchell principles. I have no hesitation in saying that if Sinn Fein does not accept that, it is finished.
  I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) for his intervention. It illustrated the over-concentration by our Northern Ireland colleagues on the meaning and weight of every single word. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said that every single word has a nuance and a Northern Ireland context. There is a paranoid suspicion that every single word from the Government is somehow selling Northern Ireland into the hands of the nationalists in Dublin.
  It always surprises me—as an outsider looking in—that the Unionist community in Northern Ireland, by the clear definition of number, influence and long history, is a force to be reckoned with. They are there, there are a million of them and they are in a strong position. The Unionist community should show a hand of strength and reconciliation to the nationalist community, not in the terms of master and servant, but from a position of strength. The community is in a position of strength—no one will ever force it out of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic as long as that volume of people are there. I would like to see the Unionist community draw some more self-confidence from within itself and make more gestures towards a nationalist community.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman should realise that, if the majority's voice is not allowed to be heard in a free and democratic vote, suspicion is caused. Look at the history. When were the Unionist people consulted about the Anglo-Irish Agreement, or the Downing street declaration, or even the framework document? I will not sit at a table with a framework document on it and negotiate it. It is a one-way street—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read it—to a united Ireland. I am not going to unite Ireland. It must be understood, therefore, that the people of Northern Ireland are rejecting it because we were to have a referendum every 10 years. That disappeared. Twenty years have gone and we have not had a referendum. If the right of the people to express their wishes is taken away, that will cause them to have suspicions.
  Mr. McAvoy: Nothing that I have said would indicate that I am trying to take away anyone's right to vote. Where we are now—with the forum and then the negotiating body—is where we are going, and it encompasses voting. I do not oppose that. I say to the hon. Gentleman—I shall choose my words very carefully—that I think he does not take into account enough the historical and social circumstances that led to the creation of the Northern Ireland state with its almost solidified voting intentions.
  908
  Having said that, I would like to move on because too often in these debates we start to talk about past events. I hope that I have answered some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
  Dr. Godman: I ask my hon. Friend to put to one side our experience of the Scottish travelling circus—the Scottish Grand Committee. Does he support my view that the Bill should be amended in such a way as to enable the forum to meet and convene meetings in various locations?
  Mr. McAvoy: Yes, both in the Irish Republic and in other areas of the United Kingdom. I should like there to be a strong and confident assembly, Parliament or whatever it will be called, to go forward in a confident manner to the Irish Republic and deal with the Dublin Government as two Governments within one Ireland—as close neighbours. I think a self-confident community in Northern Ireland would do that.
  I share the concern about the proliferation of parties and their names. I usually do not give much sympathy to the Liberal Democrat party, but even I almost feel sorry for it. I understand the problem with the names. I see from the list that there is a party that is just called Labour. There is a genuine debate as to whether the Labour party should become organised in Northern Ireland, but that issue is for a separate debate.
  The party called Labour has absolutely nothing to do with the Labour party. If Labour gets a ridiculous vote, no one should claim that the Labour party should not become organised in Northern Ireland. By the same token, if Labour gets a high vote, no one should claim that the Labour party should become organised in Northern Ireland. That is not relevant to the debate because Labour has nothing to do with the Labour party—I make that very clear.
  I sympathise with our Unionist colleagues in relation to the parties with minority interests and Unionist names. That will cause confusion. Having recognised those fears and having some knowledge—obviously, not the expert knowledge of some colleagues—of Northern Ireland, I must say that I feel that the electorate will see through what is going on and will make sure that they vote for who they want to vote for. We should not fall into the trap of underestimating the electorate in Northern Ireland, as politicians sometimes do.
  I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East about the forum and the negotiating body. He and our Unionist colleagues should bear in mind—I am trying not to head back to the past—what will happen if the House of Commons solidifies the voting intentions and patterns of Northern Ireland into a negotiating body. There are genuine fears, which I share, that the process will not result in a settlement that will be broadly acceptable to the mass of the people in Northern Ireland. I can understand that some Unionist colleagues may regard that comment as an insult. They may feel that they are not trusted. There is tremendous resentment, which I have picked up, because Unionist colleagues do not feel trusted by the rest of us. That is something with which we have to live; that is where we are.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, East and other Unionist Members should understand that the view that I have described is taken with reluctance, but there have been failures; there have been mistakes. We understand that. It is because of previous failures that there has been a failure to arrive at genuine consensus.
  Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, to a large extent, it is the national parties in this place which have contributed to communal politics in Northern Ireland, in so far as someone like me, who supports the socio-economic politics of Labour, and is a British citizen, is incapable of becoming a member of the Labour party? If there is a wish for political miscegenation, it is time that something was done to bring it about.
  Mr. McAvoy: New Labour might even reach the far-flung province of Devizes. We never know what will happen.
  At the risk of sounding intellectual, we are collectively responsible, in a sense, for all the faults and problems of our society. I think that the Social Democratic and Labour party would accept that. We are all responsible also to ensure that the men and women of violence do not destroy the process that lies before us. In a different context, it seems clear that in Israel and Palestine, the extremists on either side of the conflict are determined to sabotage any chance of peace in the middle east by means of explosions, assassinations, terrorism and violence generally.
  We must ensure that we do not overreact to events of the sort that took place last night. It is clear that someone was intent on trying to send a message to the House. The explosion took place fewer than 24 hours before we began consideration of the Bill. It was a disgrace. We should not bow down to the men and women of violence by allowing such an incident to throw us off track.
  I admire the Secretary of State for the determined and thorough way in which he has clung on and pursued the peace process. The same can be said for the rest of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's ministerial team. We must ensure that we in this place do not allow the men and women of violence to divert us. There is a rough road ahead. The forum and the negotiating body will be only the start of a long process. I wish the Government well in that respect. I shall support the process that lies ahead. History will judge how we reacted to it. That is not to say that the Bill and the ground rules are perfect. However, they represent the only process in front of us, and I have no hesitation in saying that the process should be supported.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Ken Maginnis: My party and I welcome the concept of elections to a forum from which negotiators will be able to try to bring about solutions to the political problems of Northern Ireland. We cannot, however, ignore the recent past, during which we have endeavoured to negotiate our way through a non-elected body. In 1992, we had the unhappy experience of putting a great deal of effort into negotiations that fell apart because some parties did not have a mandate from the electorate. Many of them were present with another agenda, one entirely different from the main agenda to which my party sought to adhere.
  It is no secret that the Social Democratic and Labour party has produced some genuine negotiators, but the SDLP has an autocratic management. The progress that was made for days on end was suddenly undermined when the leader of the SDLP arrived on the scene. We now understand why that happened. There was an entirely different sideshow, of which we were unaware at the time.
  910
  The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) was engaged in negotiations with Sinn Fein. Before anyone decides that that is worth defending and that those negotiations brought about a ceasefire that endured for 17 months—we are always happy if there is no violence; when we awake and find that no violence has taken place, it is an occasion on which to thank God—it is now clear, as history has proven, that it was not a genuine ceasefire.
  The intentions of the leader of the SDLP, the hon. Member for Foyle, were no doubt of the utmost integrity, but he let down the peace process that took place in 1994. He did not draw the terrorists into a permanent ceasefire. Instead, he opened a window of opportunity for them to exploit the political situation at the very moment when they, the terrorists, were coming under stress and strain. It was a time when their organisation was leaking and when the rate of attrition by the Royal Ulster Constabulary was the highest that it had ever been. It was a time when the IRA was running out of funds. The window of political opportunity was open.
  Bearing in mind what happened last night in London, we see the outcome of negotiations in which those taking part were not directly and specifically mandated by the electorate. I shall return to the significance of what has happened over the past few months, including what happened last night.
  My party is disquieted, to put it mildly, by the form of election that the Government have proposed. I seldom agree with the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), but he rightly said that we have never had an election in the United Kingdom based on party names. We have never voted for parties. People in Northern Ireland vote for people. It is people voting for people who sustain democracy. That system makes the process meaningful. It is an approach that creates accountability for us all. Each one of us is accountable to his or her electorate. Our electorates identify with us because they have chosen us as individuals. To ask the electorate to vote for a party is to play into the hands of parties that have an autocratic structure. We all know which those parties are in Northern Ireland. We have heard a Member of one of those parties this evening say that it is not good enough to have the party name, because one must be able to identify the party for the electorate, and ask how it is proposed to identify that specific party for the electorate. A party leader's name will be introduced on the ballot paper.
  What is happening is the antithesis of democracy as we know it. It is a slap-happy and shoddy way of dealing with the needs of society in Northern Ireland. It is driving people into particular camps. People are not being given the opportunity to have a second choice. Some people's first choice may be to vote for Ulster Unionism, but their second choice might well be across the traditional divide and a vote for the SDLP, or vice versa. I am sure that that could and should happen, but we do not have that opportunity now. One is asked to stake one's future within a particular camp. One X for a political party. It is wrong.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Does my hon. Friend admit that such people will not necessarily be transferring from one party to another, but moving from one candidate to another whom they know?
  Mr. Maginnis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the nature of society in Northern Ireland, despite our

  911
  long-held distrust, one tradition of the other. The distrust has to do with not knowing who the baddies are within the other tradition, so one damns the other tradition. The ability to vote for a candidate within the single transferable vote system allows an individual the opportunity to pick within another tradition. There is a tendency to vote for one's own as a first choice, but the second choice might be to vote for the decent fellow or lady from the other tradition. We have lost that opportunity.
  That is sad when one considers the difficulties that we shall encounter the day and hour that we sit down in the forum. We have the difficulty of whether people standing for election will genuinely eschew violence. What, I wonder, shall we do when a Sinn Fein-IRA candidate—the sort of person whom I mentioned earlier in an intervention—arrives and signs the declaration in private, gives it to the returning officer and says, "I am now a candidate under the Sinn Fein banner"? Or that may be done under the banner of some other paramilitary organisation.
  One thing that we must ensure is that the declaration is made not just in private, but in a more public way so that, at the very outset of the operation of the forum, a document is read publicly in a fashion similar to that which occurs in the House when new Members take the oath either by swearing on the Bible or by affirming. If such a document can enshrine the principles that derive from the Mitchell report, there will at least be further evidence for the public at large that the Government are endeavouring to ensure that genuine people are being charged with and made responsible for the negotiations and those things pertaining to negotiations from within the forum.
  I talked about the difficulties that we shall encounter. Let us consider for a moment what happened last night. Some people dismiss it almost as a signal. It was more than a signal. IRA-Sinn Fein have discovered that there is nothing for them within the democratic process. They have been wedded for ever, it seems, to the violence that they have perpetrated for 26 years. They have discovered something that rather disconcerts them—that the people of Northern Ireland and the people of the United Kingdom will withstand their violence for as long as they have to. They recognise that Sinn Fein has the support of only 4.8 per cent. of the electorate, because 95 per cent. of the people have not voted for Sinn Fein-IRA. I do not exclude loyalist paramilitaries or their horrible deeds from my criticism, but they have never attracted even 1 per cent. of the support of the total electorate.
  The IRA will not win militarily and it must decide whether to continue killing for the sake of killing; whether to continue its violence for the sake of violence. It does not seem to make sense. Therefore, it considers how it can exploit the political scene. That, believe it or not, has been its first and major mistake. The day and hour that it entered the political arena was the beginning of the defeat of the IRA. I do not use the word defeat to incite it to further violence. I know that it can kill tonight or tomorrow night. What I am saying is that it has lost the intellectual and the ideological argument that somehow, from days of yore, motivated its movement.
  If that is the case, the IRA has compounded its difficulty by moving into the international arena because, by doing so, it has placed itself under the scrutiny of the
  912
  international community. What will the international community say if, once again, it moves into a ceasefire insincerely and then backs out into its violence?
  The IRA's dilemma is not whether it moves from violence to the democratic process. If that was its problem, it would have been resolved by the setting of the date for all-party talks which it demanded. Once it got that, it realised its true dilemma, which is at what level to pitch its violence today and tomorrow so as to retain some of the sympathy and the folklore that has sustained it from the United States and elsewhere.
  That brings us to the real function of the election and the forum. Because, hear what I say, the IRA is defeated. It is finished. It has nothing to offer. It is, therefore, to the constitutional nationalists, more than the Unionists, more than the Government, more than the House, that the responsibility falls. What do they want for Ireland?
  We have heard powerful and effective words about how we share the island. It all sounds very good. We have listened to and read over and over the words of the Downing street declaration—the will of the people of Northern Ireland first and foremost; the consent that is necessary. What does it mean if it does not assume some sort of tangible form in respect of the day-to-day affairs of society in Northern Ireland—how an administration can function in order to serve that society more effectively?
  As we move into elections, as a Unionist, I feel no sense of shame, of having unnecessarily to humble myself, in appealing to the constitutional nationalist parties throughout Ireland, including the Government in Dublin and all the other constitutional nationalist parties in the Irish Republic, to examine exactly what they mean when they say to us, "We want to be your neighbours. We want to work with you. We recognise the democratic right of the people of Northern Ireland to consent to their own future." Can they show us what they mean by that? Do the Social Democratic and Labour party, a very powerful and influential party in Northern Ireland, and the other constitutional nationalist parties, realise the potential that there is in coming together within a forum?
  Can the Secretary of State not see, when he looks at the purpose for which the forum is being elected, that he will deprive society in Northern Ireland of an opportunity to live and work together politically if he restricts the time for which the forum is able to function? I see a contradiction between schedule 2 and clause 3(4) of the Bill, which says:
  "But if, in accordance with any rules and procedure adopted by them,"—
  the forum—
  "the participants in the negotiations refer any matter to the forum, subsection (3) shall not be taken to prevent the forum from considering that matter."
  But paragraph 2(3) of schedule 2 says:
  "But the forum shall not meet at any time notified by the Secretary of State to the chairman as being a time when, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, it would not be appropriate for the forum to meet because negotiations within section 2 may take place."
  The 60 or 70 people sitting in the forum must not be constrained by the other 50—far too many—who are taking part in negotiations. They must be able to work in committees, to support what is being investigated by the negotiators as a possible way forward. There will be times when the negotiators will run up against difficulties and

  913
  will want to refer the matter to the forum for investigation, for the taking of evidence. That is an important role, and it will continue to involve those who elect members. There will be a conditioning of our entire society, I hope, for some form of agreement, whereby each tradition will know that it will not get everything that it wants, and that reality need not come as a shock at the end of the process. People need to know what is happening and to have confidence in what is happening as we move through the process.
  My final point arises from paragraph 8(2) of schedule 1. Why is T, in the formula for arriving at a quota, the total number of votes given? The total number of votes given is never the number of votes used in arriving at a quota. It is the number of valid votes cast. With our particularly complicated list, on which we shall have to vote if the Bill is passed, there will be an awful lot of spoiled votes. If we take the total votes given, which is what the Secretary of State suggests, the quota will be so high that it will take an inordinate number of counts to elect people. We do not want that.
  This election fills me with hope on the one hand and fear and trepidation on the other, because if we—whether it be the SDLP, the Democratic Unionist party, the Ulster Unionist party or people from the multitude of other parties—are to make progress, we must be allowed to do so in our own right and not be constrained by consideration for those who are wedded to violence and who cannot be prised from it.
  8.26 pm
  Ms Judith Church: I apologise to the House and to the Secretary of State for missing his speech this afternoon, but I was detained on constituency business.
  Having learnt of the ill health of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), I send my best wishes to him, and hope that he will make a speedy return to us. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in that.
  We should acknowledge tonight the great toll that the work load in terms of the peace process takes on hon. Members, particularly those from Northern Ireland and those on both Front Benches. [Interruption.] I was not going to propose a pay rise, although I can see that some of my hon. Friends are a bit eager. It is a very heavy work load, and we must congratulate hon. Members on the tremendous progress that is being made, despite the difficulties.
  I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) in supporting the Secretary of State over last night's bombing. We ail agree that such atrocities are as pointless as they are destructive, and they have no place in a civilised debate on the future of Northern Ireland.
  The Bill presents us with a concrete opportunity to take the peace process forward and to develop a path to real dialogue between the parties involved. Naturally, we support that aim, and anything that might bring it about. There are, however, a number of areas in the Bill that need clarification.
  The first, as a number of hon. Members have said, is the status of the proposed forum. The House and the British people are conscious of the burden of history in
  914
  Northern Ireland. We are all concerned that the forum should not develop into an assembly controlled by one community, which would serve to divide the peoples of the Province rather than unite them. In that context, we would like more detail on the precise role and function of the forum and how it will work. I know that the way in which it will work will depend on the will, determination and commitment of the forum's members, but, given the number of hon. Members who have raised the issue today, the Minister may wish to tell us a little more.
  Secondly, there is the problem referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar—the under-representation of women in Northern Ireland's political life. Of course, that is not peculiar to Northern Ireland; before what I just said is taken up, let me add that only 10 per cent. of Members of Parliament are women. But there are no female Northern Ireland Members, and I believe that only about 10 per cent. of Northern Ireland's councillors are women. We have not achieved equality in councils elsewhere in the United Kingdom, but we are fast approaching that point, and there has been a substantial increase in the number of women who take part in our democratic life at every level.
  In the context of the troubles, it is understandable that this issue has not yet achieved any great prominence, but I think that it is an important element of Northern Ireland's political development. If any organisation, state, part of a state or community is to develop politically into a mature democratic forum, every part of the community must be represented. In particular, women need to be represented in our elected bodies.
  Mr. Maginnis: I could not agree more. On the basis of the hon. Lady's experience of her party, can she tell us how we might make progress?
  Ms Church: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked me that. No doubt his question could form the basis of a lengthy debate—but you will be pleased to learn, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have no intention of allowing that to happen.
  I know that there is no quick fix, but, given the rate of progress in the House before our party developed strategies to increase the representation of women, it would take us between 250 and 300 years to achieve parity in the House. I do not expect equality of representation in the House to come about in my lifetime—although I intend to live for a long time, despite what some may think or wish—but I hope that we will improve considerably on the current 10 per cent. Of course, much of the problem is caused by the culture of all the political parties.
  Dr. Robert Spink: What would be the implications if Northern Ireland adopted one of the strategies of the hon. Lady's party for bringing more women to Parliament? Emily's List requires those standing for election to state in writing that they are in favour of abortion.
  Ms Church: That is a difficult issue. Anyone wishing to gain sponsorship from Emily's List must make that commitment, but, as the hon. Gentleman must know, that is not the only method that Labour has used to increase the representation of women.

  915
  For a long time, organisations such as the Northern Ireland Women's European Platform and the Downtown Women's Centre have struggled to deal with the problem of female under-representation, but there has been little public recognition of their work. The presence of the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition on the election lists is welcome, but that must be built on: we must increase the number of women who participate in the Province's political life, as political candidates rather than people who are merely part of the coalition.
  A merging process must take place. The Government, and members of all political parties, have a responsibility to ensure that that happens. I know that it is not top of the list of priorities in the peace process, but I feel that, for the sake of the long-term health of Northern Ireland and of democracy in the House of Commons, we need more balanced representation.
  My third point, which has already been mentioned, relates to the electoral system that has been chosen for the forum. I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis). I have been interested in electoral and constitutional reform for a long time. Last night, the all-party group in favour of constitutional reform held its initial meeting in the House, and I think that those of us who believe that constitutional and electoral reform are an important part of the House's agenda are beginning to act more collectively.
  I do not want to make a specific party point, but let me point out that Labour is the only political party in the country that has spent a long time examining electoral systems in general. It set up the Plant commission, which sat for three years and produced a comprehensive review of all the work that had been done on electoral reform. I do not wish to bore for Britain on the issue of electoral systems—perhaps it would be more appropriate to say "bore for the United Kingdom"—but we must have consensus. We must recognise that there is no perfect electoral system. The electoral system that is adopted depends on the functions of the elected body, and on what we wish it to do.
  The commission, under the excellent chairmanship of Lord Plant, spent a long time examining all the existing electoral systems around the world. Some of its members went to Germany, and we had representations from Australia, New Zealand, Israel and many other countries whose electoral systems are different from the predominant UK systems—first past the post, and, in Northern Ireland, the single transferable vote.
  We did not, of course, have an opportunity to consider the electoral system that the Bill proposes. It is an innovation. We all agreed, however, that it requires some mathematical ability to think through the way in which an electoral system might work. Those who are not of a mathematical bent may be put off by what the formulae in clauses 8 and 9 would mean in practice. A good deal of education will be needed. I am fortunate in having a degree in mathematics, but I have sometimes found the subject difficult, nevertheless.
  Three years is a long time in which to examine electoral systems as a member of a commission. We have not that much time in which to decide on the right electoral system for the forum: if it took as long as that, the peace process would be halted for a long period. In a sense, the right electoral system must be plucked out of the air. I do not
  916
  know whether the Secretary of State will agree with me, but I suspect that the proposal in the Bill has been plucked out of the air; it has certainly not been plucked out of any textbook.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Lady agree that, as there is so much at stake for all of us in Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom and within these islands, we should not be made guinea pigs yet again?
  Ms Church: When a new system is introduced, somebody has to be the guinea pig. The difficulty is that none of the existing electoral systems, which were clearly considered by the Government, suited the purpose of the forum. Perhaps the Minister will want to speak about that.
  "Guinea pigs" is not exactly the right term for the proposed system, which will, I hope, address many concerns. Of course it will not be perfect, but the electoral system matters. One of the dangers in proposing a new system quickly, which is what has happened here, is that it may end up being permanent. The hon. Members for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone spoke about that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) spoke about the Palestinian elections.
  We must make progress, and we cannot let the difficulty of arriving at a system hold us back. That does not mean that we should not point out difficulties in trying to explain the system to the electorate. Electoral systems are complicated, and part of political progress must be political education, so that the electorate understands how democracy works. If we do not do that, we have failed.
  This is a contentious issue. If it were not, it would not be debated at such length, and I would not have spoken about it as I have. I do not criticise the Government for proposing this electoral system. I have not had time to look closely at it and at the criteria, but I hope that somebody did that before proposing this system in the Bill. The system may not be perfect, but we must ensure that it is as close as we can make it. Some amendment may be needed to achieve that.
  Politicians must never forget that the people will ultimately decide on whether the peace process is a success or a failure. As a result of the Bill, they will shortly be given the opportunity to voice their views and to give their consent to the next steps in the process. That is wonderful progress, and, despite some of the criticisms, it will reassure the citizens of Northern Ireland—which is perhaps what they need above all—that the peace process is being moved forward. That will help to allay their concern that the process was not moving as rapidly as it should.
  We look forward to continuing progress, so that the cause of peace can be advanced. The Bill should be implemented as quickly as possible. It has maximum support, and we must make sure that elections take place in as peaceful an atmosphere as possible. In the light of last night's event, we must reiterate that the House will not be moved from the path to peace in Northern Ireland. None of us will bow to that sort of pressure, and we reject the people who believe that such pressures are any part of the democratic process. Clearly they are not.
  8.43 pm
  Mr. John D. Taylor: In the lengthy run-up to this debate, there has been much rancour and criticism from all sides in Northern Ireland about the issue of a proposed forum and all-party negotiations. However, noticeable features of the debate have been the measured contributions from hon. Members on all sides, the thought that went into the speeches, and, at times, the good humour. This has been a good launching pad for the electoral process that the people of Ulster are about to enjoy. People in Northern Ireland will at last have the chance to speak, to express their views on Northern Ireland soil.
  I join those colleagues who have mentioned the brief illness of my Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). Although he knows that, for obvious reasons, I do not vote for him, he is my Member of Parliament, and on a personal level we have a very good relationship. I wish him a speedy recovery and a quick return to the House. I am disappointed that he is not here for the debate, because, for the past few months, he has been giving good leadership to the nationalist people of Northern Ireland as we try to bring all communities into the political process.
  This is an interesting and historical moment for the people of Northern Ireland. We have had 25 years of terrible events and tragedies, from which few families in Northern Ireland have escaped. We want an opportunity to put that in the past and to build a new future, in which everyone in Northern Ireland can enjoy a free, democratic society and the benefits that flow from that.
  We in the Ulster Unionist party welcome a Bill that provides for elections in Northern Ireland. We stand firmly behind the principle of consent for the people of Northern Ireland. That principle should be underlined time and again in the debate, because if it is not accepted, the process will fail.
  We were disappointed to note that, in the nominated forum in the Republic of Ireland, among the nationalist people of Ireland the principle of consent could not be accepted by all the participating parties. That is a bad omen for what is about to take place in Northern Ireland, and I hope that, when we have our forum, which will have been created by the people of Northern Ireland themselves, we shall have greater success in establishing the principle of consent and of having it accepted by all the participating parties.
  In addition to the principle of consent, there is the principle of decommissioning. I was glad to hear the speeches by hon. Members in all parts of the House, but I was disappointed to note that only three Conservative Back Benchers have attended this historic debate on the future of part of the United Kingdom. Only one Conservative member of the Northern Ireland Select Committee was present. That reflects badly on the interests of the Conservative party; and the presence and participation of Labour Members was little better.
  However, I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for the way in which he has placed Northern Ireland at the top of his agenda in 10 Downing street. He is the first Prime Minister for many years who has given priority to the difficult issue of politics in Northern Ireland, to the issue of relations within the island of Ireland, and to the totality of the relationship within the British Isles. We should also pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for his bipartisan support for the efforts of the Prime Minister,
  918
  to try to steer us in Northern Ireland into a situation where we can build the foundations upon which there will be lasting peace and reconciliation within our community.
  While I am expressing my appreciation of the leaders of both the Conservative and Labour parties, it would be remiss of an Ulster Unionist to ignore the role of the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and, in particular, the present Prime Minister, Mr. Bruton. Although I disagree with his Government's point of view, Mr. Bruton's approach has been measured and reasonable—at times. At other times, we have had to criticise him severely, but it is only fair to place on record the fact that he has been endeavouring to help to create the conditions in which nationalists and Unionists within Northern Ireland can have a better future.
  I referred to the tragic years of the troubles, and we later had the ceasefire of 1994. There were those—including the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley)—who, on a weekly basis, stated that the ceasefire would collapse next weekend, or at Christmas, or at Easter, or new year or any other date they could think of. Nevertheless, the people of Northern Ireland enjoyed peace for almost 18 months.
  If the people of Northern Ireland had been given the chance to speak last September—as they now will be—when the idea for elections was first proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), it is likely that the ceasefire would not have collapsed. But people stalled on the electoral process, and the main opposition came from the Dublin Government and the leader of the SDLP, the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). They are partly responsible for contributing to a situation in which—regrettably—the ceasefire in the United Kingdom collapsed.
  We must not recriminate about the past, and we welcome the Bill that is now before us. We also have Cmnd. 3232. I want to ask the Secretary of State—or the Minister in his reply—to explain and clarify some queries that I and my colleagues have. Paragraph 1 of Cmnd. 3232 deals with the basis for negotiations, and refers to
  "relationships within Northern Ireland, within the island of Ireland and between the peoples of these islands".
  That is an important phrase. Paragraph 5, which deals with the structure of negotiations and refers to strands 1, 2 and 3, does not say that strand 3 covers the relationship between the peoples of the islands—rather, it restricts strand 3 to being simply relationships between the two Governments.
  There is a big difference between the totality of relationships between the peoples of these islands and the narrower issue of the relationship between the British and Irish Governments. I would like some clarification from the Minister that, in the negotiations that will probably take place from 10 June onwards, we will be able to discuss the totality of the relationships between the peoples of these islands, and not simply how the two Governments will co-operate.
  Paragraph 3 says:
  "Any participant in the strand in question will be free to raise any aspect of the three relationships, including constitutional issues".
  I thought that we had been told by the Secretary of State and by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland that the Republic would have no role whatsoever in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, and would therefore

  919
  not be participating or involved in the strand 1 talks. What does paragraph 3 mean? It seems to imply that the Dublin Government will have a role—including on constitutional issues—in strand 1. We must have further clarification on that issue, so that my doubts can be pushed to the side.
  We in the UUP welcome paragraph 4, which emphasises that both the United Kingdom and southern Irish Governments
  "as signatories of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, reaffirm that they would be prepared to consider a new and more broadly based agreement".
  We certainly want to see a replacement for the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which today—11 years after its imposition on the people of Northern Ireland—is resented as strongly as it has ever been.
  Paragraph 18 deals with the format, and states:
  "Negotiations will address all three interlocking sets of relationships as a totality. Negotiations in each of the three interlocking strands will open on the same day and proceed in parallel."
  It adds that negotiating sessions in different strands will not be held simultaneously.
  Does that mean that, on the first day, all three strands will meet one after the other or at the same time? One set of negotiators for a party can hardly attend three sets of negotiations at the same time. On the first day, will we have a strand 1 meeting from 9 am to coffee time, a strand 2 meeting from coffee time to lunchtime and a strand 3 meeting from lunchtime to afternoon tea time?
  Mr. Trimble: And the rest of the day off.
  Mr. Taylor: Yes. The first day seems slightly confusing, and we need to have greater clarification.
  Paragraph 20 refers to negotiations on strand 2, and states:
  "formal meetings will be chaired by an independent Chairperson operating procedural rules, agreed by the participants."
  The participants will agree the rules, but who will agree on the independent chairperson? Who will recommend that chairperson? How will he be appointed? Are the Government in a position to suggest a name tonight? We have seen names being suggested in Dublin.
  I hope that this matter will be left to the people of Northern Ireland through their elected representatives and negotiators to agree among themselves. But the Minister has a responsibility tonight to define more clearly how that person will be appointed. [Interruption.] It could not be Mr. Dick Spring. I just heard hon. Members on the Labour Front Bench recommending him. I have already defined the standing of that honourable gentleman in Northern Ireland, and I do not think that I should expand on that. I could not consider him to be independent.
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Having read the Bill carefully, I am worried that it does not say how the chairman should be appointed. It should be for the forum to appoint the chairman in a general meeting. The Government might take that on board, because those who participate and negotiate should appoint
  920
  somebody who is not a member of the United Kingdom Government, the Irish Government or a Member from Northern Ireland. It should be somebody who is totally independent, and who comes to it with a fresh mind.
  Mr. Taylor: I very much welcome that contribution. It underlines my point that the procedure is not defined with sufficient clarity. We need a genuinely independent chairman who is respected by the elected representatives within the forum.
  Paragraph 22 of Cmnd. 3232 refers, rightly, to the business committee. We need some guidance from the Minister about the size of that committee. Will there be one representative from each of the two Governments and one from each of the political parties, or is some other formula being suggested?
  Paragraph 23 is a mistake by the Government, repeating that old and failed formula that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That was one of the contributory factors in the collapse of the Brooke all-party talks at Stormont. I regret that one of the reasons for the failure of those talks is being repeated in the Command Paper. I appeal to the Government, even at this late stage, to remove that obstacle to real progress within Northern Ireland.
  Paragraph 26 is entitled "Validation". It states that both Governments should
  "reaffirm their intention that the outcome of negotiations will be submitted for public approval by referendums in Ireland—North and South".
  Can we have confirmation from the Minister that, whether or not there is a referendum in the Republic, the referendum within Northern Ireland will be separate, limited to the people of Northern Ireland and under the legislation of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom?
  Clause 4(5) deals with the issue of there being no court. I realise that that refers specifically to referendums. It says:
  "No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the numbers as certified by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland…of any ballot papers counted or answers given in a referendum."
  If no court is being allowed to interfere, that will be most unusual, because we have electoral courts in all elections in the United Kingdom. It is very odd that there should be a specific exclusion of the court to overrule the chief electoral officer if people wish to challenge any decisions.
  Although the clause refers specifically to the referendum, I trust that there is no suggestion that the electoral court will be prevented from overriding the chief electoral officer in the electoral process to the forum. That would be a serious infringement of normal democratic practices.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, although the draftsmen deliberately excluded the question of the border referendum at an earlier stage, they may have been thinking that the result of the referendum would be so overwhelming, like that previous referendum, that no court could overturn it? Having said that, I accept my right hon. Friend's point about the electoral process to the forum.
  Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, and for the way in which he has developed the point I was trying to make.

  921
  We were promised referendums under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, and we did have one. However, since the Unionists won, we have not been allowed to have another one. That is the way that democracy has operated in Northern Ireland since 1972. Any time the Unionists win something, it is immediately dropped and some other attempt is made, where it is hoped that the Unionists will not win.
  This Bill is yet another example of that. Its whole thrust is to weaken the unity of the Ulster Unionist people. I assure the Secretary of State that, when the election takes place, the Ulster Unionist people will rise up to a man and to a woman, and there will be one of the biggest turnouts in Northern Ireland's electoral history. There will be a strong Unionist and loyalist mandate, because the people will rejoice at this opportunity to speak—and speak loudly they will.
  Mr. Bermingham: One of the grounds on which a ballot should be able to be challenged is that of electoral fraud. We all know about voting from the grave—I say that as a born Dubliner—
  Mr. Taylor: So you would know.
  Mr. Bermingham: Yes, I know it well enough. That is what worries me about the clause.
  Mr. Taylor: I certainly know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. That cannot happen in Northern Ireland, although it still may happen in the Republic. We have strict controls in Northern Ireland; people have to produce one of 10 types of identification document. Some of them include photographs, which is sensible, while others do not, which is not so sensible.
  The Government should look again at the whole question of identification on polling day in Northern Ireland elections. Quite often, a married couple will turn up at a polling station. The man has his driving licence, which, in Northern Ireland, carries a photograph, but his wife has forgotten to bring an identification document. So the returning officer tells the wife that she cannot vote, but her husband can—with the result that both of them walk away without voting, because the husband will not vote if his wife is not allowed to. So both votes are lost.
  Mr. Beggs: In some parts of Northern Ireland, because of a lack of proper scrutiny within the precincts where voting takes place of those coming in to vote, we cannot be certain that multiple voting by some parties does not take place. Would my right hon. Friend agree with that?
  Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend is correct. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Dr. Hendron), who is in his place, can confirm what is unfortunately happening in some parts of his constituency.
  Clause 5 includes the interesting term "nominating representative". It is said that that means
  "the person who…appears to the Secretary of State to be the leader of the party".
  So it is not up to members of a party to decide who is their leader; it is the Secretary of State who will decide.
  It was the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who said that the electoral system proposed in this Bill exists nowhere else in the world. First, parties
  922
  have to be named, and then the Secretary of State decides which ones he will allow to fight the election. There is a rumour in Northern Ireland that President Yeltsin is looking closely at this legislation and is encouraged by it.
  I think that the "nominating representative" phraseology has to do with internal Conservative party politics. It is designed to overcome divisions in the Conservative party. That party in Northern Ireland wants to fight the election on a policy opposed to what the Secretary of State stands for. So the Secretary of State is presenting one policy, while Conservative candidates in Northern Ireland present a different one. We therefore do not know who will speak for the Conservatives.
  So how do the Government propose to get around this problem? They will let the Conservative party compete in the election, but once it is over, the Secretary of State will decide who will represent the winning Conservative candidates. He will select himself as the possible leader of Conservative members.
  Clause 5(1) refers to
  "the person who…appears to the Secretary of State to be the leader of the party or otherwise the most appropriate person to act on behalf of the party for the purposes of this Act."
  Who does the Secretary of State have in mind as "the most appropriate person" to act for the Conservative party? I suspect that it will not be any Conservative who is elected in Northern Ireland, but that the Secretary of State would prefer to be "the appropriate person".
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the paper given to us in discussion stated that the chairman of the Conservative party was placed to be the leader. When the right hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) became the chairman of the Conservative party, we were told that he was the most appropriate person. When I spoke to him today, he said, "They will be able to stand because I will accredit them, but they will not be allowed to negotiate."
  Mr. Taylor: This is another one for President Yeltsin. People will be allowed to stand in an election but, once they win, they will not be allowed to participate in the negotiations. The Government must end that scandal, and amend the Bill. There is no way in which we can rig electoral systems in Northern Ireland in such a manner.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate my right hon. Friend's point, but perhaps he is being uncharacteristically judgmental. It may not be a campaign to "dump the doctor", but some of the strange parties that have been brought into existence may not know their leaders. It would be up to the Secretary of State to appoint that person.
  Mr. Taylor: The point is well made. We are beginning to see the contradictions in the Bill.
  Clause 6 provides for the payment of allowances and the Secretary of State's expenses. Obviously allowances will have to be paid to elected persons, because they are not being elected as parliamentarians, district councillors or members of an assembly. We certainly hope that the people elected will contribute to thoughtful negotiations with skill and ability, and they may come from industry, the professions, or the business or academic world. We hope to attract good-quality candidates who are interested in constitutional issues, not routine parliamentary or district council matters such as the needs of individual constituents.

  923
  The persons who are elected will have to give up some of their regular work, not to enter a lengthy parliamentary career but for one year—or two years at most. I hope that the Minister will give some guidance on the likely allowances for persons elected to the forum and the negotiating bodies.
  We are entering the pre-nomination day period and time is short. The Bill is moving quickly through the House this week and next, and perhaps the Minister can give the date of nomination day. We have heard when the all-party talks will begin and know the date of the election, but I do not recall hearing the date for nomination day. I suspect that, when we know, we will all be shocked at how little time we have to select candidates and complete nomination papers.
  Mr. Barnes: I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has considered the persons who may stand as candidates. Schedule 1 makes provision for disqualifying certain persons, but it does not state which persons will qualify to stand as candidates. As a candidate can be anyone appointed by the leader of any of the 33 parties, theoretically it would be possible for a Teachta Dála from Dublin, myself or any other hon. Member to be nominated. An amendment is required to stop that happening, and I have just submitted it.
  Mr. Taylor: That is a very good point, and no doubt the Minister has heard it and will respond. I trust that the reply will be that candidates must be on the electoral register in Northern Ireland, but we will have to wait and see what he says.
  Paragraph 4 of schedule 1 concerns the franchise, which I mentioned in an earlier intervention. I still cannot understand why an election that is based on parliamentary constituencies does not use the criteria for the parliamentary franchise as its basis. According to this system, the election will be based on Westminster constituencies, but we will ignore the Westminster electoral roll and instead use the district council electoral roll. That seems to be a rather peculiar decision, and I should like to know the explanation for it.
  Paragraph 5 of schedule 1 is about parties and party lists. Paragraph 6(6) states:
  "A party's regional list must include at least two candidates who are not on a constituency list for the party."
  There must, again, be some explanation for that peculiar qualification, and I should like to know the Minister's reasoning for including that restriction.
  The list of parties in part II of schedule 1 makes very interesting reading, and one could make much play out of it. I shall simply ask the Minister to tell the House how many members there are in the British Ulster Unionist party, how many members there are in the No Going Back party, and when he first heard of those parties. How many members are in the Northern Ireland party—whatever that is—and how many members are in the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition? We require further information on those political parties.
  We then come to paragraph 2 of schedule 2, which concerns meetings. Paragraph 2(1) states:
  "The first meeting of the forum shall be at a time decided by the Secretary of State."
  924
  On the first day, on 10 June, we will have negotiating meetings straight away—strands 1, 2 and 3—but there is no suggestion when the forum might meet. It might meet this Christmas. We require clarification on why no specific date has been stated for the forum. I should have thought that the obvious answer would be for the forum to meet on the first day and for other things to follow from that.
  The very last point, paragraph 6 of schedule 2—"Miscellaneous"—states:
  "The Secretary of State shall provide for the forum the services of such staff, the use of such premises and such other facilities as he thinks appropriate."
  The Secretary of State has told us in this Bill that the negotiating teams will meet at Stormont castle grounds, but he has not told us where the forum will meet. We have heard mention of it going all around the British Isles, but I should like the Government to tell us today where the forum will meet, and to confirm that they have thought this one out and chosen a permanent location for this new Northern Ireland forum for the next two years.
  There is a great challenge to all political parties in Northern Ireland—nationalist and Unionist—to practise what they have claimed for so many years. We have had 25 years of violence, and we now have a great opportunity to bring about a negotiated agreement in Northern Ireland that will provide peace, reconciliation and the enjoyment and fulfilment of life for all our people on the basis of consent and the total and absolute rejection of violence. It is an opportunity that should not be missed.
  For members of the Ulster Unionist party, this opportunity will secure Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom, and will create the conditions in which Catholics and Protestants, Unionists and nationalists, can work together in the administration and good government of Northern Ireland. It will also create the basis for an enhanced relationship between Dublin and Belfast, a development that is much more logical now, 23 years after we joined the European Union.
  We in the Ulster Unionist party will oppose the Bill tonight, for the reasons given by other hon. Members. Conservative Members have condemned some aspects of the Bill. Labour Members have criticised it. The Social Democratic and Labour party and the Democratic Unionist party have criticised it. Our challenge goes out to all those who joined with us in criticising the Bill to join us in the Lobby to register our opposition to the Government. However, I emphasise that we in the Ulster Unionist party will be fighting this election. We welcome it, and we ask the people of Northern Ireland to give us a strong mandate, so that we can secure Northern Ireland for generations to come.
  9.20 pm
  Mr. Tony Worthington: I find it difficult to follow the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor). He intends to vote against the Bill and rely on the rest of us to vote for it so that he can take part in the elections. I promise him that we shall fulfil his intentions.
  Until the moment when he said that he intended to vote against the Bill, I thought that there was a great deal of value in the speech of the right hon. Member for Strangford. He raised many of the serious issues in relation to the Bill, which we shall tackle in Committee.

  925
  I shall not repeat the points that he made, but he gave a masterly analysis of some of the major points that are in the Bill.
  I couple my party with the sentiments of all those who expressed their sadness at the illness of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). We have missed his powerful contribution tonight. We ask those who go to see him in hospital—we hope that it will be a short stay—to convey our good wishes for a speedy recovery. Even if one does not agree with him, he is one of those Members of Parliament whose integrity is appreciated across the House.
  The issue tonight is not whether we would start from here. We have to start from here. There is no alternative if we want all-party talks on 10 June. There is little point in talking about the past or how we arrived here. The only way in which we can have all-party talks on 10 June is through the Bill. There is no alternative. That is the central issue. Do we vote for the Bill and have all-party talks on 10 June or vote against it with the clear implication that we do not want all-party talks on 10 June? We may want them at some other time, but it would not be so early as 10 June. That is why we shall support the Bill tonight, although we could add—I may do so myself—to the problems in the Bill.
  No one could pretend that the route to the talks has been easy, logical, rational or straightforward, but we are now in a position to open the door to talks through the Bill. We see no point in being critical of past mistakes or wrong turnings. The Mitchell report contains many wise words. One sentence says:
  "If the focus remains on the past, the past will become the future."
  Those are the words that stick with me. The right hon. Member for Strangford said that there was an opportunity here and that we must put aside the past. That is why, although there have been some recriminations in the debate today, the Opposition's approach rejects recriminations.
  We are pleased that in recent weeks the procedures covered by the Bill and the Command Paper have moved in directions of which we have approved. We urge that Mitchell's six principles should be placed on the table at the start of the talks and signed up to by all the participants. Subscribers to peace and democracy will be able to sign up to those principles. The Mitchell report has not been dumped or binned, as was alleged. Those who allege that it has been binned will have most difficulty in facing up to the Mitchell principles. I should like to see them face up to that challenge. We urged that Mitchell's approach to decommissioning should be embraced and followed, and all those who are genuine about abandoning violence will be able to accept that.
  We urged the British and Irish Governments to get back together and to act in concert because the peace process moves forward only when that happens. In recent weeks, as the right hon. Member for Strangford pointed out, it has seemed that the two Governments have genuinely worked together in a sense of partnership.
  We urged that the electoral process chosen should ensure that the smaller parties—such as the Progressive Unionist party and Ulster Democratic party, which have links with important constituencies—have a place at the negotiating table. The Government have given them that opportunity. That has led to some problems in the electoral process, but we applaud the fact that those
  926
  parties will have the opportunity to attend the talks. The smaller parties will not have a guaranteed right because they will have to come into the top 10, but they will have the opportunity to be at the talks.
  We urged that the whole package should be laid out, not just the Bill for the election process but the ground rules, which are now Cmnd. 3232. We thought that it was important that people should be able to judge the whole scene rather than not know what they were getting into. That has happened.
  We urged that the talks and the forum should be separated and that the forum should lose all the connotations of previous majoritarian assemblies. We have moved a long way towards that aim. The forum will be deliberative only and will have no legislative, executive or administrative functions. We believe that the forum could be valuable for building consensus, but that will depend on appropriate rules of procedure. I shall return to that point.
  Substantial work remains to be done in Committee. Real progress can be made in Committee, although there is a timetable because the talks must occur on 10 June. The biggest single contribution to the success of 10 June can be made by the IRA with an unequivocal restoration of the ceasefire. It is overwhelmingly clear that that is what the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland, of the Republic and of the United Kingdom want. The IRA has no mandate whatever from anyone for bombing. It is also important that Sinn Fein is at those talks, although progress could be made without it. Sinn Fein and the IRA have what they have always demanded—a date for all-party talks and a comprehensive agenda. There is no excuse for them not to restore the ceasefire, and they must do that. They must also embrace the Mitchell principles, which present no problems to any democratic party or to other nationalists.
  In Committee, a number of issues must be addressed. Many hon. Members have commented on the details of the Bill, but I shall not deal with those now. I am sure that the Minister will wish to refer to some of those comments, but he will shortly have two full days in which to respond.
  The Government will want to explain to us the principles on which they have constructed the list of parties. That subject is one of those that has caused most concern, because it seems a little arbitrary to say that there will be a list of parties, some people protest and the Government add more parties. That approach will lead to considerable problems, especially when one bears in mind the independents on the list, but if the House and the members of different parties work together in Committee, we could tidy up the Bill considerably. Suggestions have been made for assenters, deposits or other mechanisms that could be used to solve the problem.
  We also have the incongruity that some people will be allowed to put their names on the ballot paper, but others will not. I look forward with keen anticipation to dealing with those issues on Monday and Tuesday.
  The major issue that confronts us now is the role of the forum and its style of operation. As we heard from the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), the nationalist community has great difficulty, to put it mildly, in envisaging a role for the forum that adds anything to the talks or to the search for a settlement. It will not take part in anything that has elements of

  927
  Stormont. A body in which people shout or abuse one another will do nothing to build trust, reconciliation and consensus.
  During the debate, some hon. Members asked how the House could be against the forum, but if we consider how we conduct our business it is clear that this is not a successful place for constructing consensus. Recently, we have had some success with a dribble of Conservative Members crossing the Floor, but it may take a few more months before they all cross. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), the Chief Whip, is here and I know that he is optimistic about that.
  When we want to construct a consensus, we use the Select Committees. Their culture involves an expectation that the members of the Committee, despite coming from different parties and having different views, will try to construct a consensus. That is what the forum is about. There is a role for a forum with terms of reference and procedures that would make it act in the style of a Select Committee.
  Mr. Trimble: I am delighted by the hon. Gentleman's points. I take it that he will endorse our suggestion, which we have made regularly in recent months, that the forum should conduct itself analogously to Select Committees by forming committees to take evidence and make factual inquiries on matters relevant to the negotiations to assist the negotiators. Will he join our request to the Government that the committees of the forum should have the powers of Select Committees to summon persons and papers? Those powers would be exercised only to extract information from the Northern Ireland Office that it is jealously refusing to provide.
  Mr. Worthington: I find myself agreeing with the hon. Gentleman to a disturbing degree. There is much sense in what he says but he also knows that there is an issue about the rules of procedure. We can construct rules of procedure, such as those that apply in this place, where we normally vote at 10 pm, but that is not a way to construct consensus. There are other rules of procedure whereby the dominant ethos would be the construction of consensus. For the success of the forum, we want—and this will be our challenge in the work that lies ahead—to make sure that its rules and procedures are right. We should be talking not the language of votes and adversarial debate but that of constructing common ground.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The last assembly in Northern Ireland proceeded in the way that the hon. Gentleman describes, with all the parties co-operating in Select Committee fashion to try to reach a consensus on various matters. Surely those rules of procedure, which were tried and have been proved to succeed, would be a good basis for the rules of the forum.
  Mr. Worthington: I have to bow to the hon. Gentleman in respect of his knowledge of that time, but I agree with his words and hope that it will be possible to construct rules of procedure that lead to the construction of a consensus.
  The forum, with the right rules of procedure, could diminish the most important problem—the absence of trust—and could start the decommissioning of mindsets
  928
  that Mitchell sought. The rules of procedure therefore cannot be about majorities and minorities. They must be about constructing whole communities and about the construction of dialogue, understanding and consensus across the communities.
  I note that the Secretary of State has to approve the rules of procedure of the forum as drawn up by the forum. In Committee, I hope that he will be willing to consider amendments that seek to make it clear that those rules must be constructed with a view to securing assent across the community. I also note that, in reality, the Secretary of State has to construct the first set of rules of procedure for the forum so that it can meet, because without such rules how can the forum come into existence?
  Other hon. Members have drawn a parallel with paragraph 24 of the Command Paper, which says of the all-party talks:
  "The negotiations will operate on the basis of consensus…The rules for establishing sufficient consensus will be agreed in advance of negotiations by the participants".
  We would like that spirit to suffuse the rules of procedure for the forum itself so that it is clear that any decision taken is taken by a clear majority in both the nationalist and Unionist communities in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I apologise for intervening again. Has he considered the effect of the weighted majority provision, which necessarily means, in view of the likely result of the election, that the rules of procedure will be agreed only if assented to by nationalists, or some nationalists at any event, if they take their place at the forum and participate in it? Because it will be necessary to have the assent of some nationalists in order to achieve the 75 per cent. weighted majority, it will inevitably follow that the rules of procedure will contain the element of consensus to which he refers.
  Mr. Worthington: As a first basis, one should not say that one is constructing a 75:25 per cent. majority; rather one should be seeking consensus. The great danger is that if one says that the policy is based on that 75:25 per cent., no one will bother to do the hard work that is necessary to construct a consensus. We must do just that.
  The Opposition will vote for the Bill, with all its flaws and illogicalities, because it is now the only way in which all-party talks can start on 10 June. It is the only way in which there is hope of the restoration of the ceasefire. We will also vote for it because we are convinced that the people of Northern Ireland want us politicians to rise to the occasion and to take risks for peace. That is the inevitable aim behind the Bill.
  I refer again to the remarks of George Mitchell, who spoke about the consensus that existed for peace. He said that members of both traditions may be less far apart on the resolution of their differences than they believe. We must open the door to all-party talks. The Bill provides the key to those talks and that is why we will support it.
  9.37 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Ancram): I thank the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) for his support for the Bill. I also thank Her Majesty's Opposition for the bipartisan approach that they have

  929
  adopted to this part of policy on Northern Ireland. We all appreciate that when we are dealing with sensitive matters of this kind, the co-operation that we have managed to achieve on that basis has not only been useful in terms of making progress, but has been valued by the community of Northern Ireland.
  I start, as others have, by sending through the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) my best wishes and the best wishes of my party to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). We wish him a speedy recovery. Everyone in the House values his contributions, and although we valued that from the hon. Member for South Down tonight, it was not quite the same, if I may say so, as that of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. I hope that the hon. Member for South Down will pass on the message that we have a great deal of respect and admiration for his hon. Friend, provided that that does not ruin his political reputation in Northern Ireland.
  We have had a constructive debate and I have found a lot from which to draw optimism, particularly the fact that despite the inevitable criticism about the detail of the legislation, every party spokesman has underlined his support for the concept of all-party negotiations leading to agreement and settlement. I believe that that bodes well for the process on which we are launching ourselves at the moment.
  The debate has been conducted in a serious manner and that fact has sent a message to the men of violence. It has told them that we will not allow violence to detract or distract us from the path of democracy and that no amount of bombing, shooting, punishment beatings, et cetera, will divert hon. Members of the House from pursuing what they believe to be democratically right.
  We have had a detailed debate, which I suspect is a good foretaste of the Committee stage. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not deal with every detailed question that has been asked as I am certain that some of them will be asked again on Monday and Tuesday next week and I shall have a chance to deal with them then. I will pick up on two points, however, partly because they interested me in the way that they were posed.
  The first was the question that was asked of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State by the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) about the reasons for going for the local government franchise rather than a parliamentary franchise. The real difference is that under the parliamentary franchise those from overseas can vote, Peers cannot vote and European citizens cannot vote. Under the local government franchise, Peers can vote—there are nine Peers who will be affected in this way and I believe that they have the right to have a say in the future of Northern Ireland—and European citizens can vote, but those from overseas cannot vote. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would wish to know that as of 29 November 1995 the number of those on the parliamentary franchise was 1,169,423 and that the number of those on the local government franchise was 1,169,353—a difference of 70. I am not sure that that will make a significant difference.
  Mr. John D. Taylor: Who are they?
  Mr. Ancram: We may have to ask them to carry the identity cards that the right hon. Gentleman talked about.
  930
  He also referred to the Ulster clause—the clause on which I did not allow the court to intervene. There are Ulster precedents. He said that this seemed to be something totally new and anti-democratic, but I point him to the Referendum Act 1975, section 4; the Scotland Act 1978, schedule 17, paragraph 10; and the Wales Act 1978, schedule 12, paragraph 11. In each of those Acts he will find a precedent.
  Mr. Taylor: I know that that specifically referred to the referendum. I wanted an assurance that the electoral court could operate on all other aspects of the election.
  Mr. Ancram: The Ulster clause is carefully defined and limited, and I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will find that to be the case.
  The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) raised a number of issues and I shall try to deal with them. She made the point about the importance of encouraging the participation of women in the political process in Northern Ireland, which was repeated by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Ms Church). I warmly endorse that sentiment. The political process would benefit from the greater involvement of women. We have included the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition in the list of parties and we are considering what other measures may be possible. I join the hon. Member for Redcar in encouraging the parties to make efforts to secure the greater participation of women and I am sure that they will have a significant role to play in the forum.
  The hon. Lady also asked whether there was an appeal mechanism in relation to parties. We have sought to have an inclusive process and we have made considerable efforts to consult in this regard. We extended our list substantially in the light of consultation, taking into account all the representations that we received. Parties that were anxious to participate but were not on our first list had an opportunity to make their views known.
  At this stage, it would be impractical to have an appeal mechanism in the Bill because there simply is no time to deal with late applications. However, it would be wrong for me to rule out absolutely any changes to the list because we have the Committee stage of the Bill to come and names could be included at that time. As I have said, there is no time to have a full appeal mechanism.
  The hon. Member for Redcar and others asked about clause 7 and the power to revive the forum when it was suspended. The hon. Lady asked me to confirm that the power would not be used when negotiations had ceased or were in suspension. We have always envisaged that negotiations and the forum would run in parallel. The Secretary of State would not, therefore, propose to revive the forum while negotiations were not in progress. If the forum has ceased because, for instance, negotiations have been suspended, and then the negotiations begin again, the forum can be brought back into operation. There is power for that.
  The hon. Member for Redcar and the right hon. Member for Strangford asked about the timing of the first meeting of the forum. That is for later consideration. We shall want to take views into account, and I am sure that views will be forthcoming. At this stage we do not envisage a meeting of the forum before 10 June.
  The hon. Member for Redcar asked also about the exercise of discretionary powers under the Bill. The Secretary of State would hope to use those powers in a

  931
  spirit of consultation and in pursuit of general acceptance where possible. On some questions, such as the identity of nominating representatives, we have consulted already in the formal paper.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred, first, to party descriptions. I believe that he referred to bogus parties. The consultation paper asked for the names of parties and stated that these would be set out on the ballot paper. We received a number of representations setting out how parties wanted their parties to be described, including those from the hon. Gentleman. It is not for us to decide which party is bogus. I say with some justification that Northern Ireland has some experience of new parties and new combinations of initials, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware. The people of Northern Ireland have always shown remarkable good common sense in distinguishing those parties at the ballot box.
  I have heard several representations today about deposits. We shall want to receive further representations, and I suspect that they will be made in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann asked about the ground rules and wanted to know whether they were set in concrete. I know that this is a matter of concern to him. We published a consultation document on the rules on 15 March and we have undertaken detailed consultations with the principal parties on that paper since then. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Command Paper reflects a number of changes as a result of the consultations. It now represents, as it says,
  "the best judgment of the two Governments on the most suitable and broadly acceptable ground rules for the…negotiations…on 10 June".
  It is important to read the Command Paper. It makes it clear that the negotiators are the masters of their own process. There is nothing to prevent the negotiators, by agreement arid consensus, agreeing to operate under different rules of procedure. That has always been so in the way in which these negotiations have proceeded. In the absence of such agreement, I believe that the ground rules should govern the negotiations starting on 10 June.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) rightly said, in his helpful contribution, that the process should be capable of continuing without Sinn Fein if Sinn Fein did not requalify to take part in the process. It is vital—it is common ground between ourselves and the Irish Government—that whatever happens in terms of Sinn Fein becoming part of the process again and the restoration of the ceasefire, if Sinn Fein is not able to become part of that process it cannot be allowed to prevent the process proceeding. Certainly the process will continue. That will happen because it is a democratic process. As I have said, democracy cannot be allowed to be subjected to the whims of violent men.
  Mr. Maginnis: The Minister says that he has agreed with the Irish Government that no impediment should be allowed to be placed by Sinn Fein to prevent the talks progressing. Has he received a substantive assurance from the Irish Government that they would take specific steps to inhibit Sinn Fein's activity, should that activity escalate to the detriment of the safety of society in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Ancram: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not the Minister responsible for security, but the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), is sitting beside me and I am sure that he has heard what the hon. Gentleman has had to say. But the corollary of saying that violence cannot be allowed to prevail in terms of the democratic process is that where there is such violence it is dealt with.
  Mr. Maginnis: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way once again, but he cannot pass the burden on to his right hon. Friend on an issue that is central to the chances of success of the negotiating process. I expect a fuller answer than he has given to date.
  Mr. Ancram: I can only say that I have every confidence that in the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers, the Irish Government would be as conscientious in the pursuit of those acts of violence as we ourselves would be. It is a part of the democratic process that violence cannot be allowed to intervene in the proper working of that process.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke referred to the electoral method as a duck-billed platypus. I am not certain that I can accept that. He went on to say that it was essentially functional. I am told that the duck-billed platypus was not necessarily the most functional of beasts. However, I think that my hon. Friend is right to say that the purpose of the rather strange type of election that we have before us, and on which we have heard many differing comments, is that it is a unique system for a unique and one-off purpose, and we believe that it will achieve that purpose.
  The hon. Member for Upper Bann raised again the question of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the ground rules paper which refer to the opening session—if I can call it that—of the negotiations. He made clear again his view of the need to have discussions on the procedures in relation to the addressing of the Mitchell proposals on decommissioning so that those were clear before 10 June. We share that view and we see the need for urgent consultation on the ways of addressing those proposals and a clear idea of the procedures that will take them forward. That is something that we shall be pursuing.
  The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) made a number of points. He made some fairly amusing points about the Conservative party in Northern Ireland and they were reflected later by the right hon. Member for Strangford. I can inform him that the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), will be meeting representatives of the Conservative party Northern Ireland area council in the next few days to discuss the elections and it would be wrong of me before those discussions have taken place to make any further announcements.
  I believe that we all share the horror of the hon. Member for North Antrim at some of the actions of violence that we have seen recently in Northern Ireland. They put into perspective the whole question of what is an exclusive commitment to peaceful methods. That is very much in our minds at this moment.
  The hon. Member for North Antrim asked where the commitment to the six Mitchell principles would come in. I make it clear that they will come in at the beginning in the

  933
  sense that nothing else could happen before the total and absolute commitment to the six Mitchell principles has taken place.
  The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) made a number of points. In particular, he raised the question of paragraph 24 of the Command Paper and what is meant by consensus. All I can say to him is that that paragraph also indicates that it is for the parties to decide how that will operate. It is not for me to pre-empt the consultations and decisions that participants will make in relation to that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) raised a number of other important points. He spoke about the referendums in Ireland, north and south, and asked whether this was an all-Ireland referendum. The words themselves in paragraph 26 make it clear that both Governments reaffirm their intention that the referendums will take place under the jurisdiction of each Government respectively. If there are to be changes in the Irish constitution, which are likely as a result of any agreement, there would have to be a referendum in the Republic, as I understand it, in order to achieve that. With regard to our referendum being under our legislation, I can give my hon. Friend the comfort that the legislation for that referendum is included in the legislation that we are considering.
  Mr. Wilshire: Can my right hon. Friend therefore once again confirm that the wording in no way suggests a watering down of the commitment to have a referendum in Northern Ireland and that a majority of the people of Northern Ireland alone must approve that as well as anything else?
  Mr. Ancram: I can give my hon. Friend that commitment not only in my own terms but in terms that the Prime Minister has made clear on a number of occasions. I can give my hon. Friend that commitment completely.
  I refer briefly to the speech of the hon. Member for South Down. I listened very carefully to what he had to say. I think that he is a little unfair about the forum. I hope that he will reconsider some of what he said, because he has heard hon. Members on both sides of the House talking—perhaps to his surprise—about the value of a forum, which could give a form of public ownership to the wider public in Northern Ireland and allow them, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, the chance to come forward and make their views known.
  I say to the hon. Gentleman in all friendliness that he must have had a wry smile on his face when he said that we had been pursuing a Unionist-led agenda, as he will have heard the right hon. Member for Strangford, who is sitting behind him, say that the whole process had been selling out the Unionist parties. If the hon. Gentleman reconsiders, he will probably find that the balance that we have struck is reasonably good.
  Mr. McGrady: The Minister suggested that the forum's sole purpose should be to garner the opinions of the people of Northern Ireland. There is nothing whatever to prevent that from being done by a negotiating team without a forum being present. Did he hear some of the remarks made tonight? The suggestion was that we have sub-committees paralleling the Northern Ireland Departments, which is an embryonic assembly in the being. That is the reality of the situation.
  Mr. Ancram: I heard many comments on both sides of the House. I am interested in the way in which the forum
  934
  will operate. I certainly believe that we are setting up a structure through which we can open up to a wider public—out and beyond the politicians who normally exercise it privately among themselves—much of the dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland. I believe that the exercise of that within the forum will prove of benefit.
  There are many other points that I would like to have dealt with, and I apologise to hon. Members if I did not reach them, including the detailed points made by the right hon. Member for Strangford. I am certain that he will make some of them in Committee. If he does not, I can assure him that I will get him answers to each of the points that he made.
  The fullness of the debate shows the importance of the Bill and the context within which it is before the House. The implications run far wider than the details that are on the face of the Bill, which is before the House urgently because it provides the opening to what I believe is the common aim of all parties in Northern Ireland and the House, and a common desire throughout all parts of the community in Northern Ireland, to see the start, on 10 June, of genuine, comprehensive and inclusive negotiations that are based on democratic principles, with the objective of securing a broadly acceptable settlement for the future of the Province and at the same time create a forum in which dialogue and understanding in Northern Ireland can be promoted to best effect.
  The Bill in itself cannot achieve those objectives, but it opens the way to the processes by which they can be achieved. It gives the people of Northern Ireland a direct contribution in providing the mandate and the key to make those processes possible. The objectives can be achieved with the good will and determination of all who will be involved in the process. The Bill does not give everyone what they wanted, but it provides the chance and the opening if all participants are prepared to face the challenges and demonstrate the good will and courage of leadership that a successful outcome so badly requires.
  Sometimes history faces us with difficult challenges, and this is one of them, but how we respond dictates how we will be judged at the bar of history. I believe that if we pass the Bill, we can show that we have the courage to spit in the face of the bullet and the bomb, and proclaim the supremacy of democratic principles over the men of violence. We can say to them, as was said by the President of the United States, "Your day is over." We can show the political courage to lead by accepting that dialogue must involve some movement on all sides, however difficult that might be. We can do that by demonstrating tonight the courage to endorse this opening to negotiations and to promote the dialogue and understanding which alone can underpin the agreement that we all seek.
  It is with confidence that I ask the House to support the Bill tonight.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 154.

  Division No. 100]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Beggs, Roy

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Maginnis, Ken

  Trimble, David

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Mr. William Ross and

  Rev. Martin Smyth.

  935

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

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

  Allen, Graham

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hoyle, Doug

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Banks, Tony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Barnes, Harry

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Bates, Michael

  Hutton, John

  Battle, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Ingram, Adam

  Bell, Stuart

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bellingham, Henry

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S 0)

  Betts, Clive

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Blunkett, David

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Jowell, Tessa

  Bowis, John

  Keen, Alan

  Brandreth, Gyles

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

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

  King,Rt Hon Tom

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Burns, Simon

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Burt, Alistair

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Byers, Stephen

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Leigh, Edward

  Carrington, Matthew

  Lidington, David

  Church, Judith

  Livingstone, Ken

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Coffey, Ann

  MacKay, Andrew

  Congdon, David

  Malone, Gerald

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Marek, Dr John

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Cox, Tom

  Martlew, Eric

  Cran, James

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Cummings, John

  Meale, Alan

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

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

  Merchant, Piers

  Denham, John

  Michael, Alun

  Dewar, Donald

  Mills, Iain

  Dobson, Frank

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Dover, Den

  Morley, Elliot

  Dowd, Jim

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Dunn, Bob

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Dykes, Hugh

  Mudie, George

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Murphy, Paul

  Fabricant, Michael

  Nelson, Anthony

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Forman, Nigel

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Forth, Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Paice, James

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Pope, Greg

  French, Douglas

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Gallie, Phil

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Raynsford, Nick

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Short, Clare

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

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

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Soley, Clive

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Hain, Peter

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Straw, Jack

  Harris, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Heald, Oliver

  Timms, Stephen

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  936

  Tracey, Richard

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Trend, Michael

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Williams, Alan W. (Carmarthen)

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Wilshire, David

  Waller, Gary

  Wolfson, Mark

  Walley, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Watson, Mike

  Wells, Bowen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Timothy Wood and

  Whittingdale, John

  Mr. Derek Conway.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), 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. Wells.]
  Question agreed to.
  Committee tomorrow.

  Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill

    NORTHERN IRELAND (ENTRY TO NEGOTIATIONS, ETC) BILL [MONEY]
    Queen's recommendation having been signified—
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
    That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in connection with elections, or otherwise by virtue of the Act.—[Mr. Wells.]
    Question agreed to.

    PETITION
    Anti-personnel Mines
    10.11 pm
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: I beg leave to present a petition from the residents of Coventry which declares that
    the Lord Mayor, the City Council and the citizens of Coventry are appalled by the increasing and uncontrolled use of anti-personnel mines; the apparent indifference of manufacturers to the carnage and the rejection of responsibility by Governments.
    The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon all governments to renounce the use, manufacture and export of anti-personnel mines; and to accept responsibility for the clearance and safe destruction of these weapons worldwide; and that the House of Commons will call upon the Government of the United Kingdom to take a lead and support all efforts at the United Nations to bring this about.
    The petition has my support, and that of the Labour and Tory groups on the city council and more than 3,000 residents of Coventry.
    To lie upon the Table.

  Commonwealth Institute
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
  10.12 pm
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring before the House the serious funding problems of the Commonwealth Institute, which was established by an Act of Parliament. A number of Commonwealth countries contributed substantially to the cost of its specially designed building in Kensington, prior to its opening back in 1962. To some extent, the institute is an international entity.
  In an Adjournment debate on the Commonwealth on 31 March 1994, I told the House:
  "When Her Majesty the Queen visited the Commonwealth Institute last May, she remarked:
  `The institute brings the reality of the individual countries of the Commonwealth alive, and demonstrates the role the Commonwealth can play in the world and among its Members.'
  Unfortunately, as the House will know, in September—owing, I believe, to an excessive Treasury squeeze on the FCO budget, and to a belief that the institute should raise more of its own money—the Government announced, without prior consultation, the decision to stop all future funding of the institute. That represented a massive blow to a popular and important institute."—[Official Report, 31 March 1994; Vol. 240, c. 1100.]
  The main purpose of this debate is to bring the matter forward from there and to give the Minister of State a chance to tell us what he is proposing to do to prevent the institute from being permanently closed, which is a real possibility. I warmly welcome the Minister to the debate. I am well aware that he has on his mind some large and crucial responsibilities in other parts of the world.
  The Foreign Office can point out that it has been the main source of funding for the institute since its inception, meeting more than 90 per cent. of its costs since 1963. Alack, under this Conservative Government, there has been a general underfunding of the institute. A few years ago, it was estimated that the building required a minimum of £3 million-worth of essential repairs to bring it to an acceptable standard and that desirable repairs and refurbishment would cost between £8 million and —10 million. That is hardly an example of good housekeeping for a building that has grade 2 listed status.
  It was, perhaps, mainly falling visitor numbers that prompted the Government to cease grant in aid—more than £3 million for the financial year 1994–95—from March 1996. The Government then offered —2.4 million, to be spread over 1996–97 and 1998–99, conditional upon the institute and its staff attracting £5 million from other sources for its relaunch strategy by July 1995.
  I pay tribute to the institute's efforts to raise money. It exceeded —1 million in the financial year 1994–95 but, unfortunately, the —5 million target was not reached and probably could not have been reached. As a result, the Secretary of State proposed that the institute's galleries—they are well known to many hon. Members and I know that Madam Speaker has visited them regularly—should be closed on or before 1 April 1996. In a letter dated 13 March to Mr. David Thompson, the chairman of the institute, the Secretary of State confirmed that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is now prepared to provide a grant of —1.5 million. Of course I welcome that but, crucially, the letter states:
  938
  "I cannot, however, give you the assurance you seek about provision of further public funds for your running costs beyond March 1997."
  At present, the galleries remain closed and I regret that. Staff numbers have tumbled from 96 to 37 and are set to fall even further.
  I should like to commend to the House the recent excellent report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. It is entitled "The Future Role of the Commonwealth". It contains a section on the institute. Paragraph 143 says:
  "We are most concerned at the current situation and recognise that considerable efforts have been made by the Commonwealth Institute to cope with the financial difficulties, including imaginative plans for a major new exhibition entitled 'Wonders of the World'. However, the Institute has received no assurances about the provision of further public funds for its running costs beyond March 1997. If, by the end of 1996, the Institute has not secured private finance sufficient to give it a reasonable prospect of being self-financed from April 1997, there must be a real prospect of permanent closure. This must be avoided."
  Indeed so. That is the key aim of my speech tonight.
  As the Minister will know, permanent closure of the institute would require primary legislation. The Committee sensibly pointed out that the House should have a proper debate on the subject of permanent closure if that is seriously being contemplated by the Government. The Minister's thoughts on that recommendation would be appreciated.
  The Minister will know that the Commonwealth Trust works closely with the institute, and the Committee was told by witnesses from the trust that the role of the institute is
  "crucial to us in terms of educating young people in Britain".
  The trust leaves to the institute the task of promoting knowledge of the Commonwealth in schools.
  During my Adjournment debate on 31 March, I complained—I think justifiably—that the Government had failed to stir the imagination of the younger generation about the Commonwealth. The institute is one obvious way to approach that task. We spend only a few hundred thousand pounds each year educating people about the Commonwealth, whereas the European Union can spend very large sums on educating people about the EU.
  I cannot justify the harsh approach adopted by the Government to the institute in recent years. I suspect that part of the rationale behind that approach has been a feeling in the Foreign Office that the Commonwealth itself should give greater financial support. I think that that is right. Apparently only a tiny proportion of the institute's budget comes from other Commonwealth countries. Singapore, Canada and Australia all have a higher gross national product per capita than does the United Kingdom; they could, and should, do more.
  I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Mr. Stephen Cox, the outstanding director general, and to his shrinking staff for their sterling efforts to keep the institute's doors open. They must be supported by this House. Indeed, I believe that there is considerable support for them in all quarters.
  I believe and have said before that the Foreign Office budget is far too small. We need to expand our diplomatic posts in eastern Europe. As happened about a decade ago, we are back to underfunding the BBC World Service, and

  939
  the British Council is in danger of having to close a number of offices. Our aid programme is diminishing as well. Some of us find that pretty depressing and not in the national interest.
  The underpinning is, I accept, partly to blame for the crisis facing the institute. The future of this important institute must be seen against the background of the growing importance of the Commonwealth. The Foreign Affairs Committee's report has much to say on the subject. As early as paragraph 4, it remarks on how the Commonwealth's membership has changed beyond recognition in terms of economic performance:
  "While it is still the case that some members of the Commonwealth are amongst the poorest in the world and rightly deserve the help and support of the richer developed world, the organisation now also contains some of the world's fastest growing economies, and even some of the richest. Thus, Singapore's income per head is a fifth higher than that of the United Kingdom and Malaysia is catching up fast. India's overall poverty conceals pockets of enormous dynamism and prosperity, whilst both Australia and New Zealand are now clear beneficiaries of the Asia-Pacific growth momentum. Hopes are also high for the resumption of significant growth in southern Africa."
  No wonder that the Committee feels that the implications for our country of some of the world's fastest-growing markets being within the Commonwealth ranks deserve urgent re-examination.
  Paragraph 9 of the report states:
  "If the centre of gravity of the world economy is shifting in Asia's direction, then the Western countries best positioned to take advantage of this new scene will be those that have taken the trouble to maintain strong links of every kind with this emerging world. The old Commonwealth ties could therefore become, for the United Kingdom, the new Commonwealth opportunities."
  One wonders if the Foreign Office is running ahead of or behind that kind of new thinking.
  It is not too late for the Foreign Office to take another look at the importance of that well-known and well-loved institute and to make sure that it has the public funds that it needs not only to survive, but to prosper and help meet the needs of our rapidly changing Commonwealth.
  10.25 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): The Government welcome the debate. The Commonwealth Institute has many supporters, and I congratulate one of its most faithful supporters—my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). He is an honourable Friend indeed, and his knowledge of, and interest in, foreign affairs the world over is second to none in the House. The Foreign Affairs Committee has taken a close interest in the Commonwealth Institute's well-being, and included some pertinent observations in its welcome report, "The Future Role of the Commonwealth", which was tabled before Easter.
  My noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will visit the institute next week to discuss with Asian high commissioners in London how their galleries can best be developed. The permanent under-secretary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be able to answer questions about the institute when he appears before the Foreign Affairs Committee next month to discuss the FCO's departmental report. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth
  940
  Secretary has taken a close personal interest in the institute since he assumed office. He discussed future financing by the FCO for the institute with its chairman, Mr. David Thompson, in October and decided in March to make available £1.5 million this financial year, to enable the institute to maintain its core education, library and conference operations.
  The Government's support for the Commonwealth Institute is part of a wider support for Commonwealth links worldwide, but I shall not rehearse them all now. Our decision to invite the Commonwealth Heads of Government to meet in the United Kingdom next year shows our confidence in the Commonwealth's continuing vitality and usefulness. Differences of view between Commonwealth countries over Rhodesia and South Africa have been replaced by a shared adherence to the democratic and liberal values set out in the Harare declaration and by the work that the Commonwealth can do to fulfil them. That common purpose was evident at the last Heads of Government meeting in Auckland last November.
  Next Tuesday, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will attend at the Commonwealth headquarters at Marlborough house, as one of eight Foreign Ministers who are members of the Commonwealth ministerial action group, which was established in Auckland to follow up the Harare declaration. They will see how they can best influence the Nigerian and Gambian military Governments to return to civilian democratic rule. Recent elections in Sierra Leone received significant help from the Commonwealth and we hope that the Commonwealth can help the Gambia to organise free and fair elections later this year.
  I do not deny that the Commonwealth Institute and, specifically, providing adequate funds for it, poses the Government a problem. The essence of the problem is simple: funds at a level required to make the institute vibrant, to increase visitor numbers, to bring its galleries and exhibitions up to a modern standard and to put the building, which has special features, in a good state of maintenance cannot be financed out of the FCO's budget alone without unacceptable damage to other priorities. We already contribute significantly across the board to Commonwealth activities: to Commonwealth scholarships, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Commonwealth Foundation and the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation.
  The Commonwealth Institute does worthy work. I shall talk later about its interesting history, but its overall role is somewhat apart from the FCO's core activities. That means that we have to be imaginative in finding ways of securing the comparatively large sums needed to make it thrive.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I may be forecasting what my right hon. Friend is about to say, but it is important that this should come out. What efforts are the Government making to get a greater contribution from Commonwealth members?
  Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend, as ever, is right. I shall refer to that a little later.
  In 1993, the Commonwealth Institute celebrated its 100th anniversary. We are dealing not with a new body but with one which, at a number of points in the last century, has changed its focus to remain up to date and

  941
  useful. The Imperial Institute, to which the Commonwealth Institute is the legal successor, began life in the 1890s as an integral part of Imperial college, as one of those fine institutions established in Kensington, using funds from the Great Exhibition and public subscription. Indeed, the Imperial Institute's distinctive tower can be seen standing out among the newer buildings of Imperial college, behind the Albert hall. Its original purpose was as a scientific research institute that made its findings available for all Britain's colonies and dominions.
  Those with an interest in the history of the British empire will not be surprised to know that the hand of Joseph Chamberlain, the energetic colonial secretary at the time, was active in creating the institute. By the 1920s, in the trend that led to the Statute of Westminster in 1931, the willingness of the dominions and some colonies to fund a central research organisation in London came under question. Canada, Australia, South Africa and others understandably established their own scientific research institutes, specialising in products of interest to them.
  In 1925 the Imperial Institute passed to the care of the Board of Trade, as a body concerned with furthering economic links in the empire. Indeed, at that time it was touch and go whether the institute would survive. However, it developed a new role, publicising the empire and particularly the economic benefits for its constituent parts, in line with the major imperial exhibitions held in the 1920s and 1930s. The institute played its part, with film shows and other activities, in spreading knowledge of the empire. After the second world war, that new educational and publicising role was recognised, when responsibility passed from the Board of Trade to the Department of Education.
  In the 1950s the Department of Education launched an ambitious programme to increase the number of science graduates in the United Kingdom. The space occupied by the institute was needed to expand Imperial college. The Department of Education decided to provide the institute with a new home on Kensington high street, in a new building designed as a symbol of Britain's support for the Commonwealth and opened in 1962. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office took over responsibility in the late 1960s, in recognition of the role that the new Commonwealth was playing in British political life.
  To begin with, everything went swimmingly. Commonwealth Governments contributed generously not only to the building, but to their exhibition galleries. The building was new. The Commonwealth was renewing itself. New educational techniques were exciting for children coming on visits. By the 1980s, the picture was somewhat different. Precious little money was forthcoming from other Commonwealth Governments to help run the institute. Indeed, in recent years the UK Government's contribution has been some 99 per cent. Some countries provided money to renew their exhibitions, but far from all did so. Many of the exhibitions have begun to look rather tired. As I am sure my hon. Friend knows, there is a splendid New Zealand mechanical cow, which illustrates that country's dairy industry. It has been munching away to the delight of schoolchildren since the 1960s, with all the transparency of Damien Hirst, but 25 years earlier. Perhaps for some, the cow has the same horror, but for most it has been supremely educational.
  942
  The Department for Education and Employment has increasingly devolved money to schools to decide on their own purchasing. Institute curriculum materials and education programmes are highly valued, but other Government Departments do not contribute to running costs.
  Then there is the building itself. Those with the appropriate powers decreed that its special architectural merits—I understand it was a forerunner for the Sydney opera house—made it of outstanding architectural importance. It was listed as a grade 2 starred building and, in practice, that means that it can be altered in any way only with the greatest difficulty. Whatever views are held on the design, the requirement for money to maintain the roof—a novel and spectacular design, certainly in the 1960s—and other features in the building, has come back year after year to haunt us.
  Against that background, the Government decided in the mid-1980s to find a way to inject new money into the institute. Initially, an ambitious plan to develop the site commercially was investigated. It looked promising, but the decline in London property values in the late 1980s put paid to it. In 1992, we asked Lord Armstrong, now the vice-chairman of the institute, to report on how the institute's future could best be secured. Essentially, he concluded that the worst option would be to allow the institute to wither on the vine. Visitor numbers have been declining. The building was deteriorating. The exhibition galleries were becoming outmoded. Running costs were high in relation to the work that the institute did. After considering Lord Armstrong's report, the Government decided that the institute should be given two years to find commercial private sponsorship. If that was not forthcoming, the Government concluded, reluctantly, that their own funding for the institute should cease and the building be put to another use.
  Since September 1993, the institute has engaged with great energy in increasing its revenue. Staff numbers have been reduced, as my hon. Friend mentioned, by 66 per cent., largely because of the closure of the exhibitions. The conference centre and other activities have increased their earnings by 77 per cent. to nearly —1 million a year. I congratulate Stephen Cox and the staff on a splendid achievement. They have put a huge effort into identifying commercial finance. To our great regret, their efforts have not yet proved successful. The Government agreed to extend by six months, from July to December last year, the period for fund raising, but to no immediate avail. In those circumstances, Government funding was set to end in April this year—this month—and the institute was to close. Instead of doing so, the Government have decided to provide the institute with at least one further year to find out whether private sponsorship can be found.
  We proposed that savings should be made immediately by closing the exhibition galleries temporarily. They were in any case due to close for refurbishment. The Government will provide a grant for the coming year sufficient to keep the institute's key operations—the education operation, the library and the conference centre—going. Meanwhile, the search for sponsorship and the programme for redeveloping the galleries can continue.
  The Government have also provided more than £500,000, as I mentioned earlier, to help improve the building. Ministers have worked with the institute's governors to identify companies that might wish to

  943
  become partners. We are examining the scope for using the private finance initiative, and we shall have intensive discussions with the institute over the next two months to find whether there are other ways in which finance can be raised.
  I hope that other Commonwealth countries will produce income and that they understand the historical nature of this building in London, but we must be realistic. I hope that my hon. Friend will lend his considerable efforts and ask his contacts to consider such action.
  It would be tragic if the institute had to fold. We do not want it to close, but it would not be responsible for the Government to continue drip-feeding it with grants simply to enable it to tick over and go into slow decline. We consider it better to face the problem squarely and recognise that fresh thinking and a fresh injection of money is needed. We are disappointed that, so far, new money has not been found, but we are not giving up. The
  944
  institute has a valuable role to play, but it must adapt to modern conditions. It draws on immense good will throughout the country and in the Commonwealth. The challenge is to tap that good will to produce finance.
  I hope that children will be attracted to the institute and that school parties will not only receive the educational benefits of the London Dungeon and Madame Tussaud's. I hope that they will recognise the history that is demonstrated by the establishment of the Commonwealth Institute. It is a unique organisation that spans the world: 53 countries which all, when they meet, speak one language and all attempt to achieve good government and the friendship that spans the races. As the institute's governors work at that task, they have the Government's firm support. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having given us the opportunity to dwell on an important and lasting institution.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport under what statutory authority local authorities may contract the Highways Agency to carry out work on the agency's behalf. [24965]

  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 18 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question concerning the statutory authority under which local authorities may contract with the Highways Agency to carry out work on the Agency's behalf.
  The Secretary of State for Transport ("the Secretary of State") is responsible for the provision and maintenance of a trunk road network (including motorways) throughout England. All contracts arranged by the Highways Agency are arranged on behalf of, and entered into by, the Secretary of State. Also it should be noted that local authorities as creatures of statute are only permitted to carry out those functions which are expressly conferred on them by statute.
  At present there are two principal statutory provisions which empower local authorities to contract with the Secretary of State to carry out his trunk road functions. The first of these is section 6(1) of the Highways Act ("the 1980 Act"), the second, section 6(5) of the Act.
  Section 6(1) of the 1980 Act enables a local authority (which is a local highway authority) to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State under which the Secretary of State delegates his functions in respect of maintenance, improvement and certain other dealings in relation to trunk roads, to the local highway authority. Under such a "delegation of functions" agreement, the local highway authority assumes responsibility for the maintenance, and improvement and other related matters subject to the terms of the agreement and the conditions set out in section 6. (Local highways authorities are local authorities which are county councils, district councils which are unitary councils, metropolitan district councils or London borough councils).
  Section 6(5) of the 1980 Act enables a local highway authority to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State for specific trunk road works—eg, the construction or improvement by the local highway authority of a trunk road. Section 6(5) does not cover specific works of maintenance.
  Local highway authorities (and other councils) also have power to enter into contracts with the Secretary of State to carry out the Secretary of State's work under the following provisions of the 1980 Act:
  Section 9 enables a council to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State to second staff and equipment to the Secretary of State for the purposes of carrying out his work in connection with trunk roads;
  560
  Section 89 enables the Secretary of State to enter into an agreement with a local highway authority to delegate his functions in relation to the provision and removal of cattle grids to the local highway authority;
  Section 90(3) enables a local highway authority and the Secretary of State to enter into an agreement for the local highway authority to construct road humps which the Secretary of State has power to construct;
  Section 98 enables a local authority which is a lighting authority, to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State under which the Secretary of State delegates his functions of lighting a trunk road, to the local authority;
  Section 113 enables a council to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State under which the Secretary of State delegates all or any of his functions with respect to the provision or management of a trunk road picnic area or of public sanitary conveniences to the council; and
  Section 115 enables a council to enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State under which the Secretary of State delegates his functions in relation to trunk road lorry parking areas to the council.
  In addition to the above provisions, section 4 and 5 of the 1980 Act empower a local highway authority to contract with the Secretary of State primarily to agree who will have responsibility for dealing with particular roads—as they are not strictly powers enabling a local highway authority to carry out the Secretary of State's highway work for him they do not merit more than a passing reference.)
  Since 14th March 1996, local highway authorities have had power to contract with the Secretary of State (subject to specified conditions) to carry out maintenance works on certain trunk roads and provide technical, administrative, or professional services in connection with such trunk roads. The trunk roads which are the subject of such contracts are trunk roads which have been, or are, the subject of a DBFO scheme. (A DBFO scheme is a scheme where a contractor agrees to design, build, finance and operate and maintain a trunk road sometimes for a period of up to 30 years). These contracting powers are set out in article 3, 6 and 7 of the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) (Public Bodies) (Trunk Roads) Order 1996 S.I. 1996/342. These provisions designate the Secretary of State as a "public body" (subject to specified restrictions) under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. The effect of the designation is to allow local highway authorities additional powers to contract with the Secretary of State for the purposes described above.
  It may be helpful to add that as from July 1996, the Secretary of State is hoping (subject to comments received from a consultation exercise) to make a further order under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970. The proposed Order will further expand the contracting powers of local highway authorities by designating the Secretary of State as a "public body" once again but this time in relation to trunk roads not covered by the earlier order (which applied only in the context of DBFO schemes). The proposed Order will enable local highway authorities to enter into contracts with the Secretary of State for carrying out works of maintenance on all other trunk roads—for example, maintenance term and works contracts. In addition it will also enable local highway authorities to enter into the other types of contract permitted under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 with the Secretary of State—for example, the provision of technical, administrative and professional services in connection with such other trunk roads.

  A40
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to de-trunk the A40 through Cheltenham; and if he will make a statement. [24902]
  561
  Mr. Watts
  It has long been the Department's intention to change the trunk road network around Cheltenham once completion and opening to traffic of the A417 Brockworth bypass had been achieved. The change envisaged is to de-trunk the A40 through Cheltenham and to trunk the A436 from the A417, air balloon roundabout, to the A40, Shipton Solers.

  Following the recent opening of the A417 Brockworth bypass, the Highways Agency is now taking this proposal forward. However, those affected by the change must be given the opportunity to comment and Gloucestershire county council, which will take over responsibility for the A40, requires certain works to be done before it will accept this responsibility.

  To begin the statutory process, we expect to publish draft orders later this year. Depending on the nature and weight of any objections received, a public inquiry may be necessary.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many accident black spots have been identified by his Department on the A40 between Oxford and Gloucester; if he will list them; and if he will make a statement. [24909]

  Mr. Watts
  At each of the following locations on the length of A40 highlighted, a total of more than 12 personal injury accidents have been recorded in the last three years, as follows.

  1993

  1994

  1995

  A40/A417 Elmbridge Court roundabout, Gloucester

  7

  5

  6

  A40/B4063 Arle Court roundabout, Cheltenham

  4

  3

  6

  A study set up to examine safety standards at the Elmbridge Court roundabout has recently been concluded. Measures such as revised road markings adjustments to kerblines and renewal of the high friction grip surfacing are proposed. Funding opportunities for all initiatives of this kind under the network enhancement programme are under severe restraint at the present time and it is unlikely that any work will be carried out in relation to these proposals in 1996–97.

  In the longer term, the Arle Court roundabout will be de-trunked and, as a result, and following the trunking of the A436, traffic flows at this roundabout are expected to reduce. Temporary traffic signals are currently in operation at the roundabout, the effect of which is being carefully monitored. The lights are needed to prevent queues backing up to the M5 Golden Valley viaduct where, due to the recent discovery of structural weaknesses, a temporary 3 tonn weight limit is currently in force.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the increase in the number of heavy vehicles entering Cheltenham on the A40(a) westbound and (b) eastbound since 1986; and if he will make a statement. [24904]

  Mr. Watts
  The recorded change in the number of heavy vehicles entering Cheltenham on the A40(a) westbound and (b) eastbound since 1986 is as follows:
  562

  1986

  1995

  Percentage variance

  (a)

  702

  518

  (-26 per cent.)

  (b)

  1,520

  1,317

  (-13 per cent.)

  Flows: annual average daily traffic—AADT—24 hour count heavy goods vehicles over 3.5 tonnes.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what has been the increase in the volume of traffic entering Cheltenham on the A40(a) westbound and (b) eastbound since 1986; and if he will make a statement. [24903]

  Mr. Watts
  The increases in the volume of traffic entering Cheltenham on the A40(a) westbound and (b) eastbound since 1986 is recorded as follows:

  1986

  1995

  Percentage variance

  (a)

  5,539

  6,329

  (+14)

  (b)

  13,993

  17,711

  (+27)

  Flows: annual average daily traffic—AADT—24 hour count

  Between 1986 and 1995, the national average growth in motor vehicle traffic was 31.8 per cent. To a measurable degree, the lower than average rate of traffic flow increase on the M40 entering Cheltenham in either direction can be ascribed to the opening in 1991 of the extended M40 between London, M25, and Birmingham, M5.

  Railway Disputes Resolution Committees
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made in appointing chairmen for the rail access disputes resolution committee and the railway industry disputes resolution committee; how many applications were received for each post; and what salaries and costs are involved. [25452]

  Mr. Watts
  These committees have been established by the railway industry and the Department is not responsible for them or appointments to them. However, I understand that 45 applications were received for the post of part-time chairman of the access disputes resolution committee. A chairman was appointed on 1 April 1996. A total of 89 applications have been received for the post of part-time chairman of the railway industry disputes resolution committee. A chairman is expected to be appointed towards the end of April. Salaries of the chairmen and costs of the committees are matters for the committees.

  Air Safety
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what regulations are currently in place to control the use of air space by amateur flying clubs above residential areas; and if he will make a statement. [25477]

  Mr. Norris
  The regulations governing the use of air space above residential areas can be found in the Air Navigation Order (No.2) 1995 and the Rules of the Air 1991.

  Crash Barriers and Cushions
  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the cost of each of the accidents in the last two years where errant vehicles have left, via the near-side verge, roads, motorways and dual carriageways on which there is(a) a traffic flow of greater than 10,000 vehicles per day and (b) an accident incidence rate of more than 1.5 times the average for that class of road. [25147]

  Mr. Norris
  The valuation attributed to the total number of road accidents, using the standard safety valuation method, in 1993 and 1994 in which a vehicle left the carriageway on the near-side is (i) motorways £227 million; (ii) dual carriageways £419 million; (iii) other roads £241 million.

  It is not possible to provide these figures for roads with a traffic flow of greater than 10,000 vehicles per day, or for roads with a higher than average accident rate.

  Mr. Nicholls
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission the Transport Research Laboratory to carry out a full-scale assessment of the effectiveness of crash cushions. [25151]

  Mr. Watts
  No. A study into the situations where there may be a need to deploy crash cushions on the highway network has already been carried out. Generally, their widespread use is not cost effective because of the unpredictability and infrequent occurrence of the type of accidents they prevent.

  The Highways Agency has developed an effective prototype crash cushion, and other proprietary systems exist. They can be installed at particular sites on trunk roads if, in the light of the specific circumstances, they provide an appropriate solution.

  Foreign Aircraft (Safety)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what additional resources he has committed for increased safety checks of foreign aircraft. [25524]

  Mr. Norris
  The Department of Transport may ask the Civil Aviation Authority to conduct a physical check of a foreign aircraft if there is any doubt about its safe operation. If this check reveals serious problems, the Department may ask the authority to carry out an audit of the foreign aviation authority with responsibility for the safety oversight of the aircraft. The Department has increased the funding available for these activities by 20 per cent. to £120,000 in 1996–97.

  In addition, the Department has pledged up to £150,000 to support the new safety oversight programme set up by the International Civil Aviation Organisation—ICAO. This support will involve funding the provision of Civil Aviation Authority experts as members of ICAO assessment teams, which will be helping foreign aviation authorities improve their safety oversight procedures.

  Both these programmes will be kept under review.

  Railtrack
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 5 March,Official Report, column 26, if he will make a statement on the arrangements made to write off Railtrack debt prior to flotation. [25528]

  Mr. Watts
  Railtrack's debt to the national loans fund—£1,299,418,952.48—was extinguished by means of the Railways Act 1993 (Extinguishment of Relevant Loans) (Railtrack plc) Order 1996, which came into effect on 29 March 1996. Railtrack's remaining debt to passenger transport executives—£230.5 million—was transferred to the British Railways Board on the same date. Finally, on the same date, Railtrack issued two debentures to Her Majesty's Treasury totalling £585 million, also on the same date.

  New Driving Licence
  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to introduce the new style driving licence incorporating a photograph of the licence holder; and what assessment he has made of its impact on the work of the Driver and Vehicle Licence Agency at Swansea. [25591]

  Mr. Norris
  Our preparations for the introduction of the new plastic photocard driving licences are well advanced and the way is now clear for their introduction in the early part of 1997.

  A full assessment of the impact of the new procedures on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is being carried out in conjunction with EDS and Polaroid, who will be responsible for producing the plastic cards. This cannot be finalised until the European Union directive on plastic card driving licences as been formally adopted.

  European Football Championships
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has taken to ensure adequate transport provision for the increased number of visitors during the European football championships. [25500]

  Mr. Norris
  How best to cater for increased passenger demand is a matter for the commercial judgment of transport service operators. I am confident that they will not miss the opportunity this important event will offer. I understand that plans are being made to provide the necessary public transport information and additional capacity.

  Arrangements are in hand for providing comprehensive temporary directional signing on both the trunk and local road network. It is for local authorities to consider whether special temporary traffic management and parking arrangements are needed in the vicinity of the football stadiums involved.

  Mr. William Sneddon
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reasons Mr. William Sneddon, of 50 Polkemnet drive, Greenrigg, Harthill has been denied by his Department's policy division, zone 209, Great Minster house, 76 Marsham street, London SW1P 4DR, renewal
  565
  of licence number SNEDD/407/019/WGGFF, valid from 4 December 1974 until 3 December 1977; and for what reasons no conclusion has been reached since March 1995 on his application. [25537]

  Mr. Norris
  Mr. Sneddon held a short period licence issued by a local licensing authority before the introduction in 1976 of car licences valid until 70 years of age. Because the then Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre did not have records of such licences, holders were required to return their licences on expiry to the DVLC for their details to be registered and to be issued with a full "till 70" licence. The legislation provided for licence holders to be given until the end of 1985 to convert their licences, after which the entitlement would lapse and any former licence holder would need to pass a driving test to regain the entitlement. There is no scope for waiving the requirements in individual cases. As Mr. Sneddon is one of those whose short period licence was not converted within the prescribed time, it is not possible to issue him with a new licence solely on the strength of the old one.

  We are, however, considering a change in the law—under the powers conferred by the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994—to enable those who can prove that they held a licence prior to 1976 to be issued with a new licence without the need to pass a further driving test.

  Sea Empress
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the organisations and local authorities who have made representations(a) in favour of and (b) against a public inquiry into the Sea Empress disaster; and if he will make a statement. [25185]

  Mr. Norris
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: Some 74 organisations have made representations in favour of a public inquiry. As far as I am aware, none have made representations against. Nonetheless, we believe that the investigation by the marine accident investigation branch into the grounding of the Sea Empress and the subsequent salvage operations is the most effective and rapid means of determining the facts and any lessons which need to be learnt.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Life Sentences
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners serving life sentences were released on licence in each of the years 1990 to 1995; and what proportion of those prisoners in each year were released beyond the expiry of the tariff recommended by the sentencing court. [24621]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The number of life sentence prisoners released on licence for the first time in each of the years 1990 to 1995 is set out in the following table.

  Year

  Number

  1990

  74

  1991

  71

  1992

  90

  566

  Year

  Number

  1993

  126

  1994

  107

  1995

  90

  Information about the proportion of those released after the expiry of tariff recommended by the sentencing court is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Random Mandatory Drugs Tests (Prisons)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refusals in the pilot programme of random mandatory drugs testing in prison for the male pilot prisons were recorded(a) in February to May 1995 and (b) in June to December 1995; and how many of the class A positives in (a) and (b) also tested positive for cannabis. [25385]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 18 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question concerning the number of refusals of random drug tests and the number of prisoners testing positive for both cannabis and class A drugs.
  Establishments' returns do not differentiate between refusals of random and other forms of mandatory drug test. Laboratory returns only record the number the multiple positive tests and not the combinations of drugs misused. The information requested in both parts of this Question could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mental Illness (Prisoners)
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) remand and (b) convicted but not sentenced (i) men and (ii) women were received into the prison system during 1994 and 1995 with identified mental health problems, broken down by age. [25199]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. George Howarth, dated 18 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number and ages of unsentenced men and women received into the prison system during 1994 and 1995 with identified mental health problems.
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, researchers from the Institute of Psychiatry recently undertook for the Prison Service a study aimed principally at measuring the prevalence of mental disorder amongst the remand population in England and Wales. They considered that 66 per cent of the adult males, 53 per cent of the young men and 77 per cent of the women in a large and broadly representative sample could be diagnosed as suffering from some form of mental disorder, a term which includes in this context harmful or dependent substance misuse.

  Medical Research (Fraud)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to public funds of investigating cases of fraud involving medical research studies in the United Kingdom for each of the last 10 years. [24992]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not available centrally.

  Police Searches
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue guidance to the police relating to the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Bill to ensure(a) that women pedestrians are where possible stopped and searched by woman police officers in uniform,. (b) places of religious worship are not classed as non-residential accommodation which may be searched and (c) religious Sikhs are not required to remove their turbans; and if he will make a statement. [25370]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: Guidance on the new police powers contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Additional Powers) Act 1996 was issued to police forces immediately upon the Act's coming into force. Further guidance is being prepared in consultation with the police and will be issued in due course but, as I made clear during the debates on 2 April, it would not be realistic to require women pedestrians to be searched only by women police officers. While sensitivities of sex and religious practice will be taken into account in the exercise of the powers contained in the Act, they do not provide justification for exemption from any of its provisions. The relevant Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes of practice will be formally applied as appropriate to the new powers.

  Computers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the problem of non-recognition by computers of the year 2000 with regard to his Department's computers and those for which it is responsible. [24406]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 3 April 1996]: My Department is aware of the problem. An audit of Home Office computer systems is currently being carried out by the Department's information technology service provider—Sema Group—to establish what systems will be affected and what needs to be done to correct any problems revealed by the audit. Concurrently, third party software suppliers are being approached to establish how their products cater for the century change.

  Cannabis Offences
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the total number of people who have been fined the maximum amount of £2,500 for cannibis offences since that penalty was introduced. [25390]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information on court proceedings for 1993 and 1994, the latest available, is given in the table. For years prior to 1993, the exact drug, including class type, cannot be identified separately.568

  Number and percentage of persons given the maximum fine at Magistrates's courts1 for cannabis offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 by type of offence

  England and Wales

  Offence description/year

  Maximum fine given

  Total fined (=100 per cent.)

  Number

  Percentage

  Production of being concerned in the production of the controlled drug cannabis: Section 4(2) [Maximum fine L5 = £5,000]

  1993

  705

  —

  —

  1994

  994

  —

  —

  Supplying or offering to supply the controlled drug cannabis: Section 4(3) [Maximum fine L5 = £5,000]

  1993

  148

  —

  —

  1994

  136

  —

  —

  Having possession of the controlled drug cannabis: Section 5(2) [Maximum fine L2 = £5,000]

  1993

  5,879

  5

  0

  1994

  8,691

  8

  0

  Having possession of the controlled drug cannabis with intent to supply: Section 5(3) [Maximum fine L2 = £500]

  1993

  19611

  1994

  201

  7

  3

  Permitting premises to be used for unlawful purposes re cannabis: Section 8 [Maximum fine L5 = £5,000]

  1993

  53

  —

  —

  1994

  60

  —

  —

  1The magistrates' court may fine an offender for any offence which it can deal with, but the amount of the fine is limited according to the offence. There is no limit on the amount of the fine which the Crown Court may impose.

  Immigration Appeal Tribunal
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions Home Office Ministers have overturned considered verdicts of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal; and if he will put in the Library the conveniently available details of such occasions. [25498]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Home Office Ministers have no powers to overturn determinations of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Determinations may, however, be challenged on appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Court of Session in Scotland.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Post Office Employees (Dog Attacks)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many Post Office employees received injuries caused by dog attacks while delivering letters and parcels in 1995; and how many work days were lost as a result. [24599]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I understand from the Post Office, that during the 12 months to 31 December 1995, there were 5,891 animal attacks on Royal Mail letter delivery staff, with 4,817 working days lost, and that there were 143 animal attacks on Parcelforce delivery staff, with 63 working days lost. Around 99 per cent. of all animal attacks are by dogs.

  Stamp Prices
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what factors underlay the decision by the Government to direct the Post Office to raise the price of stamps. [25326]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Government have issued no such direction to the Post Office.

  Overseas Trade Board
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 26 March,Official Report, column 475, what reasons were given for the resignation of each of the two members of the Overseas Trade Board who resigned in March 1995, the four members who resigned in May 1995 and the member who resigned in September 1995. [25255]

  Mr. Nelson
  Sir Alan Cockshaw, Professor Fleming, Mr. Gillibrand, Mr. Dewe Matthews and Mr. Reeves had each served more than the usual three-year term. Sir Michael Bett and Sir Desmond Pitcher resigned because of extensive commitments elsewhere.

  Insolvency Service
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the cost of the project to examine whether to contract out the work of the Insolvency Service. [25540]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) on 5 March 1996,Official Report, column 132.

  Wolfendale Report
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant of his letter of 4 March what action he

  OECD countries balance of trade in manufactured goods1 1979 to 1994

  US$ billions

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Australia

  -9.1

  -10.5

  -13.7

  -14.5

  -11.1

  -14.0

  -15.1

  -16.5

  Austria

  -1.6

  -2.5

  -0.7

  -0.1

  -0.7

  -0.3

  0.0

  -1.1

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  3.5

  3.9

  4.4

  3.8

  4.8

  4.1

  5.1

  4.7

  Canada

  -10.4

  -8.1

  -10.5

  -3.1

  -5.7

  -7.2

  -8.7

  -10.3

  Denmark

  -3.7

  -2.2

  -1.1

  -1.6

  -1.1

  -1.7

  -2.4

  -4.5

  Finland

  1.6

  1.2

  2.3

  2.5

  1.9

  2.6

  2.5

  2.5

  France

  11.5

  7.3

  8.8

  3.4

  6.3

  8.9

  7.3

  1.3

  570
  has taken to implement the Wolfendale report; and if he will make a statement on the authorship of the best practice guide. [25495]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The two recommendations of the Wolfendale report addressed to the Office of Science and Technology are being implemented. The contract for the "Best Practice Guide" has been awarded to Mr. Michael Kenward, and the survey into existing levels of public understanding of science and technology is being undertaken by Professor John Durant of Imperial college, London. The latter project is being co-sponsored by the Nuffield Foundation.

  My Department has drawn the report's other recommendation to the attention of the relevant organisations.

  Hubble Space Telescope
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State's letter of 2 April to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, if he will make a statement on the European Space Agency—NASA—agreement negotiations in relation to the Hubble space telescope. [25496]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The European Space Agency, ESA, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, have yet to begin formal discussions on Europe's contribution to the refurbishment of the Hubble space telescope, planned for 1999. These are, however, due to take place in the next few months.

  Patent Office
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many contractors are employed in the Patent Office information technology services department; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [24267]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 2 April 1996]: There are 36 specialist contract staff in information technology services employed to supplement existing permanent civil servants and to make good deficiencies in the Patent Office's IT skills base. Their individual costs reflect the market rate for particular specialisms but, in 1995–96, the average cost was £61,000. They are supplied on short-term renewable contracts by a range of organisations selected through competitive tender.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the manufacturing balance of trade for each Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country for each year since 1979. [24779]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: The answer is in the table.
  571

  OECD countries balance of trade in manufactured goods1 1979 to 1994

  US$billions

  1979

  1980

  1981

  1982

  1983

  1984

  1985

  1986

  Germany

  59.1

  63.2

  61.7

  67.5

  58.7

  59.5

  67.5

  89.4

  Greece

  -4.2

  -3.8

  -2.9

  -3.0

  -2.8

  -2.7

  -2.9

  -3.6

  Iceland

  -0.4

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.5

  -0.3

  -0.3

  -0.4

  -0.6

  Ireland

  -3.2

  -2.9

  -2.5

  -1.6

  -0.9

  -0.7

  -0.3

  -0.2

  Italy

  24.2

  18.2

  23.8

  24.2

  27.3

  23.9

  24.7

  28.7

  Japan

  72.6

  95.1

  116.4

  104.6

  110.9

  128.5

  134.7

  160.2

  Mexico2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Netherlands

  -4.7

  -3.9

  -0.5

  -0.1

  -0.1

  -0.5

  -2.1

  -4.7

  New Zealand

  -2.2

  -2.4

  -2.7

  -2.9

  -2.4

  -3.1

  -3.0

  -3.3

  Norway

  -2.8

  -3.8

  -4.1

  -4.8

  -3.6

  -3.7

  -4.7

  -8.4

  Portugal

  -1.0

  -1.7

  -2.3

  -2.0

  -0.9

  0.3

  0.5

  -0.3

  Spain

  2.6

  2.4

  2.9

  2.4

  2.9

  5.0

  4.5

  -1.1

  Sweden

  3.9

  4.6

  5.2

  3.9

  4.6

  5.2

  4.9

  6.5

  Switzerland

  2.6

  0.0

  2.3

  2.6

  1.7

  1.5

  2.0

  1.6

  Turkey

  -2.3

  -2.5

  -2.5

  -1.8

  -2.0

  -1.8

  -1.3

  -3.0

  UK

  3.6

  8.9

  3.6

  0.3

  -7.7

  -8.4

  -7.2

  -12.1

  USA

  -2.1

  12.2

  5.2

  -10.7

  -38.2

  -88.6

  -112.8

  -144.9

  US$ billions

  1987

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Australia

  -16.6

  -20.5

  -26.0

  -23.6

  -22.5

  -23.5

  -24.5

  -24.3

  Austria

  -2.3

  -2.5

  -3.3

  -4.1

  -5.4

  -5.7

  -5.1

  -6.7

  Belgium-Luxembourg

  4.5

  9.7

  10.5

  10.1

  8.1

  8.4

  16.0

  18.4

  Canada

  -12.5

  -21.7

  -22.2

  -18.4

  -20.7

  -20.0

  -19.0

  -10.5

  Denmark

  -3.8

  -2.8

  -2.8

  -2.3

  -2.4

  -0.4

  0.0

  -0.4

  Finland

  1.7

  1.7

  0.2

  1.8

  3.3

  4.8

  6.8

  7.6

  France

  -4.5

  -9.0

  -10.6

  -13.0

  -6.4

  0.2

  9.7

  n/a

  Germany

  104.9

  112.6

  112.6

  107.5

  66.4

  77.1

  83.7

  94.5

  Greece

  -4.3

  -5.3

  -7.5

  -9.8

  -11.0

  -11.6

  -11.7

  -10.6

  Iceland

  -1.0

  -0.9

  -0.7

  -1.0

  -1.1

  -1.1

  -0.8

  -0.8

  Ireland

  0.1

  0.4

  0.4

  0.4

  0.9

  2.0

  3.5

  4.5

  Italy

  27.8

  24.8

  26.9

  31.8

  30.3

  29.9

  57.1

  n/a

  Japan

  163.4

  173.0

  168.3

  167.6

  191.4

  218.6

  230.2

  237.0

  Mexico2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  -16.7

  -13.4

  Netherlands

  -6.1

  -3.9

  -5.3

  -6.8

  -7.4

  -9.2

  0.5

  -0.5

  New Zealand

  -4.1

  -3.7

  -4.8

  -5.2

  -4.2

  -4.9

  -4.8

  -5.5

  Norway

  -8.5

  -7.9

  -6.9

  -8.1

  -7.3

  -7.8

  -7.9

  -9.2

  Portugal

  -2.3

  -4.5

  -3.7

  -5.4

  -6.2

  -7.9

  -5.0

  -5.0

  Spain

  -7.1

  -12.4

  -17.4

  -20.2

  -21.8

  -22.5

  -9.1

  -8.2

  Sweden

  5.2

  5.5

  3.9

  4.6

  7.5

  8.7

  10.0

  11.8

  Switzerland

  0.2

  -0.2

  -1.0

  1.5

  1.8

  6.3

  8.1

  0.0

  Turkey

  6.8

  -1.6

  -1.8

  -5.2

  -5.3

  -5.3

  -10.2

  -2.8

  UK

  -16.3

  -30.4

  -30.4

  -23.4

  -10.7

  -18.0

  -27.4

  -14.0

  USA

  -152.0

  -147.0

  -132.9

  -102.9

  -79.9

  -99.7

  -133.8

  n/a

  Note:
  1 Manufactured goods are defined as sections 5 to 8 of the standard international trade classification
  2 Comparable data for Mexico for 1979 to 1992 are not available.

  Source:
  OECD Series C.
  OECD Impex 1995.
  International Trade—World Trade Organisation.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the United Kingdom manufactured balance of trade for each year since 1979; and what was, in each year, the percentage change from the previous year. [24778]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: The balance of trade for manufactured goods is published by the Central Statistical Office in the monthly review of external trade statistics, which is available in the Library of the House. It is also available on the central shared database, which can be accessed from the Library of the House.
  572
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the level of manufacturing capital investment in(a) the west midlands and (b) the United Kingdom for each year since 1979; and if he will express the figures in (i) real terms and (ii) percentage change on the previous year. [24780]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: Figures for capital investment in manufacturing industry in the west midlands are not available in real terms. Figures for the United Kingdom are shown in the table.

  573

  Investment in Manufacturing Industry in the United Kingdom 1979 to 1995

  £ million (constant 1990 prices)

  Growth from the previous year (per cent.)

  1979

  13,558

  5.6

  1980

  12,307

  -9.2

  1981

  9,985

  -18.9

  1982

  9,518

  -4.7

  1983

  9,413

  -1.1

  1984

  10,975

  16.6

  1985

  12,710

  15.8

  1986

  12,097

  -4.8

  1987

  12,641

  4.5

  1988

  13,846

  9.5

  1989

  14,984

  8.2

  1990

  14,227

  -5.1

  1991

  12,803

  -10.0

  1992

  11,828

  -7.6

  1993

  11,104

  -6.1

  1994

  11,831

  6.5

  1995

  12,736

  7.6

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the manufacturing output in(a) the west midlands and (b) the United Kingdom for each year since 1979 in real terms; and what was the percentage change in each year against the previous year. [24782]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: Figures for manufacturing output in the west midlands are not available in real terms. Figures for the Untied Kingdom are shown in the table.

  1990=100

  Growth from the previous year (per cent.)

  1979

  90.6

  -0.2

  1980

  82.8

  -8.6

  1981

  77.7

  -6.2

  1982

  77.6

  -0.1

  1983

  79.2

  2.1

  1984

  82.2

  3.8

  1985

  84.5

  2.8

  1986

  85.6

  1.3

  1987

  89.6

  4.7

  1988

  95.9

  7.0

  1989

  100.2

  4.5

  1990

  100

  -0.2

  1991

  94.6

  -5.4

  1992

  94.0

  -0.6

  1993

  95.1

  1.2

  1994

  99.2

  4.3

  1995

  101.1

  1.9

PRIME MINISTER

  Brixham
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Brixham. [24330]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  My right hon. Friend hopes to have an opportunity to do so in the near future.

  Intelligence and Security (Committee Report)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 107, for what reasons some necessary evidence is not available in relation to the Ames case. [25515]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply.

  As the hon. Member will realise, in a case as complex and far reaching as that of Ames, evidence of the full extent of his activities only becomes available over time. My right hon. Friend looks forward to receiving the further conclusions of the Intelligence and Security Committee on this issue.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Hosting for Overseas Students
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many students in each year since 1987 have taken advantage of his Department's Hosting for Overseas Students organisation; what has been the cost; and if he will make a statement. [25464]

  Mr. Hanley
  The number and cost of placements arranged by Hosting for Overseas Students—HOST—a charity supported by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council, is as follows:

  Number of student visits to families

  Total costs £

  1987–88

  n/a

  76,821

  1988–89

  1,708

  176,133

  1989–90

  2,145

  101,888

  1990–91

  3,577

  135,552

  1991–92

  4,012

  123,678

  1992–93

  4,031

  189,327

  1993–94

  5,253

  197,436

  1994–95

  5,705

  199,587

  1995–96

  1—

  212,863

  1Number not yet known.

  HOST performs a very valuable service in providing overseas students with experience of life in British families and we hope it will continue to expand, in particular by attracting new host families.

  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conclusions he has reached on the petition from the elected parties of the Turks and Caicos Islands concerning Governor Bourke; and if he will make a statement. [25389]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given in the House on 3 April by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary,Official Report, columns 384–85.

  Baltic States
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received from the Baltic states; and if he will make a statement. [25391]
  575
  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We have frequent contacts with the Baltic states and exchange views on a wide variety of issues. Our bilateral relations are close and friendly, based on our strong support for Baltic independence, democratic and economic reform, and integration into European structures.

HEALTH

  Nurses
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many diabetic nurses and paediatric nurses there are(a) by region and (b) nationally. [25527]

  Mr. Horam
  The number of nurses holding specialist qualifications in diabetic care is not available centrally.

  The information relating to nurses working in the paediatric area of work is shown in the table.

  NHS hospital and community health services—HCHS—nurses working in the paediatric area of work, excluding agency and learners, by region in England at 30 September 1994

  whole-time equivalents

  Nurses working in the paediatric area of work

  England

  11.950

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,690

  Trent

  1,390

  Anglia and Oxford

  920

  North Thames

  1,080

  South Thames

  1,140

  South and West

  1,240

  West Midlands

  1,460

  North West

  2,320

  Special health authorities and others

  700

  Not included in the above

  Learners1

  350

  Notes:

  1Learners are nurses on traditional training courses in the paediatric area of work. Project 2000 training was introduced in 1989 and has gradually replaced traditional pre-registration nurse training. There were 2,360 Project 2000 students at May 1994 on childrens nursing courses; these figures are headcounts and cannot be added to other figures in the table which are whole-time equivalents at September 1994.

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Total does not equal the sum of the components due to rounding.

  Source:

  Department of Health non-medical work force census.

  Drug and Alcohol Addiction
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people per thousand of the population who are addicted to(a) heroin and (b) alcohol; and what are the equivalent figures for (i) France, (ii) Italy, (iii) Spain and (iv) Holland. [25388]

  Mr. Bowis
  The estimated rate of people addicted to heroin per thousand population for 1994 was 0.411,. based on a United Kingdom population aged 16 to 64. The overall rate of alcohol dependency per 1,000 population was 472, based on a survey of psychiatric morbidity of 16 to 64-year-olds in Great Britain. The two figures are estimated on different bases and are not comparable.
  576
  Equivalent figures are not available for France, Italy, Spain and Holland. The European monitoring centre for drugs and drug addiction is currently working to produce comparable information on drugs misuse in member states of the European Union.

  Sources
  1 Home Office addicts index statistical bulletin "Statistics of Drug Addicts Notified to the Home Office, United Kingdom 1994" (Issue 17/95)
  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys—OPCS—population figures for 1994 (resident estimates). Assumption that all heroin addicts notified to the Home Office are aged between 16 and 64 years.
  2 OPCS surveys of psychiatric morbidity in Great Britain bulletin no. 1 "The prevalence of psychiatric morbidity among adults aged 16–64, living in private households, in Great Britain" 1994.

  Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to make the responses to his Department's consultation paper on the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill available to members of the technical advisory group which advised the Government on technical issues about implementation of direct payments. [25533]

  Mr. Bowis
  Copies have been sent to members who requested them.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish a summary of responses to his Department's consultation paper on the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill; and what other steps he will take to fulfil the undertaking given in that document in respect of copies of responses being made available to the public. [25534]

  Mr. Bowis
  No, I have published them in full. Copies of the responses are in the Library and are available to members of the public on request.

  Mr. Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses he has received to his Department's consultation paper on the Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill from(a) disabled people, (b) organisations representing disabled people, (c) local authorities, (d) other groups or individuals providing care and (e) other organisations and individuals. [25535]

  Mr. Bowis
  A total of 284 responses were received in England, 49 were received in Scotland, 49 were received in Wales and 36 were received in Northern Ireland.

  Of the English responses, 79 were from local authorities. The consultation paper did not ask people to provide any information about themselves in their responses, so information on the remaining responses is not available in the form requested. Thirty-four responses were from individuals, some of whom indicated that they were disabled; others said that they were providing informal care, but others did not give the reason for their interest. Similarly, many of the responses from organisations were representing disabled people and others were representing providers of care, but in many cases it is not clear whether the organisations would consider themselves to be in either category.

DEFENCE

  Cyprus (Discipline)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Commander-in-Chief of the British military forces based in Cyprus on incidents involving British military personnel and Greek Cypriot personnel. [22884]

  Mr. Soames
  Matters of discipline are taken very seriously by Ministers and by the services. Regular meetings take place to monitor standards of discipline and ensure that they are enforced. All service personnel serve under strictly enforced disciplinary regulations. British forces serving in Cyprus are subject to the same very high disciplinary standards.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of whether the Army's disciplinary procedures were followed in relation to the rifleman from the 1 Battalion, the Royal Green Jackets, who assaulted Mr. Kevin Remmer, in Ayia Napa in August 1994; [24077]

  (2) what action was taken by the commanding officer of 1 Battalion, the Royal Green Jackets, against a rifleman of that battalion who allegedly assaulted Mr. Kevin Remmer in August 1994 in Ayia Napa, Cyprus. [24073]

  Mr. Soames
  Where it is alleged that service men have committed offences under Cypriot law within the Republic of Cyprus, jurisdiction lies entirely with the Cypriot authorities under the terms of the treaty concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, Cm 1252 or 1960.

  At the time of the assault on Miss Jensen the rifleman had not been found guilty of any charges resulting from the earlier incident and was bailed by the Cypriot authorities to appear in court at a later date. As the civil authorities found no reason to hold the accused soldier in custody before the matter came to court, there appeared to be no justification for the commanding officer to restrict the soldier's movements. It is a matter of deep regret that the soldier was later involved in the assault on Miss Jensen. However, neither the Cypriot courts nor the commanding officer could have expected such a development.

  Defence Export Services Organisation
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what forms of Government support are provided to British arms exports; and what is the level of bonuses to be paid for the financial year 1995–96 to the(a) head of Defence Export Services Organisation, (b) offset adviser and (c) international financial adviser. [24080]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Within the Ministry of Defence, support for Defence exports is provided, primarily, by the Defence Export Services Organisation, which exists to help British manufacturers market and sell their products abroad, complementing the wide range of services offered by the Department of Trade and Industry. In addition to DESO/DTI support, the Export 578
  Credits Guarantee Department makes available its range of export credit facilities to support defence sales. The head of defence export services may be awarded a "bonus" of up to 15 per cent. of his annual salary depending on performance. The offset adviser and international financial adviser, who are civil servants, were eligible for the performance-related pay awards which applied to their grades. These were up to 4 per cent. from 1 April 1995, with a further award of up to 4 per cent. from 30 November 1995 for the offset adviser and up to 3 per cent. from 1 August 1995 for the international financial adviser; no specific bonuses attach to these posts.

  LSD
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions since 1966 his Department has investigated LSD at the chemical and biological defence establishment, Porton Down; what were the total number of service volunteers used for these experiments; and if he will make a statement. [24622]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. David Clark, dated 16 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency to reply to your question about investigation of LSD since 1966 at the then Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment, Porton Down.
  We have undertaken a comprehensive search of the summary books recording the involvement of all volunteers in experimental work at Porton Down since 1966. In that year 16 of the service volunteers who participated in the field trial Recount were given LSD and an additional 4 service volunteers took part in laboratory based studies. In 1967 further laboratory based studies were carried out involving 28 service volunteers. In January 1968 13 of the service volunteers who participated in field trial Small Change were given LSD. We have no indication of any administration of LSD to volunteers after the completion of Small Change in 1968.
  When he replied to your Parliamentary Question about the number of volunteers involved in studies with LSD on 21 November 1994, Dr. Graham Pearson, then the Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, stated that 72 volunteers had participated in the whole programme of work on LSD which continued until 1972. More information has recently been uncovered which has caused us to reassess this. From the records now available we now believe the total number of all exposures to LSD in the programme was 136. A small number of these were second exposures of the same individual. We also now believe that work on LSD ceased in 1968 when the results of trial Small Change confirmed that it was not a serious threat. I am sorry if the earlier information provided to you as inaccurate. I think this occurred because the information available to Dr. Pearson was incomplete and we obviously regret that should have occurred.
  I hope this letter clarifies matters.

  Low Flying
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the(a) dates, (b) locations, (c) numbers, types and nationalities of aircraft involved, (d) nature of breach, (e) disciplinary actions taken against aircrew and (f) lessons learned from each of the confirmed breaches of low flying regulations during 1995; and if he will make a statement. [24583]
  579
  Mr. Soames
  Details of breaches of military low flying regulations during 1995 confirmed to date by RAF police investigations are as follows. A number of alleged breaches during the year are still under investigation. Unless stated otherwise a lateral breach of the avoidance area listed occurred in each case.

  Date

  Location

  Numbers and type of A/C

  Nationality

  Nature of breach

  4 January

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  5 January

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  11 January

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  17 January

  Haddington East Lothian

  1 x Jaguar

  RAF

  East Fortune Microlight Site avoidance area

  20 January

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  3 x Harrier

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  23 January

  Near Hay-on-Wye Powys

  4 x F15

  USAF

  Hay Bluff Hang Gliding Site avoidance area

  24 January

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  2 February

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  16 February

  Lockerbie, Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Harrier

  RAF

  Lockerbie avoidance area

  15 March

  Sellafield Cumbria

  1 x Harrier

  RAF

  BNFL Sellafield avoidance area

  22 March

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  2 x F15

  USAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  23 March

  Bude Cornwall

  1 x Tornado

  TTTE

  Seasonal avoidance in Little Youlstone

  24 March

  Bude Cornwall

  1 x Hunter

  RAF

  Seasonal avoidance in Little Youlstone

  580

  Date

  Location

  Numbers and type of A/C

  Nationality

  Nature of breach

  31 March

  Ruabon Clwyd

  1 x Sea Harrier

  RN

  Monsanto Chemical Works avoidance area

  3 April

  Frittenden Kent

  3 x Chinook

  RAF

  Unauthorised flight within UK night low flying system

  5 April

  Corsham Wiltshire

  3 x Chinook

  RAF

  Unauthorised flight within UK night low flying system

  7 April

  Newent Gloucester

  2 x F15

  USAF

  Unauthorised flight within LFA 4 of the UKLFS

  11 April

  Milton Keynes Bucking-hamshire

  1 x Tornado

  TTTE

  Milton Keynes General Hospital avoidance area

  19 April

  Near Gainsborough Lincolnshire

  1 x Tornado

  TTTE

  CANP avoidance area

  20 April

  Near Gainsborough Lincolnshire

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  CANP avoidance area

  21 April

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Harrier

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  5 May

  Bude Cornwall

  1 x Hawk

  RAF

  Seasonal avoidance in Little Youlstone

  9 May

  Bude Cornwall

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Seasonal avoidance in Little Youlstone

  9 May

  Talgarth Dyfed

  1 x Harrier

  RAF

  Black Mountains Gliding Club avoidance area

  9 May

  Talgarth Dyfed

  1 x Harrier

  RAF

  Unauthorised flight in LFA 7 of the UKLFS

  11 May

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  16 May

  Auchleven Grampian

  1 x F15

  USAF

  Insch Airfield avoidance area

  17 May

  Auchleven Grampian

  1 x Jaguar

  RAF

  Insch Airfield avoidance area

  23 May

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  25 May

  Talgarth Dyfed

  1 x Harrier

  RAF

  Black Mountains Gliding Club avoidance area

  581

  Date

  Location

  Numbers and type of A/C

  Nationality

  Nature of breach

  25 May

  Newent Gloucestershire

  1 x Harrier

  RAF

  National Birds of Prey Centre avoidance area

  6 June

  Auchleven Grampian

  1 x Jaguar

  RAF

  Insch Airfield avoidance area

  7 June

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x Hercules

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  8 June

  Loch Eil Lochaber

  1 x Jaguar

  RAF

  CANP avoidance area

  13 June

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  1 x F15

  USAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  27 June

  Talgarth Dyfed

  2 x F15

  USAF

  Black Mountain Gliding Club avoidance area

  27 June

  Talgarth Dyfed

  2 x F15

  USAF

  Unauthorised flight in LFA 7 of the UKLFS

  29 June

  Staple Kent

  1 x Hawk

  RAF

  Unnecessary repetitive overflight

  1 July

  Minster Kent

  1 x Wessex

  RAF

  Unauthorised flight in LFA 18 of the UKLFS

  5 July

  Carmarthen Powys

  2 x Harrier

  RAF

  Dyfed/Powys Police Helicopter Landing Site avoidance area

  7 July

  Driffield East Yorks

  1 x Tornado

  TTTE

  Overflew Driffield, a town listed for avoidance

  7 July

  Llanwrtyd Wells Powys

  1 x Harrier

  RAF

  Operational Low Flying avoidance near Llanwrtyd Wells

  13 July

  Hull Humberside

  1 x Jaguar

  RAF

  Saltend PetroChemical Works avoidance area

  19 July

  Hawick Borders

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Overflew Hawick, a town listed for avoidance

  24 July

  Newport Gwent

  1 x Hercules

  RAF

  British Steel Llanwern Works temporary avoidance area

  24 July

  Duns Berwickshire

  1 x Tornado

  TTTE

  Dexter Non Woven Chirnside Mill temporary avoidance area

  582

  Date

  Location

  Numbers and type of A/C

  Nationality

  Nature of breach

  25 July

  Newport Gwent

  1 x Tornado

  TTTE

  British Steel Llanwern Works temporary avoidance area

  26 July

  Sherfield English Hampshire

  1 x Puma

  RAF

  Unauthorised flight within LFA 1 of the UKLFS

  10 August

  Kettering Northamptonshire

  1 x F15

  USAF

  Boughton House avoidance area

  15 August

  Keswick Cumbria

  1 x Tornado

  TTTE

  Bewaldeth Hang Gliding Site avoidance area

  24 August

  Ruabon Clwyd

  2 x MH53

  USAF

  Flexsys (formerly Monsanto) Chemical Works avoidance area

  29 August

  Near Downham Market Norfolk

  4 x Harrier

  RAF

  CANP avoidance

  30 August

  Near Downham Market Norfolk

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  CANP avoidance

  30 August

  Near Downham Market Norfolk

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Unauthorised flight within LFA 6 of the UKLFS

  31 August

  Near Downham Market Norfolk

  2 x Harrier

  RAF

  CANP avoidance

  31 August

  Near Downham Market Norfolk

  2 x Harrier

  RAF

  Unauthorised flight within LFA 6 of the UKLFS

  11 September

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  2 x Tornado

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  14 September

  Kendal Cumbria

  4 x F15

  USAF

  Unauthorised flight within UKLFS

  15 September

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  2 x Tornado

  RAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

  20 September

  Near Holbeach Lincs

  1 x Tornado

  TTTE

  CANP avoidance

  29 September

  Newport Gwent

  1 x Hawk

  RN

  British Steel Llanwern Works temporary avoidance area

  20 October

  Newport Gwent

  1 x Hawk

  RAF

  British Steel Llanwern Works temporary avoidance area

  2 November

  Corse Lawn Gloucestershire

  2 x Harrier

  RAF

  Unauthorised flight within LFA 4 of the UKLFS

  583

  Date

  Location

  Numbers and type of A/C

  Nationality

  Nature of breach

  2 November

  St. Neots Cambridge-shire

  1 x Tornado

  RAF

  Little Barford Power Station temporary avoidance area

  20 December

  Caerlaverock Dumfries and Galloway

  4 x F15

  USAF

  Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust avoidance area

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

  Formal disciplinary action under the service discipline acts has, to date, been taken in one case. The pilot of the RAF Hawk responsible for the breach at Staple, Kent on 29 June was found guilty by general court martial of one charge, contrary to section 52 of the Air Force Act 1955, of flying an aircraft in a manner causing or likely to cause unnecessary annoyance for which he was severely reprimanded and fined. The finding and sentence are subject to confirmation.

  In cases involving UK aircrew where formal disciplinary action is not appropriate, aircrew who have breached regulations may be interviewed by their station commander or other appropriate senior officer. Such action could be recorded on individual's career records and affect flying status and promotion prospects. It is not our policy to release details of such action. It is also the responsibility of senior officers to ascertain what lessons there are to be learnt from such incidents; central records are not maintained.

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

  Kaymar Telephone Numbers
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries he has received about the Kaymar telephone numbers; and if he will place the substantive replies from his Department in the Library. [25342]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has recently been asked about a certain telephone number which the inquirer suggested may have been associated with a photographic studio known as Kaymar Studios. It appears that this inquiry is related to a pending appeal against a conviction for a criminal offence, evidence relating to which should be handled by the relevant solicitors. Such information as is available to my Department has therefore been passed to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the expenditure by his Department in each of the last 10 years on studies on the decommissioning of facilities at AWE Aldermaston. [25396]
  584
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Individual studies are not conducted; decommissioning planning follows standard procedures designed to ensure the safe and complete implementation of the process. Such planning costs are not required to be separately identified.

  Trident
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conditions apply to the nationality of consortiums seeking to become project managers for the nuclear fitting of Trident submarines. [25356]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To optimise control of nuclear licensing and safety requirements, project management of the construction of nuclear submarine refitting facilities at Devonport will be controlled by the dockyard operator, Devonport Royal Dockyard plc. The Secretary of State for Defence will retain a special share in DRD plc, a UK registered company, which will enable the Government to protect essential national security interests in the dockyard facilities, including those associated with nuclear submarine refitting. Company personnel working in sensitive areas are subject to appropriate security clearance.

  Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre
  Mr. Dunn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the defence agency status for the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre. [25999]

  Mr. Soames
  I announced on 19 July 1995,Official Report, column 1345 that the joint air reconnaissance intelligence centre was a candidate for defence agency status. Since then, we have carried out a detailed business analysis of the organisation under the leadership of the chief executive designate to confirm its suitability to become an agency.

  I have agreed to the launch of JARIC as a defence agency from 19 April 1996. The agency will remain fully part of the Department but the chief executive will have delegated executive powers to discharge his responsibilities. These powers are described in the framework document, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

  JARIC is based at RAF Brampton, near Huntingdon. It has a total staff of 500, comprising service personnel from all three services and approximately 144 civil servants. It acts as the Department's centre of excellence for the production of imagery intelligence.

  It provides this intelligence to military commanders and the Government, in support of current military operations, defence planning and wider intelligence matters.

  JARIC has been set demanding targets in an era where the requirement for its expertise is continuing to increase. The targets for the 12 months from April 1996 are:
  Key target 1: The completion of approved tasks, within agreed time frame, as follows:

  Priority 1: 98 per cent.

  Priority 2: 90 per cent.

  Priority 3: 85 per cent

  Priority 4: 70 per cent.

  585
  Key target 2: By 1 October 1996 to determine a method of measuring Customer Satisfaction to reflect their quality requirements, and make proposals for its implementation.
  Key target 3: Achieve a 2.5 per cent improvement in efficiency.
  Key target 4: Provide specified support to a major project to upgrade JARIC's technical capabilities.
  Key target 5: Introduce systems to meet the HM Treasury Accounts Direction to 1996–97.

  These targets will ensure that JARIC meets defence needs for timely intelligence, and will provide for continuous improvement in services and efficiency.

  Defence Equipment Exports
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Government will continue to support the export of defence equipment. [25910]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  UK defence exports have been a major success story for this country.

  With a reducing home defence budget it is vital that we export if we are to maintain our defence industry which supports around 400,000 jobs. Between a third and half of the industry's output, by value, is for exports.

  Selling more abroad also brings down the cost of equipment for our own forces and enables us to sustain our essential technology base.

  In 1995, despite vigorous international competition from the US and France in particular, the UK won defence equipment contracts worth approximately £5 billion. This gave Britain the second highest market share ever. In no other major industrial sector have we managed to achieve nearly 20 per cent. of the world export market.

  Maintaining a strong British defence industry is important for our national security, for the economy and for jobs. The responsible exporting of defence equipment to our friends and allies makes an important contribution to world peace and stability through deterring the expansionist aspirations of unfriendly and aggressive regimes. Article 51 of the UN charter clearly states the right of all nations to self-defence.

  Moreover, the UK has a very strict policy on the control of exports of defence equipment. We promote the sale of British defence equipment overseas only in support of our national and international obligations and only where it is compatible with out political, strategic and security interests.

  Devonport Royal Dockyard
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Devonport royal dockyard will retain its status as a royal dockyard following privatisation; and what its title will be. [25307]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The subject of the proposed privatisation is the existing company Devonport Royal Dockyard plc, in which the assets of Devonport royal dockyard would be vested at the date of any sale. Her Majesty the Queen has graciously signified that she would be content for the royal title to continue to be used by the dockyard if it is privatised, subject to the use of the royal title being kept under constant review lest the activities of the dockyard develop in such a way as to 586
  make the further use of the title inappropriate. Subject to that proviso, the use and continuation of the royal title will be a matter for the purchaser.

  Works of Art
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will(a) identify the print missing since 1991 from Admiralty house, (b) place a value on the missing work and (c) name the Minister described by the National Audit Office as a former Secretary of State. [20830]

  Mr. Sproat
  I have been asked to reply.

  The missing picture is a view of Admiralty house drawn in 1970 by Alan Dyson. As the work of an amateur artist it is particularly difficult to give it a commercial value. Our best estimate, given that its purchase price in 1970 was £10, is that its current value may be around £50 to £80. The drawing was placed on display in Admiralty house in 1970. The National Audit Office reference to a Secretary of State—who happened to be my right hon. Friend the member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) in 1991—is irrelevant to the loss of the drawing, which had been of unknown whereabouts since 1982.

ENVIRONMENT

  Organic Pollutants
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy at the UN Commission on Sustainable Development to be party to a global, legally binding treaty to ban the most dangerous identified persistent organic pollutants. [25414]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Washington global conference on the protection of the marine environment from land-based activities agreed in November 1995 that international action is needed to develop a global, legally binding instrument concerning certain persistent organic pollutants. The United Kingdom supported that conclusion and will work to take it forward through the intergovernmental forum on chemical safety. Our stance at the Commission on Sustainable Development will be based on that approach.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the most dangerous persistent organic pollutants that enter inland and coastal waters; and what action he intends to take in respect of the adoption of the United Nations environment programme programme of action on land-based sources of marine pollution. [25413]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Washington global programme of action for the protection of the marine environment from land-based activities reflects generally the approaches adopted by the United Kingdom and other states bordering the north-east Atlantic. Pursuing our present policies will therefore lead to its implementation.

  The global programme of action notes the need for a legally binding global instrument to address certain persistent organic pollutants or groups of such substances. On the basis of work under the convention on long-range transport of air pollution of the UN Economic Commission for Europe—UNECE/LRTAP—these are

  587
  identified as aldrin, dieldrin, DDT, endrin, chlordane, hexachlorobenzene, Mirex, toxaphene, heptachlor, polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins and furans.

  The United Kingdom is supporting the negotiation of such an instrument through the intergovernmental forum on chemical safety.

WALES

  Fish (Pollution)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what factors underlay the exclusion of migratory edible fish species, other than salmon and sea trout, from the provisions of the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Oil and Chemical Pollution orders; and if he will make a statement. [25164]

  Mr. Hague
  The catching of eels, including elvers, is prohibited up to the high water mark in the area covered by the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) (Oil and Chemical Pollution of Fish and Plants) Order 1996. The close season for eel angling in the freshwater area beyond runs from 14 March to June, when anglers are prohibited from taking them. There are no commercial eel interests in that area.

  The allis shad is protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; the twaite shad and sea lamprey are listed species under the EC habitats directive and neither is targeted by anglers.

  Full-time and part-time farmers and tenants in Wales: June 1995

  Local authority areas

  of which:

  of which:

  Number of full-time farmers

  Full-time agricultural tenants

  Number of Part-time farmers

  part-time agricultural farmers

  Alyn/Deeside

  200

  57

  95

  14

  Colwyn

  632

  151

  260

  49

  Delyn

  415

  105

  220

  25

  Glyndwr

  1,005

  223

  402

  64

  Rhuddlan

  118

  43

  53

  13

  Wrexham/Maelor

  506

  122

  261

  54

  Clwyd

  2,876

  701

  1,291

  219

  Carmarthen

  2,126

  261

  1,039

  82

  Ceredigion

  2,212

  248

  1,036

  111

  Dinefwr

  1,172

  132

  546

  51

  Llanelli

  278

  52

  145

  16

  Preselli Pembrokeshire

  1,779

  283

  734

  68

  South Pembrokeshire

  539

  164

  266

  42

  Dyfed

  8,106

  1,140

  3,766

  370

  Blaenau Gwent

  60

  13

  63

  20

  Islwyn

  76

  17

  50

  17

  Newport

  196

  24

  77

  17

  Monmouth

  1,040

  242

  599

  64

  Torfaen

  87

  28

  75

  26

  Gwent

  1,459

  324

  864

  127

  Farm Accidents
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many accidents were reported on farms in Wales in 1994–95; and what measures he has taken to increase awareness of accident prevention among farm workers. [25015]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In the agriculture and horticulture industry in Wales, in 1994–95, a provisional total of seven fatal and 80 non-fatal occupational injuries to all workers along with five major injuries to members of the public were reported to enforcing authorities. Information on the number of injuries which occurred on farms is not available separately.

  The Health and Safety Executive carries out a number of initiatives to increase awareness of health and safety in the agriculture industry. In 1994–95, these measures included campaigns on tractor safety, working near overhead power cables and using all-terrain vehicles, aimed particularly at farm workers. In addition, the HSE produces free publications in English and Welsh and seeks to raise awareness through information at shows such as the Royal Welsh and through liaison with a range of other organisations in the industry. It also carries out inspections on those workplaces that present the greatest risk.

  Agricultural Employment
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) full-time farmers, (b) part-time farmers, (c) full-time agricultural tenants, (d) part-time agricultural tenants there are currently in (i) Wales and (ii) each district and county council area in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [25019]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is shown for the old counties and districts in the table.
  589

  Full-time and part-time farmers and tenants in Wales: June 1995

  Local authority areas

  of which:

  of which:

  Number of full-time farmers

  Full-time agricultural tenants

  Number of Part-time farmers

  part-time agricultural farmers

  Aberconwy

  441

  152

  146

  41

  Arfon

  325

  79

  286

  53

  Dwyfor

  795

  230

  347

  72

  Meirionnydd

  791

  163

  349

  69

  Ynys Môn

  929

  322

  520

  96

  Gwynedd

  3,281

  946

  1,648

  331

  Cynon Valley

  73

  15

  51

  9

  Merthyr Tydfil

  43

  14

  29

  7

  Ogwr

  206

  56

  126

  22

  Rhondda

  13

  26

  13

  12

  Rhymney Valley

  151

  26

  84

  12

  Taff Ely

  147

  37

  80

  16

  Mid Glamorgan

  633

  148

  383

  66

  Brecknock

  1,279

  252

  483

  74

  Montgomeryshire

  2,307

  407

  850

  152

  Radnorshire

  1,161

  152

  414

  55

  Powys

  4,747

  811

  1,747

  281

  Cardiff

  67

  22

  33

  48

  Vale of Glamorgan

  301

  97

  164

  48

  South Glamorgan

  368

  119

  197

  48

  Port Talbot

  40

  50

  30

  15

  Lliw Valley

  199

  50

  139

  15

  Neath

  79

  8

  72

  7

  Swansea

  232

  46

  141

  19

  West Glamorgan

  550

  104

  382

  41

  Wales

  22,020

  4,293

  10,278

  1,483

  Source:

  June 1995 agricultural and horticultural census.

  Some of the data have been amalgamated to prevent disclosure of information relating to individual farm holdings.

  Suicide
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list for each district council in Wales and for Wales as a whole for the latest available year(a) the total number of suicides, (b) the number of suicides by farmers and (c) (b) as a percentage of (a). [25163]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested, supplied by the office for national statistics, is for 1994 and is given in the table, based on the recently revised definition of suicides set out in the footnote.

  District of residence

  Suicides1— total

  Suicides1 farmers2

  Farmers suicides as a percentage of all suicides

  Alyn and Deeside

  8

  —

  —

  Colwyn

  14

  —

  —

  Delyn

  11

  1

  9.1

  Glyndwr

  6

  1

  16.7

  Rhuddlan

  8

  —

  —

  Wrexham Maelor

  10

  —

  —

  Carmarthen

  5

  1

  20.0

  Ceredigion

  9

  —

  —

  Dinefwr

  4

  1

  25.0

  Llanelli

  9

  —

  —

  Preseli

  Pembrokeshire

  9

  —

  —

  590

  District of residence

  Suicides1—total

  Suicides1 farmers2

  Farmers suicides as a percentage of all suicides

  South

  Pembrokeshire

  3

  —

  —

  Blaenau Gwent

  5

  —

  —

  Islwyn

  1

  —

  —

  Monmouth

  11

  —

  —

  Newport

  10

  —

  —

  Torfaen

  10

  —

  —

  Aberconwy

  11

  —

  —

  Arfon

  7

  —

  —

  Dwyfor

  3

  —

  —

  Meirionnydd

  8

  1

  12.5

  Ynys Môn Isle of Anglesey

  6

  1

  16.7

  Cynon Valley

  4

  —

  —

  Merthyr Tydfil

  7

  —

  —

  Ogwr

  16

  —

  —

  Rhondda

  11

  —

  —

  Rhymney Valley

  6

  —

  —

  Taff Ely

  9

  —

  —

  Brecknock

  11

  2

  18.2

  Montgomeryshire

  2

  1

  50.0

  Radnorshire

  8

  1

  12.5

  Cardiff

  38

  —

  —

  Vale of Glamorgan

  9

  1

  11.1

  Lliw Valley

  9

  1

  11.1

  Neath

  5

  —

  —

  591

  District of residence

  Suicides1—total

  Suicides1farmers2

  Farmers suicides as a percentage of all suicides

  Port Talbot

  7

  —

  —

  Swansea

  21

  —

  —

  Wales

  331

  12

  3.6

  1International Classification of Diseases, Injuries and Causes of Death (9th revision): ICD E950–E959, E980–E989 (excluding E988.8)—suicides and undetermined deaths (excluding other specified means).

  2Farmers, farm managers and horticulturists.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the underspending on the allocation of funds from European structural funds during the 1995–96 financial year; what provision he will make to carry over the funds involved; and what consultation he has had with his counterparts in the European Commission concerning approval for a carry-over provision. [24921]

  Mr. Hague
  Despite the late approval by the Commission of the objective 2 and 5(b) programmes in Wales and a number of community initiative programmes, it is expected that all the resources under these programmes will be allocated to projects on time.

  A465
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) deaths, (b) injuries and (c) accidents there have been on the A465 Aberdulais to Glyn Neath since 1985; and if he will make a statement. [25006]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is shown in the table. The data cover personal injury accidents recorded by the police on the A465 between Aberdulais and Glyn Neath.

  Year

  Number of accidents

  Number of fatalities

  Number of injuries

  1985

  20

  2

  42

  1986

  20

  3

  34

  1987

  12

  —

  25

  1988

  18

  3

  35

  1989

  21

  1

  35

  1990

  39

  4

  63

  1991

  28

  3

  42

  1992

  28

  3

  48

  1993

  28

  2

  60

  1994

  23

  2

  35

  1995

  40

  —

  83

  Planning Policy Guidance
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) when he expects to publish planning draft technical advice notes for consultation; and if these will be published before planning policy guidance for Wales is issued in a definitive form; [25412]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the development of planning policy as reflected in letters from his Department to (a) Ms M. Williams on 13 October 1995
  592
  and (b) Ms J. Toms on 14 March 1996; and if technical advice notes will be issued before the final version of his planning policy guidance. [25417]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) by my right hon. Friend on 25 March,Official Report, column 452.

  Road Signage
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the cost of replacing road signage to take account of the changes in local government implemented on 1 April. [25415]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No such estimate has been made. The cost of replacing boundary signs falls to the relevant unitary authority.

  Mr. Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what procedures have to be followed to change motorway signs to take account of the local government changes brought into effect on 1 April; and what estimate he has made of the cost of such changes. [25416]

  Mr. Jones
  The Welsh Office has to approve the design and location of any boundary signs prior to their installation on the motorway. The costs fall to the relevant unitary authority.

  Children's Homes
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much of the Jillings report to Clwyd county council he will require to be published. [25343]

  Mr. Hague
  The Government's overriding objective is to ensure the safety and well-being of children in care in north Wales. It was for this reason that my predecessor, in the light of the child abuse trials in Clwyd, asked Miss Nicola Davies QC in May 1995 to consider whether a public inquiry was needed and, if so, what form it should take. Miss Davies reported to me in November 1995 and I published her conclusions and recommendations in December.

  At the same time, I announced the appointment of a team headed by Ms Adrianne Jones to undertake the examination of management practices and procedures in social service departments in north Wales that Miss Davies had recommended. Ms Jones is due to report to me at the end of May. I shall publish her findings and will seek to ensure that the new local authorities adopt procedures that conform with current best practice.

  Quite separately, Clwyd county council commissioned its own independent panel of inquiry in March 1994. It comprised a team of social work professionals chaired by Mr. John Jillings. In exercising its statutory powers, Clwyd county council did not need to consult my Department about this decision or about the procedures the inquiry would adopt.

  I understand from a press release that Clwyd county council considered Mr. Jillings' report, or a draft of it, at its meeting on 26 March. My Department subsequently received from Flintshire county council, one of the successor authorities, a version of the Jillings report which, it was told, did not incorporate all of the 200 or so factual corrections which Clwyd county council had

  593
  requested. At the same time, it received a copy of legal advice commissioned by Clwyd county council which concluded that the report could not be published.

  I believe that it would be in the public interest for the successor local authorities to seek urgently to produce a version of the report that can safely be published. It is a matter of regret that those who commissioned the inquiry apparently failed to ensure that it would be undertaken in a way which would make its conclusions publishable. I have therefore written today to the leaders or chairmen of the five successor authorities to Clwyd county council requesting that they:
  (1) Let me know whether the version of the independent panel's report, which my Department currently holds, incorporates all the 200 or so corrections that Clwyd county council requested, and is the final version formally signed and presented by the panel members;
  (2) Let me know at once what, if any, action Clwyd county council formally resolved to take on the report, and whether any such resolution may now be taken as representing the wishes of its authorities;
  (3) In consultation with the independent panel, seek urgently to produce a version of the report that can safely be published;
  (4) Make a final and full version of the report available to the investigating and the prosecuting authorities so that they can consider whether it contains sufficient grounds to justify reopening investigations, and to Ms Adrianne Jones so that she can consider its relevance to the review of existing systems that she is undertaking for me.

  I am placing a copy of my letter to the local authorities in the Library of the House.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Zimbabwe Environmental Conference
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the letter from the Minister of Overseas Development on 2 April, who will represent the United Kingdom at the environmental conference in Zimbabwe later this year; and if land pollution is on the agenda. [25499]

  Mr. Hanley
  Participants from the UK are expected to include experts from the academic and private sectors concerned with best environmental practice in the mining industry. Land pollution will be discussed under various themes on the agenda.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Assisted Places Scheme
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what budget was allocated for the assisted places scheme in 1995–96; what was the actual spending on the assisted places scheme in that year; and what budget has been allocated to the assisted places scheme for 1996–97. [25513]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Provision in the supply estimates for the assisted places scheme in the financial year 1995–96 was £104.4 million. Final outturn expenditure has yet to be confirmed through the usual appropriation accounts procedures. The planned spending for the financial year 1996–97 is £118.3 million.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in what areas of her departmental budget actual spending in 1995–96 fell short of projected spending; if she will indicate the relevant budget headings and amount in each case; and if she will make a statement. [25481]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Net outturn expenditure figures for 1995–96 have yet to be confirmed through the usual appropriation accounts procedures. Final figures for each of the Department's votes will be included in a public expenditure outturn White Paper to be published in the summer. I shall send the hon. Member the detail he requests on individual budget headings at that time.

  Independent Schools (Inspections)
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reason the number of Office for Standards in Education inspections of independent schools is being reduced. [25306]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This is a matter for Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools, who heads the Office for Standards in Education. I have asked Mr. Chris Woodhead to write to the hon. Member.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Government Art Collection
  Mr. Jopling
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list the 20 most valuable pictures in the Government's art collection which are made available to be displayed in public buildings and embassies overseas, together with the names of the artist, most recent valuation and current location. [24875]

  Mr. Sproat
  It is not possible to state which 20 of the Government's art collection of some 14,000 works of art are the most valuable in monetary terms. The monetary value of a picture can be assessed only at the time of purchase or sale and thereafter by professional valuation. It would not be a justifiable expenditure of public funds to have the whole collection valued professionally. As a general rule, the most highly esteemed pictures are placed where they will best serve the national interest, that is to say, in prestige locations at home and abroad.

  Violence Chip Technology
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage (1) what research she has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on (i) the adoption by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission of a programme of action to introduce V chip technology and encode television programmes, (ii) the Shaw-Rogers V chip trials, (iii) the Edmonton trials of V chip technology by Shaw Cablesystems and Superchannel in 1994, (iv) the Rogers Cablesystem V chip trials in Toronto and Ottawa in 1995, (v) Canadian Television broadcasting companies' trails of V chip technology in Montreal in 1995 and (vi) the third round of V chip trials by Shaw Cable and Rogers Cablesystems in Canada in February 1996; [24974]
  595
  (2) what reports she has received on the Shaw Communications V chip cable converter box; [24983]

  (3) what reports she has received on the discussions, research and trials which preceded the passing of the recent US Telecommunications Act; [24979]

  (4) what contacts her Department has had with Shaw Cablesystems concerning V chip technology; [24985]

  (5) if her Department holds a copy of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission's policy on programme classification for V chip technology; [24981]

  (6) what discussions her Department has had with the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission concerning the V chip; [24984]

  (7) what reports she has received on the work of the US Electronic Industries Association Group since 1992 on the application of V chip technology. [24982]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: My Department is paying close attention to the full range of broadcasting issues arising from the V chip, in conjunction with broadcasters, regulators, consumer groups and other interested parties. Should technological implications ensue, these would of course be a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

  As part of the review of the issues, we shall be taking full account of the experience in the USA and Canada. Last month the Secretary of State met Dr. Arthur Pober, executive director of the Entertainment Software Rating Board, and Professor Jeffrey Bernstein, an expert in studies on violence in the media from Utrecht university, who gave a detailed account of the experience in the USA. They also addressed a seminar hosted by my Department and organised by the Advertising Association, at which my noble Friend Lord Inglewood was also present and which was well attended by representatives of the broadcasting industry, consumer groups and others.

  The Secretary of State is considering what specific research on V chip related matters to commission and will be interested to receive any information that the hon. Member offers to provide.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if officials from her Department attended the V chip display at the technology exposition of the G7 meeting in Brussels in February 1994. [24986]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: No.

  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what reports she has received on the V chip amendment to the European directive, "Television Without Frontiers", 89/552/EEC. [24980]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: The Secretary of State has been notified of the European Parliament's amendments, adopted on 14 February, including amendment 55. The United Kingdom, along with all member states, awaits the modified proposal from the European Commission, which may or may not include this amendment.

  Compliance Cost Assessments
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage how many compliance cost assessments were produced by her Department in 1995; and if she will place copies in the Library. [25272]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: No such assessments were produced by my Department during 1995.

  National Audit Office
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage How many files marked "Not for National Audit Office Eyes" are currently held by her Department. [24854]

  Mr. Sproat
  [holding answer 17 April 1996]: There are 43 files in my Department out of a total of approximately 170,000 marked "Not to be seen by NAO without reference to the appropriate Head of Division", sometimes abbreviated to "Not for NAO Eyes".

  The marking "Not for NAO Eyes" is used in accordance with an agreement between the Treasury and the National Audit Office, under which documents relating to the handling of relations between Departments and the NAO and Public Accounts Committee are not automatically available to the NAO while they are current.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Support Regulations
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the response made by the Council on Tribunals to the proposed Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment Regulations 1996. [24824]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  A copy has been placed in the Library.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to improve response times by the Child Support Agency to public correspondence and to ensure that all correspondence receives a reply. [24127]

  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 Mr. Hinchliffe, dated 17 April 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency response times to public correspondence.
  The Agency has a charter standard to respond to written enquiries within 10 working days. For written complaints, the standard is that they should be acknowledged within 2 working days, and a full response given within 10 working days. Currently, the Agency is responding to 40% of written enquiries within 10 working days; for complaints, current performance is that 87% are acknowledged within 2 working days, with 42% receiving a full response within 10 working days.

  597
  The Agency is looking at ways to improve performance in this important area. Working practices within the Agency's six Centres have been altered, and greater emphasis has been put on responding quickly to clients' enquiries. Each Centre has also introduced a tracking system specifically to handle complaints.
  All items of mail received in the Agency's six Centres are promptly sorted, recorded on the Child Support Computer System and distributed to the relevant sections who will then take the necessary action. A diary system ensures tasks are prioritised and the progress of work is monitored until completion.
  If an item of post is received and staff are unable to identify which case it relates to because, for example, there is insufficient information, the Agency writes to the correspondent asking for more details. At 31 March 1996, there were a total of 127 such items in the Agency's six Centres.
  It is worth noting that all correspondence received by the Agency from clients does not require a written response; often it is the case that letters are received reporting changes in circumstances or requesting action to be taken. Where this is the case, the Agency takes whatever action is appropriate and no written response is necessary.
  On a more general note, during the next few months all the Centres will introduce Complete Action Service Teams which will deal with cases across a wide range of activities which had previously been undertaken by different sections. These teams will also help to provide a better service to our customers by keeping cases up to date and will cut down the transfer of cases within the Centres.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total Child Support Agency budget for(a) paper and (b) printing in each year of its operation. [24064]

  Mr. 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 Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 17 April 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about paper and printing costs within the Child Support Agency.
  Individual costs for paper and printing are not readily obtainable as they both form part of a larger account entitled "Printing & Stationery", which includes printing, stationery and other miscellaneous stationery items.
  The total costs for "Printing & Stationery" for the three financial years since the launch of the Agency are as follows:

  1993/94: £518,823

  1994/95: £1,160,842

  1995/96: £2,235,698 (subject to end of year adjustment)

  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the number of items of correspondence issued annually by the Child Support Agency; and at what total cost, for each year of activity. [24063]

  Mr. 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 Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 17 April 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency correspondence.
  598
  I cannot provide you with a meaningful estimate of the number of items of correspondence issued annually by the Agency. This information is not recorded by the Agency as there is no business need to do so.
  However, I can confirm that the total costs of General Postage were as follows:

  (i) During the financial year 1993–94: £1,041,851

  (ii) During the financial year 1994–95: £1,607,747

  (iii) During the financial year 1995–96: £1,537,482 (subject to final confirmation)

  I hope this is helpful.

  Statutory Maternity Pay
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to implement the European Court of Justice judgment in the case of Gillespie and Others v. Northern Health and Social Services Board and Others (C-342/93) where it effects the calculation of statutory maternity pay. [25928]

  Mr. Heald
  I will shortly be laying regulations to amend the rules for calculating the earnings-related element of statutory maternity pay, SMP, to bring the calculation into line with the European Court of Justice judgment.

  In its judgment of 13 February 1996, the court stated that where a woman's maternity pay is calculated on the basis of pay received before her maternity leave starts, that calculation must take account of any backdated pay rises subsequently awarded and which take effect in the period used to work out her maternity pay. Not to allow a woman on maternity leave to benefit from a pay rise would be to discriminate against her on the ground of her pregnancy.

  One of the qualifying conditions for SMP is that a woman's normal weekly earnings must be at least equal to the lower earnings limit for the payment of national insurance contributions. If this condition is satisfied, SMP is payable at 90 per cent. of her normal weekly earnings for the first six weeks of her 18-week maternity pay period. The woman's normal weekly earnings are calculated using payments actually made to her by her employer in the eight weeks immediately preceding the 14th week before the week in which her baby is expected. At present, no account is taken of backdated pay rises awarded after this period.

  The new rules will mean that employers must revise the earnings-related element of SMP if a backdated pay rise is awarded that effects payments made in the period used to calculate the amount of SMP due.

  Sickness Benefit
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what responses he has received from small businesses to his proposals for them to pay sickness benefits claims; and if he will make a statement. [24319]

  Mr. Heald
  All employers have been responsible for administering statutory sick pay, SSP, since its introduction in 1983. The costs of SSP were transferred to employers in April 1994 to give them an incentive to tackle high sick absences. The cost to business was more than offset by the reduction in employers' national
  599
  insurance contributions. In addition, there were measures taken to protect small businesses faced with a large proportion of their work force off sick at any one time.

  The Department has recently sought views from both sides of industry on a proposal which would allow employers exemption from operating the rules of the SSP scheme where, and for as long as, they pay wages or occupational sick pay at or above the SSP rate for any day of incapacity for work. Employers could choose whether to take advantage of the easement, and employees' rights would not be affected. Responses to the proposal, a number of which are from small businesses, are currently being examined.

SCOTLAND

  Initial Healthcare
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what penalties have been applied as a result of Initial Healthcare being in default in relation to staffing levels within the contract for hotel services at Hairmyers/Stonehouse trust. [25202]

  Total number of adults registered with dentists in each health board in Scotland

  Health Board

  February 1993

  July 1993

  February 1994

  July 1994

  February 1995

  July 1995

  February 1996

  Scotland

  1,959,578

  1,920,151

  1,914,284

  1,899,482

  1,902,179

  1,890,451

  1,947,170

  Argyll and Clyde

  158,982

  154,135

  152,956

  150,710

  151,381

  151,791

  157,097

  Ayrshire and Arran

  150,788

  147,831

  148,768

  147,185

  144,333

  143,529

  147,821

  Borders

  44,365

  42,880

  42,331

  42,498

  43,335

  44,117

  47,054

  Dumfries and Galloway

  54,798

  50,218

  49,865

  48,872

  47,870

  47.636

  49,981

  Fife

  129,481

  127,987

  127,802

  128,050

  131,175

  131,304

  133,264

  Forth Valley

  102,056

  99,200

  98,740

  98,317

  99,697

  98,969

  100,582

  Grampian

  200,156

  199,128

  199,362

  198,014

  197,869

  195,485

  199,764

  Greater Glasgow

  367,552

  362,334

  358,865

  354,665

  354,131

  351,733

  357,820

  Highland

  74,711

  70,261

  65,118

  61,426

  60,579

  58,770

  64,816

  Lanarkshire

  185,555

  182,100

  182,456

  182,048

  183,449

  181,874

  185,345

  Lothian

  303,730

  298,315

  299,862

  298,672

  299,002

  296,797

  308,842

  Orkney

  6,774

  7,180

  7,428

  7,534

  6,268

  5,497

  5,700

  Shetland

  5,994

  6,177

  6,374

  6,597

  6,761

  6,694

  7,601

  Tayside

  166,367

  164,187

  166,302

  166,928

  168,236

  167,885

  172,157

  Western Isles

  8,269

  8,218

  8,055

  7,965

  8,093

  8,370

  9,326

  Total1 number of children registered with dentists in each health board in Scotland

  Health Board

  February 1993

  July 1993

  February 1994

  July 1994

  February 1995

  July 1995

  February 1996

  Scotland

  596,054

  682,386

  610,268

  685,802

  600,625

  676,118

  619,823

  Argyll and Clyde

  54,089

  62,436

  55,617

  62,658

  54,297

  61,29

  55,488

  Ayrshire and Arran

  49,669

  56,119

  50,116

  55,360

  48,603

  54,403

  49,598

  Borders

  10,751

  11,897

  11,216

  12,430

  11,731

  12,788

  12,278

  Dumfries and Galloway

  18,174

  20,334

  18,112

  20,172

  18,039

  20,257

  18,732

  Fife

  42,974

  48,309

  43,361

  48,431

  42,964

  48,123

  44,257

  Forth Valley

  33,116

  37,536

  33,714

  37,600

  32,743

  36,849

  33,445

  Grampian

  61,850

  69,644

  83,383

  70,454

  63,426

  70,011

  64,947

  Greater Glasgow

  109,779

  127,055

  110,696

  126,746

  108,313

  124,302

  111,044

  Highland

  23,919

  28,045

  25,223

  27,999

  23,934

  26,918

  25,220

  Lanarkshire

  58,579

  69,046

  60,964

  69,256

  59,329

  67,736

  60,603

  Lothian

  80,671

  92,312

  83,309

  93,962

  83,469

  93,757

  88,879

  Orkney

  370

  427

  561

  784

  464

  441

  415

  Shetland

  173

  199

  214

  273

  249

  273

  247

  Tayside

  50,790

  57,497

  52,459

  58,139

  51,957

  57,611

  53,444

  Western Isles

  1,150

  1,530

  1,323

  1,538

  1,107

  1,353

  1,226

  1Comparability of figures for children registered in different months within the same year is affected by registration patterns as children's registrations lapse at the end of the calendar year following the one in which they last saw a dentist.

  600
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The trust has withheld appropriate sums from some of the monthly payments due to the company.

  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the standards met by Initial Healthcare in respect of domestic services at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary trust. [25242]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Deficiencies identified early in 1995 in the delivery of domestic services at the royal infirmary have been resolved to the satisfaction of the trust.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many (i) children, (ii) adults and (iii) people in total were registered with dentists in each health board in(a) February 1993, (b) July 1993, (c) February 1994, (d) July 1994, (e) February 1995, (f) July 1995 and (g) February 1996. [25228]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information requested is contained in the tables.
  601

  Total number of people registered with dentists in each health board in Scotland

  Health Board

  February 1993

  July 1993

  February 1994

  July 1994

  February 1995

  July 1995

  February 1996

  Scotland

  2,555,632

  2,602,537

  2,524,552

  2,585,294

  2,502,804

  2,566,569

  2,566,993

  Argyll and Clyde

  213,071

  216,571

  208,573

  213,368

  205,678

  213,087

  212,585

  Ayrshire and Arran

  200,457

  203,950

  198,884

  202,545

  192,936

  197,932

  197,419

  Borders

  55,116

  54,777

  53,547

  54,928

  55,066

  56,905

  59,332

  Dumfries and Galloway

  72,972

  70,552

  67,977

  69,044

  65,909

  67,893

  68,713

  Fife

  172,455

  176,296

  171,163

  176,481

  174,139

  179,427

  177,521

  Forth Valley

  135,172

  136,736

  132,454

  135,917

  132,440

  135,818

  134,027

  Grampian

  262,006

  268,772

  262,745

  268,468

  261,295

  265,496

  264,711

  Greater Glasgow

  477,331

  489,389

  469,561

  481,411

  462,444

  476,035

  468,864

  Highland

  98,630

  98,306

  90,341

  89,425

  84,513

  85,688

  90,036

  Lanarkshire

  244,134

  251,146

  243,420

  251,305

  242,778

  249,610

  245,948

  Lothian

  384,401

  390,627

  383,171

  392,634

  382,471

  390,554

  397,721

  Orkney

  7,144

  7,607

  7,989

  8,318

  6,732

  5,938

  6,115

  Shetland

  6,167

  6,376

  6,588

  6,870

  7,010

  6,967

  7,848

  Tayside

  217,157

  221,284

  218,761

  225,067

  220,193

  225,496

  225,601

  Western Isles

  9,419

  9,748

  9,378

  9,503

  9,200

  9,723

  10,552

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what date dentists were first required to register their patients; and when his Department first received information on(a) total registrations which dentists and (b) total deregistrations by dentists from each health board or equivalent body. [25227]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Dentists have been able to register patients since 1 October 1990. The Department has received information from the dental practice division on the total number of patients registered in Scotland since October 1990. Information about de-regulations has been supplied by each health board since 17 July 1992.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 420, if the statistical basis for calculating the number of people deregistered by their dentists is the same as that applied by the Department of Health; and what changes in the method of calculation have been made in the last 18 months.[25229]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information provided by health boards is simply recorded and aggregated to produce the all-Scotland figures and cumulative totals; the procedure has not been changed.

  Iron Age Site (Outer Hebrides)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what resources he is providing to Historic Scotland and the University of Edinburgh to undertake a rescue operation to prevent destruction and erosion of the iron age site on Greater Bernera in the Outer Hebrides; and if he will make a statement. [25536]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend provides resources to his executive agency, Historic Scotland, to fund its rescue archaeology programme and other activities. The sum of £1.8 million has been allocated in 1996–97 for rescue archaeology. It is for the agency to decide on relative priorities, including whether and to what extent to fund individual projects.602
  The agency's chief executive is writing to the hon. Member to explain Historic Scotland's involvement in the excavation at Bosta, Great Bernera.

  Letter from Graeme Munro to Mr. Tam Dalyell, dated 18 April 1996:
  I refer to your Parliamentary Question of 16 April to the Secretary of State for Scotland. As you will know from the reply from Lord James Douglas-Hamilton I have been asked to reply on the particular project at Bosta.
  The excavation at Bosta, Great Bernera, Outer Hebrides, is a research project being undertaken by the University of Edinburgh's Centre for Field Archaeology with the assistance of a grant from Historic Scotland. Initially the University requested a grant of £23,500 which was provided. Following a site visit by one of our Ancient Monument Inspectors to the important new discoveries made in recent weeks, Historic Scotland has allocated a further £45,000 to ensure that these are properly investigated and recorded. Digging will recommence at the end of April for a four-week period, and there will probably be a third episode of excavation in September. In due course financial support will be provided for the all-important process of analysis and publication of the discoveries.
  The archaeological site contains the remains of several houses of late Iron Age date. It is at threat from active marine erosion (hence the dig), but urgent investigations are being made by the Western Isles Islands Council into the feasibility of saving the site, possibly enlisting help from major private sector concerns working locally. There is keen interest in Great Bernera and beyond in attempting to preserve or reconstruct at least part of the excavated remains, preferably on-site. This will be physically difficult, but Historic Scotland will provide technical advice on this aspect. The archaeological excavation work is a necessary precursor to any such preservation effort. An on-site meeting of all concerned will take place in early May, once the next phase of excavation has begun.
  Historic Scotland are well aware of the public interest in this site, and our staff are doing everything they can, but it must be borne in mind that this is but one of many dozens of archaeological sites known to be under threat from marine erosion. To put the recent discovery into context it is certainly of national interest in relation to the archaeological evidence we can hope to obtain from the excavations, but the stonework is in poor condition and would be difficult to consolidate. The site would not, on present evidence, be a contender for bringing into State care.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Local Government Reform
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many statutory instruments have been issued as a consequence of the Local Government Reform etc. (Scotland) Act 1994; and if he will list the instruments. [23143]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: A total of 105. These are listed in the table under broad subject headings:

  Commencement, Local Government (General), Compulsory Competitive Tendering, Staff and Property
  1994 No. 2850: The Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 (Commencement No. 1) Order 1994
  1994 No. 2958: The Local Government Staff Commission (Scotland) Order 1994
  1994 No. 3150: The Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 (Commencement No. 2) Order 1994
  1995 No. 677: The Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (Competition) (Scotland) Regulations 1995
  1995 No. 678: The Local Government (Exemption from Competition) (Scotland) Order 1995
  1995 No. 702: The Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 (Commencement No. 3) Order 1995
  1995 No. 789: The Local Government (Application of Enactments) (Scotland) Order 1995
  1995 No. 1340: The Local Authorities (Staff Transfer) (Scotland) Order 1995
  1995 No. 1878: The Local Government (Transitional Provisions) (Scotland) Order 1995
  1995 No. 1894: The Local Government (Relevant Date) (Scotland) Order 1995
  1995 No. 1898: The Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 (Commencement No. 4) Order 1995
  1995 No. 2499: The Local Authorities (Property Transfer) (Scotland) Order 1995
  1995 No. 2500: The Local Government Property Commission (Scotland) Order 1995
  1995 No. 2866: The Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 (Commencement No. 5) Order 1995
  1995 No. 3326: The Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 (Commencement No. 6 and Saving) Order 1995
  1996 No. 323: The Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 (Commencement No. 7 and Savings) Order 1996
  1996 No. 578: The Local Authorities (Property Transfer) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1996
  1996 No. 731: Lord-Lieutenants (Scotland) Order 1996
  1996 No. 739: The Local Government (Transitional and Consequential Provisions and Revocations) (Scotland) Order 1996
  1996 No. 974: The Local Government (Translation Amendments) (Scotland) Order 1996

  Local Government Finance
  1995 No. 548: The Non-Domestic Rates (Levying) (Scotland) Regulations 1995
  1995 No. 572: The Valuation Appeal Committee (Procedure in Appeals Under the Valuation Acts) (Scotland) Regulations 1995
  1995 No. 1515: The Local Government (Qualifications of Assessors) (Scotland) Order 1995
  1995 No. 2589: The Valuation Joint Boards (Scotland) Order 1995
  604
  1995 No. 2766: The Local Government (Application of Enactments) (No. 2) (Scotland) Order 1995
  1995 No. 3252: The Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1995
  1996 No. 137: The Valuation Appeal Panels and Committees (Scotland) Regulations 1996
  1996 No. 430: The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1996
  1996 No. 580: The Rating, Valuation and Council Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1996
  1996 No. 681: The Accounts Commission (Scotland) Regulations 1996
  1996 No. 682: The Local Government (Transitional Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Order 1996
  1996 No. 746: The Council Tax (Reduction of Liability) (Scotland) Regulations 1996
  1996 No. 747: The Local Authorities (Discretionary Expenditure) (Scotland) Regulations 1996

  Roads and Transport
  1995 No. 1476: The Roads (Transitional Powers) (Scotland) Order 1995
  1995 No. 1971: The Strathclyde Passenger Transport Area (Designation) Order 1995
  1995 No. 3026: The Strathclyde Passenger Transport Authority (Constitution, Membership and Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Order 1995
  1995 No. 3328: The Roads (Transitional Powers) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1995
  1996 No. 496: The Roads (Transitional Powers) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1996
  1996 No. 749: The Forth and Tay Bridge Order Confirmation Acts (Modification) Order 1996

  Water and Sewerage
  1996 No. 141: The Coast Protection (Notices) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1996
  1996 No. 325: The Water Services Charges (Billing and Collection) (Scotland) Order 1996
  1996 No. 326: The Domestic Sewerage Charges (Reduction) (Scotland) Regulations 1996
  1996 No. 744: The Water and Sewerage Authorities (Rate of Return) (Scotland) Order 1996
  1996 No. 918: The Local Government Finance Act 1992 (Commencement No. 10) Order 1996

  Social Work
  1995 No. 515: The Qualifications of Chief Social Work Officers (Scotland) Regulations 1996
  1996 No. 492: The Local Government (Transfer of Children's Hearings Cases) (Scotland) Order 1996

  Police
  1995 No. 2638: The Central Scotland Combined Police Area Amalgamation Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 2639: The Grampian Combined Police Area Amalgamation Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 2640: The Lothian and Borders Combined Police Area Amalgamation Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 2641: The Northern Combined Police Area Amalgamation Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 2641: The Strathclyde Combined Police Area Amalgamation Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 2643: The Tayside Combined Police Area Amalgamation Scheme Order 1995
  1996 No. 780: Police Grant Order (Scotland) 1996
  605
  Fire
  1995 No. 2632: The North Eastern Combined Fire Services Area Administration Scheme
  1995 No. 2633: The Northern Combined Fire Services Administration Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 2634: The South Eastern Combined Fire Services Area Administration Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 2635: The Central Combined Fire Services Area Administration Scheme Order 1995

  Tourism
  1995 No. 1879: The Aberdeen and Grampian Tourist Board Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 1880: The Angus and City of Dundee Tourist Board Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 1881: The Argyll, the Isles. Loch Lomond, Stirling and Trossachs Tourist Board Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 1882: The Ayrshire and Arran Tourist Board Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 1883: The Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 1884: The Edinburgh and Lothians Tourist Board Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 1885: The Greater Glasgow and Clyde Valley Tourist Board Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 1886: The Highlands of Scotland Tourist Board Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 1887: The Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 1888: The Orkney Tourist Board Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 1889: The Perthshire Tourist Board Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 1890: The Scottish Borders Tourist Board Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 1891: The Shetland Tourist Board Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 1892: The Western Isles Tourist Board Scheme Order 1995
  1995 No. 2211: The Aberdeen and Grampian Tourist Board Scheme Amendment Order 1995
  1995 No. 2212: The Angus and City of Dundee Tourist Board Amendment Order 1995
  1995 No. 2213: The Argyll, the Isles, Loch Lomond, Stirling and Trossachs Tourist Board Scheme Amendment Order 1995
  1995 No. 2232: The Ayrshire and Arran Tourist Board Scheme Amendment Order 1995
  1995 No. 2233: The Dumfries and Galloway Tourist Board Scheme Amendment Order 1995
  1995 No. 2234: The Edinburgh and Lothians Tourist Board Scheme Amendment Order 1995
  1995 No. 2235: The Greater Glasgow and Clyde Valley Tourist Board Scheme Amendment Order 1995
  1995 No. 2236: The Highlands of Scotland Tourist Board Scheme Amendment Order 1995
  1995 No. 2237: The Kingdom of Fife Tourist Board Scheme Amendment Order 1995
  1995 No. 2238: The Orkney Tourist Board Scheme Amendment Order 1995
  1995 No. 2239: The Perthshire Tourist Board Scheme Amendment Order 1995
  1995 No. 2214: The Scottish Borders Tourist Board Scheme Amendment Order 1995
  1995 No. 2240: The Shetland Tourist Board Scheme Amendment Order 1995
  606
  1995 No. 2241: The Western Isles Tourist Board Scheme Amendment Order 1995

  Education
  1994 No. 3149: The Self-Governing Schools (Suspension of Proposals) (Scotland) Order 1994
  1996 No. 306: The Educational Endowments (Fife Region) Transfer Scheme Order 1996
  1996 No. 307: The Educational Endowments (Highland Region) Transfer Scheme Order 1996
  1996 No. 308: The Educational Endowments (Borders Region) Transfer Scheme Order 1996
  1996 No. 474: The Educational Endowments (Dumfries and Galloway Region) Transfer Scheme Order 1996
  1996 No. 475: The Educational Endowments (Central Region) Transfer Scheme Order 1996
  1996 No. 477: The Educational Endowments (Tayside Region) Transfer Scheme Order 1996
  1996 No. 478: The Educational Endowments (Grampian Region) Transfer Scheme Order 1996
  1996 No. 629: The Educational Endowments (Strathclyde Region) Transfer Scheme Order 1996
  1996 No. 630: The Educational Endowments (Lothian Region) Transfer Scheme Order 1996

  Planning
  1995 No. 3002: The Designation of Structure Plan Areas (Scotland) Order 1995

  Courts
  1996 No. 1005: The Sheriff Court Districts (Alteration of Boundaries) Order 1996
  1996 No. 1006: The Sheriffdoms (Alteration of Boundaries) Order 1996

  Electoral Arrangements
  1994 No. 3255: The Local Government (Transitional Election Arrangements (Scotland) Order 1994
  1996 No. 753: The European Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) (Scotland) Order 1996

  Superannuation
  1995 No. 340: The Local Government (Compensation for Redundancy or Premature Retirement on Reorganisation) (Scotland) Regulations 1995
  1995 No. 750: The Local Government (Superannuation and Compensation for Premature Retirement) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1995
  1995 No. 840: The Local Government (Education Administration) (Compensation for Redundancy or Premature Retirement on Reorganisation) (Scotland) Regulations 1995
  1995 No. 2865: The Local Government (Compensation for Reduction of Remuneration on Reorganisation) (Scotland) Regulations 1995
  1995 No. 3294: The Local Government (Superannuation and Compensation for Redundancy or Premature Retirement) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1995

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many guidance circulars have been issued by his Department as a consequence of local government reform in Scotland; and if he will list the circulars. [23144]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 17 January Official Report, column 642. Since then, the following 33 circulars have been issued:
  607
  Local Government, Finance, Compulsory Competitive Tendering, Staff Property, etc.
  Scottish Office Development Department Circular 2/96: Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 Licensing Arrangements—Local Government Reorganisation
  Circular Letter: The Local Authorities (Property Transfer) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1996
  Circular Letter: Revised Commentary Note on The Local Authorities (Property Transfer) (Scotland) Order 1996
  Circular Letter: Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 (Commencement No. 7 and Savings) Order 1996
  Circular Letter: Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994: The Local Government (Transitional and Consequential Provisions and Revocations) (Scotland) Order 1996 and The Local Government (Translation Amendments) (Scotland) Order 1996
  Finance Circular No. 5/1996: The Water Undertakings (Rateable Values) (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1995
  Finance Circular No. 6/1996: The Valuation Appeals Panels and Committees (Scotland) Regulations 1996
  Finance Circular No. 7/1996: 1996–1997 Capping Regime: Notional Amounts Report 1996
  Finance Circular No. 10/1996: Format for 1995–1996 Accounts of Shadow Councils
  Finance Circular No. 11/1996: Supplementary Mismatch Scheme and District Council Tax Equalisation Scheme
  Finance Circular No. 14/1996: The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1996
  Finance Circular No. 15/1996: Publication of Financial and Other Information by Local Authorities: Code of Practice for Scotland
  Finance Circular No. 18/1996: The Council Tax (Reduction of Liability) (Scotland) Regulations 1996: Council Tax: District Equalisation Scheme
  Finance Circular No. 19/1996: The Rating, Valuation and Council Tax (Miscellaneous Provisions) Order 1996
  Finance Circular No. 20/1996: Local Government (Transitional Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Order 1996

  Planning
  Circular Letter: Undetermined Planning Applications

  Superannuation
  SPN/LG Circular No. 1996/1: The Local Government (Superannuation and Compensation for Redundancy or Premature Retirement) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1995

  Social Work
  SWSG 4/96: Child Protection: Local Liaison Machinery—Child Protection Committees
  SWSG5/96: Local Authority Complaints Procedures
  SWSG7/96: Local Inspection of Residential and Day Care Services
  SWSG9/96: The Qualifications of Chief Social Work Officers (Scotland) Regulations 1996

  Fire
  Circular Letter covering the issue of the booklet "Guidance for
  Members of New Fire Authorities and Joint Fire Boards"
  Circular: Emergency Planning

  Sport
  Circular No. 5/96: Sport in the New Councils

  Criminal Justice
  Circular No. HD 3/1996: Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994—District Courts and Justices of the Peace
  608
  Circular No. HD 4/1996: Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994: Transitional Arrangements for Licensing Boards
  Circular Letter: Ex Officio Justices of the Peace
  Circular Letter: The Lord-Lieutenants (Scotland) Order 1996
  Circular Letter: Justices of the Peace Advisory Committees

  Courts
  SCA Circular 1/1996: Sheriffdoms (Alterations of Boundaries) Order 1996 and Sheriff Court Districts (Alteration of Boundaries) Order 1996

  Health
  Circular Letter to Health Boards (NHS MEL (1996) 36): Appointment of Designated Medical Officers

  Education
  Student Awards Agency for Scotland Circular 1/1996: The Educational Endowments (Region Concerned) Transfer Scheme Order 1996

  Electoral Arrangements
  Circular Letter: Parliamentary Returning Officers

  Sheriffs
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many court days were undertaken by(a) temporary and (b) permanent sheriffs in Scotland for each of the last 20 years; and what proportion each represents of the total number of court days worked; [25472]

  (2) how many court days the duties of the sheriff in sheriff courts have been undertaken by temporary sheriffs in each of the last 15 years. [25471]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: Information in the form requested is not available for the years prior to 1989–90. The figures for the years since then are set out in the table:

  Total sitting days

  Number and percentage of days undertaken by permanent sheriffs

  Number and percentage of days undertaken by temporary sheriffs

  1989–90

  22,954

  18,753 (81.7 per cent.)

  4,201 (18.3 per cent.)

  1990–91

  23,189

  18,842 (81.3 per cent.)

  4,237 (18.7 per cent.)

  1991–92

  24,568

  19,105 (77.8 per cent.)

  5,463 (22.2 per cent.)

  1992–93

  25,087

  18,847 (75.1 per cent.)

  6,240 (24.9 per cent.)

  1993–94

  25,644

  19,111 (74.5 per cent.)

  6,533 (25.5 per cent.)

  1994–95

  25,821

  19,053 (73.8 per cent.)

  6,768 (26.2 per cent.)

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria govern the selection process for appointments as temporary sheriffs; and if he will make a statement. [25469]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: All applicants for temporary sheriff appointment must have been legally qualified for at least five years. All candidates complete a standard application form and are asked to provide two referees. Comments are sought from the dean of the Faculty of Advocates and from the president and secretary of the Law Society depending on whether the candidate is an advocate or a solicitor. Interviews are carried out by the sheriffs principal, who make recommendations to the Lord Advocate.
  609
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) permanent sheriffs and (b) temporary sheriffs there were in each of the last 20 years, how many of each were appointed in each year, and how many left each position; and if he will make a statement. [25467]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: The information requested is available from 1985 only and is given in the table. Between 1985 and 1996 a total of 31 sheriffs left their positions, mainly on retiral. Comparable information for temporary sheriffs is not readily available. The use of temporary sheriffs when permanent sheriffs are unavailable for court work serves to avoid increases in court waiting periods and inconvenience to court users which would result from cancelled sittings. Their use also makes an important contribution to dealing efficiently with temporary increases in court business. The balance between the respective contributions of permanent and temporary sheriffs is kept under regular review.

  Year

  Number of temporary sheriffs

  Number of permanent sheriffs

  1985

  61

  88

  1986

  67

  92

  1987

  84

  95

  1988

  100

  96

  1989

  101

  96

  1990

  102

  97

  1991

  110

  99

  1992

  108

  99

  1993

  117

  101

  1994

  124

  101

  1995

  119

  104

  1996

  110

  104

  Mrs Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the present salary of(a) permanent sheriffs and (b) sheriffs principal; and if he will make a statement. [25468]

  Mr. Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: Salaries of permanent sheriffs and sheriffs principal fall within the remit of the Senior Salaries Review Body. Following this year's review rates are £75,978 and £88,266 per annum respectively with effect from 1 April 1996 increasing to £76,716 and £89,123 per annum respectively with effect from 1 December 1996.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the(a) travel, (b) accommodation and (c) policing and security costs of (i) the Prime Minister's and (ii) the Chancellor's most recent visit to Scotland. [25492]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  [holding answer 16 April 1996]: The cost of travel and accommodation incurred in visiting Scotland are matters for my right hon. and right hon. and learned Friends. The policing of such visits is a matter for the appropriate chief constable; costs are met from the budget of the police authority or joint board and attract police specific grant at 51 per cent.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Fair Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases have been heard by fair employment tribunals since 1 January 1990. [25230]

  Mr. Ancram
  During the period 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1996, 207 complaints were determined after full hearings by the fair employment tribunal.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions since January 1990 the Court of Appeal has altered an award on the ground that the Fair Employment Tribunal misdirected itself in assessing compensation. [25236]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on how many occasions (a) the president and (b) the vice-president of the fair employment tribunals have imposed cash penalties on employers who were in breach of tribunal orders; what has been the amount of the penalties imposed; and how many such breaches have been referred to the High Court for enforcement or committal. [25232]

  Mr. Ancram
  No orders have been issued by the tribunal.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many appeals to the fair employment tribunals have been dismissed since January 1990. [25235]

  Mr. Ancram
  There have been no appeals.

  Industrial Tribunals
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases have been heard by the industrial tribunals in Northern Ireland since 1 January 1990. [24988]

  Mr. Ancram
  During the period 1 January 1990 to 31 March 1996, 3,029 complaints were determined after full hearings by industrial tribunals.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research he has evaluated into the contribution of badgers to bovine TB; and if he will make a statement.[25380]

  Mr. Ancram
  A study of the distribution and abundance of badgers in Northern Ireland has been carried out under the auspices of Queen's university, Belfast. Antigen development and stain typing research is continuing at the Department of Agriculture's veterinary science division to help establish the significance of the badger in the transmission of TB.

  A feasibility study on the development of a vaccine for use in badgers was undertaken in 1994–95 in conjunction with the Republic of Ireland. This concluded that a long-term programme would be required to develop an effective vaccine. A joint submission for EU funding was made by six member states, including the UK. This has so far been unsuccessful.
  611
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has begun a project independently to develop such a vaccine.

  Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will meet the Northern Ireland Federation of Clubs to seek agreement(a) on protecting legitimate clubs and (b) on controlling illegal activity in other clubs. [25379]

  Mr. Moss
  The proposals for a draft Registration of Clubs Order (Northern Ireland) 1996 which I published on 30 January contained, among other things, new provisions to deal effectively with illegal activity in clubs. These provisions were introduced at the express request of the police who, I understand, have written to the Federation of Clubs setting out the reasons why they regard their introduction as essential. I am satisfied that the draft order strikes the right balance between protecting clubs that commit minor or irregular offences and providing the courts with the powers to deal adequately and effectively with clubs that commit serious and persistent breaches of the law. In the circumstances, therefore, I see nothing to be gained from a meeting with the federation to discuss these issues.

TREASURY

  Taxation
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the average annual amounts of indirect taxation per citizen; what was the figure for 1979; and if he will make a statement. [24334]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The average amount of indirect tax paid per United Kingdom citizen is estimated to be £1,300 in 1995 and to have been £750 in 1979, at 1995 prices.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his current estimate for growth in the UK for the current year; and what are the equivalent rates in other EU countries. [24335]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government's last forecast was set out in the November "Financial Statement and Budget Report", which showed the UK economy growing by 3 per cent. and Europe growing by 2½ per cent. in 1996.

  Government Deficit
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what ratio of Government deficit to gross domestic product he assesses to be necessary to ensure budgetary discipline. [24336]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government's fiscal objective is to bring the public sector borrowing requirement back towards balance over the medium term and, in particular, to ensure that, when the economy is on trend, the public sector borrows no more than is required to finance its net capital spending.
  612
  The PSBR has fallen sharply in the past couple of years. As it returns towards balance, the ratio of net public sector debt to gross domestic product will stabilise and then begin to fall.

  Personal Allowances
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his policy for personal allowances. [24337]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government's overall objectives for the tax system are set out at paragraph 5.02 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97". Our policy is to maintain a broad tax base and reduce marginal tax rates. Personal allowances are an integral part of achieving those objectives and are considered each year in the run-up to the Budget.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will act to simplify value added tax and other taxes administered by HM Customs and Excise. [24338]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), on 1 March 1996,Official Report, columns 777–78.

  Inflation
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his target for the level of inflation in April 1997. [24339]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The aim of this Government is to achieve underlying inflation, as measured by the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments, of 2½ per cent. or less by the end of the present Parliament. Beyond this Parliament, the Government's aim is to continue to achieve underlying inflation at or below 2½ per cent.

  Investment
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to promote an increase in the level of investment. [24340]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Industry is expanding capacity as needed. In 1995, manufacturing investment was over 7½ per cent. up on a year earlier, and almost 15 per cent. higher than in 1993. Most independent forecasters expect whole economy investment to rise significantly faster in 1996 than in 1995.

  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate for the public sector borrowing requirement in the current year; and if he will make a statement [24342]

  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement in the current financial year. [24331]
  613
  Mr. Waldegrave
  I refer my hon. Friends to the reply I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane).

  Debtor Countries
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further action he has taken at meetings of the International Monetary Fund to press for debt cancellation in the poorest countries. [24341]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Chancellor will be attending the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World bank on 22 and 23 April. The United Kingdom has ensured that the multilateral debt problems of the poorest, most heavily indebted will be high on the agenda. At the institutions' annual meetings in October 1995, the Chancellor, supported by other finance Ministers, called on the IMF and the World bank to assess the scope of the multilateral debt problem and to propose a solution. That work will be discussed at the spring meetings. The UK will continue to press for practical solutions to the multilateral debt problems which will be able to deliver an early exit for eligible countries from their unsustainable debt burdens.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people were classified as economically inactive in each year since 1979; and what was the percentage change in each year over the previous year. [25000]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Information for Great Britain available from the labour force survey is shown in the table.

  Seasonally adjusted

  Spring (March to May)

  Economically inactive1 (aged 16 and above)

  Annual percentage change

  1979

  15,310

  1981

  15,654

  +1.5

  1983

  16,399

  +2.2

  1984

  16,130

  -1.6

  Internationally standard definition

  1984

  15,951

  +0.2

  1985

  15,990

  +0.7

  1986

  16,100

  -0.3

  1987

  16,053

  -1.3

  1988

  15,852

  -1.4

  1989

  15,623

  0.0

  1990

  15,616

  +1.4

  1991

  15,835

  +2.1

  1992

  16,165

  +1.2

  1993

  16,358

  +0.4

  1994

  16,424

  +0.7

  1995

  16,543

  1The definition of economic inactivity was brought into line with internationally standard definitions in 1984. Therefore, data above the line are not comparable with data below it.

  Oral Cancer and Glaucoma
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new cases of(a) oral cancer and (b) glaucoma were detected in each family health service authority area in each of the last 20 years. [25257]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Statistics are not collected centrally on glaucoma. The information requested on oral cancer for each of the last 20 years could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, provisional numbers of oral cancers diagnosed in 1990 for each regional health authority in England and Wales are given in the table.

  Regional health authority as of 1990

  Number

  Northern

  193

  Yorkshire

  227

  Trent

  225

  East Anglia

  116

  North West Thames

  168

  North East Thames

  150

  South East Thames

  195

  South West Thames

  137

  Wessex

  166

  Oxford

  116

  South Western

  140

  West Midlands

  261

  Mersey

  187

  North Western

  283

  Wales

  168

  Total

  2,732

  Figures for earlier years are contained in the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys annual reference volumes "Cancer statistics, registrations", series MBI numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10–16 and 18–22, copies of which are available in the Members' Library.

  Value Added Tax
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received in the past nine months on the variation of rates of value added tax; and if he will make a statement. [24325]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Representations have been received from many individuals and organisations proposing different variations to VAT rates.

  Mortgage Repayments
  Mr. Evennett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the figure for the average monthly repayment at the end of1990; and what it is currently. [24328]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  In October 1990, mortgage interest payments on an average mortgage were around £320 a month. They are now about half that level, at around £160 a month.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries Conservation
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, further to the letter from the Minister of State to all hon. Members on 2 April concerning, inter alia, fisheries conservation and science, what discussions will take place on the second report of the House of the Lords
  615
  Science and Technology Committee on fish stock conservation and management—HL25, Session 1995–96—during the regular contacts to which he refers between MAFF scientists and the industry. [25497]

  Mr. Baldry
  The recommendations of the House of Lords Committee on Science and Technology concerning technical conservation measures have already been discussed in meetings between fishermen, scientists and other Government experts. Other aspects of the Committee's report can readily be raised by either party in future contacts between Ministry scientists and the industry.

  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what targets have been set for the Pesticides Safety Directorate in 1996–97. [25929]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I have set the Pesticides Safety Directorate the following targets relating to financial performance, efficiency, the delivery of pesticides approval services and policy advice in 1996–97.

  To achieve 100 per cent. recovery of costs.

  To comply with budgetary controls resulting from the public expenditure survey and the supply estimates.

  To achieve an overall efficiency gain of 3 per cent.

  To meet the targets for delivery of services as follows:

  Application stream

  Applications completed

  Maximum processing time(working weeks)

  Technical secretariat1

  Normal

  255

  43

  Administrative fast

  400

  4

  Fast

  325

  21

  Experimental permit

  30

  36

  Off label

  200

  12

  Other

  205

  —

  New substances1

  Sift (EC and UK)

  13

  24

  Active substance

  —

  —

  UK: National rules

  8

  54

  EC: UK rapporteur

  1

  54

  UK reviews

  Full

  3

  —

  Other

  4

  —

  EC reviews

  UK rapporteur

  7

  —

  Non-rapporteur (monograph co-ordination)

  15

  —

  Total

  1,466

  —

  1The processing time targets apply to 85 per cent. of applications received except the EC and UK sifts for new substances, where the figure is 100 per cent.

  1. The quality of the directorate's scientific and policy work will be subject to separate quality audits.

  2. Details of performance in 1995–96 will be set out in the agency's annual report and accounts to be published during July 1996.

  Beef Industry
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial support will be provided to the United Kingdom beef producers and slaughtering sector. [25930]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made on 16 April 1996,Official Report, columns 513–16.

  In addition to the support measures previously announced, particularly for the rendering industry and for the slaughter of young bull calves, the measures set out below have now been implemented. Parliamentary approval for additional provision and for the funding of new services will be sought in supplementary estimates for class III vote 1, intervention board—executive agency: common agricultural policy market support and administration, and class III vote 2, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: operational expenditure, agencies and departmental administration. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £190 million will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

  1. Supplementary compensation payments on steers and heifers—older beef cattle whose market value is greater than cull cows.
  Cost: £80 million on class III vote 1. An advance from the Contingencies Fund of the full amount is required.

  2. Emergency aid to the slaughtering industry, comprising two elements:
  (i) immediate payment to slaughterhouses calculated on the basis of bovines slaughtered during 1995–96. Cost: £30 million on class III vote 2.
  (ii) purchase of unsaleable stocks of beef held by licensed slaughterhouses and cutting premises. Cost: £80 million on class III vote 1.
  An advance from the Contingencies Fund of the full amount—£110 million—is required.

  3. Scheme to purchase beasts over 30 months old and to dispose of their carcases safely to prevent beef from these cattle from entering the human food chain.
  Cost: £550 million on class III vote 1, 70 per cent. of compensation payments to be funded by the EU.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce further deregulation regarding food hygiene and public health regulations. [24925]

  Mr. Boswell
  Hygiene legislation is very largely harmonised at the level of the European Community, and is under review by the European Commission. In anticipation of EC proposals, the Government have consulted widely about possible simplification and rationalisation of food hygiene legislation. This revealed widespread support for consolidation of the large number of directives involved, providing necessary public health protection is not diluted. EC proposals are expected shortly.

  Lindane
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) if his Department has yet located the container of lindane that was washed overboard in the English channel in 1991;[25453]
  617
  (2) what estimates he has made of when the container of lindane lost overboard in the English channel in 1991 will corrode and release lindane into the sea; and what assessment he has made of the consequences of that release upon fish and marine life. [25454]

  Mr. Baldry
  We are not aware of the loss of a container of lindane in 1991, but a quantity of this insecticide was lost when the vessel MV Perintis sank in the channel on 13 March 1989. Despite considerable 618
  efforts by the UK and French authorities, location and retrieval of the cargo container in which the lindane was being transported was not possible. The container was believed to be undamaged when it sank which, together with the type of packaging used, indicates that any seepage into the sea would be at a very slow rate. This would rapidly dilute and disperse and not give rise to any food safety or environmental concerns. Water samples are taken from the area each year and these continue to show that concentrations of lindane have remained at background levels.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

Water Supplies: Adequacy
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that there will be adequate water supplies in all parts of the United Kingdom during the remainder of 1996.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the Government are satisfied that water supplies in Scotland and Northern Ireland are adequate for the remainder of 1996. In England and Wales, a report on the position at 31st March will be published by the Environment Agency within the next two weeks. The Government expect water companies to take all measures necessary to comply with their statutory duty to maintain supplies.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that we are facing one of the most serious water crises in England and Wales for the past 80 years; that reservoir levels in many parts of the country, particularly Yorkshire, the north west and the south west, are greatly below the levels of normal years; and that unless there is immediate and heavy rainfall the crisis this summer will be the worst in living memory? Does the Minister agree that that calls for more urgent action than merely the report to which he referred? Given that the leakage rates for many of the water companies are still high, should there not be mandatory leakage targets for each water authority right away?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not take the same desperate view as the noble Lord. With all the effort that the water companies are putting in and all the additional measures they have planned for this year, we are confident that even with the low rainfall we have experienced to date and the low expectations for the summer we shall see nothing worse than the usual measures. So far as concerns leakage control, I have answered that in previous Questions. The answer is the same: water companies are doing all they can to achieve sensible levels over the next 10 years. It is important that they do so. There is no need for mandatory targets which would merely mean that the consumer rather than the water companies would have to pay.
Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it would be extraordinarily foolish to express confidence about the water situation this summer? As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, reservoirs are extremely low due to the weather conditions that have prevailed over a long time. Is my noble friend also aware that, important though it is to reduce leakage, the considerable efforts being made to that end cannot
784
achieve much change in the timescale to which the Question refers and that there is therefore a real need for people in the areas affected to attempt savings and to be economical with water? The only alternative is to take water from the rivers with the resulting environmental damage.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, leakage measures will not make much difference in the short term. They require a lot of money and take a long time to get right. As to shorter term measures, we are confident that the expensive and extensive improvements made by the water companies will put a great deal more resource at the disposal of consumers this summer than there was last and very much reduce the chance of any problems arising. Of course, I cannot promise that there will be rain between now and September. I have no adequate rain dance, and my noble friend Lord Ferrers is in no condition to do one either.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the reservoirs in Wales which supply Birmingham and Liverpool are reasonably full and that therefore they have every reason to be grateful to us? Secondly, will he be more precise and tell the House where the shortages in England are likely to be most serious? Is it in the south east and Yorkshire, or are there other areas which may be in difficulties?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, on this side of the House at least we are all grateful for having Wales as part of the UK. The noble Lord asks about areas with water problems this year. The areas of difficulty are those of North West Water where, if things become bad, there may be a need to draw upon the lakes more than we would wish; Severn Trent Water, which seems likely to get through with minor restrictions only; South West Water, which has problems in one particular area; Yorkshire Water, as noble Lords would expect; and, to some extent, the south east where the aquifers are running at a rather lower level than we would like.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is there any resolution of the controversy between the local authorities of Windermere and other lakes which do not wish the water to be taken out and the need for water? Will it be possible to take water out of those lakes in an emergency?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is important for the tourist industry and others that the lakes should remain at a level at which they are beautiful to look at. It is also important that people in the locality have water to drink. The difficulties of reconciling those two considerations will be exacerbated in the short term if there is a drought and will be solved in the long term only by bringing in extra supplies of water. I cannot predict what will happen this year but we hope that matters will he resolved without causing problems to the scenic beauty.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, if the report due to be published on 31st March does not show that satisfactory steps have been taken by the water companies what action do the Government have in mind, given the fact that in Yorkshire, for instance, the

785
reservoirs are only about one-third full whereas at the same time last year they were full to capacity? There followed the terrible summer and autumn and the threat that water would be cut off on alternate days. Will the Minister indicate what steps have been taken to install a pipeline between Yorkshire and Kielder reservoir?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot answer the noble Baroness's second question but I shall write to her on the subject. If difficulties were to be highlighted in the report from the Environment Agency, we would take immediate steps to make sure that the water companies dealt with them. Under the Water Industry Act we have extensive powers to do so, and if they fail to comply we can throw them to the crocodiles.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, West Yorkshire suffered most badly as a result of last year's drought. The revival of industry in West Yorkshire, which has been most welcome during the past few years, was threatened by the interruption of water supplies. Will the Minister ensure that the interests of industry as well as tourism are considered as an important factor in the most severely affected part of the Yorkshire region?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, has further thought been given to connecting up different areas with the canal system and also to enlarging that system to enable water to be transported from one area to another?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have not looked at whether or not we can use the canal system but I assure the noble Lord that we are studying many projects to move water from one part of the country to another in order to deal with long-term water deficits which may emerge over the next few years.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the water industry in this country spends some £23 billion implementing EC water directives whereas we spend only £1 billion on infrastructure work such as storage facilities and the delivery of water? Have we not somehow got our priorities wrong at great expense to the British community?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not have the exact figures but those quoted by the noble Lord appear to be of the correct order of magnitude. Obtaining water of high quality is an expensive business and a great deal of money has been spent. It is right that the consumers of this country should be able to rely on good quality water at all times. It is also right that they should be able to expect a proper water supply, given the willingness of Him above to rain on us in necessary quantities. We must provide both, and the amount of money that each costs is the amount of money that each costs. If one is more expensive than the other that is the way it is.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Government would throw the water
786
companies to the crocodiles if there was a serious problem. I understood that the nature of privatisation was to ensure that there would be no such government control over water companies and that they could not throw them to the crocodiles. When they handed water over to the fat crocodiles who now run the industry they expected that the water problems would be resolved. Will the noble Lord now admit that the principle of the privatisation of water, which is a vital resource, was fundamentally mistaken?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, certainly not; it has gone extremely well. As the noble Lord is aware, the water companies have accepted an obligation to supply water and we have the ability to enforce that obligation.

European Television Programme Quotas
3.18 p.m.
Viscount Chelmsford Viscount Chelmsford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the views expressed in the European Parliament concerning quotas for television programmes, as proposed for inclusion in the television without frontiers directive; and, if not, what action they are taking to propose a suitable alternative.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, at the Culture and Audio-visual Council on 20th November last year all member states agreed to retain the text of Articles 4 and 5 of the 1989 television without frontiers directive. These articles require a majority of European programme content and at least 10 per cent. of that to be from independent producers. The Commission has confirmed its support of this agreement and it is not in favour of the proposed European parliamentary amendments relating to quotas.
Viscount Chelmsford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer which, if it holds, is very satisfactory. If, as we heard before the Easter Recess, the Commission is now engaged in conciliation it may not hold. Is not the use of subsidiarity a viable alternative which the Government might like to consider in such circumstances? Does the Minister agree with the comment that has been published by EURIM, the European parliamentary group of which I am a member, suggesting that public service networks provide the means to preserve national cultures with the least market distortion?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we believe that the Commission is clearly committed to the provisions of the proposed amendments to the television without frontiers directive. It is other provisions of the European Parliament's proposed amendments about which it is considering that it may change its view. It is important to realise that this is a First Reading by the European Parliament. There is still a long way to go in the legislative process before any changes reach the statute book. Lastly, it is the case that in this country, public

787
service terrestrial broadcasters are subject to a whole range of positive programming requirements which are in the public interest.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, do the Government agree that while it is important to resist the flood of cheap American imports into some of our satellite channels, quotas are not the best way to achieve that? Will the Government ensure that during the further passage of the Broadcasting Bill in another place they will do everything possible to encourage high quality original British programming, not only from the BBC and the independent television companies but also from BSkyB?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, for supporting the Government's position in respect of quotas. Of course, it is the Government's wish that the quality of British television and television productions made in this country should be of the highest quality possible.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that quotas distort competition in the industry and, as it is an industry which must operate in a world market, quotas are bad for the broadcasting industry?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, in giving future consideration to the views expressed by the European Parliament on such matters, will the noble Lord bear in mind that most views expressed in the European Parliament are expressed on behalf of a minority only because only a minority of its members attend? Will the noble Lord give the House an assurance that he will pay due attention to that fact?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure that in view of the fact that some noble Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, have been Members of the European Parliament, we can form our own views on the merits and the quality of the opinions which it forms.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the British people will not tolerate being told by the French, the Germans, the Greeks and so on what they can and cannot watch on their television screens?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the British people are not being told by those nations what to watch on television. They have a perfectly good on/off button.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is rather sanguine as to what the British people can be told about what to do and what not to do? They have just been told that they may not export perfectly good British beef to the Continent or elsewhere.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, that is a trifle wide of the Question which I have been answering but of course, on this occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, is absolutely right.

School Bullying
3.23 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the latest steps they have taken to combat school bullying.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, The Government continue to give priority to action against bullying. We have commissioned a survey to find out how schools have used the anti-bullying pack which the Department for Education published in 1994 and the effect it has had on reducing the incidence of bullying. In addition, the Home Office published last December the report Preventing School Bullying, which to meet high demand is to be re-issued shortly.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government's response is welcome but wholly inadequate? Research has shown that bullying is not only very damaging and distressing to many young people but it is now endemic in Britain. No fewer than 40 per cent. of our schools have no anti-bullying policy. Therefore, my guess is that many schools do not have those packs and have not bothered to obtain them. Is it not the case that the Government's mistake is to rely upon a voluntary policy when they should require all schools to have an anti-bullying policy, to report on it and to publicise locally what they are doing?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am not sure on which research the noble Lord bases his evidence. If it is research conducted by the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, I accept that that research shows considerable disquiet among parents and that a number of parents are unaware of schools' anti-bullying policies. However, evidence from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector seems to indicate that most schools have an effective anti-bullying policy and most have taken note of the advice given by the Department for Education and Employment in the pack which we issued some two years ago.
Having said that, I very much welcome the advice of the NCPTA. It emphasises that there are no easy solutions to the problem of bullying and recommends that we should be honest and admit that it goes on and that a co-operative approach should be adopted by the Government, the LEAs, the schools, teachers and parents. Through pursuing such a policy, we may be able to eradicate the scourge of bullying.
The noble Lord alleges that we are being complacent. We are evaluating the effectiveness of the pack. I assure him that if the evidence suggests that it would be better to issue the pack compulsorily to all schools, I should be prepared to consider that. At present, 19,000 of the 24,000 or so schools have opted to receive the pack and we have written to all the other schools which have not received it suggesting that it is available and that they might like to acquire it.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is not all this talk of an anti-bullying policy merely a platitude? We are all

789
against bullying. All LEA schools are against bullying. It is very easy to talk about a policy but it is surveillance which is required. That means either that extra staff must be employed or that teachers must be required to give up what is sometimes a very well-earned break during the morning's proceedings.
Lord Henley: My Lords, like the NCPTA, I do not believe that there is a single, simple solution to the problem. But the noble Lord is right to say that better surveillance needs to be adopted by the schools and it is for the schools to adopt the right policies to make sure that bullying is dealt with; that people are aware of it; and that there is no fear in relation to reporting incidents of bullying.
Lord Morris of Castle Morris: My Lords, following on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, is the Minister aware of the great admiration that we have on these Benches for the excellent report issued by the Home Office from the University of Sheffield on this subject? I declare an interest as an honorary doctor and former professor of that great university. Will the Minister inform the House what evidence has been gathered since that report on how teachers are evaluating bullying problems in their schools, because to do so teachers need time? Given the general cutback in education services, have teachers had enough time fully to implement the anti-bullying measures effectively?
Lord Henley: My Lords, as I made clear earlier, we are evaluating the effectiveness of the pack. We shall have to look at how teachers are managing the problem of bullying. I also give an assurance to the noble Lord that for the truancy and disaffected pupils programme, there was made available some £15 million last year and a similar figure will be made available this year. This is certainly something which we take very seriously indeed.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, is not the simple answer that teachers will have to be present at playtime—I understand that sometimes that is not the case—because that is when bullying takes place? As the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, surely that is a simple answer. I do not believe that all the surveys and so on achieve anything.
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is one simple answer, but many other issues must be addressed. It is for schools to develop the right policies within their schools to make sure that the problem is dealt with.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that overwhelmingly the teaching profession is doing its best to stamp out bullying? Any good teacher will have his eyes and ears open. But sometimes youngsters hide the fact that they are being bullied from the teachers. Perhaps I may add that the noble Lord who did so well in Sheffield was my pupil once upon a time.
Lord Henley: My Lords, and I am sure that the noble Lord was very well taught indeed. The noble Viscount is right to draw attention to the excellent work that
790
teachers are doing. But I believe that he is right also to draw attention to the fact that the right atmosphere must be created in schools so that children who are being bullied feel able to report that bullying or so that other children who know that bullying is taking place are able to report that too.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am as much against platitudes as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, but the fact remains that bullying is creating enormous distress to many thousands of pupils in this country? Similarly, I do not agree with my noble friend in his statement that all teachers are trying to stop bullying, because there is evidence that some teachers could not care less. It is their indifference which is creating part of the problem. I agree that there is no simple solution, but until the Government really insist that every school has an anti-bullying policy, we shall not solve the problem. It is not a simple matter; but the Government can and should do more.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I can agree up to a point with the noble Lord. However, I think that he overemphasises the problem. I believe that a great deal is being done and that attitudes in schools are improving and doing so quite dramatically. As I said, some 19,000 copies of the pack have gone out to schools and, as Her Majesty's Chief Inspector made clear, most schools have adopted effective policies. But obviously we would want to evaluate the effectiveness of the pack and, as I assured the noble Lord, when we have evaluated it I shall consider whether we ought to go further.

Rail Franchising Director: Resignation
3.30 p.m.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the reasons given by the rail passenger franchising director for his resignation last week.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, in his statement, Mr. Roger Salmon said that when he first took up the job of franchising director he set himself a number of objectives, including the creation of an effective franchising organisation, paving the way for capital investment in infrastructure and rolling stock. Once those objectives had been achieved, he would hand over to someone else. Mr. Salmon has now achieved the objectives and has therefore decided to stand down in October.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, it was my understanding that when Mr. Salmon was first appointed in April 1994 he was set the target of having 51 per cent. by value of the passenger franchises let within two years. He achieved 17 per cent., which is exactly one-third. Mr. Watts, the Minister for Railways and Roads, said on Mr. Salmon's leaving:
"Mr. Salmon is leaving on the crest of a wave, having met all his targets".

791
Is that the wrong kind of wave, or something, when he only achieved one-third of the target? Can the Minister say whether it is more likely that Mr. Salmon became thoroughly fed up with continuing government interference, the changes and the hassle that have taken place in what many of us believe was an impossible job in any event? Indeed, is it possible that he has decided to spend more time with his merchant bank?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the noble Lord should look at what has actually been achieved. There is absolutely no point in setting a target if it is an easy one. Indeed, one has to have a tough target. It might well be the view of the Opposition to set very easy targets, but we believe that if you have a tough target you will then reach it. I should point out that 60 per cent. of the passenger railway is either for sale or has been sold. Seventeen per cent. of the railway is already running; a further three franchises at 18 per cent. have been awarded and will begin running in the private sector in the near future; and a further eight franchises—25 per cent. of the passenger railway revenue—are already on the market. I believe that that is a significant achievement. We are talking about a major change to the way that we run our railways. There are major benefits for the customer and for the taxpayer. I know that today it has been reinforced that the party opposite does not care.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that regret at the departure of the franchising director is considerably tempered by his persistent refusal to take the slightest notice of the amendment passed in this House? I wonder whether my noble friend can shed any light on the question of whether the franchising director was exercising his own discretion or whether he was responding to a powerful nudge from elsewhere.
Viscount Goschen: He was using his own discretion, my Lords, as set out in the Act.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that when the Government decided to accelerate the process of privatisation from four to two years it meant that the funds which had originally been planned on a four-year basis in the short and medium term became inadequate to do the job properly? Can the Minister confirm that one of the reasons why Mr. Salmon resigned was that he could not complete the task that he had originally set for himself? If the Government find a new franchising director he would, of course, be on a short-term contract. Can the Minister say whether more money would be available to enable him to carry out the job that Mr. Salmon thought he would be able to do?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the funds available are perfectly adequate. Indeed, I would say that the franchising director has done a very good job. He has not been given any directions by Ministers to accelerate the franchising programme, as the noble Lord said. On the one hand, the noble Lord said that we are behind; on the other, he said that we are speeding up the process. He cannot have it both ways.
792
The party opposite said that rail franchising would cost more. That is not true. Indeed, we are now seeing much lower levels of subsidy being awarded. The party opposite said that fares would rise; no, they are being capped. The party opposite said that services would be worse; they are better. The party opposite also said that investment would be lower; in fact, it is higher. It is true to say that the programme is now going forward most satisfactorily.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that people travelling up from the south will be very glad to hear of the abolition of the slam-door trains and the planned modernisation? That will make a huge difference.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I imagine that passengers on those lines will be absolutely delighted at the news.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I recognise that it is an extremely beneficial change to have a longer franchise. However, is the Minister aware of the very deep level of cynicism on the part of rail users—and, in particular, of rail-user groups—concerning the likely effect of franchising in terms of the quality of service, and especially the level of investment? Is the Minister further aware that some franchise holders also have difficulty understanding how they will be able to produce the right level of investment on a seven-year franchise to substantially increase the attractiveness of rail travel to the user?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not recognise cynicism among rail users although I recognise it among certain groups and the parties opposite who are trying to oppose the programme. We believe that those who are actually travelling on the lines that have been franchised are seeing the benefits of better service. They have heard the promises of further investment by the new franchisees. They know about Network South Central, the most recent franchise, and a further £10 million investment promised in refurbishing trains, rolling stock and stations. Those are the things that matter to the people who travel on the railway and, indeed, to the taxpayer who will now pay substantially less by way of grant or subsidy to the railway than he did before. With the Network South Central franchise, for example, the average subsidy will be less than half it was under BR.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, if the Minister does not recognise cynicism among rail users, has he read Christian Wolmer's column in the Independent on Sunday about mad events on the railways since the institution of the current arrangements?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, there is an old saw that you should not believe everything you read in the newspapers.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness is a rail user. As a rail user on both of the privatised lines to the south west from Taunton to Paddington and from Sherborne to

793
Waterloo, I find that the service has improved immeasurably in the run-up to privatisation. Indeed, the punctuality has improved—
Lord Avebury: Question!
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, do I have the right to finish?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend has made some powerful points.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Viscount Goschen: Well, my Lords; those in the party opposite obviously do not care one jot what the travelling public actually think about the railways. They much prefer to rely on party dogma whereas we believe that we must look at the benefits to passengers. My noble friend is a passenger on one of the newly-privatised lines. He has seen the benefits. I travel on that line. I have also seen the benefits.

Deregulation (Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868) Order 1996
3.39 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown The Earl of Courtown rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the present prohibition on the possession and sale of salmon roe was established in legislation over 100 years ago. Like much of the salmon legislation of the day, it was forward looking and was designed as a conservation measure to protect wild salmon stocks. Thus under the terms of Section 18 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868 it is a criminal offence in Scotland to buy, sell, expose for sale or have in one's possession salmon roe whatever the source of that roe.
What our predecessors, far-sighted as they were, did not foresee was the development of the farmed salmon industry. That industry now has a first sale value of between £200 million and £250 million per annum. It is a major employer in the remoter areas of the country, is a large exporter and produces a product of high quality. Unfortunately, the all-embracing ban on the possession of salmon roe for sale is preventing the salmon farming industry developing a quite lucrative market for roe, estimated at £12 million per annum initially.
This deregulation measure will allow the farmed salmon sector to sell surplus roe and to compete in the world market with supplies from Norway, for example. What the measure will not do, the Government are confident, is to undermine the protection of the wild salmon. It will be an offence to possess wild roe for
794
sale. The proposed amendment in the deregulation order has been drafted carefully to ensure that that is the case. With these assurances that wild salmon roe will continue to be protected, may I recommend to the House that this deregulation order should be adopted to allow roe of farmed origin to be sold. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th February be approved [13th Report from the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee.]—(The Earl of Courtown.)
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, in respect of this order I feel rather like a midwife who has assisted at the birth of a baby. About 18 months ago I discovered that salmon farms in Scotland were prohibited from selling their roe under Section 18 of the 1868 Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act. As a result, as the noble Earl has just said, they were losing a lucrative export market, mainly in the Far East. As a result of this discovery a nice short Private Member's Bill was drafted and I was all set to introduce it in this House when I was told that the Lord President of the Council had said that no time could be found for it in another place and that the same result could be achieved more simply by an order under the deregulation Act. Of course I accepted that.
I believe that the safeguards against the sale of wild salmon roe are adequate. I am persuaded that placing the onus of proof of provenance on the possessor will prove satisfactory.
I am glad that the baby, small as it is, has at last been born. I look forward to being able to buy home grown salmon roe—which makes delicious pâté—in Scotland instead of having to buy imported salmon roe in London and drag it home. I strongly recommend it to any of your Lordships who have not yet tasted it.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I have one simple question for the Minister. How will anyone determine the difference between wild salmon roe and farmed salmon roe?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, first I shall deal with the good question put by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Basically the burden of proof will be on the person who is holding the salmon roe to show the origin of the salmon roe. As one can probably imagine, it is somewhat difficult to show the difference between salmon roe from farmed salmon and salmon roe from wild salmon. However, we shall of course monitor the situation to see how the order affects the industry. I thank the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, for her contribution. I hope that she enjoys purchasing salmon roe in Scotland, and enjoys it at home. I commend the order to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
3.45 p.m.
Report received.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
PURPOSES OF THIS PART
(". The purposes of this Part are to enable a local housing authority to ensure the review, improvement and renewal as appropriate of the private sector housing in its area in such a way that in can—

(a) set priorities for action under this Part;

(b) bring about an improvement in the condition of private housing in the area; and

(c) encourage the promotion and facilitation of sound maintenance of private sector housing by private interests including lenders, insurers and builders.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will be aware that Part I deals with renovation grants for private housing. The House will also be aware that there were extensive discussions in Committee about the difference between a mandatory scheme for renovation grants and a discretionary scheme which is now proposed under the Bill before your Lordships. Without wishing to repeat what has been said at Second Reading and in Committee, I would just point out that public intervention as regards the condition of private housing for those who are unable to maintain their own houses with their own means has been undertaken since the time of Queen Victoria, but public investment in renovation grants has fallen to around a third of the levels in the early 1980s.
Furthermore, as I said on Second Reading, there is a deepening and frequently underestimated crisis of disrepair in private housing. One in 12 homes—that is 1.5 million homes—are officially unfit for human habitation. Furthermore, public intervention at current levels is failing to keep pace with the rate of deterioration in private housing. Economic and demographic factors have exacerbated the problems facing private house renewal and the current house renovation grant system introduced by the Government in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is, in our view, in a state of crisis.
The Government's response to this crisis has been dominated by the need to dismantle the mandatory grant which they set up in their own Act in 1989 rather than to address the underlying problems of disrepair. If implemented in its current form without the amendment that I am proposing, the Bill will remove the current right to a grant to ensure that a home is fit to live in. The Bill provides no national framework within which local authorities may address the current disrepair in private housing. The Bill will officially sanction housing which is unfit for human occupation by legalising the deferral of action on those properties. The Bill will do nothing to bring in any extra resources needed to halt the deterioration—which is before our eyes—in the condition of private housing.
Having said that—this is part of what we discussed in Committee—I should like to speak particularly to the amendment that I put before your Lordships this afternoon. The proposed "purpose" clause—in Committee we discussed the nature of purpose clauses, and I do not accept the argument that a purpose clause overrides all that is in the Bill subsequently—which I set before your Lordships is designed to clarify the intention behind the Bill by setting a framework for the operation of local authority discretion. Local authorities should, in our view, be enabled to set priorities for action to tackle private house disrepair. I cannot imagine that your Lordships will consider that to be contentious. Indeed it is precisely the purpose to which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred at Second Reading when he said,
"It will give local authorities the freedom to decide their own priorities for tackling unfitness and disrepair in private housing".—[Official Report, 20/2/96; col. 976.]
My amendment will provide what we believe to be a useful curb upon the discretion the measure gives both to local authorities and to the Secretary of State. If local authorities do not use their discretion in the way required by this amendment they will be contravening the Bill's essential purpose.
Equally, if the implementation of the Bill and the wealth of accompanying secondary legislation that we predict as a result of the Bill gaining Royal Assent prevent local authorities from establishing priorities in the way envisaged, we believe that the Bill's purpose will be frustrated.
The purpose of public intervention in private house renewal' should be to bring about an improvement in private house conditions. That is set out in paragraph (b) of the amendment. I do not believe that this is a matter of dispute. Given the discretionary nature of the Bill's provisions, the widespread impression, which I accept, that the Government are abandoning responsibility to make proper arrangements for the maintenance of private housing, and the suspicion that the end of mandatory grant will be followed by a reduction in public expenditure on private house renewal, this part of the amendment may not be self evident. It is designed to establish a principle.
If the grant system is to operate successfully, it must encourage the sound maintenance of private housing in co-operation with private interests. We recognise that private interests will be involved. It is right that they should be involved in all aspects of private housing. It is odd that the Government, who are so committed to the advancement of the private sector, have not paid more attention to the role of the private sector in private house renewal. We believe that paragraph (c) of the amendment puts down a marker for private and public sector co-operation in private house renewal.
I am aware of the arguments put forward in Committee about purpose clauses. However, because the Bill marks a major change from a mandatory grant to a discretionary system for 1.5 million private houses in disrepair, I believe that a purpose clause for Part I is the right way to go forward. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, made much of the fact that the Bill

797
contains discretionary provisions and does not provide resources for their implementation. I believe that it will be easy for my noble friend to resist the amendment if he so wishes, as I imagine he does. Had that amendment been put into the Bill by the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, would find it difficult to resist the temptation to put down an amendment to remove the provision in the following terms. He would say that the Bill provides only discretionary provisions; it includes no resources; and, therefore, it declares a purpose which cannot possibly be achieved in the first clause because that clause is discretionary.
The noble Lord says that the purposes of this part of the Bill are enabling and do not place a requirement on a local housing authority. If a discretionary motive is a weakness in the Bill, it is reflected and multiplied in the amendment. I hope that my noble friend will resist it.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendment because I read the clause in a way diametrically opposed to the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Elton.
The concern widely shared among many noble Lords, and outside the House, is that the Bill is an elaborate scheme to mask the inadequacy of funding for house renovation, repair and so on. If there is not enough money then there must be a strategy for using such funding as is available.
During Committee we heard much of the discretion in local authorities. I find it difficult to accept that there would be a discretion both in the context of inadequate funding and as regards the centralising provisions of the Bill. However, if there is to be discretion at local level, then it is appropriate—I believe that it is required—that local authorities are enabled to review, improve and renew private sector housing in the way set out in the amendment.
The amendment sets the discretionary nature of the scheme in a way which supports what the Government say the Bill provides—although I do not read the Bill as providing that. It is not enough to say that grants will be available when there is inadequate funding for those grants with no possibility of setting strategies for priorities or for using that money in the best way. The best role for local government is to encourage investment in maintenance and improvement and to play an active part in the best use of the funds available.
I set very high in that strategy the use of funds, in the private rented sector as well as privately owned property, where conditions may be particularly poor. Given the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Williams, alluded, I believe that it is the responsibility of local authorities to do everything possible to ensure that people have a decent roof over their heads. This purpose clause would set that framework.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend's amendment, I take a slightly different tack from previous speakers. It is becoming recognised that through the Bill we are in the process of changing the regime for housing renovation grants from a
798
mandatory to a discretionary one. However, one of my concerns is as regards how those new discretionary housing renovation grant schemes will work at local housing authority level, and how they will change over time.
Perhaps I may postulate a couple of scenarios. The local authority may have few houses in such a situation. It may be a local authority with a lot of relatively new build. It may have had a high proportion of council houses and, therefore, may not have a large number of dwellings in the category likely to attract grant because of the decline in that sector of the housing market. In that situation, there is a risk that because the issue affects only a minority of people in the area, the local authority will say, "This is not a high political priority; we shall not spend a great deal of money in that area and we shall restrict giving grants as much as possible".
I would hope that a purpose clause might be used only in extremis. There might be a small pocket of decline in the private housing sector which needs grants but the local authority takes little notice of it. That sector could go to the court and say, "This local authority is not abiding by the Act". That is an example of one use that might be made of the new clause.
The other point is in relation to the ongoing dynamic situation. As circumstances change in a local authority area, there will be a need to adjust and readjust the priorities that a local authority may set. For example, it may decide to allocate more funds to a particular council activity. It may decide to change the criteria on which the funds were allocated. Surely, given the nature of the democracy that we have in this country, it is only right that local councillors making the decisions should be responsive to their local communities. They should have in front of them reports on how such a scheme might operate, what the effect would be on the operation of schemes that previously had certain criteria attached to them and whether they were effective in terms of the final section of the amendment to,
"encourage the promotion and facilitation of sound maintenance of private sector housing",
by the private sector. It may be that, because of the way the local authority grant discretionary regime operates, it is not working to best advantage in bringing forward private sector investment in maintenance.
It is important that local authorities are, if not required then encouraged, to examine their schemes for discretionary disbursement of public funds for private sector renewal and maintenance. They should be responsive to the local situation as it changes. I hope that the Government will he sympathetic to the purpose clause and accept the amendment.
4 p.m.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, at Second Reading and at Committee stage I crossed swords with the noble Lord, Lord Williams, because I welcomed the discretionary nature of the Bill's provisions. I approve

799
of the concept of a discretionary scheme rather than the mandatory one which it replaces. I gave my opposition to that at Committee stage.
I believe that it is an unusual approach for the noble Lord, Lord Williams, to take to put down and now to pursue at Report stage this purpose clause. On many occasions I have crossed swords with him about the restrictions that the Government have placed on the actions or activities of local authorities. He suggested to me that he disapproved of governments putting restrictions on local authorities and their activities. That indicates that the noble Lord does not believe that he can trust local authorities to exercise their judgment correctly. Therefore, they need an overarching purpose clause. I do not believe that this one will necessarily have the effect which he suggests and I agree with my noble friend Lord Elton that, although it creates a good feeling, it will not alter the amount of resources available for it.
In supporting the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, then argued very much against it. He indicated that one should leave the local authority to use its discretion to react to the different priorities as time goes by. That is exactly what the Bill does; it leaves local authorities to judge for themselves how the money should be spent, rather than the mandatory scheme which it replaces. Therefore, I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to reject it.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I believe that he misunderstood what I was suggesting. I was trying to suggest that the local authority would be required to consider changes to the scheme, not that it should not have the discretion. The local authority should have the discretion but should use it effectively.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I support the amendment on the grounds that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned in the early part of his remarks. As he said, successive national house condition surveys have shown that no fewer than 1.5 million houses are unfit for human habitation in the country and 3.5 million are in need of serious repair. At the same time, the grants being made available for dealing with the situation, which obviously affect mainly people on low income, have been rapidly diminishing. It is my opinion that the drafting of this part of the Bill does not sufficiently emphasise the importance of the problem. I believe that this purpose clause or something similar would help to do so.
The fact that we have limited resources does not in any way diminish—indeed, it increases—the size of the problem. We ought to make that clear. There ought to be an incentive for this Government or successive governments to make additional resources available and for local authorities to make the best use of those resources. I should have thought that some reference to it in the Bill is necessary.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, noble Lords spoke eloquently on Amendment No. 1—notably the noble Lord, Lord Williams—about the importance to a local authority of being able to identify the needs of the
800
private housing sector in its area, to provide help for those who own, rent or let properties which are unfit or in need of repair and to encourage maintenance. We do not disagree about the general desirability of those principles.
However, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said in Committee, my noble friend Lord Elton said today and I repeat, we do not believe that a general purpose clause of any nature is necessary or appropriate in the Bill. As drafted, Part I of the Bill deals not with overarching principles but with detailed provisions on the workings of grant regimes. It provides local authorities with the powers they need to meet the objectives of their private sector renewal strategies. How these are used is for a local authority to decide.
I do not believe that there is a need in the Bill to encapsulate fundamental guiding principles which are necessary to guide the courts in the exercise of their functions. Purpose clauses are extremely rare in English and Welsh legislation, with only the Family Law Reform Bill, the Arbitration Bill and the Legal Aid Act 1988 coming to mind.
A general purpose clause for Part I would run the risk of interfering with the legal clarity of the individual provisions in the rest of Part I. We already have a general statement at the beginning of each of Chapters I to IV of Part I explaining what the particular grant or purpose is for. There is no need to go any further with general principles which are not closely and directly related to the individual provisions and which run the risk of making interpretation of the legislation more difficult, with the possibility of upsetting conventional interpretation.
Part I of the Bill sets out the powers, duties and obligations of a local authority in terms of assistance and action where a person is unable to improve or adapt his property. Care has been taken to ensure that these cases are set out clearly and in detail to ensure that the provisions are applied on a consistent basis nationally and are not open to misinterpretation. I do not believe the amendment would improve the ability of authorities to achieve the purposes of the legislation. On the contrary, it would risk limiting their activities to those falling within the purposes set out in the amendment.
The objectives the noble Lord, Lord Williams, seeks to include in this purpose clause include the normal practices that we would all expect a local authority to undertake as part of its wider housing strategy and as part of the housing investment programme process. But some of the purposes set out in the clause, such as setting priorities for action and encouraging and facilitating sound maintenance, are not found in the express provisions of Part I. However, the latter arc purposes that the department recognises and seeks to encourage through guidance, with such publications as the Housing Strategies Guide and the annual Housing Investment Programme Guidance.
We are strongly of the opinion that there is no room for a purpose clause at the beginning of this part of the Bill. It adds nothing, it carries dangers with it and, as my noble friend Lord Ullswater said, we trust local

801
authorities to use the discretion that we give them properly. I hope that noble Lords will resist the amendment.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he clear my mind of the confusion in which I find myself, which I admit happens from time to time? I thought he said that general purpose clauses were unusual. He may well be right. However, he said that there was a general purpose clause in the Arbitration Bill, which completed its passage in this House and is now in another place. The Arbitration Bill reappears in Part II of this Bill, albeit in another context from the one with which we are dealing here. It occurs to me that if general purpose clauses are appropriate in the Arbitration Bill, which appears later in this Bill, why is it not appropriate to insert a general purpose clause at this stage of the Bill?
I may be totally wrong and the Minister may be able to clear up the confusion with which my mind is clouded. If it is, I should be greatly pleased if he would uncloud it.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I acknowledge my ability to confuse the noble Lord. Indeed, at a previous stage of the Bill I remember confusing his gender! I hope I have not gone so far this time.
The difference is surely that some Bills benefit from purpose clauses and others do not. Our general experience is that the numbers that do are quite few and far between. So far as this particular part of the Bill is concerned, we set out the purposes relevant to each individual section of the part, but we see no room for a purpose clause for the part as a whole.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that he had mistaken my noble friend's gender in a previous discussion. He also mistook my noble friend's name in a letter that he very kindly wrote to me. So I am not sure whether my noble friend Lord Howie speaks as a male, a female or a member of some curious body that I know not of—
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I wonder if I might help my noble friend. I have been a Member of this House, give or take a day or two, for 18 years. I know that the noble Lord is much more recent than I am. I daresay I am an antiquity—less so than some, but an antiquity of a sort. At an earlier stage of the Bill, he accused me of being the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. To a point, I was quite pleased about that, though it caused me a certain amount of further confusion. His satellites, or whatever the word is, in Whitehall sent me a letter in which they called me "Will Troon". I thought that very gracious. The "Will" bit was obviously meant to be kindly; and the "Troon" bit was part of my origin. All I can say is that if I am confused, the noble Lord is confused as well.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, perhaps I may continue my wind-up on this amendment. I am grateful
802
to my noble friend for his admission. I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will not feel offended by my noble friend's remark.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in responding, said that basically the Government agree with all this. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, had read the text of the amendment. If I had said, "require a local housing authority", then I agree with the noble Lord that I should have been introducing what was fundamentally a wrecking amendment. I am not doing so. I am trying to set a framework.
That leads me to the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater. I have every trust in local authorities. That is not my problem; it is a problem that the Government have. They have no trust in local authorities at all—witness all the machinations of the revenue support grant, SSA and so on. I have trust in local authorities.
Nevertheless, I believe that there must be—I use the noble Lord's words—some over-arching principle in relation to renovation grants for private housing up and down the land. The amendment is only enabling, but it gives a guide to local housing authorities as to what they could or should be doing.
So far as resources are concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is right. When we come to the subject of efficiency grants we shall no doubt discuss the question of resources again. The point about paragraph (c) is that we are interested in getting private interests involved in this business, as indeed the Government are. I have no problem with that.
As for the purpose clause, as my noble friend Lord Howie—in whatever identity he chooses to present himself—pointed out, there are circumstances where a purpose clause is desirable.
Fundamentally, this is a question of political difference between noble Lords opposite and ourselves. The only way to solve political difference is to ask the opinion of the House.
4.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 89; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Dahrendorf, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

David, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Diamond, L.

Berkeley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L

Blackstone, B.

Donoughue, L.

Blease, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Borrie, L.

Dubs, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ezra, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Falkland, V.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Carter, L.

Fitt, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Gallacher, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Geraint, L.

803

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller.]

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Nicol, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Ogmore, L.

Harnwee, B.

Peston, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Haskel, L.

Rea, L.

Hayman, B.

Redesdale, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Richard, L.

Hollick, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Seear, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Serota, B.

Hughes, L.

Shepherd, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Simon, V.

Jeger, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kennet, L.

Temple of Stowe, E.

Kilbracken, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kirkhill, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Listowel, E.

Thurso, V.

Lockwood, B.

Tope, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McCarthy, L.

Varley, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whaddon, L.

McNair, L.

White, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Methuen, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Monkswell, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Davidson, V.

Acton, L.

De Freyne, L.

Addison, V.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Denham, L.

Ailsa, M.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Aldington, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E

Downshire, M.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Elles, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Elton, L.

Balfour, E.

Feldman, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Finsberg, L.

Blake, L

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Blaker, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Blatch, B.

Gainford, L.

Blyth, L.

Goschen, V.

Boardman, L.

Granard, E.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Greenway, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hacking, L.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Halsbury, E.

Burnham, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Harlech, L.

Cadman, L.

Harvington, L.

Caldecote, V.

Hayhoe, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Henley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Carnock, L.

Hothfield, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Ilchester, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Inchcape, E.

Clanwilliam, E.

Inglewood, L.

Coleridge, L.

Ironside, L.

Courtown, E.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Craigavon, V.

Lindsay, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Liverpool, E.

Cuckney, L.

Long, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Lucas, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

804

Lyell, L.

Pym, L.

McConnell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Renwick, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.[Lord chancellor.]

Richardson, L.

Rodney, L.

Marlesford, L.

Romney, E.

Merrivale, L.

St Davids, V.

Mersey, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Savile, L.

Milverton, L.

Seccombe, B.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Shannon, E.

Montrose, D.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mottistone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Moyne, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Munster, E.

Stewartby, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Nelson, E.

Strange, B.

Newall, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Northesk, E.

Sudeley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Swansea, L.

Onslow, E.

Swinfen, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Teviot, L.

Orkney, E.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Trumpington, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Ullswater, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Vivian, L.

Pender, L.

Westbury, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Wilcox, B.

Plummer of St Marylebone, L.

Wise, L.

Prentice, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.24 p.m.
Clause 1 [Grants for improvements and repairs, &c.]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("Grants are available from local housing authorities") and insert ("Local housing authorities may make grants").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to amend the first line of the first clause of the first part of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said in our earlier discussion, there is a general statement at the start of each part. My amendment seeks to replace the words,
"Grants are available from local housing authorities",
which seem to me to be something of a purpose statement, if not a complete purpose clause. The phrase is descriptive but I am not convinced of its accuracy. It is not accurate because, as I said in the previous discussion, we all accept that funding for grants is, sadly, inadequate. Moreover, it does not describe the provisions which follow in this clause, because it does not reflect the discretion vested in local authorities, as we discussed. It reads as though the position is mandatory.
Therefore, the amendment will replace those words and the subsection will read,
"Local housing authorities may make grants in accordance with this Chapter towards the cost of works",
which are then listed. We seek to provide for that local flexibility which throughout the Committee stage of the Bill the Government said they endorsed. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I must admit at the outset that the amendment has caused us a great deal of

805
confusion and speculation. We did not realise at all what it was for and certainly the speech of the noble Baroness came as a complete surprise to me. We think that we are likely to be of the opinion that the amendment is inappropriate and confusing. But, having heard the noble Baroness's lucid explanation, we should like to have time to think about the amendment before Third Reading. I shall write to her.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sorry not to have heard a speech in response to what I might have said. That might have given me more material for Third Reading. It would be ungracious to refuse the noble Lord's offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 16, after ("building,") insert—
("() the provision of facilities on a mandatory basis for disabled persons where properties are unfit,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel and myself. The House has already discussed this afternoon the Government's reluctance to move away from discretionary grants and toward mandatory grants. The purpose of the amendment is to confirm that there is one group of persons—disabled persons—for whom the need to live in decent, fit accommodation is so important that there cannot sensibly be an element of discretion. Local authorities should have a mandatory basis for making such grants.
Many disabled people are elderly but by no means all of them. Disabled people suffer far greater disadvantage than the rest of the population. It seems entirely proper that a local authority should make grants available in order that those people may live in fit accommodation. Of course, nobody should live in accommodation which is not adequate and proper. But the burden of living in substandard accommodation is that much greater for disabled persons.
There are the effects of dampness, for example. If a house is unfit, it may well be damp, with clear and obvious detriment to the health of those living within such property. An unfit building may be cold. It may not be properly insulated and perhaps does not have an adequate heating system. Again, that represents a danger to the health of the persons living there. If those persons are disabled and have less mobility, or are elderly and disabled, then the effect on them of cold is so much the worse. It is clear, and there is a lot of evidence to show, that when people who are disabled live in unfit accommodation, it has an effect on their mental as well as their physical health.
Many of the people who would benefit from the amendment may also be receiving support from the local authority in terms of social services or community care. If the aim of government policy is to enable people to live in their own homes for as long as possible before they move into residential care, it clearly makes sense to ensure that those homes are properly fit. The day when an elderly or disabled person has to move into
806
residential care will then be that much longer delayed. In fact, financial savings will be made through that process.
We have already heard of the large number of people that would be potentially affected by the amendment. In an earlier amendment many noble Lords referred to the statistics. It is worrying that perhaps one home in six in Britain requires urgent repairs costing over £1,000 to bring it into a fit state. We know that many of those homes are occupied by elderly or younger disabled persons.
There is therefore a clear argument for saying that the needs of the group of people about which I am talking are so great and their well-being so critically affected by living in substandard accommodation that it is right and proper that there should be a mandatory basis for grants to ensure that their homes are in a fit condition. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, on the face of it this is a difficult amendment to oppose and everybody must have immense sympathy for the disabled people concerned. But we must analyse what we are being asked to do.
It appears to me that we are having a virtual re-run of the arguments on Amendment No. 1. If one looks at the amendment, many of the factors are applicable also to ordinary elderly people rather than just elderly disabled people. And is not a single mother with children living under those conditions equally likely to suffer? I do not believe it to be equitable to put forward one category and ignore everybody else. We must say either that all grants should be mandatory—for the reasons given by my noble friend the Minister that is not on—or we must say that they are all discretionary.
In the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, he said that many disabled people may well be receiving benefits from the local authority. In that case, I should have thought that the local authority would use its discretion. Though one has the greatest sympathy for the argument, the case is not made out for singling out one category of people.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in rising to support my noble friend Lord Dubs in his amendment, I must admit that I sympathise with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg. However, my understanding of the Bill is that it is the Government's policy—it comes up later in the Bill—that disabled persons should receive mandatory grants for their needs. The discretionary element of the new regime will only apply to those grants that are not for disabled people.
One of the difficulties is the lack of clarity on the face of the Bill. Amendment No. 3 seeks to ensure that, right up front, within the first clause of the Bill, we provide some clarity about the mandatory nature of grants for disabled people. I had a degree of sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and her Amendment No. 2. I did not speak on it because I thought the Government would accept it—they appeared to understand the sense of it. Judging from what the Minister said, and given the explanation by the noble

807
Baroness, the Government are considering how to react to what is a sensible suggestion. I hope therefore that they will react even more positively to the amendment moved by my noble friend which effectively seeks to clarify, on the face of the Bill, what I believe is already government policy and what we are concerned with in determining this first part of the Bill.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy for the sentiments behind Amendment No. 3. As my noble friend Lord Finsberg said, I do not believe that anybody on this side of the House would quarrel with those sentiments. However, Clause 24 of the Bill provides for what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, seeks.
Clause 24 spells out facilities for disabled people in some detail and those are the ones that must be granted. If there are others about which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is very keen, then perhaps an amendment should be made to Clause 24 rather than this overarching form of amendment at this early stage of this part of the Bill. If my reading of the Bill is correct—and I may easily be wrong—I hope that my noble friend will resist the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I support the amendment. As I read it, it is quite narrow, but important. Not only does it limit the mandatory grants to disabled persons, but also it only applies to a case where the property in question is "unfit".
I believe the amendment is important. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to the ill-health which frequently—not invariably, but frequently—accompanies disability. Clause 24, to which the noble Viscount referred, lists many improvements and alterations which will become part of the mandatory regime. But that clause does not extend to making a house fit so that it does not fall within the definition of a house that is unfit for occupation, which is the terminology used in the provision.
I take the noble Viscount's point that perhaps the right place for the amendment is in Clause 24. But it is a sad indictment of our society if we cannot see our way to make provision so that accommodation is not unfit (and not being unfit does not necessarily mean very fit) as well as providing for the specific alterations. I support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, again I find myself in some confusion. This time it is as a result of the confusion of others who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, attributes effects to the amendment which we do not find in it and misses out on effects that we do find in it.
Most of the matters addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, belong more properly to the argument on Amendment No. 14. I would happily join in were it not for the continued absence of my noble friend Lord Swinfen. I do not wish to trouble the House twice with those arguments and if the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will allow me, I will reserve them for the later amendment.
Clause 1 is an introductory clause and sets out in general terms the grants that are available under Chapter I. The purposes for which grant may be given
808
are described in more detail for each separate type of grant, together with the matters for which the local authority must have regard in considering an application. The purposes and matters to be taken into account in respect of a disabled facilities grant are described in Clauses 24 and 25 of the Bill.
Amendment No. 3 seeks to make disabled facilities grant mandatory, even where the dwelling is unfit for human habitation. Amendment No. 4 is consequential.
Clause 25 requires that a local housing authority, when proposing to approve an application for disabled facilities grant, should consider whether the dwelling is fit for human habitation. Where it is not, the authority has the power under subsection (5) of Clause 25 to treat the application as an application for a discretionary grant, even where it would otherwise be mandatory.
Clause 1 does not contain the power to give grant. It merely acts as an introduction in describing in general terms the purposes for which grant may be given. As a result, the noble Lord's amendment would be unlikely to be held by a court to override the detailed provisions to the contrary in Clause 25(5) on the same issue. We therefore believe that the amendment would in practice be ineffective.
To turn to the genuine concerns of the noble Lord in tabling this amendment, we have given considerable thought to the link between fitness standards and the needs of disabled people. We are aware that the present link, which exists under the 1989 Act, has deterred some disabled, people from applying for grant for essential adaptations to their homes, because they wish to avoid the disturbance caused by major renovation works. We therefore considered that it should be left to the discretion of the local authority, which is aware of the condition and circumstances of both the applicant and of the dwelling, to consider whether the condition of the property is likely to be a threat to the health and safety of the occupant and, therefore, that the adaptations should not be carried out unless works are also undertaken to bring the property up to an acceptable standard.
We shall be issuing guidance to local authorities on the treatment of applications for disabled facilities grant involving works to a property that does not meet the fitness standards. I hope that on consideration the noble Lord will feel that that is sufficient to allow him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion on this amendment. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, in arguing ultimately against the amendment put up a pretty good case for the first amendment discussed this afternoon; namely, that all the grants should be mandatory and not just those for disabled persons living in unfit property.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I wish to make it clear that I supported my noble friend the Minister in opposing the idea.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I can see that, ultimately, the noble Lord did, but in the process of arriving at his

809
conclusion I thought for one moment—just for one moment—that he was going to come out in favour of mandatory grants for all people. However, in the end, he went back to supporting the Minister.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made clear in reply to the point about Clause 24, Clause 24 has a different aim. Clause 24 seeks to adapt fit properties, or properties that are presumably fit, for use for disabled persons to enable them to go on living there. This amendment is quite different. The amendment says that if a disabled person is living in an unfit property it is right and proper that there should be a mandatory basis for providing grants to make that property fit for the disabled person to live in. That is surely a very wide point.
The Minister sought to meet the point a little by suggesting that guidance would subsequently be issued. I am not persuaded by that. Guidance would be helpful, but to have the proposition clearly stated on the face of the Bill is proper and sends out the right signal in terms of our concern for disabled people. I would much rather have the point on the face of the Bill than simply in guidance which the department will later issue without any parliamentary scrutiny. In the circumstances, I think it would be right, given the division of opinion, to seek the opinion of the House.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, before the noble Lord seeks the opinion of the House, he is indicating that even if a house were defective the grants would have to be made.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, what I am seeking to do is to establish the proposition that disabled persons should, above all others, not have to live in unfit property. If the House were to go along with that proposition, it might well be that subsequently other changes could be made. However, the general proposition should be on the face of the Bill. It is on that proposition that I seek the opinion of the House.
4.45 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 127.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

David, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Diamond, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Berkeley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Borrie, L.

Dubs, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Ezra, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Falkland, V.

Carter, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Fitt, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Gallacher, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Geraint, L.

Craigavon, V.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

810

Gould of Potternewton, B.[Teller.]

Mishcon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Hamwee, B.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Nicol, B.

Haskle, L.

Ogmore, L.

Hayman, B.

Peston, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Redesdale, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Richard, L.

Hughes, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Serota, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kennet, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Kissin, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Lawrence, L.

Thurso, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Tope, L.

McCarthy, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

McNair, L.

White, B.

McNally, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Methuen, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Addison, V.

Elton, L.

Ailsa, M.

Feldman, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Finsberg, L.

Ampthill, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Goschen, V.

Astor of Hever, L.

Granard, E.

Balfour, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Blake, L.

Harlech, L.

Blaker, L.

Harvington, L.

Blatch, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Blyth, L.

Henley, L.

Boardman, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hothfield, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Inchcape, E.

Braine of Wheatley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Brentford, V.

Kitchener, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Burnham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Butterworth, L.

Leigh, L.

Cadman, L.

Lindsay, E.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Liverpool, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Lucas, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lyell, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Clanwilliam, E.

Coleraine, L.

Marlesford, L.

Coleridge, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Courtown, E.

Merrivale, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Mersey, V.

Crathorne, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Milverton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Davidson, V.

Montrose, D.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mottistone, L.

Denman, L.

Mountevans, L.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Moyne, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Munster, E.

Downshire, M.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Nelson, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Newall, L.

Elles, B.

Norrie, L.

811

Northbourne, L.

Seccombe, B.

Northesk, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Onslow, E.

Stewartby, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strange, B.

Oxfuird, V.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller]

Pender, L.

Sudeley, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Swansea, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Tenby, V.

Prentice, L.

Teviot, L.

Pym, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Trumpington, B.

Renwick, L.

Ullswater, V.

Rodney, L.

Vivian, L.

Romney, E.

Westbury, L.

St Davids, V.

Wilcox, B.

Savile, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.54 p.m.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
GRANTS FOR HOME IMPROVEMENT AGENCIES
(".—(1) Grants may be made available in accordance with this Chapter through home improvement agencies.
(2) Local housing authorities may contribute to the establishment and running of home improvement agencies through funds which would otherwise be available for making grants in accordance with this Chapter.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in this amendment we return to the subject of home improvement agencies. When in Committee, we were discussing their role, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said:
"We greatly value that work and are keen to see the services of those agencies become widely available".—[Official Report, 26/3/96; col. 1589.]
I endorse that support. Home improvement agencies, often called "care and repair" or "staying put", help people who are old or who have a disability, or both, or who are living on a low income, to repair and adapt homes which are unfit or unsuitable. Their particular role is assisting people through what can often be a very daunting task in dealing with repairs and alterations, deciding what work has to be done, arranging finance and organising and overseeing the building work. I recall at Committee stage, in supporting an amendment regarding home improvement agencies, that I did so by challenging noble Lords to recall their own experience of any building work. It is generally uncomfortable to live through and difficult to organise.
The 200 agencies countrywide, 144 of which receive financial support from the Department of the Environment, target resources at those who are most in need. They are cost effective and have developed an expertise in identifying low-cost solutions. They contribute to the renewal of the housing stock which, whether we are saying it in a purpose clause or not, is what this Bill aims at doing. I am told that their ethos is that the services are person-centred in helping people
812
to undertake work they feel is important thereby assisting them to stay at home with the dignity and independence one would want to see.
I propose the amendment because I am concerned to ensure that the work of home improvement agencies can continue. Subsection (1) of the amendment provides that grants may be made through those agencies. Subsection (2) is to enable local authorities, if contributing to the establishment and running of the agencies—and they will have to find the funds from somewhere—to use funds which might otherwise be available for direct grants to home owners, landlords and so on.
It is intended to support local strategies and discretion. A local strategy is determining how best to spend the cash available. I take the view that pump priming can often be a very good use of money, and that is the context in which I see the amendment. It is not an argument for less to be spent on repairs themselves but merely a proposal to facilitate the work of the home improvement agencies and to make the best use of the funds which are available. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, we discussed home improvement agencies in Committee. I share her enthusiasm and that of my noble friend Lord Ferrers for these agencies. They are small, voluntary bodies offering a personal service. We admire them greatly and, as the noble Baroness said, we support many of them. However, the noble Baroness's amendment would change the characteristics that make them so valuable.
The amendment would do two things. First, it would enable grants to be made available through home improvement agencies. But the administration of grants is a complex business. Some aspects, such as considering the needs of individual applicants and investigating the state of the property, may well he tasks that home improvement agencies are equipped to carry out. Many authorities use HIAs as their agencies for this kind of activity. It requires no change to the Bill to enable them to go on doing so.
However, what the noble Baroness appears to want is to enable home improvement agencies also to take on other aspects of the operation of the grant regime. Those matters are properly for the local authorities themselves—matters like the consideration of priorities; developing and carrying out strategies; the consideration of choice between deserving applicants; enforcing grant conditions, including obtaining repayments where appropriate; accounting for large amounts of grant moneys; and claiming subsidies from central government. Such matters are properly the job of accountable local authorities; HIAs are not equipped to deal with them.
Secondly, the amendment would allow authorities to use the resources they have for undertaking private sector renewal to fund the establishment and operation of home improvement agencies. Under the present arrangements, HIAs obtain funds from various sources. I have already mentioned the subsidy which the Government pay. This meets up to half of the running costs of those agencies which arc supported. Agencies obtain the remainder of their funds from other sources,

813
including charitable donations and other private sector sources, but their main source is undoubtedly local authorities. Some of the support is paid in the form of direct subsidies towards administrative costs. Some is received in the form of fees for work undertaken in connection with individual grant applications.
What is unacceptable in the amendment is the idea that local authorities should be able to divert resources intended for use on private sector renewal activities, such as giving grants, to support the administration of HIAs. If an authority wants to support an agency because it thinks that is a good way of administering some aspect of the grant system in its area, it should meet the cost from its own resources. The annual revenue support settlement allows for administrative costs. It would be wrong to allow local authorities to use money specifically voted for private sector renewal for administration.
I have stressed the value that we see in home improvement agencies, but, for the reasons I have given, I do not believe that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness would help to improve that value. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a number of matters which require response. First, he said that the administration of grants is complex. I agree with that. However, the noble Lord makes me wonder why, since I am not proposing any change in the regime, he objects to the first part of the proposed new clause which states:
"Grants may be made available".
I repeat that I have used the word "may". The new clause does not state that the administration of grants "shall" invariably be through home improvement agencies. It is accepted that, by and large, they are doing a good job. I am not seeking to give them the whole of the job; nor to do more than enable local authorities to continue to use a good and, I suspect, relatively cheap mechanism.
I turn secondly to the question of funding. The main source of funding for home improvement agencies is local authorities. I sought to raise the issue because increasingly the funds which local authorities have to spend are not raised through council tax—between 85 and 86 per cent. of local authority expenditure generally comes by way of grant—and there is an increasing tendency to ring-fence the grant which central government makes to local authorities; in other words, for the Government to say, "You can have this money, but we will tell you what to spend it on".
I am concerned that the amount of money available for local authorities to use in a discretionary fashion is reducing year on year. It seems to me that it would be entirely appropriate to use money identified for home improvements in the best way and to make the best use of the administrative mechanisms which the local authority can identify, whether within or outside the local authority. The noble Lord said that it would be
814
wrong to use money voted for renewal on administration. I do not think that that argument holds good because the amendment specifically gives the local authority the option to choose how to use the money, so the question of voting it for a particular purpose does not arise. In any event, as we know, a certain amount of administration is always necessary.
Nevertheless, I shall consider further what the noble Lord said, although he has made me more, rather than less, concerned about the issue. I shall read his words in Hansard, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Renovation grants: owner's applications and tenant's applications]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("proposes to acquire") and insert ("is in the process of acquiring").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 6, which stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 7. In Committee, my noble friend proposed that the phrase "proposes to acquire" should be deleted and replaced by the words,
"in the process of acquiring".
At that point the Government undertook to consider the suggestion, and it is my purpose in moving this amendment to see what came of the Government's consideration. I fully understand that it is right and proper that, as Clause 7 suggests, before giving renovation grants there should be a commitment to acquire the property. That is provided for in Clause 7(1)(a). The same point arises—and we suggest the same change of wording—in relation to Clause 7(1)(b).
It seems to me that it is much clearer to say that an applicant is in the process of acquiring the property. That means that certain steps have been taken with a view to acquiring the property. Such steps are clear and can be objectively seen, but the phrase "proposes to acquire" could simply mean an intention. It could mean, "I would like to do that if I could". That seems rather vague. Local authorities would be helped by having a clearer statement than that which is currently in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in this and in doing so I need to declare an interest, which I should have done at the beginning of the debate. I declared my interest in Committee in that I have submitted an application for a home improvement grant. I hope that that will be taken as my declaration of interest for the whole of this Report stage.
In rising to support my noble friend in this amendment, perhaps I may point out that one of the difficulties, which I believe the Government accept, is that it is sensible for someone who is hoping to acquire a house or is proposing to acquire a property—or however it is defined—that is, for someone who is aiming to do so, but is not yet the owner of the property, to submit a grant application. There is a whole range of

815
reasons involved, but we are talking predominately about making a judgment as to whether it is sensible to go ahead with the project of purchasing the house, bearing in mind the individual's own resources and any resources that are likely to come from the local authority in terms of renovation grant. One has to make an assessment as to all the resources that will be available from different sources. It is sensible, therefore, to enable an application to go forward even though the applicant is not the current owner of the property.
Someone may intend to buy a property, but that intention may be frustrated at some point by, say, the owner turning round and saying, "I don't want to sell to you". The owner may suddenly push up the price so that the project is not viable. What is the situation of the applicant for the home improvement grant at that stage? One of things that worries me is that if we leave the wording as it is on the face of the Bill and do not amend it as my noble friend has suggested, an applicant who is in this limbo before ownership may well have the best of intentions but, because of force of circumstances, may fall foul of the Act. I would hate that to happen. Therefore, I hope that the Government will recognise that in the vast majority of cases involving home improvement grants, people will make totally legitimate bona fide applications and that they should not be held to have fallen foul of the system just because of the actions of another person who has put them on the wrong side of the law, if I may put it like that.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we have given this matter some thought since Committee. We have decided that we like things the way they are. The wording in the Bill is, at first sight, less logical than the wording of the amendment, but it is wording that was evolved by the Law Commission which has been in use in housing law since 1985 and which works well.
When we come to the practical effects, most of the practical advantages which would seem to be in the amendment are negated by the fact that in practice a local authority can reject an application by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to buy Ditchingham Hall or some other great property, until he can show that he has a reasonable prospect of acquiring it. So it does not involve local authorities in unwarranted work. Its wide application allows for all sorts of means of beginning to buy a property which might in some way fall foul of the phrase "in the process of acquiring" in ways we do not yet know and in which we would prefer not to get involved because we are happy with the way things are.
With Amendment No. 7 there would be the additional disadvantage that it would open the door to serious abuse of the system by allowing someone to make a tenant's application, with the stated intention of living in the dwelling, when the applicant's intention is to buy the property, improve it with the benefit of grant aid, and then let it, thus evading the separate landlord's means test. We would positively dislike the effects of Amendment No. 7. With that explanation I hope that the
816
noble Lord will feel able to withdraw, and not press, what I accept are two amendments which are helpful even if they are not the right ones.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I was interested in relation to Amendment No. 6 to hear the Minister describe local government practice in terms of what it should be if the amendment were passed, rather than in terms of what the Bill actually says. In other words, he was saying that local authorities will interpret the clause in the way in which my amendment suggests rather than in the way it is worded.
In the hope that between now and Third Reading the Minister will think again, let me try him out on the use of the words in a slightly different context to highlight the point. If I were to say to him, "The Conservative Party proposes to win the next election, but the Labour Party is in the process of wining the next election", that shows that there is a marked difference between the two expressions. I do not want to force this matter any further this evening. I hope that the Minister will think again between now and Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Renovation grants: prior qualifying period]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 27, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to government Amendment No. 9 and, with the leave of noble Lords concerned, I shall cover also Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
As was indicated in Committee by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, the Government recognise that there may be individual cases or general circumstances where it will not be appropriate to require a grant applicant to have both owned and lived in a property for three years before being eligible for grant assistance. The discussion in Committee included many well made points from noble Lords for which I am grateful, and in view of those points we have looked again at this provision.
We have already included a provision in the Bill which would allow the Secretary of State to dispense with the prior qualifying condition in certain circumstances. However, in practice that would dispense with the condition for wide categories of applicants, such as for all empty properties in an authority's area.
We believe that it would be preferable also to allow local authorities to decide when not to require the prior qualifying condition to be met when considering individual applications. That will allow local authorities to develop clear strategies against which an individual application can be measured and a decision made.
Therefore, we have brought forward Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 which give local authorities the discretion they need to dispense with the prior qualifying period generally or for particular cases or for certain types of case.
With his Amendment No. 11 the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, seeks to achieve a similar effect. However, the amendments I have just described go wider than the noble Lord's amendment by allowing authorities also to dispense with the three-year prior qualification generally and in descriptions of cases. The additional discretion given by our amendments will help local authorities act strategically rather than in a piecemeal fashion.
Amendment No. 10 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would give local authorities the option of applying different qualifying periods to different cases. As I have explained, the purpose of introducing discretion for local authorities to dispense with the three-year qualifying period is to help achieve strategic aims such as dealing with empty properties. To introduce the discretion to vary the qualifying period would create uncertainty among applicants and the possibility of the discretion being used to control expenditure on grants rather than achieve strategic goals. I am sure that is something which the noble Baroness would be anxious to avoid.
In view of what I have said, I hope that the House will agree to my amendments, and that the proposers of the other two will feel happy not to move them. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the Minister has in part answered my amendment, which was designed to seek clarification. It does not seem to me to be logical to provide for a qualifying period of three years, or no qualifying period at all, but not to allow a local strategy which may require a short qualifying period, perhaps to establish the bona fides of the applicant. I can see that there might be occasions where a local authority would regard it, in a particular case or in general cases, inappropriate to require a short qualifying period.
I support the amendment. I was one of those who criticised the provision on Second Reading as well as in Committee. It is entirely right that the qualifying period should not have to be applied, so that empty properties can be brought back into use with greater ease and that first-time buyers, who may be the likely buyers of such properties, will be able to apply for grants. Nevertheless, it seems a little odd to say that the qualifying period will apply at one end of the spectrum or at the other, but nowhere in between. That is why I tabled my amendment to the Minister's amendment.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting these amendments and reacting to the debates we had in Committee. It is worth paying tribute to the Government for the distance that they have moved and for recognising the common sense arguments which were put forward in Committee by various noble Lords across the Chamber.
I hope that the Minister will not think me churlish if I ask the Government to go just that little bit further. With these amendments the Government are effectively saying, "Yes, the qualifying period is there, but local authorities have a discretion to dispense with it if they
818
see fit". The Minister mentioned the criterion of empty properties. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned first-time buyers. I should define that more closely. We need to recognise the importance of newly married couples as people who need the home improvement grants that they can obtain from local authorities.
We are going to give local authorities discretion in terms of how they disperse whatever resources they feel necessary for home improvement grants. We must ask how they will exercise that discretion. What sort of criteria are they likely to use in determining who receives the grants and who does not?
My concern is that by providing in the Bill the concept of a qualifying period we are nudging local authorities in a particular direction by saying, "This is a useful criterion to use when you are making your discretionary assessment". I hope that we can be a little more relaxed about the way in which we consider local authorities will exert their discretion and will not give them such a pointer. I believe that even the Government recognise that that may not be a good way of exercising discretion.
I hope that we can encourage local authorities to think of discretion in terms of the greatest need, the best impact that limited finances will have in a particular local environment and the way in which local authority resources may lever more private-sector resources into that endeavour. I hope that we can encourage local authorities to come forward with novel and beneficial ways of supporting their communities.
I hope that the Government do not think me churlish in asking whether before Third Reading they can go a little further and dispense with the suggestion that there should be a qualifying period. I hope that they can he expansive with local authorities and trust them to come up with the best criterion for discretion within their areas.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Minister has gone a long way towards meeting the anxieties about the excessive rigidity of having a three-year qualifying periód. That is good and I am pleased that the Minister has tabled the amendment. However, I am puzzled about one matter. Having given local authorities the power to dispense with the necessity to comply with a particular condition, Clause 10(2) remains. It provides that the qualifying period is three years, and although that can now be dispensed with it continues:
"or such other period as may be specified by order of the Secretary of State, ending with the date of the application".
I believe that that is an unnecessary provision because, when the local authority can dispense with the period altogether, I can see no circumstances in which the Secretary of State would wish to have a period different from the three-year period. That provision may require tidying up but, in principle, I am happy with the Minister's comments about his amendment which meets the objectives of Amendment No. 11.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to the government amendments. I cannot go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, would

819
wish me to go. The three-year rule is part of the principle of the Bill; to establish residence and to avoid people who buy a house cheaply because it is in need of repair and then obtain money from the Government to make it more valuable. People buy a house at a price and on terms which reflect its condition. Some time is required before it is reasonable for the Government to step in and help with repairs. However, we all agree that additional flexibility is right. We prefer to keep it more simple than the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but I am not saying that either way is perfection. We have our preferred way and I am sure that in the circumstances the noble Baroness will be happy to let us have our way.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 38, at end insert—
("(2A) A local housing authority may dispense with compliance with either or both of the conditions in subsection (1), and may do so either generally or in relation to particular cases or descriptions of case.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee had given notice of her intention to move, as an amendment to Amendment No. 9, Amendment No. 10:
[As an amendment to amendment 9]Line 3, after ("subsection (1)") insert ("including by requiring a different qualifying period").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I feel that I should shake the complacency of the Minister but I might do that on Third Reading. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 9 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Prior qualifying period: the ownership or tenancy condition]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 6, line 42, leave out from ("of") to ("as") in line 43 and insert—

("(i) going to live with and be cared for by a member of his family, or

(ii) going to live in a hospital, hospice, sheltered housing, residential care home or similar institution").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 12, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 44 and 168. During the Committee stage of the Bill, we extended the care institutions listed in Clause 11(3) from sheltered housing or a residential care home to include also a hospital, hospice or similar institution.
Amendment No. 12 would replicate that extended definition in Clause 11(4), and Amendments Nos. 44 and 168 would replicate it elsewhere in the Bill. Amendment No. 12 would also extend the coverage of Clause 11(4) to parallel that of subsections (2) and (3) to provide for the case where a disposal within a family is made as a result of the previous owner going to live with and be cared for by a member of his family.
I hope that noble Lords will agree that the amendments are worthwhile. I beg to move.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas spoke also to Amendment No. 168. That is not on the Marshalled List and I wonder whether he meant to say that.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is in my note but not on the Marshalled List so perhaps we had better leave it out for the moment. My noble friend Lord Balfour has a terrible reputation for correcting Ministers' mistakes, and he has got me!
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Renovation grants: purposes for which grant may be given]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 7, line 38, after ("provide") insert ("or extend").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to permit grants for the conversion of properties to be used to extend them. When debating the matter in Committee, the Minister said:
"to enable a proper big extension to be grant-aided by this method would be wrong because the purpose of the grants is to renovate buildings which are in a bad state of repair … Larger extensions would, on the whole, fall outside the proper purpose of renovation grants which are primarily to secure the repair of existing buildings and not to subsidise the provision of new ones".—[Official Report, 26/3/96; col. 1612.]
There may well be circumstances when it makes for the best use of a building to be able to extend it rather than simply to convert it into flats or whatever. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that grants will be available which will optimise the use of buildings by ensuring that where it is appropriate to extend them so that they can be more effectively subdivided, grants will be available for that purpose. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this amendment would enable renovation grant to be given for extensions as well as for conversions. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke most persuasively to a similar amendment tabled in his name during Committee. I replied that the purpose of a renovation grant was the improvement of a dwelling and it seemed to me that while this might cover smaller extensions to dwellings, larger extensions would, on the whole, fall outside the proper purpose of renovation grants.
I subsequently gave further thought to the question of conversions and extensions, and I wrote to the noble Lord on this important matter. I accept that there is some strength in the argument that grant should be available for internal re-arrangement where two or more properties are to be made into one larger property in order to meet the needs of a larger or extended family. Subsection (2) of Clause 12 as drafted enables grant to be given for this purpose.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said during Committee, government guidance suggests that a grant for conversion should not he given where it would result in a reduction in the number of dwellings. This advice stems from an earlier wish not to reduce the supply of affordable housing.

821
As the noble Lord rightly implied during Committee, it is important that the grant system is relevant to the needs of the present day. Where a pressing local need could be met by extending into a neighbouring property, I see no grounds for this to be prevented. I shall ensure that we cover this in the revised guidance we shall issue to local housing authorities.
The noble Lord has some understandable anxieties about this issue and I hope that I have met them and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he explain to the House the limits on the use of the word "extend"? My understanding is that planning law was revised a few years ago. That enabled extensions to buildings, houses, to be constructed without planning permission up to a certain size. In that sense, that was a variation on what had applied before when, effectively, anything which was an extension to a house required planning permission.
It may be that there is a difference in interpretation between the Minister and the Opposition, if I may put it in that way, in terms of what they mean by "extension". It may be that the legal situation now, which will obviously be familiar to the Minister's advisers, enables an extension to be incorporated within this grant-giving power and that the old definition under the previous planning laws is no longer extant.
I am not sure whether I am making myself clear and whether the Minister understands what I am trying to say. But if the change in planning law which I believe occurred a few years ago allows the building of extensions without planning permission, that would satisfy a number of the concerns which a number of noble Lords on this side of the House have in relation to the wording of the Bill before us.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am not sure that I do understand the noble Lord completely. I hope that when he reads Hansard he will find that in the earlier part of my remarks I have answered most of the concerns which he raised. If I find that I have not done so, I shall certainly write to him.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Minister has said that he will issue guidance to local authorities to achieve at least some of the aims of the amendment and also to give me time to consider the detailed implications of what he said when I read it in Hansard, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Renovation grants: approval of application]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 8, line I. at beginning insert—
("() A local housing authority must approve any application for a renovation grant in respect of the following—

(a) unfit properties occupied by a person with a disability.

822

(b) unfit properties occupied by a person who is receiving services or grants for services from the local welfare authority as part of a care package under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to ensure that renovation grants remain mandatory for certain vulnerable groups in particular need of good housing.
The system which exists at present for mandatory renovation grants of unfit housing was considered first in 1985. Since then, public expenditure on housing renewal grants has fallen dramatically. The overall level of resources invested in grants in England has fallen from £1.5 billion in 1983–84 to under £0.4 billion in 1994–95. In 1994, only 40,000 renovation grants were provided compared with 214,000 improvement, repair and intermediary grants when the grant system was at its peak in 1984.
That would be understandable if housing conditions were improving in a similarly dramatic fashion. However, that is not the case. Figures for the English House Conditions Survey show that the number of unfit dwellings fell hardly noticeably from 1.6 million to 1.5 million between 1986 and 1991. One in six homes—that is about 3.5 million—require urgent repairs costing over £1,000. That means that there are probably well over 2 million people in this country who are living in housing which is in a state of poor repair or lacks such basic amenities that it is classed as being unfit for human beings to live in.
Surely people should not be living in unfit housing in a modern, civilised society. The mandatory renovation grant, which was introduced in 1989, was a recognition of that unacceptable situation and an attempt to provide government funding targeted on those on the lowest incomes to address the situation. The proposals in this Bill abolish mandatory renovation grants and signal the end of that attempt to set a minimum standard and to provide help to low income groups in meeting that standard. That is a change of policy which will affect not only older and disabled people but also others on low incomes in poor housing. However, the proposals are likely to have a disproportionately harmful effect on disabled people and those requiring community care services.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the most vulnerable groups who are likely to be most harmed by living in unfit housing retain the protection of a mandatory grant. The amendment will mean that anyone who is disabled under the terms of the Bill or who is receiving care services as part of a community care package will be entitled to a mandatory grant if he or she is living in unfit housing and is on a sufficiently low income to be eligible for grant aid under the means test.
It seems to me vital that there should be special provision for those people for a number of reasons. First, such people may be less able to carry out every-day maintenance, unlike a fit young couple who may be able to carry out do-it-yourself works to maintain their homes. The homes of those who are disabled or in receipt of care services, the vast majority

823
of whom will probably be elderly people, are more likely to fall into disrepair as they are unable to carry out every-day maintenance.
Older people may occupy unmodernised older housing in many places, having lived there for most of their lives. In later life they may find it difficult to undertake or finance works to bring their homes up to acceptable levels of fitness. Disabled people, a large number of whom are elderly, and those in receipt of care services are also likely to be on lower incomes than the majority of the population as they may be less able to secure well-paid employment and so are reliant on state benefit.
I spoke on this subject in Committee and my noble friend has been kind enough to write to me since that time. I have removed from the amendment the fact that it dealt with elderly people and I have concentrated basically on disabled people. I hope that it will now find favour with the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should very much like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I know that we discussed a related amendment earlier this afternoon. But perhaps I may give an example of why I believe that this amendment is particularly important.
Some years ago I was canvassing in a local election campaign and I was invited into a basement flat by an elderly woman who said that she wanted to discuss a particular problem and wondered whether I could be helpful. It was a winter's evening so the flat was dark. There were two elderly women living there. They said that they would like to offer me a cup of tea but they had no light in the kitchen. I asked why that was so and they told me that the lighting was defective and they did not know how to put it in order. In this case it so happened that by climbing on to a table and dealing with the electrics for three or four minutes I was able to get the light working in the kitchen. Not many canvassers are fortunate enough to be able to make instant repairs while canvassing for political support. But the point was that those elderly women were willing to devise a way of coping throughout the whole of the winter without having any light in the kitchen. I asked how they managed and they said that they cooked in daylight and ate the food cold in the evenings because they could not find their way round the kitchen in the dark.
Clearly, this amendment deals with far more substantial improvements to make a building fit than the example that I have given. But there are elderly disabled people—and those two ladies were elderly and had disabilities—who may be unwilling to go through the process of having to apply for a discretionary grant. It would give them a sense of self-respect if they felt that, where they had good reason for improving an unfit property, they could do so because the local authority would provide grants on a mandatory basis. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has an important point and one which I hope that the Government will accept.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to support the amendment moved so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I do not think that any of us in any part
824
of the House would argue with the concept that it is quite wrong that disabled people should have to continue to live in unfit homes. They should, therefore, have a priority in such matters. Even though we have covered this ground before, I believe that this issue needs to be looked at most closely, at least on human grounds if on no others.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I should like to express my support for the amendment. However, when I first read it, I wrote on my paperwork that it was "a bit strong". The reason I say that is that it says that:
"A local housing authority must approve any application".
That is pretty strong language. It would mean that a local authority "must" provide the grant for disabled people living in unfit properties.
As I said, the language is strong but it is only right, in the last decade of the 20th century in Great Britain, that we should be prepared to take strong action to deal with the problem that presents itself of disabled people living in unfit properties. The Government may possibly say, "Well, this could result in vast committed expenditure for improvements to unfit properties". There are, however, two responses to that approach.
First, it is a pretty shocking state of affairs if adherence to the new clause would effectively require vast commitments of public money. One might ask how the dwellings got into such a state in the first place. Secondly, we must recognise that over time the risk of a precipitate, large increase in public expenditure would probably be alleviated. It is to be hoped that in time the commitments and requirements of local authorities under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 to monitor the needs of members of their community in terms of the assistance that they require and the proper discretionary provision under the Bill would ensure that there is no desperate need in future years. Even though the strong language used by the amendment would probably lead to a precipitate increase in public expenditure, I hope that the Government will accept that that increase is totally justified if it prevents disabled people living in unfit housing.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, the amendment is in some ways a pair to Amendment No. 5. The latter amendment sought to make it mandatory for grants to be given for disabled facilities in an unfit dwelling, whereas this amendment looks at it the other way around and seeks mandatory grants to make the dwelling fit.
The amendment seeks to remove the local housing authority's discretion in approving an application for renovation grant by making grant mandatory where an unfit dwelling is occupied by someone who is disabled or who is receiving assistance as part of a care package under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
We share the concern of my noble friend Lord Swinfen that help should be made available to those very vulnerable people. That is why we propose to retain mandatory disabled facilities grant in a system which would otherwise be wholly discretionary. We are also

825
proposing to replace minor works assistance, which has been such a useful tool in helping to implement community care packages, with a new grant—home repair assistance—which gives wider scope and availability to just those categories of applicant which concern my noble friend.
In drawing up the proposals, we gave much thought to whether the link under the 1989 Act between the fitness standards and disabled facilities grants should be retained. We understand that in some cases applicants in need of adaptations to their homes are deterred from applying for grant by the upheaval and disturbance likely to be caused by major renovation works. We therefore concluded that it would be better to leave it to the discretion of the local authority in each case to decide to what extent the works are essential to the health and safety of the applicant, or whether a more minor patch-and-mend grant would be sufficient to deal with the necessary repairs with the minimum of disturbance to the applicant. I can assure my noble friend that, as I said on the subject of Amendment No. 5, we shall be issuing guidance to local authorities as to how they should use that discretion.
I was also delighted to learn that people receiving canvassers from this House should have such happy expectations as regards their lighting. Not only the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but also the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, are quick to repair lights when canvassing. However, if I was canvassing, the old ladies concerned would also have the pleasure of calling the ambulance afterwards. With those reassurances, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, before I do so, perhaps I may invite my noble friend the Minister to take a course in electrical maintenance from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, so as to ensure that no one would have to call an ambulance for him and thereby incur greater expense to the National Health Service. I am somewhat encouraged by what my noble friend said in his response to the amendment. I shall read what he said most carefully and give it all due consideration. I hope that I shall not feel the need to return to the matter at a later stage, but I must reserve the right to do so. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 8, line 21, at end insert—
("() Notwithstanding subsection (5)(a) above, where the applicant requests in writing that only part of the premises be made fit for human habitation, the authority may approve such an application.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is of course the case that normally when a renovation grant is made available the whole of the property to which it applies should be improved. However, there may be instances where it is sensible to say that it is necessary to renovate or improve only part of the property. That applies when a house or flat is occupied by an elderly person who uses only part of the property and does not want the
826
disturbance of having the whole dwelling invaded by builders over a long period. It is possible that some elderly people would prefer not to have the whole property renovated rather than face the disruption, if it is not possible for them to have improved just the parts that they occupy.
I do not think that that would apply in many instances; indeed, I believe that it would be unusual. However, we all know that there are some circumstances where only part of a house is occupied by an elderly person. Surely it is his or her right to go on living there as long as possible. That may involve improving some of the dwelling without improving the whole building. I believe that the amendment is sensible. I know that a similar point was discussed in Committee but, because of the way in which the discussion took place, I do not believe that we focused as much on this point as we did on some other aspects covered in the group of amendments. As I said, it is a sensible move and one which would apply in a minority of cases. However, in those cases to which it would apply, the provision would make quite a difference to the circumstances of an elderly person living alone in a house or flat. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, as the noble Lord said, we touched on this matter in Committee. I am happy to revisit it because it is one upon which we look with some favour. However, we do not wish to take action on the amendment as it stands. The amendment raises the important question of application of the fitness standard to part of a property. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers explained in Committee, the major revision of the standard under the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 introduced a more objective approach whereby fitness is determined by reference to each individual requirement in the standard and not a combination as previously. The fact that the decision as to fitness is now based on a property having to meet each individual requirement means that the standard can only sensibly be applied to a complete unit of accommodation.
However, the Government are not unsympathetic to the thought that, with the introduction of a new renovation grant system, it would be sensible to look again at the fitness standard requirements and the way that the standard is applied.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers gave an assurance in Committee that once the Bill is out of the way, and before the end of this year, the Government would set in train a review of the fitness standard and as part of that seek views from bodies such as the local authority associations and the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health. At that time my noble friend expressed the hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would see the wisdom of looking at the issues raised by his amendment and the others he raised in Committee relating to fitness for human habitation as part of a proper review. The important point here is that much hangs on the fitness standard and changes to the requirements and the way the standard is applied should not be contemplated without the fullest consideration and consultation. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will

827
remember that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, warmly welcomed this approach. I hope this is still the case and that he will therefore feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I welcome the sympathetic attitude the Minister shows to what this amendment seeks to achieve. I understand what he says—and what was said at Committee stage—namely, that there will be a wide review. It is a pity that, having a major Bill on the subject, we cannot deal with it in the Bill and have to leave it until later. However, given that the Minister has conceded that there is a case for thinking about a measure of this kind, and that the Government will deal with it in the way he described, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Common parts grants: certificate required to accompany application]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 9, line 38, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 16 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 17. We have given some thought to the views expressed during the Committee consideration of this Bill about the likely need for a prior qualifying period for some types of grants. In Committee we confirmed that it was not envisaged that general powers as in Clause 17 applying to landlords' applications for common parts grants would be used in the foreseeable future.
Following our discussion in Committee we have considered fully the points made by noble Lords, particularly on the equivalent provision for grants for houses in multiple occupation. In the light of that discussion, we now believe that for the purposes of clarity it would be preferable to remove the clause from the Bill. Therefore, we have brought forward Amendments Nos. 27 and 29 in order to achieve this objective for HMO grants. In order to keep the provisions for grants to landlords consistent, Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 remove the provision for common parts grants. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I query the Government's view on this matter. It seems as though they hold a different view when it is a case of landlords and the grant applications they may make to the view they hold as regards householders; namely, individuals seeking home improvement grants for their homes. In the earlier discussion when we discussed the amendment which gave local authorities discretion to waive the qualifying period, we were told it was essential that the qualifying period be retained and that it be waived if the local authority saw fit. Effectively the Government were saying it was important that the qualifying period should exist as regards householders who applied for a home improvement grant.
I wonder why there seem to be different criteria as regards landlords. Why is it that householders should be subject to a qualifying period—effectively that means that the householder is expected to live in poor standard
828
accommodation until he can obtain a grant after three years—but a landlord, who does not have to put up with the poor standards, can obtain a grant without being subject to the three-year qualifying period? There is a hint of double standards here. I hope the Government can explain to the House how they arrive at these apparently different criteria for judging landlords and householders.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the basic difference of course is that the landlord will not live in the property and should be encouraged to improve the property for the benefit of his tenants. But in general landlords are under a much stricter grant scheme anyway and are subject to a rather different grant scheme. As we said in Committee, this power was in the Bill but we could not envisage using it in the context of all the other restrictions and powers that we had. Therefore we have thought it sensible to remove a power from the Bill that we never thought of using on the principle of not adding things to the Bill which are there unnecessarily. It is in the nature of a tidying up exercise in terms of what we intend to use the Bill for. I can understand the points that the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, makes, but I do not think they affect our resolve in this matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Common parts grants: prior qualifying period]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 17:
Leave out Clause 17.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Disabled facilities grants: owner's and tenant's applications]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 12, line 38, after first ("tenant") insert (", introductory tenant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 56, 57, 89, 109 and 110. Amendment No. 8 would add to the tenants described in subsection (5) of Clause 20 as eligible to apply for disabled facilities grant tenants occupying the dwelling under "an introductory tenancy". This is a new form of tenancy, introduced under Part V of the Housing Bill. Introductory tenancies may be operated only by local authorities or by housing action trusts.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Swinfen for raising the question of introductory tenants in Committee. We have given the matter further thought. While we consider that, in practice, it is possible that introductory tenants would be eligible to apply for disabled facilities grant in any event, we agree that an amendment specifically to add these tenants to the descriptions of tenants eligible to apply would put the matter beyond doubt. All the other amendments in the group are consequential. I beg to move.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for taking this matter on board.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

829
Clause 21 [Disabled facilities grants: the disabled occupant]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 13, line 4, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 19 I would also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 20, 25, 26, 53, 54, 58, 59, 88 and 108. These amendments return to the familiar issue of the definition of a "disabled person" as applied for the purposes of eligibility for disabled facilities grant which were debated during Committee. There was concern from all who spoke in Committee that the words used in the present definition to describe particular disabilities, taken from the National Assistance Act 1948, caused offence to disabled people.
However, it was clear then from those who spoke at Committee that the coverage of the definition was not considered to be a problem. I explained in Committee that the purpose behind the wording of the existing definition was to maintain consistency with other legislation relating to the provision of services to disabled people but, in the light of the points raised by noble Lords, I promised that I would look again at the wording of the definition and return to it at Report stage. I have done that and I now explain my conclusions.
Part I of this Bill is primarily concerned with matters relating to housing for which my department is responsible. Part I accordingly offers no opportunity to address any wider issue of defining "disabled person" for other purposes, in particular in relation to services provided by social services authorities.
Nevertheless, I recognise that it is desirable to have a core definition common to legislation affecting the provision of services to disabled people. A definition linked to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as Amendment No. 20, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinfen seeks to achieve, would be outside this common core. The 1995 Act is an anti-discrimination measure and its subject matter is therefore quite separate from that of Part I of this Bill.
Subsection (1) of Amendment No. 108 now proposed sets out a definition, in modern language, of "disabled person" for the purposes of Part I of the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) are deeming provisions. Subsection (2) passports into subsection (1) people aged 18 and over who are either registered or receiving services under arrangements made under the National Assistance Act 1948, or for whom, in the opinion of the social services authority, such arrangements might be made.
Subsection (3) makes analogous provision for people aged under 18 who are either registered as disabled under the Children Act 1989 or who, in the opinion of the social services authority, are disabled within the meaning of that Act. The effect is to cover, as at present, all people, whether children or adults, who are either registered or registrable as disabled.
Subsection (5) makes it clear that subsection (1) of the new clause is not to affect the interpretation of the definitions of "disabled person" and "disabled child" in the 1948 and 1989 Acts.
In bringing forward the amendment, I believe that we have addressed the concerns expressed by noble Lords in Committee. The amendment substitutes, for the current wording, modern and more acceptable language while maintaining the essential close link with other relevant legislation.
I have some sympathy with the arguments put forward by noble Lords that the language used in the 1948 Act and in related statutes should be brought up to date. That is not something we can do in this Bill. Several government departments would be concerned. I will certainly draw the attention of the relevant Ministers to the views that have been expressed in the House, and the conclusions we have reached so far as concerns this Bill.
The remaining amendments tabled in my name are necessary consequential amendments. I hope that noble Lords are reassured by the amendments we propose. I beg to move.
6. p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, the Minister said that he was responding to the wishes of the House when there was widespread concern about the definition of a disabled person as suggested in the Bill. I am disappointed that in the end the Government have not dealt with the issue as put forward by so many noble Lords. I welcome the fact that there is some change. However, many of the difficulties discussed at Committee stage still remain as regards Amendment No. 108 as drafted.
Let me cite a few points. First, if we have the new definition, within British legislation there will still be three alternative definitions of disability: within this Bill; within the Disability Discrimination Act; and within the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. It seems to me that the most recent definition—that in the Disability Discrimination Act—has the merit of having had a great deal of thought and the support of the main disability organisations, and represents an up-to-date, sensible and workable definition which Parliament agreed only recently.
Secondly, there is a strong suggestion that the disability discussed in Amendment No. 108 has to be a permanent disability. That is rather inflexible. I may misinterpret the wording, but it seems to suggest permanence. People may be disabled for a period of time, but, happily for them, the condition is not permanent. Yet they will not derive the benefits that they would if the definition were more flexible.
For those reasons, I am sorry that the Government have not done as many Members of the this House urged. I believe that the proposed definition will still cause many difficulties when applied.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank the Minister for having listened to what we said at Committee stage. I welcome the fact that my noble friend has brought forward an alternative definition. I should like to take the opportunity to thank him for writing to me with a draft of the amendments, in particular Amendment No. 108—the new clause after Clause 98. I received it late last night.

831
As a result, I shall not move my Amendment No. 20. I do not believe that I should be successful if I were to divide the House tonight in an endeavour to get the provision into the Bill.
Amendment No. 108 introduces the new clause with the definition. It addresses some of the concerns about the definition of a disabled person. There is some updating of the language on the face of the Bill, but it still hinges on the definition within the National Assistance Act 1948, which is outdated in its language and approach, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, has a requirement for a disability to be permanent.
The new wording is cumbersome and could lead to the very situation that the Government wish to avoid—of several definitions of a disabled person within different legislation.
The reason that the disability must be permanent is because there is still a requirement to be registered under the National Assistance Act 1948 or for social services to decide that welfare arrangements might be made under that Act. The 1948 Act specifically states that a person must have a "permanent and substantial disability". Although obviously disabled facilities grants should not be available for people who have a short-term injury, I believe that they must be available for people with a disability which is long-term but may not necessarily be permanent.
An example of that is a child with a severe arthritic condition, which can be extremely disabling. I understand that frequently such children can grow out of their arthritis and of their disability. Therefore it is important that there should not be a requirement for the disability to be permanent for a person to be eligible for consideration for a disabled facilities grant.
I wonder whether the wording of subsection (1) of Amendment No. 108 is likely in practice to cause problems. Subsection (1)(a) states that,
"his sight, hearing or speech is substantially impaired".
That might be interpreted as sight and hearing or speech. I am sure that that is not the intention. However I wonder whether the word "or" could be inserted between "sight" and "hearing" to ensure that there is no ambiguity.
A similar problem exists with subsection (1)(c) where there could be some ambiguity in practice. I suggest that the subsection might be redrafted to state that,
"he is substantially disabled by illness or injury or impairment since birth, or otherwise".
That would be an improvement and would ensure clarity.
Perhaps my noble friend could consider this point between now and a later stage in the Bill. There may not be time to deal with the issue in this House. However, another place could effect the necessary amendments.
I still believe that all those problems could be overcome as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, if we were to use the definition in the Disability Discrimination Act. However, despite what I have said,
832
I am grateful that my noble friend has listened to what we said and, with his officials, has made an attempt to improve the situation.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I had added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, because I was anxious to get rid of the outmoded wording in the definition in the 1948 Act. I stress that I have not consulted widely yet on the Minister's definition; nor have I talked to the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply about the definition referring only to permanent disability.
As the Minister explained, the old definition covered everyone who should be eligible for disabled facilities grant. When I consulted, I found that in the Disability Discrimination Act the definition did not. I welcome Amendment No. 108. However, I stress that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has consulted more widely than I have and has gone more thoroughly into the definition. He may have found things that are not quite acceptable and right. I believe that the Minister is on the right lines. I thank him very much for having gone to this trouble. The definition under the 1948 Act continued because it covered those people whom we wanted it to cover. It was merely the language that was not right.
This provision may need a little more tidying, but I hope that something like it will become the accepted definition in future legislation. Being a very starry-eyed optimist, I hope that perhaps it might be resurrected as a more attractive phoenix in the Disabled Persons and Carers (Short-term Breaks) Bill in the name of my noble friend Lord Rix. However, more realistically, at this point I warmly welcome the Government's amendment, but with the slight proviso that the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, has gone through it with a finer toothcomb than I have done.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister a question. He may feel that the answer is so obvious that the question should not be asked, but experience has taught me that it is better to ask. The question is whether subsections (2) and (3) of Amendment No. 108 limit subsection (1). In other words, is a person to be taken to be disabled if, and only if, the conditions set out in subsections (2) and (3) apply? Alternatively, may a person be regarded as disabled under subsection (1)(a),(b) or (c), but without the application of subsections (2) or (3)?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, let me give immediate comfort to the noble Baroness. Subsections (2) and (3) in Amendment No. 108 passport people into subsection (1). That subsection is a defining clause; subsections (2) and (3) state that people who qualify under those also qualify under subsection (1) and no arguments will be admitted against that. It also covers the question raised by my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, as to the reference to permanence. That characteristic occurs in the National Assistance Act 1948 but it is not a characteristic of subsection (1). Therefore, as concerns the new clause, there is no requirement for permanence. "Substantial" suggests a reasonably long-term disability, but there is no requirement in it for permanence.

833
A definition evolved in the course of two weeks' hard work by my officials is not necessarily perfect, but I am sure that the House will agree that it has been put together with a great deal of goodwill and it is entirely pointed in the right direction. We shall look with care at all that has been said today and will listen to anyone else who may have opinions as to improvements which could be made to the definition.
So far as we can see at the moment, we have got it about right. We thank the Committee for having raised the matter and are delighted to have been able to respond to it. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Disabled facilities grants: purposes for which grant must or may be given]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 13, line 47, at end insert—
("() making the dwelling or building safe for the disabled occupant and other persons residing with him;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21 and to speak to Amendment No. 23. During the Committee's consideration of the Bill we listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and I am sad that he is not in his place today. He spoke eloquently about the needs of those with severe behavioural problems and in particular about the provision of a safe room for a person with such disabilities.
While I would hope that local authorities have given mandatory grant in the past for such purposes, Amendment No. 21 seeks to clarify the position as we feel the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has raised an important issue. The amendment provides for mandatory disabled facilities grant to be given to render the dwelling or building safe for use by a disabled occupant and other persons who reside with him.
The provision is intended to be sufficiently flexible to give grant to provide a special safe room or rooms for a disabled person who suffers from behavioural difficulties and for those who live with him, and also to provide safety measures for disabled people generally where these are necessary. The specific facilities will depend on all the circumstances.
Amendment No. 23 in the name of my noble friend Lord Swinfen would provide for mandatory disabled facilities grant to be given to improve or install a lighting system suitable for a visually impaired occupant. During Committee my noble friend spoke with admirable clarity to a very similar amendment tabled in his name. I said then that we believed that improved lighting systems should come under the discretionary rather than the mandatory heading.
I fully appreciate my noble friend's concern to ensure that those who are partially sighted and who require an enhanced form of lighting to enable them to carry out better the everyday tasks and activities many of us take for granted should have grant available for this purpose as of right.
As my noble friend made clear to the Committee, the provision of enhanced lighting is an important matter and I stress that local authorities will be able to give discretionary grant for this purpose. It is also the case that Amendment No. 21 would enable the provision of lighting to be a mandatory purpose where safety is an issue.
It might also help my noble friend if I add that, were it to become clear that some visually impaired people were not being given access to grant to enable them to benefit from enhanced lighting, the Secretary of State could, if he considered it appropriate in the circumstances, use the power in subsection (1)(i) of Clause 24 to add to the list of mandatory purposes by means of an order.
However, the thrust of the new grant regime we are proposing is to give local authorities maximum flexibility to determine how they can best use their available resources. We remain of the view that the decision as to whether grant should be awarded in such cases is one which should be left to local authorities' judgment based on the circumstances of each case. I am not convinced that this is an area in which we ought to go further. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say on his amendment and beg to move mine.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I welcome the amendment moved by my noble friend. As a result of his Amendment No. 21, I shall not move my Amendment No. 23 because obviously for a visually disabled person a building will not be safe without proper and adequate lighting. It is not just a case of taking out the 100-watt bulb and putting in a 150-watt bulb. It may be a matter of putting spotlights in the right place, or putting lights of differing colours in and ensuring that the light is on the areas where the disabled person is working or studying. I shall not speak at length because there is much to be dealt with tonight, save to say that I welcome my noble friend's amendment.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I wish briefly to reiterate what my noble friend Lord Swinfen said and welcome Amendment No. 21, as my noble friend Lord Rix cannot be here to do so himself.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I too welcome Amendment No. 21. I note with interest what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said in supporting his Amendment No. 23. I note that he will not move it, but I believe that Amendment No. 23 goes rather wider than safety in terms of having lighting systems for disabled people. To that extent there is still a gap in what is to be provided. However, subject to the hope that the Government will address themselves to that gap, I welcome Amendment No. 21.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful for the expressions of support that we have received and I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 14, leave out lines 5 to 8 and insert—
("() facilitating access by the disabled occupant to, or providing for the disabled occupant, a room in which there is a lavatory, or facilitating the use by the disabled occupant of such a facility;
() facilitating access by the disabled occupant to, or providing for the disabled occupant, a room in which there is a bath or shower (or both), or facilitating the use by the disabled occupant of such a facility;
() facilitating access by the disabled occupant to, or providing for the disabled occupant, a room in which there is a washhand basin, or facilitating the use by the disabled occupant of such a facility;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22. It clarifies a peculiarly obscure piece of wording in the Bill and I hope its effects are obvious.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, as this amendment was a result of one which I moved at the previous stage, I welcome it.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I too wish to welcome the amendment. It represents an improvement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Clause 25 [Disabled facilities grants: approval of application]:
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Serota): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 24, I should point out to the House that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 25 or 26.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 15, leave out lines 3 to 5 and insert—
("() In considering whether the relevant works are necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled occupant, the local housing authority shall—

(a) co-operate with the relevant social services authority, or

(b) seek written confirmation from a general practitioner or other suitably qualified professional where this is more appropriate.

The authority mentioned in paragraph (a) shall co-operate in rendering such assistance as is reasonable in the circumstances.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that local authorities, when assessing the need for the disabled facilities grant and adaptations, can either co-operate with the relevant social services authority or, where more appropriate, can seek written confirmation from a general practitioner or other suitably qualified professional. The purpose is not that the local authority should consult both, but that they should choose a relevant person or authority, depending on the circumstances.
At the present time, in order to assess whether a disabled facilities grant is necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of a disabled occupant, a local housing authority will often require an assessment from an occupational therapist. The social services authority
836
would have a duty to undertake an assessment of aids and adaptations, but the waiting time for such assessments can often be extremely lengthy.
Often, when only minor adaptations such as rails in the bathroom are required, a disabled person's general practitioner would be quite capable of assessing whether that is necessary and appropriate. In other situations it may be that another qualified professional, such as an RNIB housing worker, would be as appropriate as an occupational therapist to make an assessment. RADAR, for example, is aware of a disabled person who had a full occupational therapy assessment for adaptations some years ago. That individual now requires an extra handrail on the stairs. The individual requested an occupational therapist's assessment for that purpose in October 1995, but has been informed that an assessment is unlikely to be possible before June 1997 at the earliest. That is a minimum waiting time of 20 months. That person will probably decide to have the handrail put in independently, but as the individual is on benefit it will be financially difficult and could well put the person into debt.
Waiting times for occupational therapist assessments are often up to two years, and longer waiting times have been reported. Although the Government are reviewing occupational therapy services, there is a fundamental problem. There are large numbers of disabled people requiring assessments for adaptations, and there is a shortage of occupational therapists. Many local authorities are now using occupational therapy assistants to undertake assessments. As there is a growing number of disabled, and elderly people who arc becoming disabled, it appears that the problem will inevitably get worse.
Around 15 per cent. of disabled facility grants are for less then £1,000; 7 per cent. of all such grants are for a shower over the bath; 4 per cent. are for handrails. It would be quite reasonable for a general practitioner or other suitably qualified professional to recommend those. If local authorities accept recommendations from occupational therapy assistants, then surely a recommendation from a general practitioner should be equally valid.
In some situations a suitably qualified professional from an organisation with specific expertise appertaining to the needs of the disabled person could be just as relevant as an occupational therapist. For example, a special housing worker from a large HIV and AIDS organisation could give expert advice on access, heating and bathing requirements of the person with HIV or AIDS.
This amendment would give local housing authorities the discretion to decide who was the most appropriate person to assess the need for adaptation. It would not undermine the invaluable role of occupational therapists, but would simply give some flexibility to local authorities to assess the situation and request information from the most appropriate person. Where there is an obvious need for major adaptations, an occupational therapist assessment could be required; but where there is a straightforward requirement for some simple adaptations, a general practitioner could make the recommendation.
Of additional benefit would be the opportunity for the local authority, alternatively, to call on the expertise of a professional with particular knowledge of disabled persons' requirements. That could all be made clear in guidance.
Basically, by allowing local authorities to choose the appropriate person to make the assessment depending upon the situation of the individual the whole process could be speeded up. If my noble friend the Minister does not wish to see the discretion on the face of the Bill, it would be very helpful if he could consider including in guidance information for local authorities on situations where it may be appropriate for them to request information from a general practitioner or other professional rather than waiting for an occupational therapist assessment when that may not be necessary. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I support this amendment, which the noble Lord explained in detail. It is important. At one level it describes what ought to be good practice on the part of a local housing authority. In so far as local housing authorities are sensitive to the needs of disabled people, I am sure many of them will behave in the way suggested by the amendment. However, they do not all do that. It would be proper to have on the face of the Bill an obligation on local housing authorities to consult in such instances with social services authorities or general practitioners where that is appropriate and where occupational therapy assessments are not forthcoming or not forthcoming quickly. It is a very reasonable amendment. It would help local authorities to move rapidly to good practice where they are not already doing so.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I support this amendment very strongly. Anything that eliminates undue delay or makes the waiting time shorter is a very important and serious addition to the Bill. I very much hope that the Minister will give consideration to this proposal. Twenty months may be the entire length of life that the person in question has, and very often 20 months is the minimum for getting an occupational therapist assessment.
Lady Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. I believe the wording is drawn directly from the guidelines for housing associations, which have this flexibility. RADAR gave an example of someone who needed handrails up to the house. As the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, explained, that can take up to two years. Because it was a simple request for a handrail, all that was needed was a letter from a GP confirming it, and it was installed the following week. Obviously, if a disabled person needs a full OT assessment, or his or her needs are complicated, the housing association will ask for an OT to do the assessment. It is very valuable to have such guidelines. They offer flexibility: you can have simple confirmation of need in such instances, which speeds things up enormously. I support it.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Swinfen has again moved an amendment requiring housing
838
authorities to co-operate with social services in deciding the adaptation needs of the disabled occupant and also to seek written confirmation from either a GP or other qualified professional.
We explained in Committee why we considered his amendment unnecessary and why we believe that the collaboration which the amendment seeks to achieve already happens in practice. The process of providing help with adaptations through disabled facilities grants must, of course, be conducted with full co-operation and collaboration between the respective authorities. But I believe responsibility for advising on the particular needs of disabled applicants is a matter entirely for the social services authority.
In Committee my noble friend Lord Swinfen explained that the purpose of his amendment was to bring the duty of social services authorities to co-operate into line with Clause 164 of the Housing Bill. I agree entirely with him that it is essential that those authorities co-operate fully in the disabled facilities grant process.
However, social services already have statutory duties under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to provide assistance in arranging home adaptations to secure greater safety, comfort or convenience. I understand they use these powers widely in considering with their colleagues in housing authorities what should be provided to meet the adaptation needs of disabled people.
Since the grant system was introduced in July 1990, housing and social services authorities have built up locally efficient systems and procedures for the day-to-day operation of disabled facilities grants to ensure the effective delivery of help in meeting the adaptation needs of disabled people.
The duty we have placed on housing authorities to consult social services authorities relates solely to consultation with that authority. I believe that is right. With respect to my noble friend Lord Swinfen I believe it is the social services authority and not the housing authority that is best placed to decide in each case who should be involved in the assessment. In most cases it is carried out by the occupational therapist, who may be employed by social services or the health service.
However, social services may decide that others need to be involved in the process, depending on the person's circumstances. This may involve discussion with a GP who has specialist knowledge of the applicant, voluntary groups of carers who have day-to-day contact with the disabled occupant and are therefore well placed to provide views on what adaptations are needed.
As I have said, my noble friend's amendment would place the burden of taking these decisions on the housing authority when such matters should clearly be left to social services authorities in carrying out their statutory duty to provide advice to housing authorities on these matters.
Both my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), drew attention to the current shortage of occupational therapists which has caused delays in obtaining assessments. The noble Baroness said that, for relatively small items, a general practitioner would be perfectly capable of carrying out

839
the assessment without the need to wait for an occupational therapist. My noble friend Lord Swinfen echoed that argument at this stage of the Bill.
I fully understand that concern but hope that noble Lords will be reassured to hear that there is nothing to prevent such an arrangement being applied under the present arrangements, if the social services authority considers that to be the appropriate course of action. Authorities, therefore, are already able to decide for themselves who should be involved in particular cases, and I am not sure that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Swinfen would enable authorities to do anything that they cannot or do not already do.
The last part of my noble friend's speech suggested that the equivalent of this amendment might be included in guidance. As I indicated, that is not a matter for my department. I shall certainly raise the matter with my noble friend Lady Cumberlege and between us we shall write a letter to him.
In Committee, my noble friend said that the intention of his amendment to require social services authorities to co-operate in rendering reasonable assistance was because of his concern that the consultation with that authority takes place rather late in the application process. However, our research shows that in most cases an application to the housing authority for a disabled facilities grant arises because of a referral from the social services authority rather than the other way around. In such cases, it is likely that the occupational therapist's assessment has already been carried out prior to referral for a disabled facilities grant.
After that rather long explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, as my noble friend himself said, it was a long explanation. I should like to read in Hansard what he said and digest it thoroughly before deciding whether to come back to the matter at a later stage.
At first sight, it appears that the reply may be encouraging. But there may be some holes in it and I want to be certain that any such holes are all properly filled. I shall definitely read what my noble friend said. I thank him for taking the trouble to give such a long and well considered reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26:
Page 15, line 4, leave out first ("welfare") and insert ("social services").
Page 15, line 4, leave out second ("welfare") and insert ("social services").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments when I spoke to Amendment No. 19. I beg to move them together.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 27 [HMO grants: certificate required to accompany application]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 27:
840
Page 15, line 43, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 107 in my name and trespass slightly on Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, Amendment No. 29 is not my amendment. It is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Lord Lucas: Quite right, my Lords. We have given some thought to the views expressed during the Committee consideration of this Bill about the likely need for Clause 28. During Committee, I confirmed that it was not envisaged that the power would be used in the foreseeable future and indicated that it would be our intention to see mirrored in Clause 28 the discretion proposed for local authorities on disapplying the prior qualifying conditions.
However, having given further thought to the points made by noble Lords, I now believe that for the purposes of clarity it would be preferable to remove the clause from the Bill. Therefore we have brought forward Amendments Nos. 27, 29 and 107 in order to achieve that objective.
In view of the amendments removing the clause, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, will not move his Amendment No. 28.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for moving Amendment No. 27. It responds to our concerns at Committee. As we pointed out, the power was unlikely to be used and in responding at Committee the noble Lord affirmed that the Government had no intention of using the power. Therefore, it is reasonable for us to accept the noble Lord's amendment. It is also reasonable that local authorities should be left with discretion to decide their own strategies.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the amendment, which responds to concerns voiced at Committee. He is quite right, he has pre-empted my amendment, Amendment No. 28, and I shall not move it when the time comes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [HMO grants: prior qualifying period]:
[Amendment No. 28 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 29:
Leave out Clause 28.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Power to restrict certain landlord's applications]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 30:
Leave out Clause 31
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed the purpose of Clause 31 at some length in Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, had suggested a number

841
of amendments with the intention of clarifying the clause. That gave us the opportunity to consider further the need to retain Clause 31.
We believe that the maintenance of a property in the private rented sector is the responsibility of the owner. That led to our initial decision in the White Paper to restrict landlords' access to grants. With the move in this Bill to a discretionary grant system accessible by all landlords we were keen that the message of owners' responsibility to maintain their property was not lost.
Clause 31 was included in case experience showed that, rather than maintain properties to a good standard, landlords waited for a local authority to take enforcement action or offer grant assistance. Were this pattern of activity to emerge, we would have wished to take steps to restrict grant availability.
However, the comments that we have received from local authorities about how they expect to use the power to give discretionary grant assistance to landlords has reassured us that the power will be used for strategic purposes and that we are unlikely ever to need the power in Clause 31 to restrict grant availability. Bearing in mind the concerns expressed in Committee, we have concluded that the clause should be removed. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am again grateful to the noble Lord for moving the amendment. I can only repeat what I said earlier. In our view it is right that this clause should be out of the Bill. The noble Lord kindly took due note of the arguments that we put forward in Committee. It is again right that local authorities should be allowed maximum discretion in deciding their own strategies. Therefore, I am very happy to support the Government in their Amendment No. 30.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am delighted again to give pleasure the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Means testing in case of application by owner-occupier or tenant]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 19, line 46, at end insert—
("() make provision for the deduction of—

(i) the gross amount of any sums paid as interest (including interest on a mortgage) in respect of which relief is given under the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 ("the Taxes Act") in respect of a loan to the person, his spouse or partner;

(ii) half of the gross amount of any premium payable under a policy of life insurance in respect of which relief is given under section 266 of the Taxes Act (life policy and certain other premiums) in the relevant year; and

(iii) the gross amount of any other premium or sum in respect of which relief is given under sections 266, 273, 619 or 639 of the Taxes Act in the relevant year;

from the gross income of the person or his spouse or partner for the purposes of determining income under this section.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is tabled in my name coupled with that of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. In Committee we had quite an involved discussion about means testing. The purpose of the amendment, which was said of the amendment that we moved in Committee, is to ensure that the means test calculation takes into account mortgage interest payments and payments on other sums on which relief is in fact given under the income tax Acts. We are trying to match up the provision with the income tax Acts.
Anyone who has a mortgage will realise that it is an important outgoing from the household. In Committee the Government argued:
"Our view is that the amount of mortgage an individual takes out, or the amount he pays towards life insurance or other premiums for which he can reclaim tax paid, is a matter of personal choice, and as such we see no case for those amounts to feature in the renovation grant means test"—[Official Report, 26/3/96; col. 1651.]
The Government went on to say that the inclusion of such amounts would encourage individuals to take up larger mortgages. However, they slid a little during the argument in Committee in giving an undertaking to reply in detail at a later stage when they realised that the wording of the amendment took up wording in the education grants means test. The purpose of tabling the amendment at Report stage is, first, to give the Minister an opportunity to clarify, if that is possible, the response given in Committee and, secondly, to answer those points made by the Government in debate.
Our view is that mortgage interest payments are an important household outgoing and, when we come to renovation grants, it is important that those things should be taken into account. I can elaborate on the effect of disregarding such mortgage interest payments if the noble Lord wishes me to; I have a great deal of material which will allow me to demonstrate the problem.
In our view it is unlikely that the changes we are suggesting to the grant means test will alter the operation of the housing market in any meaningful sense. A decision to purchase a house is usually taken without taking into account changes to personal income and changes to the housing market, which, as we all know, are impossible to predict.
The assumption on which we should work is that most people purchasing a house will have taken into account its maintenance needs. It is not true to say—the second argument advanced by the Government—that the allowances included in the means test are an adequate provision for housing costs. As the allowances are, by their nature, applied uniformly to all applicants, they will not take into account differences in the housing costs of individuals and the anomaly will remain.
The amendment is intended to probe the Government's view on the matter. It is something that has not been fully considered by the Government. We believe that there is virtue in making sure that any means test for renovation grants takes into account the essential outgoings of those who are owners of property,

843
and that includes mortgage interest payments and other consequential outgoings such as insurance. In that probing spirit, I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend's amendment, the most powerful argument is that it would give a common base with the other grants that he mentioned such as the education grant. To have two different measures of income for disbursement of public money in terms of grants will appear illogical and nonsensical to the ordinary householder. Therefore, from the point of view of what may be described as public regard for the law and the criteria on which public bodies make their judgments, it would be sensible to adopt the same criteria when it comes to assessment of income for grants.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has again moved an amendment requiring an applicant's mortgage interest, life insurance premiums and other tax deductible payments to be disregarded in the means test regulations under this clause. All means tests have their imperfections and different forms. Perhaps I may help the House by explaining the principles behind the present means test for renovation grants and explaining why the amendment would discriminate against certain applicants.
The purpose of the present means test is to ensure that help given towards the cost of essential repairs and adaptations goes to those in greatest need, whether they own their own home, have a mortgage or are renting. The test follows housing benefit rules and seeks to assess household needs in the same way as for those claiming help through the social security system. It is a framework for determining what an applicant can reasonably afford to contribute, if anything, to the cost of works. It establishes how much money a household needs to meet reasonable weekly expenditure, including reasonable housing costs. It does that by a system of awarding personal allowances and premiums which take account of the specific circumstances of the family.
We recognise that there are demands on a person's income, including mortgage payments and rents. The test therefore provides for an additional premium of £40 per week over and above housing benefit levels to ensure that allowance has been made in the test for housing costs such as mortgages and rent. The system treats all those seeking grants fairly and equally, or at least as fairly and equally as a means test is likely to do. Because it makes allowance for reasonable housing costs to be taken into account, it does not penalise those without mortgages or those who pay similar amounts in rent, as I believe the noble Lord's amendment would do.
I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, in tabling the amendment that we should provide all the help we can within available resources so that people can remain in homes in a good state of repair. However, his amendment does not treat all housing costs equally and those people, particularly the elderly, who may have no mortgage or who have either paid it off or are close to doing so and therefore have small amounts of interest to pay would be unfairly treated. Furthermore, those
844
living in private rented accommodation paying equivalent amounts of rent would also be disadvantaged under his proposals. In my view, it would also risk resources going to those who can afford to take out higher mortgages at the expense of those who perhaps cannot borrow so much but who are nevertheless equally deserving of grant aid. Some people, especially younger applicants, may be encouraged to borrow more to move up market in the knowledge that they will receive more grant.
The amendment would also require certain tax deductible payments of widows' and children's annuities and personal pensions to be disregarded. We see no case for disregarding those payments which are purely a matter of personal choice.
We share the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that people seeking grant to adapt or improve their property are given the fairest treatment in determining their ability to contribute to the cost of works. We believe that the means test that we have chosen is the best practical way of doing that. I would like to think that I might have persuaded the noble Lord of our argument, but I take leave to doubt that.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as always, I am grateful to the noble Lord for speaking to his brief. I do not accept the arguments. I cannot see, to take mortgage interest payments as an example, why a private owner who is burdened with a mortgage for one reason or another—individual choice which may have taken place a long time ago—should be disadvantaged compared with another private householder who is paying rent. Rent is a straightforward monthly outgoing; mortgage payments are a straightforward monthly outgoing, unless one is in a mortgage system which does not require monthly payments. Nevertheless, it is a cost of owning the house. When we are talking of renovation of a dwelling, the two things seem to be compatible.
I do not understand, when assessing the means test, why the Government insist on saying that rent may he taken into account as outgoings. The noble Lord wants to intervene.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it may be helpful if I say that no individual personal housing costs are taken into account. An allowance of £40 per week is made, whatever the housing situation of the applicant. Neither the rent nor the mortgage interest is considered.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, that makes the position slightly worse, because in that case it is not a proper means test; it is a benefits assessment which across the board does not reflect the reality of life.
However, I am sure that we shall not get any further with this discussion. I said that this is a probing amendment. I am quite certain that the matter will he taken up at a later stage in another place. It is vital that people who are on the margin of contributing to the renovation of their houses and on the margin of receiving grant should be treated fairly. I do not believe that the Bill as presently constructed treats people equally, one with another. Nevertheless, I accept that the noble Lord has done his best to persuade me otherwise.

845
But I am unpersuaded. The matter will certainly be taken up in another place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 19, line 46, at end insert—
("() In the case of an application for a disabled facilities grant regulations must, in particular—

(a) make provision for account to be taken only of the income and assets of the disabled occupant himself and his parents if he is living with them and under 18;

(b) make provision for account to be taken of the needs of the disabled occupant himself and any person who is dependent on him.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to ensure that local authorities take into account only the income of the disabled occupant, and his parents if he is under 18 and living with them, when considering a disabled facilities grant, and further to ensure that local authorities take into account the needs of the disabled occupant and any person who is dependent on him.
Disabled facilities grants are vital for providing adaptations for disabled people to help them to continue to live in their own home. The Office of Population Censuses and Surveys estimated in 1985 that one in five of the population has some form of disability. Four million people in this country experience mobility difficulties. It is not surprising, therefore, that in 1993 more than £70 million was spent through local authorities on the provision of disabled facilities grants.
Currently, I understand that the average value of the disabled facilities grant awarded is some £3,700. The grants are means tested and 17 per cent. of all those awarded grants make a contribution to the cost of the works. The proposals within the Bill for the scope of the regulations concerning the means test would allow the income of not only the disabled occupant to be taken into account but also the income of other non-disabled people living in the household. Adaptations carried out on the home of the disabled occupant are for the benefit of that disabled person and not for other members of their household. The legislation states that the relevant works should be necessary and appropriate to meet the needs of the disabled occupant.
Research undertaken in 1995 by PIEDA for the Department of the Environment found that 48 per cent. of disabled facilities grants entailed improving mobility in the dwelling through the provision, for example, of stairlifts, ramps, grabs and handrails. Those are obviously solely for the benefit of the disabled person and of no benefit to other occupants of the dwelling. Therefore, why should the income of the non-disabled people within the household be taken into account for the means test?
In many cases the fact that the income of non-disabled people is taken into account in the current means test has the effect that the contribution required to the cost of the works is very difficult for the disabled person to find. A comprehensive research project undertaken by the Suffolk Coastal and Mid-Suffolk
846
Disability Housing Research Group found that the means-tested grants system was leaving people in financial difficulty. It stated that there are cases where help has been sought with no result because of the means test for the disabled facilities grant.
The current proposals for the scope of regulations covering the means test could lead to the income of anyone living in the household being taken into account. That could include lodgers, friends, carers or care assistants, relatives, the parents of disabled adults or even children who have an income. The original consultation document issued in July last year by the Department of the Environment entitled The Future of Private Housing Renewal Programmes in England suggested a change to the means test. For disabled facilities grants it stated that only the means of the disabled adult, and their parents in the case of those under 18, and the means of spouses and partners would be taken into account.
During the Committee stage of the Bill the Government made mention of the relaxation of the means test proposed in the consultation and expressed sympathy with the intention of limiting the means test. My noble friend Lord Lucas further stated that he would give consideration to the detailed operation of the means test when the Government came to prepare the regulations later in the year. However, if the Government intend to limit the means test to the income of disabled occupants and their spouses, why is the scope of the regulations outlined in the Bill so wide? Surely it would be better to state the actual regulations the Government intend to use in the Bill rather than an all-encompassing list, the majority of which apparently will not be used in the regulations.
There is serious concern that if this all-encompassing list remains in the Bill it will be possible at any time in the future, without further reference to Parliament, to alter the scope of the means test to bring in the income of a wide range of people. In a year or so the regulations could be altered to include the income of other people such as lodgers or relatives. Surely, if the Government are committed to including only the income of the disabled occupant and spouse, they should limit the regulations rather than allowing this almost open-ended list to appear in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Darcy (de Knayth): My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. He has said it all and I just hope that the Minister will agree with the noble Lord's irrefutable logic.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I find that a very difficult act to follow. In Amendment No. 32 my noble friend has returned to the operation of the means test and how it will be applied to a disabled person seeking grant aid. I had hoped that I had been able to satisfy my noble friend's concerns when these matters were raised in Committee. Perhaps I may give my noble friend further reassurance that the concerns he has raised are without foundation.
We have given an undertaking, which I repeated in Committee, that it was our intention that regulations he made setting out the operation of the means test for

847
disabled facilities grants. We feel that that is the appropriate mechanism for the level of detail required. I can confirm that for applications for mandatory disabled facilities grant only the means of the disabled person and his spouse or partner will be considered. Where the applicant is below the age of 18 the income of the parents will also be taken into account.
My noble friend asked why the scope in the Bill is so wide. It is because discretionary grants will be means tested in a different manner than presently is the case. That is why we feel we need the wider scope.
The relaxation from the current practice has been widely welcomed and we believe it is preferable to the current arrangements. However, where the grant is discretionary, and therefore likely to be less vital, we believe that there is a case for reflecting that by including the means of the applicant and those of the owner, where that is a different person, in the means test calculation. Where discretionary grant is given for mandatory purposes such as to top up a grant in excess of £20,000, the test as used for mandatory grant will apply.
As regards the second part of the amendment, I do not believe that we should restrict the regulations as suggested to take specific account of the needs of the disabled occupants and any dependent person to any greater extent than is already the case. We already achieve that through set allowances and premiums for applicants for disabled facilities grants.
In calculating an applicant's entitlement to grant, whether a renovation grant or a disabled facilities grant, all applicants must complete a means test. The test is based on an assessment of an applicant's basic needs and his income. The basic premise of the test is to see how much of an applicant's income, if any, over and above the assessed need of the household is available to finance a loan to pay for the works. Grant represents the difference between the "affordable loan" and the cost of the works. Where the financial resources of the applicant are less than the assessed need of the household, grant is available towards the full cost of works.
In assessing the basic needs of the household, a number of personal allowances and premiums are awarded depending on family circumstances. Therefore, if you are a couple where at least one member is aged over 18, you are assumed to need £73 per week of your income before any is available to meet loan repayments. If both members of a couple are aged over 60, they are allowed a further £28 per week.
In addition to this, for a disabled person, further allowances are built into the calculation. A couple under 60 years of age would be eligible for disability premium—£28.30 per week, rising to £70.10 per week where there is severe disability. Further premiums may be added in respect of disabled children and of carers, and for those disabled with at least one child aged under 19.
I must restate that these premiums are weekly amounts which are awarded to the personal allowances of those receiving attendance allowance, disability living allowance, disability working allowance, mobility supplement, invalidity pensions and severe disablement
848
allowance, to reflect the additional household needs and costs arising because of the disability of the applicant or family member.
As further recognition of the demands made on a person's income, an additional premium of £40 per week is added to these allowances and premiums in the case of all applicants.
Therefore, I hope it is now clear that we do already take some account of the increased costs associated with disability when undertaking a means test assessment and that we will meet our commitment to introduce a more generous means test formula. I hope that, with these explanations, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response and for giving an undertaking at the beginning of his speech. He will know as well as I do that an undertaking given by this Government cannot bind any future government. He will also know that it is very much easier to change regulations, very often with no discussion at all, than it is to change primary legislation, which has to go through both Houses of Parliament and be properly discussed. That is one of the reasons why I should like to see this measure on the face of the Bill.
If my noble friend, as a young man, were sharing a flat with a group of other young men and wished to take out a hire purchase agreement on, say, a saxophone, would he think it fair that the income of the other men sharing the flat with him should be taken into account to see whether or not he can have the loan or the grant to buy the saxophone? That is the sort of thing that my noble friend is asking to be done here. I suggest that only the income of the disabled person and spouse and, if he or she is under the age of 18 years, the parents of the individual, should be taken into account, and not that of everyone else. I do not believe that it is fair to people. I have the feeling that the Treasury is trying to make certain that it does not pay its fair share. However, it is getting late and I do not want to divide the House on this particular point, but I may come back to it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill
7.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Baroness Denton of Wakefield): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

849
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Denton of Wakefield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Brougham and Vaux) in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Right of access to legal advice]:
Lord Holme of Cheltenham Lord Holme of Cheltenham moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 31, line 22, at end insert—
("() In the event that any delay is permitted in complying with a request under subsection (1), no inference of guilt on the part of the accused may be drawn if he chooses to remain silent during the period of the delay.").
The noble Lord said: This simple amendment is intended to deal with something which is a problem for the Government, as the noble Baroness acknowledged at Second Reading. More importantly, it represents an attempt to mitigate a dangerous potential anomaly in the examination of suspects. As legislation currently stands, reinforced by this Bill, a suspect might be refused access to a solicitor on the basis set out in Section 47, and then have his silence during interrogation, during the 48-hour period before he is allowed to see a solicitor, taken as an inference of guilt. That is the issue on which the European Court of Human Rights found against the Government in the Murray case.
At Second Reading the noble Baroness said:
"On the narrower question of inferences being drawn at a trial from silence at a time when access to a legal adviser was denied, the court found against the United Kingdom".—[Official Report, 21/3/96; col. 1390.]
She went on to say on that occasion that the Government are considering how best to respond to the judgment in the Murray case, but said, in fairness, that this Bill was not the place to do it. However, as she knows, I warned her on that occasion that we on these Benches might want to revert to the matter at Committee.
What is proposed in this amendment is very simple. It is that no inference of guilt should be drawn from silence during a period in which the suspect is denied access to legal advice. I am sure that the Government acknowledge that the arguments on the conclusions to be drawn from silence are, in all events, finely balanced. But, even if we all wholeheartedly accepted the notion of the imputation of guilt from silence, surely it is belt and braces on the part of the police to expect both to deny legal advice and to be able to argue guilt from the ensuing silence.
I well know the pressures of pursuing terrorism wholeheartedly, but I do not believe that we should do so without the restraint of due process. There are some who argue that in pursuing terrorism in Northern Ireland, from the civil liberties point of view, solicitors are deliberately withheld in order to secure confessions and that the weak-minded are threatened by that. If they remain silent they will be convicted, so why not confess straightaway? However, there are others who argue that solicitors may be accomplices to the crime—and there
850
have been instances of solicitor malpractice in Northern Ireland—and therefore, once a solicitor is warned, the whole terrorist circle will close up and there will be no further arrests.
I understand both those points of view, but I hope that this is a useful amendment in that it meets both those sets of concerns. The amendment will allow inferences of guilt still to be drawn and legal advice to still be withheld. But it puts a price on the withholding of legal advice so that interviewing officers are invited to use the powers sparingly—for example, only when they genuinely believe that a solicitor may give unhelpful warnings—because there is no question of threatening the weak-minded with inferences of guilt drawn from their silence. Therefore, I believe that this amendment is a sensible lifeline for the Government on a tricky problem. I look forward very much to hearing from the noble Baroness how the Government respond to it. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I support this carefully drafted amendment and I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, has said. I do not want to add to the general argument except to say that fairness is at the heart of justice. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, has referred to the Second Reading debate and in particular to what the Minister said in Hansard at col. 1390. I regret that I was unable to take part in that debate. On reading the paragraph, it seems to me that the Minister accepted that an amendment along these lines is probably needed in order, as I understand it, to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Murray case. As I said, it is also needed in order to ensure fairness to the person who is detained and who has requested access to a solicitor in the circumstances which are set out in the amendment.
On Second Reading, the Minister said that the Government required more time to conclude their consideration of the best way to proceed. The Minister said:
"We have not yet concluded what steps, legislative and administrative, should be pursued to ensure that we comply with our obligations under the convention".—[Official Report, 21/3/96; col. 1390.]
I appreciate that the judgment was given only on 8th February 1996 and that the wheels of departments grind slowly. However, if the Minister is unable to accept the amendment today, I think that the Committee should be told who is now giving that consideration to the relevant matters. Are they being considered by an interdepartmental committee? If so, what departments are represented on it? I presume that the Northern Ireland Office, the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department will be involved. Can the Minister indicate what difficulties, if any, have already been identified? Again, if we miss this opportunity of amending this particular Bill, when do the Government expect that the law can be amended to ensure that we comply with our obligations under the convention? Finally, while this matter is under consideration, can the department give us any assurance that the message of the amendment will be respected and complied with?
Viscount Colville of Culross: I hope that the noble Baroness will be very careful before she accepts the

851
amendment. I do not now speak as somebody who used to be concerned with the Emergency Provisions Act; I speak much more as somebody who is concerned with the day-to-day application of inferences to be drawn from silence in all the ordinary courts in this country. The 1988 order under which inferences were first introduced in Northern Ireland is not confined to scheduled offences; nor is it confined to detentions under terrorism. In England and Wales the similar provision which was introduced in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 now applies to all offences in magistrates' and Crown courts in those parts of the United Kingdom. The important point is this: those provisions do not apply regardless of the facts under which a silence arose. They are applicable only after discussion by the judge with counsel, and after some sort of agreement about what might be the proper inferences that are to be drawn by the jury if, indeed, any are to be drawn.
I suggest to the noble Baroness that picking out that particular circumstance and making such a provision in this Bill will invite others to start drawing distinctions between different sets of circumstances which are not provided for either in the 1988 order or in the 1994 Act in England and Wales. It ought to be the subject of a proper discussion between counsel and a judge on a case-by-case basis. I can see no difficulty in the circumstances which the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, set out, whereby counsel could argue that an inference should not be drawn, but I do not believe that there should be a specific legislative provision to that effect. Therefore, I hope that the generality of discretion that is now available to the courts both in Northern Ireland and here will not be diminished by a provision of this sort.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: As the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said, the amendment has been triggered by the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of John Murray. The noble Lord indicated at Second Reading that he would probably table such an amendment. In the judgment, which concerned inferences drawn from silence, the court acknowledged the possibility within the convention of restrictions for good cause on access to a lawyer at the initial stages of police interrogation, but in all the circumstances of the Murray case, taking into account the possibility of inferences from silence, it concluded that to deny access for the first 48 hours of questioning was incompatible with the convention.
The judgment has implications beyond the emergency legislation, as access to a solicitor may be denied in ordinary criminal cases under PACE. It has implications in England and Wales. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, for putting so clearly the dangers involved in including such an amendment in the Bill. As I explained on Second Reading, we do not believe that the most appropriate response to the judgment would be to amend this Bill in the way proposed. It is a complex matter, requiring liaison with the Home Office, the police and the judiciary in both Northern Ireland and in England and Wales.
852
I can assure the Committee of two things. First, the options for legislative change are being explored. The noble Viscount drew attention to the problems at issue. Secondly, we very much hope that the need to avoid further breaches of the convention will substantially he met by changes to police and prosecution practices. I can understand that noble Lords may be impatient to see a legislative response to the Murray case, but I emphasise that much can, and is, being done in the meantime to ensure that defendants do not have inferences drawn against them from their silence during an interview conducted before they have seen a solicitor. The most obvious step is for the police to be sparing in their use of the power to defer access to a solicitor. Deferrals are now much rarer than they were a few years ago. Even in terrorist cases in Northern Ireland, access to a solicitor nowadays is delayed comparatively rarely in contrast to the position a few years ago. In 1994, of the 1,379 requests for access only 187 were delayed; in 1995, up to the end of September only one request out of 322 was delayed.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked who was involved in the consultations about the implications for other parts of the jurisdiction in the United Kingdom. The Home Office, the Law Officers and, of course, the Northern Ireland Office are involved.
I hope that I have been able to give the Committee sufficient assurances that this is not something that we treat lightly. However, we do not believe that such provisions should be included in this Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: I thank the noble Baroness. It is difficult for lay Members of your Lordships' House, when faced with the legal expertise of the Government's advisers and particularly the expertise of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who is not only a distinguished lawyer but has a unique knowledge and experience of matters in Northern Ireland, to shout into the gale of that expertise as it comes wafting towards one.
However, I am reassured by what the Minister said about options being explored. I hope that that is the case and that they are being considered actively. We shall certainly want to pursue the noble Baroness and the Government on this matter to ensure that there is some progress. I am vastly reassured that in practice there are very few such denials, at least currently.
However, despite the weight of authority with which it was given, I do not think that I am persuaded by the argument of the noble Viscount which, if I grasped it correctly—I may not have done so—is that when it comes to making judgments, people say, "This is one of the circumstances that you take into account. This chap was silent because he was denied a solicitor. You should therefore draw a different inference about his potential guilt than you would draw had he not been denied one". One takes account of the circumstances which led to the discussion of the imputation of guilt. I should prefer that to be resolved, not on grounds of common sense in the court room or, in the end, of it being a power which is

853
never used in that way. I should prefer to resolve it properly. But on this occasion I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clauses 48 to 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Codes of practice: police powers]:
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 34, line 17, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State may make codes of practice in connection with—

(a) the exercise by police officers of any power conferred by Part II of this Act or by that Act; and

(b) the seizure and retention of property found by police officers when exercising powers of search conferred by any provision of this Act or that Act.

() The Secretary of State may make codes of practice in connection with the exercise by members of Her Majesty's forces of any of their powers under Part II of this Act.
() In this section "police officer" means a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary or the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve.").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 3.
Clauses 52 and 54 re-enact, in part, Section 61 of the current Act. They place a duty on the Secretary of State to make codes of practice in connection with the detention, treatment, questioning and identification of persons who are detained under the terrorism provisions. The Bill was drafted against the backdrop of a prevailing ceasefire and it omits that part of the existing provision which confers upon the Secretary of State a discretionary power to make codes of practice in connection with the police and Army's powers of arrest, search and seizure, known as the "Part II powers". No such codes were made during the lifetime of the current Act and the ceasefires had seen a significant downturn in the use of the Part II powers. In these circumstances, it was decided that the provision could lapse.
Sadly, however, the Provisional IRA has declared its ceasefire to be over; we have seen a return to violence in the form of recent mainland attacks and we cannot rule out the possibility that the security forces' Part II powers will be needed for some time to come. It is sensible therefore to re-enact the power to create, as necessary, that kind of additional safeguard which codes of practice would provide.
I explained on Second Reading that the Government had reconsidered their position on the discretionary power to make codes of practice in connection with the Part II powers. The Government believe that in the light of the changed security situation it is only sensible to re-enact the existing provision. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: Perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Does the Secretary of State intend to use the powers contained in the amendment to Clause 52? Is there an intention to exercise that power, or is it a power to be held in reserve?
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: We had hoped that the security situation was improving in Northern
854
Ireland. We continue to hope that sense and a respect for the ballot box and not for the bullet will be part of the future. The intention is to monitor the situation carefully. I am asking the Committee to approve a provision which will make those powers available for use if necessary.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54 [Codes of practice: supplementary]:
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 35, line 2, at end insert—
("() A failure on the part of a member of Her Majesty's forces to comply with any provision of a code shall not of itself render him liable to any criminal or civil proceedings other than—

(a) proceedings under any provision of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955 other than section 70 (civil offences); and

(b) proceedings under any provision of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 other than section 42 (civil offences).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Commencement, duration, expiry and revival of provisions of this Act]:
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 39, line 27, after ("it") insert (", or a corresponding earlier enactment,").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment would address a gap in the Bill which exists as drafted. Clause 15 restricts the remission granted under prison rules in respect of those convicted of scheduled offences and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more; in such cases remission is restricted to one third of the sentence. Clause 16 requires the court to order that a person imprisoned for a scheduled offence during a period of remission must serve the unexpired portion of the sentence for his previous offence in addition to the sentence for the subsequent offence.
Both of those provisions are temporary and Clause 62 now provides that in the event of the expiry or cesser of either provision, its operational effect shall continue in relation to an offence committed while the provision was in force. The intention is that the expiry or cesser should only affect offences committed after that event; the clause does not quite achieve this because we omitted a reference to offences committed before the current provision is enacted but during the lifetime of its predecessor provision.
The current wording of Clause 62 omits any reference to predecessor provisions; the amendment corrects this. I beg to move.
Lord Prys-Davies: I have merely a request for information. Will the Minister be good enough to refer

855
the Committee to the corresponding earlier enactments which are referred to in the amendment? If it is readily available, that information would be helpful.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield: I believe that I covered that point in my remarks when presenting the amendment. We are dealing with Clauses 15 and 16, but if that reply does not answer the noble Lord's question, I shall come back to him.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 63 [Savings, amendments and repeals]:
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 39, line 46, at end insert—
("() Schedule (scheduled offences: transitional provisions) (which makes transitional provisions in relation to scheduled offences) shall have effect.").
The noble Baroness said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak also to Amendment No. 6.
Because the Bill has the effect of removing certain offences from the current list of scheduled offences—that is, offences which merit special treatment under the emergency legislation—it is necessary to spell out precisely how cases involving such offences, whether committed or alleged to have been committed at the time of the Bill's enactment, should continue to be dealt with after that date.
The amendments would add a new schedule to the Bill which would set out the transitional arrangements for each case, taking into account its individual stage in the criminal justice process at the time of the Bill's enactment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.
Baroness Denton of Wakefield Baroness Denton of Wakefield moved Amendment No. 6:
After Schedule 4, insert the following new schedule—
SECTION 63()
("SCHEDULE SCHEDULED 0FFENCES: TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
1. In this Schedule "commencement" means the time when this Act comes into force.
2.—(1) This Schedule applies to offences which—

(a) were immediately before commencement specified in Part I of Schedule I to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991, but

(b) are not immediately after commencement specified in Part I of Schedule 1 to this Act.

(2) In relation to offences committed (or alleged to have been committed) before commencement, this Act shall apply as if offences to which this Schedule applies were specified in Part I of Schedule 1.
(3) Sub-paragraph (2) is subject to the following provisions.
856
3. Paragraph 2(2) shall not apply in relation to section 2 (preliminary inquiry) unless a request that a preliminary inquiry be held has been granted under section 2 of the 1991 Act.
4. Paragraph 2(2) shall not apply in relation to section 3 (limitation of power to grant bail).
5. Paragraph 2(2) shall not apply in relation to section 4 (legal aid to applicants for bail) except for the purposes of assignments made before commencement.
6. Paragraph 2(2) shall not apply in relation to section 5 (maximum period of remand in custody) except for the purposes of orders for remand made before commencement.
7. Paragraph 2(2) shall not apply in relation to section 6 (custody of young persons).
8. Paragraph 2(2) shall not apply in relation to section 8 (time limits for preliminary proceedings).
9. Paragraph 2(2) shall not apply in relation to sections 10 to 13 (court, mode of trial, evidence and onus of proof) except in cases where the case for the prosecution was opened, or a plea of guilty was accepted, before commencement.
10. Paragraph 2(2) shall not apply in relation to sections 14 to 16 (treatment of offenders) except where the conviction of the offence in question occurred before commencement.
11. Paragraph 2(2) shall not apply in relation to section 18 (constable's general power of arrest and seizure) except where the arrest, entry, search or seizure occurred before commencement.
12. Paragraph 2(2) shall not apply in relation to section 46(8)(a) to (c) (right to have someone informed of detention: delay related to scheduled offence) except for the purposes of authorisations given before commencement.
13. Paragraph 2(2) shall not apply in relation to section 47(81(a) to (c) (right of access to legal advice: delay related to scheduled offence) except for the purposes of authorisations given before commencement.
14. Paragraph 2(2) shall not apply in relation to section 53(7) (compensation: restriction) except where the act in question was done before commencement.
15. Note 1 of Part I of Schedule I shall apply to any offence to which the corresponding note in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991 applied.").
The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Remaining schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended front 7.32 to 8 p.m.]

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 33.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 20, line 4, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("(8)—Regulations may make provision to extend regulations made under section 5(1)(h) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (relating to the payment of housing benefit) to the provision of information or evidence for the determination of an) matter under this section by such persons as may be prescribed.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to amendment No. 33, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 34, which is grouped with it. These are probing amendments which seek to delete the subsections allowing for regulations to make provisions requiring information or evidence to be furnished,
"by such persons as may be prescribed",
and instead provide for regulations under Section 5(1)(h) jof the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
The reason for moving the amendments is that in Committee on 26th March, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, referred to the provisions which the Government were then proposing replicating to a large extent the regulations for housing benefit. I move these amendments in order to ask what the differences might be. Since there is full provision for such matters in the 1992 Act, I have suggested that that should apply also under this Act. But I merely wish to inquire of the Government whether there are any distinctions and if there are, whether they are immaterial. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, now that it has been revealed to me what the amendments are for, I shall have to say that I shall write to the noble Baroness because I do not have an answer with me here.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is it not rather odd that we have reached Report state, amendments are tabled but the Government have no response to this at all?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my response to the amendments is that we like things the way they are. We believe that the purpose of the amendments, as we have seen them, is already provided by Clauses 33(8) and 34(5), which allow the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring any information or evidence needed to be provided by any such person as may be prescribed. Therefore, we believe that the effect of the amendments is already covered.
However, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised certain detailed points. I should like an opportunity to consider them and cover them in detail and I shall write to her about them. I am afraid that I do not have the necessary information with me to enable me to do that off the cuff.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall look forward to the Minister's response. I should have thought that the question would be apparent from the tabling of the amendments, although I concede that they were tabled late—not too late but late. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 [Determination of amount of grant in case of landlord's application]:
[Amendment No. 34 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Decision and notification]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 22, line 8, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
858
("The total of the amounts referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) is referred to in this Chapter as 'the estimated expense'.
() If the authority notify the applicant under subsection (1) that the application is approved, they shall specify in the notice—

(a) the eligible works,

(b) the amounts referred to in subsection (2) (b) and (c), and how those amounts have been calculated, and

(c) the amount of the grant.

() If the authority notify the applicant under subsection (1) that the application is refused, they shall at the same time notify him of the reasons for the refusal.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 35, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 55.
When the Bill was being discussed in Committee, I said that I would reflect further on two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that would place a duty on a local authority to tell an applicant how the cost of the grant works is arrived at or why a grant is refused. This is an important issue and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing it to the attention of the House.
I hold the view that good local authorities already do what the amendments would require, but there is merit in converting good practice into a general rule. That is why we have brought forward Amendment No. 35, which would require authorities to provide such information. Amendment No. 55 is consequential upon this. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing forward these amendments. Thanks must go also to the solicitors housing law practitioners. I am not sufficiently creative to have drafted that myself but I thank the Government for responding.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness that these amendments are reasonable and we shall not oppose them. I am glad that the Government feel that they have had ample time to respond to amendments that have been tabled and I look forward to future responses coming forward rather more quickly than was the case on the previous amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Delayed payment of mandatory grant]:
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 36:
Leave out Clause 39.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 37 and 38. The purpose of the amendments is to place a duty on local authorities to pay a grant upon satisfactory completion of the works and to remove the delay of 12 months which is proposed for the payment of disabled facilities grants.
Disabled facilities grants are vital to help disabled people remain in their own homes. The provision of suitable housing is a cornerstone of community care policies. In the main, that is achieved through adaptations, because 50 per cent. of all disabled facilities grants involve the redesign of a dwelling, including adaptations to bathrooms, kitchens or other living areas

859
by, for example, widening doors. That is essential work which enables a disabled person to live in his own home as independently as possible.
The most serious problem for disabled people who apply for grants is the lengthy wait before there is an assessment and then having to have the application processed before works can begin. Reports of adaptations taking over two years to he completed are not uncommon. That is caused by delays in assessment and processing of grant applications followed by lengthy building works.
The proposals within the Bill would add an extra waiting time into a system which already gives rise to very serious problems in relation to delays. Local authorities would have up to 12 months in which to commence payment from the date of application. As they have an initial six months to agree the application, the proposal would allow a further delay of six months. In most cases where there is a substantial amount of work to be done payment is made in instalments, so that the date on which payments begin is the date on which the work begins. Basically, if a local authority saw fit, the works would not start for a year after the application was made and there would he a further 12 months in which to complete it, so a disabled person would have to wait for two years for the adaptations to be completed.
The Government have confirmed that the reason for the extra delay is to allow the local authority to manage its capital. They feel that it will help authorities with their financial management by giving them the discretion to withhold payment of mandatory disabled facilities grants for up to 12 months after the date of application. The Government have further acknowledged that on occasions that may inconvenience the disabled person; but they must strike a balance between inconveniencing the disabled person and inconveniencing the local authority.
However, there is no support within local authority organisations for the proposals. Both the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of District Councils have stated that they do not support the proposed delay and feel that it is not required. In fact, I understand that, if I had not been persuaded by RADAR to table the amendment, those two organisations would have persuaded another Member of this House to table a similar amendment.
In their joint response to the initial consultation document, those organisations stated that,
"the hopes and expectations of the disabled person will have been raised with the approval of the grant for work, but the contractor may not be prepared to start work … and may then demand a premium or refuse to do the work in prices have risen".
They further stated that contractors.
"may then not be prepared to carry out Disabled Facilities Grant work".
The Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation recently contacted the Association of Metropolitan Authorities which confirmed that it still opposes the proposals. If the associations representing local authorities do not want the proposals, why are the Government introducing them for the benefit of local authorities?
Unfortunately for disabled people who are awaiting adaptations which are urgently required to allow them to live in their own homes the extra delay will be more than just an inconvenience. Many disabled people are waiting in hospital for adaptations to their homes to allow them to leave hospital and return home. That is not only distressing for the individuals involved but it is also very expensive. Department of Health statistics, for example, estimate that a geriatric bed costs over £700 a week. Any delay would, therefore, be costly; but a delay of six months would cost in the region of £20,000. That is surely unreasonable when the only reason is to aid the cashflow of a local authority. The average disabled facilities grant award is for less than £4,000, yet costs of several times that amount could be accrued for a hospital bed while the application is help up. The delay would not only be serious for people in hospital but also for disabled people whose quality of life is very poor because of their housing and because they have considerable care requirements.
Even if local authorities inform the disabled person of when they will be starting the payment, the disabled person will still have to wait. Although the waiting may be slightly less painful if you have some idea when it will end, that is not a tremendous help to someone stuck in hospital or who cannot get out of his own home. The delay itself will still bring tremendous hardship.
Disabled people are already very often waiting a long time for disabled facilities grants. The system requires improvement to shorten those delays rather than lengthening them. To build in an additional delay in payment allegedly to help local authorities with their cashflow, even if the local authority must inform the disabled person of the likely payment date, will cause serious difficulties and hardship. As the disabled facilities grants will be supported by a specific capital grant, this delay, as far as I can see, is neither required nor warranted. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
The Earl of Balfour: My Lords, perhaps I may just point out one of the practical problems involved in such applications. There is a government scheme whereby a 75 per cent. grant is available for replacing lead pipes. I had the problem of replacing lead pipes for part of the estate in my own home. The local authority said, "Yes, you may go ahead and replace them, but we are sorry we have run out of money and can't pay you the grant". Such a situation can sometimes arise. I say that because the end of a financial year for a local authority falls at the end of March. Therefore, by January, the authority may well have run out of money. It may well give a person permission to start the work in March and say, "Yes, you may start the work now, but we are sorry we can't pay you for it until next year". From a purely practical point of view that can indeed he a problem. I agree with my noble friend in that respect.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister say to what degree there is

861
consultation between the Department of Health and the department which is dealing with the Bill? It seems to me that the major point made by my noble friend Lord Swinfen turns to some extent on what is perhaps a lack of consultation and, indeed, a lack of awareness of the repercussions of the actions of one department on another.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I support the noble Lord's amendment. I should like to compliment him on the very admirable and powerful way that he moved it. Indeed, the arguments put forward by the noble Lord are virtually irrefutable. However, I wonder whether the Minister could take on board another aspect which was not stressed by the noble Lord; namely, the impact that the provision in the Bill is likely to have on small businesses.
We can perhaps imagine the situation as regards the disabled person, the small businessman who is likely to be making the adaptation, providing the facilities, and so on, and the local authority; in other words, there are three parties involved. It seems to me that one of the results of the Bill as it stands is that, yes, the cashflow arrangements for a local authority may be very nicely streamlined and very efficient on paper, but the likely result in terms of the individuals that it affects—in particular, the disabled person and the small businessman—is that they will have to try to fit in with the local authority's timetable.
We should think for a moment about the small businessman. The chances are that he is not only undertaking such work for the disabled client; indeed, he is no doubt also undertaking other work. Therefore, it will make sense for him to have the flexibility to negotiate with the disabled person as regards the most convenient time to complete the work and also to take on board his own work schedules as regards the other work that he may be doing. In other words, he will try to undertake the work at a time that is most convenient both to the client and to himself. I am sure that the Government will recognise that that would be a very sensible way of organising the work.
However, because of the way the Bill is written at present such a situation will be turned around. Indeed, both the disable person and the small businessman carrying out the work will be dictated to in terms of when they receive payment from the local authority. It is worth remembering that most local authorities are multi-million pound operations. Even if one takes the housing sector within a local authority, that still constitutes a fairly big business concern, if I may put it that way. Therefore, its ability to accommodate minor changes in its cashflow is surely much better than the ability of a small businessman or, indeed, that of the disabled client in determining their affairs. I hope that the Government will, dare I say it, go along with their own philosophy in terms of providing sensible support and recognising the problems that small businessmen have to face. I also hope that they will look again at matter and perhaps agree to accept the noble Lord's amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. Local authorities have problems with regard to a large range of demand-led services. Inevitably there are problems as unforeseen demands have to be met as the financial year progresses and budgets are not available. It seems to me that this is the last group of people in respect of whom one should try to alter the balance of those arrangements. If I may say so, this measure is morally misconceived.
I am also puzzled that the Government feel it necessary—if they have to have this clause—to give themselves the opportunity to alter the period of 12 months. I can see the logic of a 12 month period in that it takes one to the same point in the next financial year, but why should the Secretary of State have the possibility of varying that period on a basis which we cannot at this point know, and indeed may never have the opportunity properly to scrutinise? I find that puzzling, but I do not particularly wish to pursue the puzzle because I should like to get rid of the clause altogether.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, said, and indeed with the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has made. It is an odd subsection in a clause of a Bill which specifies,
"That date shall not be more than twelve months, or such other period as may be specified by order of the Secretary of State".
Why have that provision in the clause at all? We have no ability to scrutinise the Secretary of State's decision, as the noble Baroness pointed out. I was intrigued by the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, as to whether there had been any discussion between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Health on this matter. At a later stage in the Bill we shall reach a point when I shall ask whether there has been any discussion between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Trade and Industry on the Bill. I wonder whether the Government are speaking with one voice on this matter. I rather doubt it. I should be interested to hear what the noble Lord has to say in reply to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, which basically we support.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my noble friend made clear in Committee that he shared the concerns of other noble Lords about Clause 39. I explained that mandatory grants restrict local authorities' ability to maintain control over their resources, and that our purpose in bringing forward Clause 39 was to help local authorities in their financial management. I said that we envisaged the provision would only be used in exceptional circumstances. My noble friend suggested that we give thought to making clearer that the provision should only be used in exceptional circumstances, perhaps by rewording the clause. I share his views on the importance of bringing this message out, but it is simply not an appropriate matter to be placed on the face of the Bill. Rather it is up to us to make it clear in the guidance we shall issue to local authorities explaining the new provisions. This we shall do.

863
This is a clause which is for the benefit of local authorities to enable them to manage their cash flows. If local authorities do not wish to make use of it, they will not do so. They will not need to make use of it, and they will not. If they need to make use of it, we think it is right that this provision should be there so that they can—within a certain limited extent—manage their cash flows. As I said in Committee, this will result in occasional inconvenience for some disabled people. That is a balance which we feel should be struck. However, it will not result in great inconvenience for contractors. They will know—and the disabled person will know—when the money is to be paid. The local authority has to say when the money is to be paid so they will know when the money is going to be there. It will be up to the contractor to decide whether he does the work early and waits for payment, or whether he waits until the money is there before doing the work. There will be no uncertainty.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way, but I wonder whether he appreciates the situation. It may be that there is some certainty as to when the money will be paid, but the Minister needs to recognise that there are other criteria to be taken into account. A small businessman may decide that the work will take two weeks to complete, and therefore he will start the work two weeks before the date on which payment can be made. But what happens if the work takes either a shorter or longer time, and that confuses the date of payment? The whole matter is a case of effectively dictating to the small businessman and the disabled person rather than allowing them the flexibility to adjust the time in which the work is done to the best convenience of both parties involved.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to a certain extent the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, is right. Of course this is not perfect in terms of the convenience of the disabled person or the contractor. But, as I said, we feel that is a balance which should be struck. As regards the power to vary the 12 month period, this would be done by negative resolution. It is felt wise to have this power to allow for unknown possibilities that may lie ahead. In case this proves to be the wrong time limit in practice, we felt that we should have in place in the legislation the power to vary it. However, we have no current intention to vary it.
As regards relations with the Department of Health, I can assure noble Lords that they are excellent. We have to work closely with the Department of Health on these matters. This is very much an inter-departmental area and we feel that we work extremely well and closely with the department. I am afraid that I agreed with my noble friend Lord Balfour that it is just a fact of life that money may be short one year and one has to postpone some expenditure into the next year. Local authorities face that sort of difficulty with their budgets, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said. In imposing a mandatory grant upon them, we feel that we should allow them the flexibility they will need to escape from a financial bind in exceptional circumstances.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he respond to the point that the 12 month norm which is in the Bill at the moment is
864
really not required by local authorities? I am advised by local authority associations that this is not needed. If it is in the Bill, it is wrongly looked on as a norm. Perhaps the Government would reconsider—given the problems raised by my noble friend Lord Monkswell, and indeed others—the cash flow problems, because I am advised (as I say, deliberately) that local authorities and, recently, local authority associations do not consider the 12 month limit in the Bill to be appropriate.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, certainly I shall look at the situation when we have finished with the Report stage of this Bill. If it turns out that local authorities have risen up as a body and demanded the abolition of this 12 month rule which is there for their benefit—in exceptional circumstances—I do not doubt that we shall take cognisance of that. But if they are demanding it they have not told me, and if they have not told me they cannot expect me to know about it.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, there is a small crumb of comfort there in that my noble friend will at least consider the matter. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I have also heard that local authorities do not require this measure in the Bill. They feel they can manage perfectly adequately without having the power to delay payment by up to a year. I do not think my noble friend, or possibly his advisers, have taken into account that with delays in putting the work in hand there will possibly be rises in costs due to inflation, no matter how small. Materials rise in cost and therefore when the work comes to be done the funds are not available.
My noble friend Lord Balfour pointed out that local authorities may run out of funds. They may run out of funds but they are able to plan their work ahead in this area because it takes some months to get the assessment done. There are also instances of local authorities spending money rather wastefully towards the end of the financial year because they are desperate to spend it to make certain they get the Government grant so they have the same amount to spend the following year. That is because the Treasury has not yet learnt that a good housekeeper is able to spread her money over more than one week, or more than one month, or more than one year, and to do the job properly. It might be an idea to have a good housewife as the senior civil servant in the Treasury. I know that my wife manages to make me far more sensible with money than I would be otherwise.
I believe that my noble friend should give this matter further consideration. It is a totally unnecessary clause in the Bill. It is rather insulting in suggesting to local authorities that they cannot manage their affairs.
Because of this clause, the odd, poorly-managed local authority may use the provision as an excuse to delay payment for its own purposes, for one reason or another. Without this clause, it would not have that reason.
I was tempted to divide the House, but the hour is late. My noble friend has said that he will give the matter consideration. Therefore, I shall not risk having the House counted out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 [Payment of grants: conditions as to carrying out of the works]:
[Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 not moved.]
Clause 41 [payment of grants: conditions as to contractors employed]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 23, line 31, at end insert ("and competition between contractors for grant work will disregard that part of the estimated cost of work attributable to value added tax").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dubs.
Your Lordships will be aware that in Committee we discussed competition between VAT-registered contractors and those contractors who are not registered for VAT and who can therefore produce a competitive bid which VAT-liable contractors might not be able to meet.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that he sympathised with those anxieties. He said:
"I shall give further thought to the matters raised and how best they may be achieved and will return to the noble Lord in one fashion or another before Report".—[Official Report, 26 March 1996; col. 1669.]
I have received a number of letters from the noble Lord on various matters with regard to the Bill. I am not sure that this specific item has been covered. I am not sure that the noble Lord has made a commitment in one fashion or another to respond to the amendment that we produced in Committee.
I do not wish to go into the arguments put forward in Committee. The objective of moving the amendment this evening is to give the noble Lord an opportunity to respond "in one fashion or another" to the problem. Noble Lords will be aware of the problem having no doubt read our deliberations in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am happy to return to this matter. The noble Lord is right in saying that he raised the issue in Committee, and we promised to consider it and come back to it. And come back to it we now have. I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance that this is an issue which we feel should be covered in guidance. This is not a matter that we find sufficiently simple or straightforward to set out on the face of the Bill.
As I am sure the noble Lord, with his accountancy skills, will realise, the matter is complicated. Contractors not registered for VAT are still required to pay VAT on the materials they acquire. On the other hand, VAT-registered contractors recover costs that they incur. In providing for equal treatment of competing estimates, we would also wish to see that covered. We would expect guidance to cover all the matters which an authority should take into account when assessing estimates submitted with grant applications. This should stress the need for genuine and full competition of estimates covering issues such as VAT registration as well as the reputation of the contractor and his ability to carry out the works to a good standard and in good time.
866
I hope that this is satisfactory to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I feel we think very much along the same lines and share the concern to make it more difficult for so-called cowboy builders to operate. Building is a most politically correct industry. It is the only one I know where the Indians are the good guys.
With those words, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say this. I do not normally spring to the defence of the Government. However, I received a letter on the subject from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and found it convincing. In addition to casting me as the ventriloquist dummy of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, I may also have been cast as the mailbox of the noble Lord, Lord Williams.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for disavowing her role as the doppelgänger of the noble Lord, Lord Howie, or my mailbox. I may have received such a letter. However, I am bound to say to the noble Lord that I received copies of many letters sent by the noble Lord since Committee stage. I may have missed that one. Nonetheless, the argument is made. The fact that there is a ministerial record of what has been said this evening will be helpful. If that is in guidance, so be it.
I think that there is nothing between the noble Lord and me. We believe that it is right that there should be fair and proper competition between contractors. If that is properly expressed in guidance, given what the noble Lord said in a House of Parliament this evening, I am sure that the courts will take due notice of this in interpreting anything that may come out in guidance. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, perhaps I may say that we believe we set out this matter in a letter to the noble Lord. However, given our previous performance to date, perhaps it was addressed to Chas. Elvel and went astray.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I have been known by many names in my varied career but never by Chas. Elvel! No doubt officials from the Department of the Environment invent many different names for many of us. In future I shall watch whatever E-mail may come in any direction and try to pick up what the officials in the Department of the Environment wish to send me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 45 [Cases in which grants may be re-calculated, withheld or repaid]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 26, line 13, at end insert—
"() the authority ascertain that the amount was determined under section 33 or 34 on the basis of inaccurate or incomplete information and exceeds that to which the applicant was entitled;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
Amendment No. 40 extends the circumstances set out in Clause 45 in which grant may be recalculated, withheld or repaid. Our intention is to cover the situation where an applicant was awarded an erroneous amount of grant. Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would amend Clause 46 to cover a similar situation and also the case where the applicant deliberately has given false information or withheld information to gain excess grant.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, spoke to two similar amendments tabled in his name at Committee stage. We considered that the noble Lord's amendments raised a point which the Bill did not adequately address and I said in Committee that we would give further thought to them.
Amendment No. 40 is the result of our deliberations. In bringing forward this amendment, we are seeking to take on board the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. We believe that Clause 45 is a more appropriate place to deal with the case where the wrong amount of grant has been awarded since that clause already addresses those cases where an authority is able to redetermine the amount of grant, withhold grant or require it to be repaid. By contrast, Clause 46—which the noble Lord's amendments would amend—deals only with cases where an applicant was not entitled to any grant of the description in question.
The noble Lord's Amendment No. 42 seeks to cover a specific circumstance—deliberately giving false information or withholding information. We remain of the view that much of this ground is already covered by subsections (2) to (6) of Clause 46 and by way of common law, and we see no need for the noble Lord's amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this important issue. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the concerns that we expressed. Amendment No. 40 meets many of them, which we appreciate. I have slight reservations about the Minister's comments on amendments to Clause 46. I accept that they may well be covered in common law but nevertheless certain things in Clause 46 could be put into the Bill rather than left to the common law procedures. That said, the Government have gone as far as I can expect in this instance and no doubt the matter will be raised in another place when the Bill goes there. I shall not move my Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Repayment where applicant not entitled to grant]:
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Condition for repayment on disposal: renovation grants]:
[Amendment No. 43 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 29, line 2, leave out from ("in") to ("as") in line 3 and insert ("a hospital, hospice, sheltered housing, residential care home or similar institution").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 49 [Clause for repayment on disposal: common parts grants]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 29, line 36, leave out ("with the consent of") and insert ("where they deem it reasonable, and provided they report their action and reasons to").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dubs. I apologise for breaking the grouping, but it was a matter of moving from one amendment to another rather quickly. Therefore I wish at the same time as speaking to Amendment No. 45 to speak to Amendment No. 43, which I did not move, and Amendment No. 46. The purpose is to remove the necessity for the Secretary of State to consent to a local authority using its discretion under this section to waive grant repayment, subject to the local authority reporting its action to the Secretary of State.
Noble Lords will be aware that a similar amendment was discussed at Committee stage to remove the Secretary of State's consent altogether. In response, it appeared that the Government wished to adjust their view on two grounds—first, the need for nationally consistent criteria and, secondly, the need in order to consider changes to Clause 57, for the Secretary of State to keep himself informed, or to he kept informed, about the case of such discretion.
We are not entirely happy about that. Nationally consistent criteria are not appropriate, in our view, in decisions on whether to waive grant repayment which are made in the light of specific local knowledge. This is not something that can be nationally determined. The most frequent circumstances in which local authorities waive repayment are when a property is sold and there is not enough equity in the property to allow the repayment of grant as well as outstanding mortgage costs. In those cases, many councils—and I give the example of Bradford—would waive repayment, particularly where the cost of grant was not equal to any subsequent increase in the value of properties. I hope it goes without saying that in the city areas that is a problem. It is therefore, in our view, unreasonable for the Secretary of State to try to impose national criteria which apply across the board on what local authorities should do. We believe that that should be left to local authorities.
The second issue is how the Secretary of State should be kept informed. We believe that local authorities should report on how they use their discretion to waive repayment. The Secretary of State can then consider whether changes to Clause 57 are necessary in the light of the reports from local authorities.
I apologise for not having moved Amendment No. 43, but it and Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 basically cover the same problem. I should be grateful if the noble Lord

869
could respond when he has received advice from the proper quarters on the points that I have made. I beg to move.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I spoke at some length on this subject at Committee stage and do not plan to go through all arguments that I raised then. I hope that the Government will treat the amendments sympathetically. I wish to make one point to reinforce the arguments of my noble friend Lord Williams.
Depending on the situation of the local authority, that authority may take a decision that it will be good policy in the locality to waive repayment of grants. There are two reasons for that: first, there may be a history of instability of employment in the area. The council knows that the chances of someone being made redundant or falling into unemployment are quite high. There is also the consequent chance of people from the area finding work elsewhere and moving house. Secondly, we need to recognise the community benefit that accrues from modernisation and improvement of derelict private housing. We may think in terms of the crime and vandalism which can quite often become endemic where a whole area is run down. That lays costs on the local authority and the local community in dealing with the problems.
The local authority can get a policy going, with an interesting archetypal public-private initiative involving public and private finance, to regenerate an area through the deployment of home improvement grants. If the local authority does that, people may put investment into their houses and use home improvements grants in the knowledge that they will not be penalised if, through force of circumstances, they have to move out of the area. That will provide tremendous benefit to the local community which will outweigh the expenditure of the grant money which in other areas would be clawed back. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the amendments.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is a condition of grant that where there is a disposal of the property, other than in certain specified circumstances, during the condition period, grant should be repaid. Clauses 48, 49 and 50 each contain a provision allowing a determination to be made not to demand repayment—or to demand a lesser amount.
The amendments would transfer the power to make such a determination to the local authority, without a requirement for the Secretary of State's consent. The authority would, instead, notify the Secretary of State of its action and of the reasons for making the determination.
We believe it is right that, except in certain circumstances over which the grant applicant has little or no control, the recipient of a grant should be asked to repay the grant if the purposes for which he received it no longer apply. The Secretary of State has a duty to safeguard the public purse in making sure that resources allocated are used for the purpose intended.
We have sought to exclude the most commonly occurring circumstances in which it would be unreasonable to demand grant repayment in Clause 57,
870
which sets out the categories of disposal exempt from the repayment condition. We have also provided, in Clause 48(5), for the local authority to use its discretion not to demand repayment where the disposal is made necessary by age or infirmity.
We accept that there could be other circumstances not covered by these provisions where it would be unreasonable to demand repayment or to demand the full amount, and that the local authority will wish to make a case for a waiver of a demand.
If the principle of repayment is to be applied fairly, it is desirable that, as far as possible, there should be parity of treatment between grant applicants, regardless of where they live or where their property is situated. We believe that the Secretary of State is best placed to ensure such parity of treatment.
It will be for the local authority to decide that a case for a waiver should be made, but if each case is referred to the Secretary of State for consent, he will be able to ensure that the same criteria are applied in reaching a decision, for the whole country.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would require notification to the Secretary of State of the action taken by authorities and of the reasons for their action. However, while that would keep him informed of the circumstances arising in which action is likely to be required, there would appear to be, in practice, little that the Secretary of State could do if he were unhappy with the local authority's actions.
For the reasons given, I believe there to be a need for the Secretary of State to retain overall control of the use of grant resources and that, as part of that control, he should have the final say in whether or not a demand for repayment of grant on breach of the disposal condition should be made. That is not only for reasons of Treasury but for reasons of fairness.
I appreciate that my reply may not entirely satisfy the noble Lord. However, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply as far as it goes. He is right in saying that it does not entirely satisfy the concerns I have raised, and indeed am advised should be raised. However, as he quite rightly said, this is a late stage in the Bill's passage in this House. It still has to go to another place and this matter will certainly be discussed there. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 50 [Condition for repayment on disposal: HMO grants]:
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Clause 51 [Condition as to owner-occupation: renovation grants]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 30, One 40, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 41.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 48. These amendments will mean that where a property is disposed of to an associate of the

871
person making the disposal under Section 57(1)(a) or a disposal under a will or intestacy under Section 57(1)(b), the owner-occupation condition will continue for the new owner.
The change ensures that the owner-occupation condition for renovation grants is consistent with the condition in Clause 48 for repayment on disposal after a renovation grant has been given. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 30, line 42, at end insert ("if there is a relevant disposal of the dwelling that is an exempt disposal, other than—

(a) a disposal within section 57(1)(a) (disposal to associates of person making disposal), or

(b) a disposal within section 57(1)(b) (vesting under will or on intestacy).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Power to impose other conditions with consent of Secretary of State]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 33, line 2, leave out (", with the consent of the Secretary of State,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 45 allows a local housing authority to impose conditions on its approval of an application for grant but those conditions are to be subject to the consent of the Secretary of State. I seek to remove the requirement for the Secretary of State's consent. This amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 50 and 51, to which no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, will speak when moving what is perhaps a slightly more moderate amendment than mine.
When we discussed this matter in Committee, I commented that the provision seemed to add to the Secretary of State's own administrative caseload. I said that that was perhaps a matter for him and not for me. On reflection, I should have said that it was a matter for me. It is a matter for all noble Lords. After all, we are all concerned with good administration. As I read this provision, it requires consent in every particular case. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, may tell me that that is not so.
At that time I asked, if the Government were not minded to concede the point, whether the Minister would explain how the power was to be used; and in particular whether the Government proposed to give umbrella consents—in other words, consents covering specific categories. For instance, standards of management, repair, maintenance, nomination rights and that type of thing could perhaps be approved in a general way and therefore be available to he imposed by local authorities.
My concern about this provision is that it seems to be contradictory to the aim of allowing local authorities to use the grant system flexibly in support of their own local strategic aims. To have to go to the Secretary of
872
State for consent on what may be many occasions seems extremely cumbersome, and indeed goes against the spirit of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, as the noble Baroness pointed out, this amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dubs. As she pointed out, our amendments are slightly milder than hers.
In Committee, as noble Lords may recall, we sought to remove entirely the requirement for the Secretary of State's consent. The Government rejected that, arguing that there must be an element of central control so as to ensure that all local authorities adopt a consistency of approach across the country. On different occasions the Government have argued in different ways. I am not quite sure whether we stand on that point. I am quite satisfied that a balance has to be struck between discretion on the part of local authorities and the need for national consistency.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that in this case the Government have got it wrong. If local authorities are to use the grant system flexibly in support of their local aims and to maximise the system's effectiveness in meeting specific local housing need, they really must be free to do so without seeking the Secretary of State's consent in every conceivable instance.
The Government rejected our argument in Committee, so we are offering a slightly modified version. The amendment to which I speak would have three purposes. First, it would remove the requirement to seek the Secretary of State's consent when a local housing authority imposes additional conditions on grant aid. It would seek also to make the exercise of discretion by local authorities the subject of guidance by the Secretary of State. So it is a gentler amendment than those we moved in Committee. But it would also require the Secretary of State to consult before the issue of such guidance.
If I had my choice, I should go with the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, since that was the one we moved in Committee. Nevertheless, I offer a slightly reduced, milder amendment in the hope that the Government may concede an inch or two on this matter.
9 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it all seems to me very appropriate that New Labour should be a milder version of the Liberal Democrat Party. It fits in very well with current images.
Having listened carefully to what was said in Committee and looked carefully at the amendments, we still hold to the way in which matters are set out in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Ferrers explained in Committee the importance that we attach to ensuring consistency of approach and the need for there to be some control over the rate and nature of the changes to the grant system that the imposition of conditions represents.

873
There is an important obligation on the Secretary of State to protect grant applicants from unfair or unreasonable conditions being applied by a local authority or access to grant being prevented by the application of such conditions. Allowing conditions to be imposed only with the consent of the Secretary of State will provide this reassurance which we believe grant applicants deserve.
But we expect that there will be wide-ranging general consents and umbrella consents covering such conditions as nomination rights on grant improved properties, the recovery of specialised equipment, insurance on grant improved property and the maintenance of improved property. We see those umbrella consents under the control of the Secretary of State providing much of the flexibility that local authorities will need. But we believe that the ultimate control of the use of such consents should be with the Secretary of State.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down perhaps I may say how sorry I am to raise this matter. We are having a serious debate about provisions in this Bill. I very much hope that in future the Minister will refrain from what I regard as rather silly comments about the relative standing of different political parties.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the noble Lord has answered the point about umbrella consents which prompted me to table the amendment in the same form as various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and myself, put forward an amendment at the last stage. I am glad to hear that there will be general consents.
Can the Minister give an assurance now that there will be consultation with the local authority associations in fairly short order with regard to those general consents? While conceding that the Government are to keep central control of the matter, I am sure that they would want to keep control in a way that does not cause falling out with the local authorities.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I can confirm that we shall proceed with that consultation.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 50 and 51 not moved.]
Lord Swinfen Lord Swinfen moved Amendment No. 52:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—
LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITY TO PUBLISH INFORMATION ON THE GRANTS SYSTEM
(" .—(1) A local housing authority shall publish, in simple terms, information on the grants system payable under this Part.
(2) In this section, "publish" means produce information in the preferred reading medium of a member of the public.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a new subject that we did not discuss at Committee stage and this is a probing amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to place a duty on a local housing authority to produce information on the house renovation grants, common parts grants, disabled facilities grants, HMO grants and group repair and home repair assistance in accessible formats; in other words, in large print, braille, audio cassette or sign language. It is also intended to comply with the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act.
The Government's proposals omit any reference to the provision of information on the grants scheme. It is essential that visually impaired members of the public are informed of the types of grants, the "eligible" criteria, the amount of grant, how to make an application and how the system operates.
The amendment deals specifically with the needs of visually impaired people. However, as the House will know, there is also a need to cater for people who do not read or speak English, of whom there are a considerable number in this country. Perhaps my noble friend will also deal with that point in his reply.
The amendment may not be well drafted but I am sure that my noble friend understands the principle behind it. If necessary, it can be redrafted and we can return to it at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I support the amendment. It is only too easy to forget how difficult it is for people in local authority areas to understand how a local authority operates. It is a bureaucratic system which most people find quite hard to penetrate, even with those local authorities which are as receptive as possible to local feeling. Therefore, any amendment which obliges local authorities to publish in simple terms the basis on which they make any grants available can only be for the better. It seems to me that the very people who would benefit from the system are those who would say, "Well, the easier it is for us to understand what the local authority is up to, the better the system works". This is a very simple proposition and I support it.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment. It is wonderful when an amendment put forward to take into account the point of view of disabled people provides a positive benefit to the able-bodied members of our society.
The provision follows from our earlier debate on Amendment No. 1 at the beginning of this part of the Bill, when I argued the importance of local authorities having a policy and a scheme set out on the basis of local circumstances to determine how their discretion would work. This amendment will enable that mechanism to work effectively by providing to the local community a simple explanation of what happens under the local authority's discretionary grant system and how it works. That is inevitably likely to lead to debate and discussion and no doubt improvement and modification as time goes on, depending on the changes in local circumstances.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my noble friend's amendment introduces a new Clause 61 which would require a local housing authority to publish information on the house renovation grant system. I do not feel that primary legislation is the most suitable vehicle to achieve that aim.
We already provide guidance to local authorities under the present legislation, encouraging them to make suitable literature available to inquirers and we intend to continue to issue such advice to accompany this legislation.
My noble friend's amendment would also require that a local authority produce such information:
"in the preferred reading medium of a member of the public".
That could require the individual authorities to provide literature in any medium requested by a member of the public. That could have significant cost implications. Although it is sensible to produce such literature which is suitable to the needs of a disabled person, it is very much a matter for the authority to decide itself after taking account of the likely demand for such literature. The desirability of such an objective however will also be covered in future guidance. I hope that gives my noble friend the comfort he requires.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, it goes quite a long way towards doing that. A lot of the information that one would expect to be provided will be similar from one authority to another. It may be possible for local authority organisations to get together and produce in various formats—sign language and video cassettes—something that will give everyone the basics; it is the basics that people want to enable them to understand what is happening and how to apply it. In the light of what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 [Minor definitions: Chapter I]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 36, leave out lines 41 to 44.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 53 to 59 with Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 35. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Index of defined expressions: Chapter I]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 54 to 59:
Page 37, line 20, column 2, leave out "21(2)") and insert ("(Disabled persons) (1) to (3)").
Page 37, line 24, column 2, leave out ("37(3)") and insert ("37(2)").
Page 37, line 34, at end insert—
("introductory tenant— subsection 99").
Page 38, line 30 at end insert—
("secure tenancy and secure tenant section 99").
Page 38, line 30, at end insert—
("social services authority section (Disabled persons) (4)").
Page 38, leave out line 50.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall move these amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 64 [Qualifying buildings]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 39, line 8, leave out from ("it") to end of line 9 and insert ("comprises a minimum of two dwellings and satisfies the conditions prescribed for qualifying buildings in relation to a group repair scheme.
Before making any regulations under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as he considers to be representative of local housing authorities.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now turn to the part of the Bill concerning group repair schemes; namely, schemes which allow a local authority to repair the exterior of buildings to which the scheme relates.
The purpose of the amendment is twofold. First, it seeks to add flexibility to the operation of the clause. As the clause stands, it requires the scheme to apply to four dwellings and the purpose of the amendment is to reduce the number of dwellings covered by the provision to a minimum of two. Secondly, the clause, as amended, would require consultation before the Secretary of State makes changes to the definition of qualifying buildings for the purposes of the scheme.
As I said, the purpose of the amendment is to add flexibility to a proposal which has merit, but which would otherwise be rather rigid in its application. Limiting the proposal to four or more houses may miss out worthwhile approaches where four houses do not stand next to each other yet they require the group repair scheme to apply to their exteriors.
The provision is sensible. It would enable the grant system to cover everything from a single pair of semi-detached houses to a whole street of terraced houses, provided three-quarters of the properties were in disrepair externally. I believe it makes sense. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this amendment seeks to specify on the face of the Bill that a qualifying building in a group repair scheme must comprise a minimum of two dwellings, compared with the present minimum of four, and it removes the requirement that additional qualifying buildings satisfy conditions prescribed by the Secretary of State. It also makes it a statutory requirement for local authority organisations to be consulted before any regulations are made on group repair.
We recognise that the main aim behind this amendment is to simplify the conditions for a group repair scheme. As previously indicated by my noble friend Earl Ferrers in his reply to earlier amendments, we have some sympathy with this aim of simplifying the conditions for a group repair scheme. However, as my noble friend said at the time we would prefer to leave the detailed rules and conditions to be prescribed in regulations rather than set out on the face of the Bill.

877
Beyond anything else, that would give us the chance to consult local authorities and others. However, we will certainly look at the possibility of reducing the minimum number of dwellings in a scheme when we come to make the regulations.
The amendment also provides for statutory consultation with local authority organisations on proposed regulations on group repair. We do not think that is necessary. It is our general practice to consult local authority associations on proposals affecting their members. We have, for example, recently established a new working group comprising local authority representatives to provide a forum for consultation on private sector housing renewal strategies. The purpose of this group is to assist us with the drafting of new guidance for local authorities which will be required as a consequence of the Bill. I hope that that explanation reassures the noble Lord.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I thank the Minister for agreeing to go at least part of the way to meet the purpose of the amendment. I am happy that he is looking at the matter sympathetically and therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Approval of scheme by Secretary of State]:
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 61:
Leave out Clause 66 and insert the following new Clause—
NEIGHBOURHOOD RENEWAL ASSESSMENTS
("(1) Before proceeding with a group repair scheme, a local housing authority must carry out a Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment to confirm that this is the most satisfactory course of action.
(2) The Secretary of State may specify matters to be taken into account by a local housing authority when carrying out a Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment for the purposes of subsection (1).
(3) The Secretary of State may for the purpose of subsection (1) additionally specify different matters to be taken into account in a Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment for different types of scheme and in different areas.
(4) Where a Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment confirms that the carrying out of a group repair scheme is the most satisfactory course of action, the local authority may proceed to carry out the work specified in the scheme after obtaining the prior consent of persons participating in it and resolving to approve the scheme.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment also concerns group repair schemes. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the needs for specific consent from the Secretary of State for group repair schemes and simplify the process by substituting a requirement that such schemes shall be subject to a cost benefit analysis specified in neighbourhood renewal assessment. Although there seems to be an element of jargon in the alternative approach, it seems to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut to have the Secretary of State give specific consent for a scheme of this kind. My amendment would simplify the process by taking away from the Secretary of State the burden of having to approve every scheme that might be put before him and suggesting an alternative way whereby such schemes should be approved. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, no one is more in favour of neighbourhood renewal assessments than the Government. After all, we developed them, we give guidance on them and we recommend them. But they belong only in particular circumstances; and that is large-scale renewal assessment. We are talking here of something which might consist only, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, hopes, of two homes.
As intimated by my noble friend Lord Ferrers in the Committee stage debate, we intend to review the current general consent with a view to ensuring that this covers as many schemes as possible so that authorities will need the Secretary of State's specific approval only in exceptional cases. We prefer to give authorities the flexibility they require in this way rather than impose something which would be an enormously outsized obligation on all schemes.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister has met the point at all. He has said simply that he prefers an alterative approach. What we are seeking to do is to keep things simple. We have a Government who are committed to legislating less but a Government who are legislating more. What we want is not to have too heavy a Whitehall hand on the way in which local authorities operate. That is the purpose of the amendment. The Minister is not willing to meet it. However, he has heard the argument. I am not sure there is any point in pursuing it any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 67 [Persons eligible to participate in group repair scheme]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 40, line 6, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) A person is eligible to participate in a group repair scheme if at the date of the approval of the scheme—

(a) he has an owner's interest in a dwelling or other premises comprised in a building to which the scheme relates, and

(b) as respects the dwelling or other premises in which he has an owner's interest he either—

(i) is able to give possession of any part of the building to which scheme works are proposed to be carried out, or

(ii) has the consent of the occupier of that part to the carrying out of those works.

(2) A person eligible to participate in a group repair scheme may participate as an assisted participant—

(a) if the owner's interest which he has is an interest in a dwelling and he gives an owner-occupation certificate or a certificate of intended letting, or

(b) if the owner's interest which he has is an interest in a house in multiple occupation and he gives a certificate of future occupation.

This is subject to the exceptions specified in subsection (6) or by order under that subsection.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 65, 66, 76 and 77. These amendments will enable property owners who do not qualify for assistance under a group repair scheme to participate as unassisted

879
participants provided they can give possession of the part of the building to which the works relate or, if that part is occupied, they have the consent of the occupier.
As currently drafted, Clause 67 enables a person to qualify for assistance under a group repair scheme if, in the case of a dwelling, he gives an owner occupation certificate or a certificate of intended letting or, in the case of a house in multiple occupation, he gives a certificate of future occupation. However, a person who is unable to give such a certificate—for example, because he intends to sell his property in the near future—might still wish to participate in the scheme as an unassisted participant, but he would at present be precluded from doing so. In some cases this may prevent a viable scheme from being put together. These amendments will remove that restriction, allowing owners to join in and benefit from group repair works, even though they will have to meet the full costs themselves, provided they can give access to the property.
Amendment No. 64 makes it clear that in the case of houses in multiple occupation assistance will be available only if the property is occupied for residential purposes other than holiday occupation. Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 make changes to the definition in Clause 75 which are consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 40, line 10, at end insert ("or
(c) who can subsequently reasonably be included in the scheme").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is also concerned with group repair schemes. It seeks to allow persons who are unable to join a group repair scheme at the time it was approved still to be eligible to participate in the scheme provided their properties are close to the approved scheme buildings and provided the additional works can be completed without unreasonable disruption to the building contract. What we are seeking to do is to add flexibility. We are seeking to ensure that we deal with a difficulty that arises when adjacent properties in external disrepair have to be excluded from the building to be approved because the owners are unwilling or unable to participate. It is really to stop too rigid a system so that it is possible quickly to allow late joiners to participate in a scheme that has already been approved. I am sure that it meets the spirit of what the Government have in mind. I hope that in practice the amendment will help to achieve that aim. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this amendment would enable persons to join an approved group repair scheme without the need to obtain fresh scheme approval, if it were reasonable to include them. The aim is to reduce the administrative burden of seeking fresh approval where people change their minds and wish to take part in a scheme once it is under way. While I have some sympathy with this aim, there are obvious problems. For instance, the late inclusion of additional participants could upset the basis on which the original approval was
880
given. Had they been included originally, for example, the scheme may not have been one which would have been approved.
That said, we are prepared to look again at this issue to see if there is scope in certain circumstances for allowing additional persons to participate in an approved scheme which would not necessitate new scheme approval. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will appreciate that I am unable to give any assurances at this stage. However, on the basis that we are prepared to look again at this issue, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, on the basis that the Government are willing to look again at the issue, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I appreciate very much what the Minister has said. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 64, 65 and 66:
Page 41, line I, after ("(b)") insert (""residential occupation" does not include occupation for a holiday, and").
Page 41, line 2, leave out ("are not eligible to") and insert ("may not").
Page 41, line 11, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) A person eligible to participate in a group repair scheme who is unable to participate as an assisted participant may participate as an unassisted participant.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 62. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 72 [Condition as to payment of balance of cost on disposal]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 43, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 73, 74, 75, 78 and 79. These amendments clarify the circumstances in which the conditions of participation in a group repair scheme cease to apply.
Under Clause 73, it is a condition of participation in a group repair scheme as an assisted participant that the property is occupied in accordance with the intention specified in the certificate of owner-occupation, certificate of intended letting or certificate of future occupation, as the case may be. If not, the owner may be required to pay the balance of the cost. Amendment No. 73 provides that this condition will cease to apply if the owner disposes of the property for reasons which are largely beyond his control, but will remain in force if the owner transfers the property to another member of their family or to certain other close associates. This is to deter people from avoiding the conditions of assistance by transferring the property between family members.
Amendment No. 75 makes clear that once the obligation to pay the balance of the cost of the works has arisen as a result of a breach of one of the grant conditions, and the amount demanded, if any, has been paid, the obligation is discharged. Amendments Nos. 67,

881
74, 78 and 79 clarify the meaning of the terms "relevant disposal" and "exempt disposal" for the purposes of the group repair provisions by referring to the equivalent provisions for renovation grants in Clauses 56 and 57. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, in so far as I can understand all the detailed implications of what the Minister has said, I believe that we are talking about safeguards lest people get grants in a way that is not quite proper. I believe that those safeguards are desirable. It is a reasonable proposal on the part of the Minister.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 43, line 11, leave out ("repayment") and insert ("payment").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 to 72. During Committee stage on 26th March, my noble friend Lord Ferrers promised the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that we would look again at whether local authorities should be given greater discretion not to demand full payment of the balance of the cost of group repair works if the owner of a property disposes of it within the five-year protected period.
As my noble friend said, we recognise the concern among local authorities that the requirement to pay the balance of the cost might deter some people from joining a group repair scheme if they were uncertain as to whether they could meet the conditions. We want to encourage authorities to take a strategic approach to renewal. Amendments Nos. 68, 69, 71 and 72 will help to increase the flexibility of group repair by giving local authorities full discretion in determining the amount, if any, to be recovered from participants if the property is disposed of during the five-year protected period. We believe this goes further than Amendment No. 70, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, which would require authorities to specify the sort of cases in which they would exercise their discretion.
Although we would still expect authorities to demand payment where the owner can clearly afford it, they will be able to waive or abate payments where payment in full would cause hardship. If those who are considering whether to join a group repair scheme are made aware of the local authority's policy on this at the outset, it should help to give them the assurance that they need to join in the scheme.
We have thought it right in making this change to tighten the payment condition where property is disposed of under a will or on intestacy. As currently worded, the requirement in Clause 72 to pay the balance of the cost continues in force if the property vests under a will or on intestacy to a person who lived with the deceased before his death. However, we see no reason why the condition should not also continue in force if the property vests in some other person. That person will clearly be inheriting a valuable asset and, if he
882
immediately sells it, should be in a position to pay the cost of the works. Amendment No. 72 achieves that. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for responding to the concerns which we raised in Committee. Indeed, in certain respects he has gone rather further than my amendment, Amendment No. 70, would have required. Detailed consideration of this point must await a further stage and will no doubt take place in another place. However, we on these Benches are happy with the government amendments and, when it comes to it, I shall not be moving Amendment No. 70.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 43, leave out lines 13 and 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendments Nos. 69, 70, 71 and 72 with Amendment No. 68. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 73, 74 and 75 with Amendment No. 67. I spoke to Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 with Amendment No. 62, and to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 with Amendment No. 67. I beg to move all those amendments, Amendments Nos. 69 to 79, en bloc.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 70 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lyell): My Lords, we now come to Amendment No. 71.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I apologise for having attempted to move Amendment No. 70 which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and I am glad to have been prevented from doing that. Perhaps I may now beg leave to move Amendments Nos. 71 to 79 inclusively, to which I have already spoken.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if it is with the agreement of the House, we can take Amendments Nos. 71 to 79 together.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 71 and 72:
Page 43, leave out lines 16 to 28.
Page 43, line 35, leave out from ("intestacy)") to end of line 37.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 73 [Conditions as to occupation]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 44, line 18, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) Any condition under this section shall cease to be in force with respect to any premises if there is a relevant disposal of the premises which is an exempt disposal other than a disposal within section 57(1)(a) (disposal to associates of person making disposal).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 74 and 75:
After Clause 73, insert the following new clause—
MEANING OF RELEVANT DISPOSAL AND EXEMPT DISPOSAL
(". Sections 56 and 57 (meaning of "relevant disposal" and "exempt disposal") apply for the purposes of this Chapter.").

883
Insert the following new Clause—
PAYMENT OF BALANCE OF COST, &C: CESSATION OF CONDITIONS
(".—(1) If at any time while a condition of participation under section 72 or 73 remains in force—

(a) the assisted participant pays the balance of the cost to the local housing authority,

(b) a mortgagee of the interest of the assisted participant in the premises being a mortgagee entitled to exercise a power of sale, makes such a payment,

(c) the authority determine not to demand payment on the breach of a condition of participation, or

(d) the authority demand payment in whole or in part on the breach of a condition of participation and that demand is satisfied,

that condition and any other conditions of participation shall cease to be in force with respect to the premises of that assisted participant.
(2) An amount paid by a mortgagee under subsection (1)(b) above shall be treated as part of the sums secured by the mortgage and may be discharged accordingly.
(3) The purposes authorised for the application of capital money by—

(a) section 73 of the Settled Land Act 1925,

(b) that section as applied by section 28 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in relation to trusts for sale, and

(c) section 26 of the Universities and College Estates Act 1925, include the making of payments under this section.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 75 [Index of defined expressions: Chapter II]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 76 to 79:
Page 44, line 33, column 2, leave out ("67") and insert ("67(2) and (6)").
Page 44, line 42, at end insert—

("eligible to participate

section 67(1)")

Page 44, line 42, at end insert—

("exempt disposal

section (Meaning of relevant disposal and exempt disposal) (and section 57)")

Page 45, line 11, at end insert—

("relevant disposal

section (Meaning of relevant disposal and exempt disposal)(and section 56)")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
9.30 p.m.
Clause 76 [Home repair assistance]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 45, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert ("in any period of three years in respect of any one dwelling").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendment No. 81. The purpose of the amendment is to remove the limit on any one application, provided that the limit is not exceeded in any three-year period. The amendment was, I have to confess, tabled in Committee but not moved.
As it stands, the Bill proposes replacing the existing minor works assistance grant with a home repair grant. Like the minor works assistance grant, that will be available to owner-occupiers and private tenants who
884
fall into a priority group, are on low income benefit, or are elderly, or disabled or who require minor repairs or adaptations to enable them to remain in their own home. It will also, as I understand it, be available for insulation works, replacing lead pipes, and Radon-associated works.
The MWA grant—if I may use that acronym—is discretionary. It is proposed that the home repair grant will be too. Minor works assistance grant has been useful and much appreciated. The problem I put forward is that the level of grant does not cover certain works. The cost of work to enable people to stay put will depend upon the condition of the property, local costs in the area and the frailty, mobility or otherwise of the applicant.
Home improvement agencies have in the past expressed concern that the grant of about £1,000 was too low. The figure was set, I think, in April 1991 and has not been increased since. There is a proposal to increase that to £2,000 for any one year and £4,000 for any three years. That is welcome, but there are concerns about works which may exceed £2,000.
Furthermore, the proposal to limit the grant to payments of £2,000 in any one year may prevent it from being applied when works are required when they are most needed. In addition, assisting with community care, which is a question which has exercised your Lordships' House on many occasions, seems to be left out of the considerations in this new measure.
It is proposed that the HRG limit should be £4,000 in any three years, but if that is proposed it seems unreasonable that it should not be payable at the time it is most needed. That is, after all, the point of the exercise. The amendment would retain the overall limit of £4,000 in any three years but there would be no limit to the amount available in any one year. We believe that that is right. The removal of the one-year limit will, of course, remove an arbitrary time limit on the grant, and that could militate against advantageous effects. I hope that the Minister is seized of these problems, and, unlike on previous amendments, will be able to respond with due consideration. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, the amendments address the limit for home repair assistance. Each application for home repair assistance will be subject to a proposed limit of £2,000. That is a limit per application, not per year. One can receive two grants in the same year; one can use up one's £4,000 limit in the same year. We would have concerns were authorities giving grants above this limit as a matter of routine, as we believe the limit accurately reflects the extent of works deemed suitable for this type of passported assistance.
There is also a further limit of £4,000 per dwelling over a three-year period. Should the full £4,000 of assistance be given in response to one application as would be possible under Amendment No. 80 and would be possible by having two coming together, no further assistance could be given until the three-year period had expired. In our opinion, this would leave the applicant vulnerable should the need for further works arise. We have set the structure of the grant so that such a situation is discouraged.

885
Turning toward Amendment No. 81, it is our belief that the flexibility already offered by this clause is the best option for this type of passported assistance. I do not believe that it is either necessary or helpful to be tied to a particular cost index derived from the construction industry. The grant limits we propose are considered adequate for the works we intend to be assisted through home repair assistance. When we feel this is no longer the case, there is a provision within the Bill for the limits to be increased. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It is a difficult problem and I am happy to say that he has gone a long way towards meeting our objections and difficulties. In those circumstances, I am pleased to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved]:
Clause 77 [Entitlement to home repair assistance]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 45, line 44, after ("elderly") insert (", disabled").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 82 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87.
I welcomed the opportunity to look further at the inclusion of disabled people within the eligibility criteria for home repair assistance given the considered views expressed by my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, during Committee stage of the Bill.
As I sought to reassure noble Lords when this matter was raised in Committee, it has always been our intention that disabled people should be treated as a passported category in terms of eligibility for home repair assistance. It was our belief that the reference to "elderly and infirm" covered this intention. However, I accept the noble Lords' suggestion that it would be of benefit to clarify this for the purposes of the legislation. I believe that the amendments achieve that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 86:
Page 45, line 45, after ("elderly") insert (", disabled").
Page 46, line 16, after ("elderly") insert (", disabled").
Page 46, line 27, after ("elderly") insert (", disabled").
Page 46, line 29, after ("elderly") insert (", disabled").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 78 [Assistance in respect of house-boats and mobile homes]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 46, line 39, after ("elderly") insert (", disabled").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 80 [Index of defined expressions: Chapter III]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 88 and 89:
Page 47, line 44, at end insert—

("disabled person

section (Disabled persons)(1) to (3)")

Page 48, line 8, at end insert—

("secure tenant

section 99")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 83 [Appeals against deferred action notices]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 49, line 13, at end insert ("or section 85 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the Bill was in Committee, my noble friend Lord Ferrers mentioned the Government's firm intention to use the provision in Clause 85 of the Bill to give guidance to local authorities on the exercise of deferred action notices. This will complement the guidance on the existing fitness enforcement options of repair, closure and clearance that has been issued under Section 604A of the Housing Act 1985.
Where the grounds on which an appeal against a deferred action notice are that one of the other fitness enforcement options would be a more satisfactory course of action, it is only right that the county court should have regard not only to the guidance on those options but also to that on deferred action notices. Amendment No. 90 rectifies that omission. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Review of deferred action notices]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 49, line 43, leave out ("83") and insert ("83(1) to (5)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 92 to 94. These amendments relate to the review of a deferred action notice. Their purpose is twofold: to make clear that where an appeal against a decision to renew a deferred action is brought the original notice remains operative until the appeal is decided; and, where a local authority decides to take alternative enforcement action, that the deferred action notice remains operative until that action is taken. These are straightforward drafting clarifications. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 92 to 94:
Page 49, line 45, at end insert—
("() If an appeal is brought against the decision to renew a deferred action notice, the notice remains operative until any decision on the appeal, or any further appeal, quashing or varying the notice.").
Page 50, line 1, leave out ("decide to").
Page 50, line 3, at end insert ("on the relevant notice, order or declaration becoming operative").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 86 [Unfitness for human habitation, &c.: power to improve enforcement procedures]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 50, line 12, leave out ("The Secretary of State may by order provide") and insert ("A local housing authority shall have regard to such guidance as may from time to time be given by the Secretary of State providing").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 96 to 99. Clause 86 refers to the power to improve enforcement procedures. Instead of providing for the Secretary of State to be able by order to provide certain matters, I am seeking that a local housing authority shall have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance.
The reason that I propose the amendment is that it seems to me that in fact enforcement will be made more difficult rather than easier with the addition of another step in the process. I am puzzled as to what Clause 86 achieves other than imposing extra bureaucracy. It allows the Secretary of State—it does not require him—to make an order, to make certain provisions. If the clause is necessary, I should have expected to see that the Secretary of State "shall" make an order dealing with those matters. If it is not necessary, then I should prefer the clause not to be there.
My amendment seeks to give local authorities the choice as to whether or not they make use of the Secretary of State's scheme. When I moved an amendment directed at the same point in Committee the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that he thought that a better approach would be to give local authorities flexibility as provided in Clause 86(6). But that is a limited provision and it provides that local housing authorities will not be precluded from taking immediate action where that is required, nor would anything require an authority to disclose information if that were against the public interest. In other words, I do not feel that that point in any way met the concern that I raised.
Having proposed that the matter shall be for guidance, I have chosen what seems to be appropriate wording to alter subsequent parts of the clause in the following amendments. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, yet again, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has bounced us with a set of starred amendments. She has spoken eloquently to them and I am glad to say that, this time, we have guessed right as to what the amendments are about. The noble Baroness has made a most interesting point and it is one to which we would like to give further and serious consideration. We will return to the noble Baroness on the matter before the next stage. Therefore, in view of that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I have no intention of bouncing anyone. I am glad that the ball has not bounced all the way out of the playing field, to use current jargon. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 96 to 99 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 100:
After Clause 88, insert the following new clause—
POWER TO PRESCRIBE FORMS
(". The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the form of and the particulars to be contained in—

(a) a deferred action notice, or a notice of an authority's decision to renew a deferred action notice, or

(b) a demand for payment of any charge under section 87 (power to charge for enforcement action).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment inserts a new clause which is similar in effect to that in Section 614 of the Housing Act 1985, which provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe forms. It is that provision under which prescribed forms regulations have been made for use by local authorities in respect of the existing fitness enforcement options of repair, closure and clearance. For those who like details, the statutory instrument in question is 1990 No. 1730.
Amendment No. 100 makes provision to do the same in respect of the new deferred action enforcement option and the charging for enforcement provision in Clause 87 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 90 [Index of defined expressions: Chapter IV]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 53, leave out line 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, In moving the above amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 102. Both amendments, by removing four superfluous definition expressions from Clause 90, correct a drafting error in the Bill as introduced. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 53, leave out lines 18 to 20.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 91 [Contributions by the Secretary of State]:
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Clause 92 [Recovery of contributions]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 104:
Page 54, line 9, at end insert—
("() For the purposes of this section—

(a) a "grant" includes the cost of scheme works for a group repair scheme (see section 65(1)), and

(b) "repayment of grant" includes the payment to the authority of the balance of the cost (see section 71(3)) by assisted participants in such a scheme.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the above amendment, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 105 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and Amendments Nos. 106 and 177 tabled in my name.
Clause 92 enables the Secretary of State to recover contributions paid to a local authority for grants in respect of which repayments have been made to the authority, or could have been recovered if reasonable steps had been taken. It is for the Secretary of State to

889
determine what steps it would have been reasonable for an authority to take. Amendment No. 104 provides similar powers for recovery of contributions made to authorities for group repair schemes.
Amendment No. 106 provides that, in determining whether an authority has taken reasonable steps to recover payments, the Secretary of State can take into account whether it has properly exercised its discretion not to demand payment or to demand payment of a lesser sum.
It is not the purpose of the provision to intervene in the lawful exercise by local authorities of their power of waiver. The provision is to ensure that where the discretion to waiver is exercised improperly, the cost of failing to recover the grant, or part of the grant, falls locally and not on the taxpayer at large.
It would appear from Amendment No. 105, brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that there is concern over the provision in Clause 92(3) which allows the Secretary of State to determine what reasonable steps should be taken to recover grant. We share the noble Lord's concerns over what might be considered as stark wording in the provision as drafted. It is due to the noble Lord drawing attention to the matter in this way that we have given consideration to how the intent of the provision might be clarified. That has led to the government amendments that I have described. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to resist moving his amendment when the time comes.
Amendment No. 177 relates to the transitional provisions which will be required under Clause 100 for the change from the current renovation grant system to the one contained in Part I of the Bill. Under Clause 100, certain applications for mandatory grant made after introduction of the Bill and before commencement of Part I will be treated as applications for discretionary grant under the current legislation. Amendment No. 177, combined with Clause 100(5), puts beyond doubt that we will have the power to make all the appropriate transitional changes to the current legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for introducing these amendments. I shall have to read rather carefully what he said, but he appears to have met our concerns raised in Amendment No. 105. I am grateful to the Government for having paid attention to the arguments we put forward in Committee. In the light of what the noble Lord said, I shall not move Amendment No. 105.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 54, line 20, at end insert—
("In determining whether the authority took reasonable steps, the Secretary of State may consider whether the authority properly exercised its discretion not to demand repayment of grant or to demand payment of a lesser sum.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 106, 107, 108, 109 and 110 previously. I beg to move en bloc.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94 [Parsonages, charities, &c.]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 55, line 1, leave out ("to 28") and insert ("and 27").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 98, insert the following clause—
DISABLED PERSONS
(".—(1) For the purposes of this Part a person is disabled if—

(a) his sight, hearing or speech is substantially impaired.

(b) he has a mental disorder or impairment of any kind, or

(c) he is physically substantially disabled by illness, injury, impairment present since birth, or otherwise.

(2) A person aged eighteen or over shall be taken for the purposes of this Part to be disabled if—

(a) he is registered in pursuance of any arrangements made under section 29(l) of the National Assistance Act 1948 (disabled persons' welfare), or

(b) he is a person for whose welfare arrangements have been made under that provision or, in the opinion of the social services authority, might be made under it.

(3) A person under the age of eighteen shall be taken for the purposes of this Part to be disabled if—

(a) he is registered in a register of disabled children maintained under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989, or

(b) he is in the opinion of the social services authority a disabled child as defined for the purposes of Part III of the Children Act 1989 (local authority support for children and their families).

(4) In this Part the "social services authority" means the council which is the local authority for the purposes of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 for the area in which the dwelling or building is situated.
(5) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall be construed as affecting the persons who are to be regarded as disabled under section 29(1) of the National Assistance Act 1948 or section 17(11) of the Children Act 1989 (which define disabled persons for the purposes of the statutory provisions mentioned in subsections (2) to (4) above).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 [Minor definitions: Part I]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendments Nos. 109 and 110:
Page 56, line 34, at end insert—
(""introductory tenant" means a tenant under an introductory tenancy within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part V of the Housing Act 1996;").
Page 57, line 11, at end insert—
(""secure tenancy" and "secure tenant" have the same meaning as in Part IV of the Housing Act 1985:").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at nine minutes before ten o'clock.

  Action Centre for Europe
  Action Centre for Europe
  Landmines
  Landmines
  British Buses and European Legislation
  British Buses and European Legislation
  Child Support Agency: Staffing
  Child Support Agency: Staffing
  Child Support Agency: Notification of Income Support Reinstatement
  Child Support Agency: Notification of Income Support Reinstatement
  Common Fisheries Policy
  Common Fisheries Policy