Sitting of 24 April 1996

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

  British Film Industry
  [Relevant documents: The Second Report from the National Heritage Committee of Session 1994–95, on the British Film Industry (House of Commons Paper No. 57-I,-II and-III), and the Government Reply thereto (Cm. 2884).]
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]
  9.34 am
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the members of the National Heritage Select Committee, I thank you for making this period available for us to debate the National Heritage Select Committee report on the British film industry, which was published last year, and such developments as have taken place since then.
  We are in a period of some rejoicing in this country because British artists have won Oscars, a whole collection of British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards last Sunday evening and awards at the Cannes festival. I should certainly like to congratulate everyone who won those awards and everyone who was involved in those achievements.
  I must go on to say that that plethora of awards, which is a great credit to British film makers, conceals the absence of anything resembling a structured film industry of the type that we once had in this country. British film makers scramble around in their attempts to obtain finance for projects in a way that is often disheartening and only too often demeaning. Any hon. Member who has any doubts about that fact should read the newly published history of Palace Pictures, which collapsed while it was making "The Crying Game".
  Our film makers go to Hollywood to make American films because they are in huge demand there. If they are able to make films here, those films are very often financed by foreign money, and the profits therefore go abroad. The enormous profits from "Four Weddings and a Funeral" ended up—via Hamburg, where the film was registered for tax purposes—in Eindhoven.
  Many congratulations to Emma Thompson on scooping up awards at the Oscars and at the BAFTA ceremony for "Sense and Sensibility", but the profits of that film will go back to Columbia Tristar Pictures, in Culver City, because it financed the film. "Restoration" won the Oscar for best costumes, but it is an American-financed film.
  "The Madness of King George" won the Alexander Korda BAFTA award as the best British film, but it was mainly financed by Samuel Goldwyn Jr., whom our Select Committee visited and with whom we had discussions in
  348
  Hollywood when we went there. Mr. Goldwyn required Alan Bennett not only to "mid-Atlanticise" his original play, but to change the title from "The Madness of George III" to "The Madness of King George", because he feared that American audiences might think that it was the third film in a series about George.
  Tim Roth won the BAFTA award for best supporting actor for his performance in "Rob Roy", but that was an American-financed film and the profits went back to the United States.
  Our Select Committee issued its report on the British film industry 13 months ago. The report was praised throughout the film industry, which one may think is not surprising, because it met a very great many of the industry's demands. But on 6 June 1995, the then Secretary of State also lauded our report as "thorough and perceptive". I feared that that kind of praise was a prelude to total inaction, and that has indeed been the case. We made a raft of recommendations, but scarcely a single one has been implemented.
  Some of the recommendations are quite simple and, I should have thought, uncontroversial. For example, we recommended a season ticket for work permits for key personnel from abroad to enter and re-enter the United Kingdom to work on films financed by inward investment. The then Secretary of State paid lip service to that recommendation, but nothing has been done about it.
  We recommended the fullest support for the London Film Commission Initiative. The then Secretary of State promised "direct pump-priming support". A grant of £100,000 was given last October, but I am afraid that that was the end of that. As I shall explain later, there is great need for such a commission because the facilitating of filming, especially on location, is one of the most important ways to attract inward investment. Indeed, the lack of a commission was one of the reasons why the filming of "Braveheart" moved from Scotland to Ireland.
  Mr. David Harris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a film is being made of a book by a Cornish author, Judith Cook? The book is set in Cornwall and the intention was to film it in Cornwall but, because of the tax incentives given in Ireland, the shooting is to move there. Is not that absolute nonsense?
  Mr. Kaufman: I know Judith Cook well and have read some of her books. She wrote one about Hilda Murrell, for example. The problem affects not only the disgraceful example cited by the hon. Gentleman. The BBC has filmed British-located television productions in the Republic of Ireland because of Ireland's section 35 incentives. The hon. Gentleman's intervention leads me directly to my next point and the next recommendation made by the Select Committee.
  We recommended establishing and co-ordinating regional film commissions, which would be of enormous importance in getting productions filmed not only in London but across the country. That proposal has not been taken a single step further by the Government, even though overseas experience has demonstrated how useful such commissions can be in attracting film makers. Canadians have that system, and much Hollywood film making is taking place in Canada. The American states have that system, which means that filming is done across the United States rather than in Hollywood alone.

  349
  "Judge Dredd" is an example of what I am talking about. It is a £50 million film starring Sylvester Stallone. It was brought to this country, but filming was almost brought to a halt because of obstruction in the use of the most elementary locations in the capital. When the film was completed, its producers said that they would not wish to repeat the experience and come here again, but when they read the Committee's report, they said that if the recommendations were implemented, they would happily come back to Britain. Ministers cite "Judge Dredd" as an example of inward investment, yet it is also an example of the obstruction that inward investment meets.
  We also proposed something which I should have thought was completely non-controversial and which would have cost the Government no money—that the Government hold discussions with the industry about a job placement scheme. However, as far as I can tell, the Government have ignored that recommendation, too. They have certainly ignored our recommendations on immediate write-offs of production expenditure of qualifying British films, which could help to sustain indigenous film making. They have also ignored our proposals for an amelioration of the withholding tax and our recommendation for introducing a tax incentive scheme similar to Ireland's section 35 initiative. Our recommendations for attracting inward investment and promoting indigenous film making have been ignored by the Government.
  Our proposal to revoke the Channel 4 funding formula—it is extraordinary that such an anomaly is allowed to remain on the statute book—was at first rejected by the previous Secretary of State. It is now being botched, and on Second Reading of the Broadcasting Bill, I am sorry to say that the Secretary of State showed that she still has no real idea of what she is doing about that formula. However, Mr. Grade has made it clear that any moneys accruing to Channel 4 from the revoking of that formula will go towards indigenous film and television production.
  The Minister will no doubt say that my approach is negative, that the Government have done other things and that, in any case, nothing much needs to be done because the British film industry is flourishing like the green bay tree.
  Last June, the previous Secretary of State made a statement in which he promised £80 million of national lottery money for film production and distribution over five years. In October last year, the present Secretary of State announced £5.5 million of new money for 13 new British films.
  As it happens, the Select Committee did not recommend cash subsidies for the film industry. We do not believe in them or regard them as appropriate. We do not believe in subsidising manufacturing, of which the British film industry is a part as well as being an artistic endeavour. However, if the Government promised £80 million of national lottery money for film production, they should have at least fulfilled their promise. The Government promised that film would obtain 15 per cent. of all national lottery arts funds but, so far, it has received 4.07 per cent. What the Government claimed as a great initiative is not being carried out.
  350
  The Government promised an advisory committee to recommend steps necessary to improve access to capital markets for film makers. That is extremely important because banks in this country are extraordinarily backward-looking in that respect. I and my colleagues had discussions with the Lord Mayor of London and some of his advisers in the hope that we could obtain such an advance but, so far, we have not done so. The establishment of the advisory committee promised by the Government was not even announced until December. The names of those involved have been announced, but we have yet to see any positive results of its work.
  The Secretary of State promised a feasibility study into establishing a west end showcase dedicated to British films. Ten months later, consultants have just been appointed and terms of reference agreed. Indeed, we have gone backwards.
  In its report, the Select Committee listed aspects of finance and assistance for British film making and drew attention to the Eurimages scheme. That scheme provided funding for 55 UK co-production films between 1993 and 1995. Quite inexplicably, the Government have now withdrawn from the scheme at a saving of £2 million. Unlike our Government, other countries accept an obligation to provide incentives for their film industries. Although its cost-effectiveness has been questioned, Ireland has now renewed its section 35 incentive at a modified rate for another three years. Even the Isle of Man is extending its tax credit scheme for film and television production.
  The result of section 35 in Ireland has been phenomenal. The expenditure on film and television production in the Republic has risen from 2 million punts in 1992 to 180 million punts last year. Although the direct trade-off between tax revenue forgone and gain to the Irish Treasury may not have worked out precisely as had been hoped, the multiplier effect in Ireland has been of great value, as has the linking of section 35 with training young Irish men and women in film production. It is required that they are attached to film productions.
  Compared with that 180 million punts attracted to the Republic in 1995, in Britain, despite the fact that expenditure has risen substantially in recent years, total investment in UK-linked production in the UK fell last year by 3.4 per cent. to £420.79 million. The figures are not directly comparable. It is difficult to obtain such figures. Nevertheless, there is an enormous disparity between that £420 million in the UK and the 180 million punts, taking into account the fact that we have nearly 20 times the Republic's population.
  Of course, "Braveheart", the Oscar winner for best picture, is the most telling example. It is of course about a great Scottish hero, and it was decided to film it in Scotland. Pre-production work and a few weeks' filming took place there. Production was then moved to Ireland because Mel Gibson not only became aware of section 35 incentives, but was given assistance with, for example, extras for battle scenes, which was simply not available in this country. Therefore, of the £35 million spent on that high-budget epic about a Scottish hero, £3 million was spent in the United Kingdom and about £30 million in Ireland.
  Britain per capita probably has the greatest roster of film-making talent in the world. Yet in film production per million population in 1995, the UK was behind not

  351
  only the United States, but France, Italy, Spain, Australia, Denmark, Finland and Norway, as well as Ireland. Only west Germany was behind us.
  Our screens are swamped by American films. Last year, 83 per cent. of box office receipts in British cinemas were for American films, compared with 8.6 per cent. for UK films. In 1994, the latest year for which I have available figures, box office receipts from national films were higher in France, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Australia and Spain than in Britain.
  I repeat that I am not calling for subsidies for the British film industry or for the stringent and in many ways absurd bureaucratic controls imposed by the French, under which they even lay down the nights on which films can be shown on television. I am calling for incentives. As the Select Committee report made clear, we are not asking for incentives that favour the film industry and single it out. We are asking for incentives that are available to certain other industries.
  It is ludicrous, for example, that the withholding tax does not apply in the same stringent way to Barbra Streisand when she comes here to record a CD as it would if she came here to make a film. It is ridiculous that the castle built at Shepperton studios for the filming of the Sean Connery and Richard Gere film "First Knight" was regarded as a capital asset and therefore not available for write-off, although of course the moment that the film was finished, the castle was of no use to anybody. It ought to have been written off. The Select Committee asks for the same treatment for film making as is already available for television, sound recording and even shipbuilding.
  Let me make it clear that although the domestic audience for films exhibited in theatres is not large—even though it has doubled in recent years—film making is not a marginal industry. It is a $53 billion-a-year global business. It is bigger than the music industry, it is expanding at about 8 per cent. a year, and, most important for us, it is predominantly an English-speaking industry. We have the huge advantage that the lingua franca of film in the world is English, and we are the custodians of the language.
  More than 70 per cent. of films worldwide are in English. Yet when Kenneth Branagh made "Much Ado About Nothing", he was ordered by Samuel Goldwyn Jr. to cast Hollywood stars regardless of whether they were suitable. As I have said, when Alan Bennett adapted "The Madness of George III" for the screen, he was made to mid-Atlanticise it. The cast of Branagh's new film of "Hamlet" includes Robin Williams and Jack Lemmon—neither of whom is known as one of the world's foremost Shakespearean actors. Laurence Olivier never had to put up with that.
  In this centenary year of British cinema, we can celebrate the contribution by the British industry, of some of the greatest films ever made, the role of some of the greatest directors in world cinema, and the contributions of marvellous actors and brilliant scriptwriters. A new century of cinematic endeavour in Britain is about to begin, in which our film makers not only should demonstrate their own genius, but ought to make British films whose profits return to this country, to fund further indigenous film making, instead of going to Holland, Tokyo and elsewhere.
  Film is not only an important industry, but it is a voice for Britain and a face for Britain, and it provides a view of Britain from Britain by Britons. We have the talent.
  352
  I deeply regret that the Government do not have the will and resolution to give that British talent the opportunity to make truly British films.
  9.57 am
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am delighted to be speaking in this debate, for three reasons. First, this is the first occasion on which I have spoken during a morning sitting of the House since the previous experiment in 1969. So I am not making a habit of such early-morning sittings. On that previous occasion, I remember speaking on a Bill to reform the House of Lords—a feature film that I believe that the Labour party is going to make again and is billing as a forthcoming attraction. It might fill this House, but it will not play in Peoria.
  The second reason why I am very glad to speak is that I warmly support the excellent report of the Select Committee on National Heritage. I congratulate the Select Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), on it. It owes a great deal to his personal enthusiasm and commitment to the industry, and, like him, I support all its recommendations.
  Mr. Mark Fisher: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Baker: Jolly good. I am glad that the Labour party spokesman is saying, "Hear, hear." I shall be interested to hear his speech and the commitment that he makes to the report.
  The third reason why I am glad to speak is that, for some 18 months in the 1980s, I found myself the Minister responsible for the British film industry—the responsibility that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of National Heritage now has. Just after the 1983 election victory—yes, those were the days—I had added to my responsibilities as Minister for Information Technology that for the publishing and film industries. It was the first time that the responsibility for communicating technologies came together under one Minister. I drew several conclusions from that.
  The first was that responsibility should not lie with the Department of Trade and Industry and the second was that responsibility for broadcasting should not lie with the Home Office. I was glad to be the first Home Secretary to recommend that responsibility for broadcasting should be moved to a new Department and I think that my proposal led to the creation of the Department of National Heritage. We now have in that Department full responsibility for all communicating technologies involving film. One of the great advantages that the British film industry has is the English language. If there is one Department that has responsibility for the development of the potential of the English language, it is the Department of National Heritage.
  When I was responsible for the film industry in 1983–84, I put together a package of support. Among several proposals, it included support for that excellent institution, the British Film School, which is a real centre of excellence, and the removal of the Eady levy because I thought that recycling in the industry was not the right way in which to support the film industry. The essential element of that package was that tax incentives would be available to people who wanted to invest in British films. My whole package was based on that idea.

  353
  Unfortunately, that main pillar was struck down by the Chancellor of the day, now Lord Lawson, in his reform of corporation tax, because he removed all tax incentives. Being a mere Minister of State, I was not informed of his decision before the Budget, so the main pillar of that proposal, which would have built on the successes of the film industry, was struck away and I was left with a rag-bag of proposals rather similar to the statements on the film industry that we have had recently from the Government.
  I strongly support, therefore, what the Committee says. In 1983–84, film admissions to cinemas were 53 million to 54 million a year; admissions are now 124 million a year. I can claim absolutely no credit for that increase over the years. It is due to a variety of factors—
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: Why not?
  Mr. Baker: My natural modesty would not allow me to claim credit for the increase. It is due to a variety of factors, one of which is a change in social behavioural patterns. Others are the cleaning up of old cinemas and the creation of multi-screen complexes. Above all, the increase is due to the making of better films, because, ultimately, that is what pulls people back into the cinema.
  The sad history of the British film industry is that it has erratic and inconsistent bursts of real excellence. In the 1980s, we had "Chariots of Fire", "Local Hero" and a clutch of other films, but that burst sputtered out, largely as a result of the removal of tax incentives in the 1984 Budget. There have since been intermittent bursts of great glory, as the right hon. Member for Gorton said, such as "The Madness of King George", "Four Weddings and a Funeral" and "Restoration". But what has not happened in the past 20 years in the British film industry is the build-up of a critical mass. That is disappointing.
  As the right hon. Member for Gorton said, the talent is here. The acting talent is here, the writing talent is here, the producing talent is here and the directing talent is here. When it comes to the technological manipulation of images and related areas, we are the world's centre. We should build on that and there is a great opportunity here for the Government.
  It will not be adequate for the Government to say, "Well, it is going very well. There has been quite good investment, some of the studios have been revived and Warner has invested £75 million in multiplex screens around London." That is all very well. However, the opportunity is much greater than what has been achieved.
  There was a conference last year at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre, which the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary attended. One of its purposes was to try to enhance the potential of our country, and one of the things on which it focused was the importance of the English language. Central to that is software and film production. I believe that the Government's response so far has not been adequate.
  The right hon. Member for Gorton made it clear, as does the report, that those of us who support the Committee's proposals are not asking for extra special treatment for the film industry. In many cases, we are asking for parity of treatment. As the right hon. Gentleman said, if a film is made for television facilities
  354
  in this country, one gets the 100 per cent. write-off. If, however, a film is made for the cinema, one is left with capital assets, such as a castle, stuck on one's books and they are written off over three years.
  I do not believe that it is defensible for the Treasury to say that there should not be parity of tax treatment. I believe that there should be and that there is an unanswerable argument. I do not see the logic of the Treasury's position. I suspect that in his heart, my hon. Friend the Minister supports parity of treatment, but that the Treasury and the Inland Revenue will not allow it. That would not surprise me, because their job is largely one of negation.
  When the history of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is written, as long as he does not write it himself, two points will be made. The first will be that his economic judgment on the whole has been good and right. I do not expect any Opposition Member to agree with that, but I believe that impartial observers will say that he has got it right and that the Governor of the Bank of England has got it wrong. The second point will be that on tax, his approach has been unimaginative and not very exciting—a matter of trying harder next year or trying harder later this year.
  I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Minister will relate those comments to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury. There is an unanswerable case for parity of treatment for the production costs of films in relation to the television industry and sound recording.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Gorton that there should not necessarily be direct production subsidies, such as money from the lottery. I would much prefer to operate within a generous and incentive-laden tax system. However, if subsidy is the course on which the Government have embarked and if money is to be made available, the amount available should be the amount that has been promised. The right hon. Gentleman said that there had been a promise of £80 million over five years and that so far, only £4.5 million had been made available. When my hon. Friend the Minister stops talking to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), I shall ask him specifically—[Interruption.] I am so glad that my hon. Friend is now back in his place.
  Like the right hon. Member for Gorton, I do not believe that subsidy is the right way. However, if that is the course that the Government have followed and if £80 million is to be made available—so far, only £4.5 million has been made available—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will announce that there will be another £10 million or so today and that he can chart how the remaining £75 million will be made available. That may be the only card that my hon. Friend has left to play today. I believe that the Select Committee's proposals should be accepted.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Gorton that investment in the film industry is mobile. Investment moves from country to country and goes to the countries that have the best facilities and the best tax treatment. Therefore, we have to set out our stall to attract that investment. Certain factors bring people to invest in this country. I think that I am right in saying that about 70 per cent. of all films are made in English, but that we happen to make only 4 per cent. in this country. We really must do better than that.
  I am not talking about propping up an ailing industry; the film industry is not a lame duck industry, but a very successful one. However, the natural hurdles that the tax

  355
  regime places in front of the industry should be removed. I very much hope that the Minister will be forthcoming in his reply. I, having held responsibility in this area, suspect that he will be totally constrained by the Treasury, but that is not good enough.
  I hope that my hon. Friend realises that my vote is keeping the Government in office, as are the votes of my hon. Friends the Members for Southport (Mr. Banks) and for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). We expect our voices to be listened to very carefully in these matters. After all, there is an open door and we should push at it. The British film industry is life-enhancing and it is actually rather good.
  I hope that for all those reasons, my hon. Friend the Minister will be sympathetic and warm to the Select Committee report. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Gorton on producing the report. He will continue to have my strong support for the Committee' s proposals.
  10.9 am
  Mr. Jim Callaghan: I am proud and privileged to be a member of the Select Committee on National Heritage, which is so ably led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). However, that leaves me with a problem, because my right hon. Friend's expertise on the film industry is so great that I cannot think of anyone else in the House with such a depth of knowledge, and it is therefore difficult to follow the speech that he made on behalf of the Select Committee.
  In the few moments that I have for my speech, I shall be positive. The former Secretary of State for National Heritage, now the Secretary of State for Health, said of the Select Committee's report:
  "The Government welcomes your report, and the clear, detailed and perceptive overview it provides of the history and current state of the industry".
  I welcome those words, because, although the Committee has produced many reports, I feel that the best one so far is our report on the film industry. The Committee took a lot of stick when it announced that it intended to report on that industry, so I welcome the former Secretary of State's statement.
  The right hon. Gentleman continued:
  "Like the Committee, we believe the United Kingdom film industry is an important one, whose skills, talents and creativity have justly earned an international reputation"—
  the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), too, said as much—
  "the Government has been able to accept a number of the recommendations in your report".
  As children ask for many presents at Christmas, knowing that they will not get all of them, although the Committee has made a lot of recommendations I am realistic enough to know that they will not all be accepted by the Government.
  The response to the Committee's tax recommendations was as follows:
  "tax decisions are by tradition announced in the Budget. This paper cannot, therefore, respond conclusively to this area of the Committee's Report. Nonetheless the Government will certainly bear in mind the Committee's recommendations, and the logic which underpins them".
  So I shall not refer to the tax recommendations either.
  356
  I am delighted that the Government agree that we have a film industry in which we can take genuine pride. There is considerable opportunity for growth, as is shown by the following statistics. United Kingdom cinema admissions have increased from an all-time low of 58 million in 1984 to 124 million in 1994—a notable growth. The number of screens in the United Kingdom increased from 1,250 in 1985 to 1,929 in 1994, and overall investment was up from £245 million in 1986 to £457 million in 1994.
  Despite those encouraging figures, the industry has two main problems. First, British films captured only 2.5 per cent. of British box office receipts in 1993, compared with the United States product, which took a 94.2 per cent. share. So we have a long way to go to catch up with the American film industry. The United Kingdom industry is a cottage industry in comparison.
  Nevertheless, there are opportunities, because the United Kingdom cinema audience is growing fast, and Britain offers skills and facilities of international renown, as well as the advantage of the English language, which the right hon. Member for Mole Valley mentioned. The Americans are making good use of those factors.
  Another major problem for the United Kingdom film industry is the fact that most of the distribution in this country is in the hands of the United States majors. As a result, many British films have great difficulty in gaining large-scale distribution here. One witness who came before the Select Committee, representing the Cinema Exhibitors Association, runs a cinema in Withington in Manchester, and he spoke at length about the difficulties that private cinemas experience in trying to show major films.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Does the hon. Gentleman share my sadness at the fact that, when the major American production companies approached what were then the large cinema chains in the United Kingdom, Rank and EMI, and said that there was a future for the film industry not only in the United States but in the United Kingdom, that that industry would not be permanently dominated by television, but that cinemas would have to be refurbished and made more attractive, Rank and EMI rejected the idea, so that now, sadly, the large cinema chains in the United Kingdom, the UCIs and the MGMs, are based in the United States?
  Mr. Callaghan: Yes; the hon. Gentleman is a little ahead of me, I shall come to that point in a few moments. Most of the new multiplex cinemas are owned by American companies, and account for 33 per cent. of all United Kingdom screens.
  The Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report of October 1994 found that a complex monopoly existed. It did not attribute the low proportion of United Kingdom films shown in cinemas to any conspiracy but recognised that the United States studios are skilled in producing and promoting films that the United Kingdom public wish to see. However, the report suggested that the Director General of Fair Trading should monitor the market.
  On the positive side, there is a new factor that could help to promote and develop the United Kingdom's film industry. The Arts Council of England has plans for using lottery money to encourage the production and distribution of films. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton has already mentioned those plans.
  There is an absence of significant investment in the film industry in the United Kingdom, because the risks are high and the returns volatile and unpredictable. I therefore

  357
  welcome the Government's proposal to convene an advisory committee of representatives from the leading financial institutions and production companies to discuss and promote ways of addressing those problems.
  Large-scale subsidy is favoured by neither the Government nor the industry. Nevertheless, since 1986 the Government have supported British Screen Finance Ltd., with an annual contribution to help to finance feature films. I drew attention to that body many times in our Committee deliberations, and welcomed what it had done. To date, British Screen Finance has invested in 101 feature films, 86 of which involved directors, writers, actors or producers embarking on their first or second project. I welcome that development.
  The Government have announced their intention to use lottery money to support British film makers as British Screen Finance has done, and their hope that the lottery support will encourage the private sector to back British films. I hope so, too.
  The Arts Council estimates that it could spend more than £70 million up to the year 2000 on film production, which would enable it to attract more private sector support, and to increase the level of film support and the range of investment opportunities. It also estimates that it could spend more than £14 million up to the year 2000 on distribution and cinema refurbishment. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) is not listening now, because I am talking about refurbishing cinemas, and I hope that what I have said meets the point that he made earlier.
  I am delighted that the Government welcomed the Select Committee's report. It also drew attention to training, and consequently the Government propose to lead discussions at ministerial level on how the Committee's proposals can best be given effect. That is because its skilled work force is one of the UK film industry's main strengths. Our seedcorn lies with our youth. Youngsters who want to study dance or drama and apply for local authorities often find that grants are discretionary, not mandatory. That is a great tragedy. I hope that the Government will consider that.
  I would have liked to comment on many of the Government's other responses to the Select Committee's recommendations, but time will not allow it. However, I draw attention to the Committee's visit to the United States of America and our two-day visit to Ireland to discuss their film industries. I was surprised by what I saw in both countries. I was impressed by the Irish film initiative, which encouraged an increase in film and television production from £1 million to £100 million over two years. That is a tremendous leap forward.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has said that he will not venture into the subject of taxation, because it is primarily through that that the Irish Government have attracted film makers to Ireland. I hope that he will say that a 100 per cent. write-off of production costs in the first year would be a positive way of enabling the British film industry to achieve its immense potential.
  Mr. Callaghan: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government have said that they will not deal with tax
  358
  matters in this debate because they are for the Chancellor. I was keeping to the recommendations that the Government have put before the House. Having visited Ireland, met Mr. Higgins, of whom I shall say more, and examined their section 35, I know that the Irish tax incentives encouraged Mel Gibson to stop filming in Scotland—it was a film about Scottish heritage—and take the whole production to Ireland. I would have liked to speak at length on that, but I am trying to keep to the brief.
  Ireland's tremendous leap forward was due in no small measure to the enthusiasm and drive of its Minister for Arts, Michael D. Higgins. I was impressed by that gentleman, as was the whole Committee. I do not want to pour cold water, but I am saddened that we have not in recent times had an Arts Minister with a similar drive and love of the arts. The heritage and arts portfolios have been safe havens for Ministers who have had difficulties in their previous ministerial posts. I hope that I am wrong, but none of our Ministers has matched the drive and enthusiasm of Mr. Higgins. However, I always live in hope and I look to our present Minister to match them.
  10.22 am
  Mr. Anthony Coombs: I want to support a generally well-received report and pay tribute to the excellent and well-informed chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). It was the Committee's basic intention that the report should bring about steps to improve the British film industry. To be fair, it does that against a promising backdrop in terms of the market for film in Britain. We have heard about the massive increase in cinema audiences and the huge improvement in facilities for exhibition, especially the increase in multiplexes. I shall be looking for the development of Kidderminster town centre to include a multiplex cinema.
  We also heard of the increase in the number of British produced films, at least when compared with the low levels of the past 10 years, and the increase, to £176 million, in expenditure on films made in this country by British and foreign producers. That is small compared with what it could be, but it is evidence of a buoyant market. The best evidence of that is the expenditure in the UK on film over the past 12 years, which, according to the Department of National Heritage, has increased by some 500 per cent. in real terms. That is a buoyant market in which the British film industry should be specifically involved.
  One problem with the industry is that it is difficult to define a British film. Does it involve a film being produced in Britain, the genesis of the idea or the people involved? Secondly, the film industry is, by definition, footloose. I have reservations about the consistency of the position of people in the film industry who bemoan the fact that they cannot make films in Britain but who, as soon as an opportunity presents itself, zoom off to Hollywood. They take large salaries and sit there thinking of nice warm beer and sandwiches back in good old blighty.
  Thirdly, the British film industry is heavily fragmented compared with the American monoliths. As a result, there is no continuity of supply. We noticed that only seven of 49 British films last year had a budget of more than £6 million, while the average for the US product made in Britain was £22 million. More than that, the mortality rate of feature film production companies in Britain is very high.

  359
  Three issues must be addressed in acting on the report. First, there is the vertical integration of production, distribution and exhibition, and the huge power of the US and Japanese conglomerates. In what is, in essence, an international market, we have only 7.25 per cent. of the world market. No film will succeed, especially if it is in English—that is a two-edged sword in this case—unless it is oriented at the international market and especially the US market. Such integration, especially in the distribution and exhibition markets, will operate to the disadvantage of British film makers unless they have access to it. I note that the 1994 Monopolies and Mergers Commission report said that the commission would consult on alignment and minimum exhibition periods. It would be helpful if the Government could say what progress has been made in those discussions.
  Although we are not likely to get worldwide integration in the British film industry, one of the Government's responses to the report, which, after all, was brought out just under a year ago, was an advisory committee to consider the problem of integration. Again, I would like to hear what the Government say about that.
  To ensure continuity for film production companies, it is important that the issue of tax should be addressed. That has been well and truly rehearsed today, so I will not go on about it. However, only to say, as the Government's response does, that venture capital trusts and enterprise initiative schemes are the answer to the lack of continuity is mistaken. I suspect that the amount of money going into VCTs and EISs for film production finance is disappointing. That calls for more general tax write-offs.
  The second major issue is the sort of films that the British film industry makes. There has been slight confusion about whether the British film industry is, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) said, a cottage industry making art films or one designed to compete substantively on the world stage. I have reservations about the Arts Council using subsidies to get more involved in film production. That would encourage art house films that may satisfy in terms of their intellectual artistic integrity but do not fully build the British film industry so that it can reach its potential. If the Arts Council of England is going to give £70 million of lottery money by the year 2000 to independent film companies, it should be conditional on a minimum budget size for films and be done on the basis of an active partnership with distributors or exhibitors to ensure that those films get a commercial hearing.
  Another slight confusion is the role of television and feature films. Although the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 have to make available 25 per cent. of their product to independent film production companies, that could well be increased. The amount of film being shown on television has not increased significantly in the past 10 years and that is a valuable market for the industry.
  On the other hand, the pricing policy has to be genuine. I have had representations from an independent film producer who talked about an effective cartel on pricing between the BBC, ITV and Channel 4—it is even proposed by Channel 5—which he said had contributed to the fact that television production, which was the 17th largest contributor to the balance of payments in 1974, has now fallen into an adverse balance.
  We must deal with the problems of tax relief, attitude and structure in the British film industry, as well as taking commercial advantage of the large and increased market that is available to film.
  360
  Finally, the recommendations of the National Heritage Select Committee, on beefing up the London Film Commission Initiative and on its co-ordinating role with regional film commissions, which the Government dismissed slightly, are very important. One of the things that will sell Britain is for international audiences to see that films are made well here and are associated with different parts of our heritage.
  It is interesting that "Braveheart", although it was not made in Scotland, has already had a significant impact on Scottish tourism. In Stirling, the national Wallace monument has seen an increase in visitors in the three months since the exhibition of the film from 10,000 to 30,000, which gives us a sign of the film industry's impact on another responsibility of the Department of National Heritage, tourism, which is the fourth largest industry in this country. I think that the report is excellent and the Government would do well to heed it, particularly the tax relief aspects.
  10.31 am
  Mr. John Maxton: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on his introduction to this short debate and on leading us—I am also a member of the Select Committee on National Heritage—in producing the report.
  I shall limit my remarks to the Scottish film industry, to some extent following on from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs). First, I must express surprise at the fact that the representative of the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), is not present for this debate as she has been trying to make considerable play of the role of the Scottish film industry and the Scots in it. Although I share the delight of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest that tourism is coming to Scotland as a result of "Braveheart", as a politician I have reservations about the way in which the SNP blatantly tried to use it to further its cause, particularly when it is such historical nonsense—at least, a large part of it is. It may be a good cowboy film, but it has not got a great deal to do with Scottish history. Although I obviously cannot use the language that Mr. Billy Connolly used to describe it, I certainly share a fair amount of his sentiments.
  The Scottish film industry has been undergoing something of a revival with not only "Braveheart" and "Rob Roy" but, more important, films such as "Shallow Grave", "Small Faces" and, of course, "Trainspotting", which represent a much more thoughtful side of Scottish film production.
  It may be unusual for me to do so, but I must take the opportunity to say that, at least in Scotland, the Scottish Office and the Secretary of State for Scotland have gone further than their colleagues in the Department of National Heritage to try to bring some coherence to the Scottish film industry. In New York recently, the Secretary of State announced that he is going to streamline the various agencies in Scotland into a new Scottish screen agency, bringing together the Scottish Film Council, the Scottish Film Production Fund, Scottish Broadcast and Film Training Ltd. and Scottish Screen Locations. That is probably a step in the right direction, because it will give a coherence to all those organisations and will mean that they will start to work together.

  361
  The Secretary of State has also committed public spending of £3 million to film in Scotland in the next three years. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will promise today that an equivalent £30 million will be spent on film in England and Wales. Using the Barnett formula, that is roughly the sum that should be used to get an equivalency.
  In my view, it was not just the tax incentives that caused "Braveheart" to go to Ireland, or even just the use of the army for extras, but the excellence of the Ardmore studio, which ensures that, when one has to move out of location because of bad weather or whatever, a studio facility is available close to hand in which one can do other production work.
  The recent Hydra report in Scotland on the film industry suggested building a studio complex of the same type as Ardmore studio just outside Dublin—or even better, in Scotland—and the Secretary of State is committed to considering the viability of the suggestion. That would allow studio work to be done in Scotland, as well as major location work. Then we would have to do some post-production development in Scotland, to ensure the continuation of the whole package and the production of film in Scotland.
  Finally—I am aware that the two Front-Bench spokesmen want to speak—I wish to comment on the continuing convergence of film and television production, which is the one point on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and I mildly diverge. Increasingly, that will also mean computer work, the Internet, and so on; a convergence is taking place in the way in which we produce all those. We have to be wary of not taking account of the base of directors, actors, production teams and so forth that our strong television work gives us.
  I will finish on Scotland as I started on it; that is true in Scotland too. Without BBC Scotland producing more than it produces, without Scottish Television producing more than at present, giving employment to the directors, actors, producers and so forth in Scotland, it would not be possible to have a strong Scottish film industry. I hope, therefore, that when we consider the matter we take that into account as well as simply considering the film industry separately from the rest of audio-visual production.
  10.38 am
  Mr. Matthew Banks: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) on giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue; I also congratulate his fellow members of the Select Committee on National Heritage. I listened with great interest to what he said, and agreed with him on a number of points, particularly on tax concessions in preference to subsidy.
  I also listened with great interest to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker). It is frightening to think that his last contribution on a Wednesday morning was in 1969. when I was only eight years old. I also agreed with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) about tourism. Regrettably, a number of aspects have been touched on all too briefly in this debate, and tourism is one of the biggest earners for this country. I entirely endorse what he said about the Irish Republic and Scotland.
  362
  One of the biggest obstacles to building up the film industry appears simply to be producing even more popular films. As the Select Committee report makes clear, however, much more could be done to create a more welcoming atmosphere for movie makers in this country.
  The British Film Commission has been successful in encouraging film producers to produce more films in the United Kingdom. During 1995–96, more films were made in this country than in any year since 1965. I back t he BFC's proposals for a production permit, for season tickets for key personnel, and for an accelerated process of work permits in general. I am also keen to see a greater interest taken by the European Investment Bank, especially in helping to reduce the risks incurred by banks and institutions in financing audiovisual projects.
  The Irish Republic was successful in creating a more welcoming atmosphere for film making. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), particularly about the Scottish National party, but so far as "Braveheart" is concerned, it is going a bit too far to imagine that we could put our defence forces at the disposal of film makers. The armed forces have been a little busy of late as a result of the renewal of IRA terrorism, particularly in Northern Ireland.
  In addition, when audiences around the world view "Braveheart", they do not think of visiting the Irish Republic. When they think about going to the places where the battles took place, they think of Scotland. We should not encourage the production of films in this country that encourage tourism elsewhere.
  I am sorry that I do not have more time to touch on some of the nitty-gritty issues. I have listened to the remarks that have been made about tax concessions, and I know that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is itching to get to the Dispatch Box to tell us about the tax concessions that the Labour party would introduce if it had the opportunity to do so. I think that Labour's current economic policies are a recipe for disaster, in the film industry and elsewhere.
  The role of the British Film Commission to act as an inward investment body would be far harder if we did not have one of the lowest effective corporate rates of tax and one of the most liberal employment regimes in Europe. Signing up to the social chapter will not do a great deal for the British film industry. It is vital that we look at the issue of tax concessions—it is the way forward. I hope that that it is something that the Treasury, rather than just the Department of National Heritage, will consider.
  10.41 am
  Mr. Mark Fisher: This is an excellent report, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have recognised, and I welcome the chance to debate it. The report is of real substance, and relates to an important industry. Therefore, one and a half hours in which to debate it—although welcome—is too short a time, as the way that speeches have been squeezed demonstrates. It is April 1996, and we are debating an important report that was published on 8 March 1995. We should have debated the report sooner, although it is timely that we are debating it in the centenary year of the British film industry.
  The report has been needed for a long time, because the Government have perversely been neglecting our film industry for years, and have comprehensively failed to

  363
  produce a policy. As hon. Members from both sides of the House have recognised, the report is the bones of a policy. I hope that the Government listen to it, and that we will have a positive response from the Minister.
  This is a thorough report: it asked the right questions, it took the right evidence, it went to the right places and—in my view—it came to the right conclusions. I join other hon. Members in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Chairman of the Committee. Everyone knows his commitment to, huge knowledge and understanding of, and love and passion for, the industry. The work of the Committee, and the people who gave evidence to it, was very good.
  I care for the film industry a lot, having worked in it for eight or nine years in the 1960s and early 1970s in virtually every role—from documentary producer and writer, to editor, to negative cutter, to location manager and assistant producer. I was a terrific failure in the industry, because I failed to raise the money for the sorts of film that I wanted to make.
  In the 1960s, the film industry appeared to be in decline, and, as my family and the number of my children got larger and the film industry got smaller, the two could not sustain each other. What appeared to be a small industry in the 1960s is something that we would very much like to have now. The problems we faced in the 1960s—of not being able to sustain investment year on year and of having peaks and troughs—have remained with us.
  At last we have a report that says all the right things not only about the issues facing the industry but about the importance of film and the film industry. The report recognises the economic importance of the industry: the huge international industry of £53 billion—and that is without the wider audiovisual industries of which this is a key but only one part; the employment implications for the country; the relationship with trade—Samuel Goldwyn said that trade follows the film and he was right, as the Americans have demonstrated; and questions of national identity, pride and culture.
  This is an important industry. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, it is something that we are good at in this country. We have the creative talent but, too often, it does not have the opportunity to work in this country. It is not perverse that people go abroad—they have to do so to work. People such as Nick Hytner would like to make films in this country, but there are more opportunities to do so on the west coast of America. As my right hon. Friend said, we have the English language. We are uniquely well placed, and we ought to be taking advantage of that.
  The report concentrates on the right problems—it looks at funding and at how we should have a structure of incentives and other initiatives to sustain funding or to provide a critical mass. It comes to the right conclusions on all those things. It is right to look at accelerated write-offs in paragraph 187, and it is right to look at and approve tax incentives—later, I shall refer to the types of tax incentive that I think are best. The report looks at the business incentive scheme, the enterprise investment scheme and the Irish Finance Act 1988, section 35, which would need to be adapted for our fiscal regime but takes the right approach.
  364
  The only area of tax reform with which I have difficulty in the report is its emphasis on withholding tax. There is not sufficient evidence that American films are being deterred because of that. My right hon. Friend is quite right: there are ridiculous anomalies about it in relation to the music recording industry, and the treatment of actors and other talent and film directors who are not caught by it. However, I do not see any evidence that American-financed feature films are being deterred. I am more sceptical.
  In its excellent approach, the report is right not to go back to the days of the Eady levy. I also pay tribute to the report on arts funding, which came out a couple of weeks ago, but which has not had the attention it ought to have had. I hope that we will debate that report much sooner than a year from now, because it is very important. Obviously, the Select Committee is faced with many issues.
  The report is not quite about the British film industry; it concentrates on feature film finance and production. The Select Committee did not have time to look at the other facets of the industry—training, exhibition, education, the relationship to new technologies, production and distribution. The quality of its work on feature film finance shows that it will come to interesting and important conclusions. As this is such a good report, I hope that the my right hon. Friend will go back to the Committee and extend the range of issues it examines in future.
  The bipartisan spirit of the debate may be broken, because I believe that the Government have not done well in this area. The report's conclusions implicitly criticise the Government's lack of interest and action.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. He warmly welcomed the report, but its recommendations are specific. Will he commit his party to implementing those recommendations, and if so, which ones? We can all talk of how much we love the British film industry, but if, by any chance, the Labour party wins the general election, what will it do to support that industry?
  Mr. Fisher: I was going to take the Government to task before returning to the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes.
  The right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) was probably the last film Minister who had an interest in and passion for the industry; since then, things have gone from bad to the worse. The Films Act 1985 began dismantling the structural support: probably correctly, it abolished the Eady levy, but it did not replace it with anything. When, later, capital allowances were abandoned, the industry was left in a much worse position fiscally than any comparable English language film industry. The Government put nothing in their place.
  Although Mrs. Thatcher took a personal interest, held high-profile meetings at Downing street, asked all the right people and listened to all the right evidence, she did nothing. I suspect that that is another example of the DTI, the DNH—then known as the Office of Arts and Libraries—and the Treasury being unable to agree. Without cross-departmental co-operation and work, we shall not get this industry right. As every Member who has spoken has said, the key is not subsidy or direct grant aid but fiscal incentive, so the Treasury must be brought on board. We had no action, no policy and no understanding.

  365
  The debate cannot pass without the Government being held to book for the disgrace about Eurimages. As was said, for a £2 million ante-up dividend, as it were, we are losing out on £40 million to £50 million of co-production. Everyone in Europe wants to be our co-production partner. The Minister knows that something went terribly wrong. It slipped through people's fingers, I suspect because they did not understand its significance. I suspect that the Foreign Office was as angry as we were about our withdrawal from Eurimages, because it did understand, as did the rest of the world. The Minister should say something about Eurimages, and make a commitment to rejoining as soon as possible.
  I now come to the point made by the right hon. Member for Mole Valley. The Labour party will have a policy. It will be an updating of, and similar to, the policy that we published in 1991–92, which, I am glad to say, was developed with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who is now the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Labour's trade and industry spokesman before the last general election.
  If and when we are elected, we shall at last have, in my hon. Friend, a Chancellor of the Exchequer who knows about, understands and is committed to the cultural industries generally, and the film industry in particular. His knowledge is perhaps not as great as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton, the Chairman of the Committee, but it is considerable. Although, obviously, what I shall say now must receive the approval of the various committees of the Labour party before it becomes policy, I am able to give an idea this morning of the direction in which we are moving, and of our priorities and approach.
  Our policy is largely based on the report. It is a matter not of subsidy but of fiscal incentives—accelerated write-offs, an adaptation of section 35 of the Irish Finance Act 1988. It is not difficult to do, and we shall do it, although we shall do it, unlike the Irish, for a specified period—probably of five years, with a review after two. It should not be a permanent regime. It is a way of kick-starting, and we shall monitor how and whether it is working.
  The industry has problems of internal inflation, and such fiscal incentives may attract investment for investment's sake rather than for feature film production's sake. Nevertheless, our approach is right and practicable, and a Labour Government will seek to adopt it. It is necessary, but it is not sufficient, and we would need to develop the Green Light fund, the £5 million national lottery fund administered by British Screen—ably managed by Simon Perry. We shall consider with interest new ideas being floated for studio franchises. We shall certainly rejoin Eurimages.
  We shall have a wider policy, covering training, educational, national and regional film production—including Scotland, which is doing so well—post-production, and relationships within the audiovisual industry. We have in this country a fast-growing multi-media sector and a relationship between publishing, publishing and CD-ROM and film.
  Perhaps we shall need to reconsider the definition of the word "film" in the 1985 Act, because the scale of budgets for CD-ROM interactive videos is about the same
  366
  as that of full-length feature films, and very profitable. We are very good at creating those interactive videos, but once again the investment is coming from Time Warner and so on. We should use our talent, but we are not making the investment. We need to, and the Labour Government will, see film in that context.
  Most particularly, our attitude will be supportive of film. As the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) said, the most interesting thing about Ireland is not the fiscal incentives. The Minister for Arts, Culture and the Gaeltacht, Michael D. Higgins, is committed and passionate, and goes out and beats the drum for the Irish film industry. His commitment, wanting people to come to Ireland to make films, is as important as the fiscal incentives.
  We need a Government who are equally enthusiastic about our cultural industries, and specifically about the audiovisual industries and film; we do not have one at the moment. The Labour Government will be such a Government.
  10.54 am
  The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I start by paying a true tribute to the work of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the National Heritage Select Committee. Their report is extremely valuable. Unfortunately, I have but five minutes to reply to the debate. I do not complain about that, because it is more important for as many Back Benchers as possible to say where their concerns lie than for Front-Bench Members to take up time saying what we already know.
  Nevertheless, five minutes is obviously not enough time in which to describe the considerable framework of help and support for the film industry, and I hope that another time will be found for hon. Members to discuss the different elements in depth.
  The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) rightly said that the report was not, in a sense, about the film industry, but about the important part of the film industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has deep concerns about the exhibition process in this country, which merits a speech in itself. I therefore hope that it will be possible to get a real crack at this, consonant and commensurate with the importance of the industry.
  I agreed with much of what the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) said, but I am sorry if he gained the impression that the Department is not interested in the film industry; he is mistaken. Last night, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went to the premiere of "Richard III". She is extremely keen to get this matter right. I know that she would point out that not only is "Richard III" a British film, but it was made in conjunction with the National theatre—another element of the Department's interests, the National theatre having recently received funds from the national lottery.
  The film pulls together several threads, and we need time to debate them, but I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend is determined to work out a policy, which I hope would have bipartisan support, to support and encourage the industry.
  In the few remaining minutes, I shall speak, not ludicrously fast but as speedily as is sensible, to say as much as I can.

  367
  The Government's detailed response to the Select Committee's report was published in June 1995 in our policy paper, "The British Film Industry". Our policy addressed all the recommendations made by the Committee except for those on tax incentives, which are, as the House has noted and said this morning, a matter for my Treasury colleagues. We had no hesitation in accepting many of the Committee's recommendations, and we are now advancing the work involved in implementing them. I am sorry that time does not allow me to say in detail what that work is, but I hope that we shall find another occasion.
  We have also announced further initiatives of our own, which are proceeding. The debate takes place against a background of the growing success of the British film industry. Of course, we still wish to do many things that we have not yet been able to do.
  It would be quite wrong if, in concentrating—as did some hon. Members—on what still needs to be done, we failed to remember the successes of the British film industry. The recent academy awards ceremony in Los Angeles underlined once again the excellent reputation that is enjoyed by British talent across the whole range of the film makers' arts. Britons were nominated in virtually every category, from acting, directing and writing to our costume design, documentary films and animation.
  All our nominees deserve high praise for achieving that recognition in such a competitive international industry. I know that the House joins me in congratulating Emma Thompson, Nick Park, Jon Blair and James Acheson on their achievements in winning Oscars.
  Will there be a prospering film industry to support those talents in the future? I believe that the answer is strongly yes. Last year, 81 films were produced in the United Kingdom—the highest figure for 20 years. The total value of the films produced amounted to more than £420 million—almost seven times the equivalent figure for 1981. In real terms, the value of films produced in this country—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.

  Child Support Agency
  [Relevant documents: Third Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of Session 1994–95 on the Investigation of Complaints against the Child Support Agency (House of Commons Paper No. 135), the Third Report from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of Session 1994–95 on the Child Support Agency (House of Commons Paper No. 199), the Government Reply thereto (Cm. 2865), the Third Report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of Session 1995–96 on Investigation of Complaints against the Child Support Agency (House of Commons Paper No. 20), the Minutes of Evidence taken by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on 27th March (House of Commons Paper No. 330-i), the Second Report from the Social Security Committee of Session 1995–96 on the Performance and Operation of the Child Support Agency (House of Commons Paper No. 50) and the Government Reply thereto (Cm. 3191).]
  11 am
  Mr. James Pawsey: I am pleased to introduce this short but important debate about the Child Support Agency. I am sorry that the Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), is not in his place, but I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) is present and I am sure that he will be a more than adequate deputy. We look forward to hearing his comments in due course.
  In 1991 I, like the overwhelming majority of hon. Members, supported the establishment of the Child Support Agency. We did so in the belief that it is wrong for men and women to walk away from their parental responsibilities. I remind the House that, somewhat unusually, there was no Division on Third Reading—a fact which underlined the perceived need for the legislation.
  The Child Support Agency has had a difficult birth—indeed, it has been somewhat star-crossed. I acknowledge the great efforts made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, who will respond to the debate, and by the agency's chief executive to improve matters. My hon. Friend has introduced no fewer than 112 changes in the past 10 months that are designed to improve the work of the agency. He and the chief executive have grabbed the CSA by the scruff of its neck, and I have no doubt that, as the changes filter through, the instances of maladministration will decrease.
  The ombudsman has identified certain serious failures in administration. He referred to
  "confusion over jurisdiction; breaching of confidentiality of information; delays in dealing with applications for maintenance; problems with intra-maintenance assessments; delays in enforcement action leading to loss of maintenance; and delays in passing on maintenance collected from the absent parent to the parent with care of children."
  The work of the Child Support Agency touches upon some of the most difficult and sensitive aspects of people's lives. I suspect that an overwhelming majority of hon. Members have been alerted by their constituents to instances of maladministration within the Child Support Agency. This morning I shall concentrate on three specific

  369
  areas: first, the current performance of the agency; secondly, the way in which complaints are handled; and, thirdly, the granting of redress.
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary recently answered questions at the Dispatch Box about the performance of the Child Support Agency. In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West, he said:
  "I noted that of the 20 cases the ombudsman looked at, some 14 involved problems which began in 1993. In that sense, his report is historic".—[Official Report, 19 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 165.]
  However, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the minutes of evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on Wednesday 27 March. On that occasion, the ombudsman said:
  "Miss Chant kindly admitted that old mistakes were still being made and she did not refute the fact that I included in my report cases which arose in 1995".
  The ombudsman continued:
  "I did not want to give the impression that I was only looking at old matters. I included reference to types of case where I am investigating, but of which I had not concluded my investigation by the time I published my second special report. You will see on pages 11 and 12 of my report examples of that; you will see examples on pages 13 and 14; you will see examples on pages 15 and 16, on page 18, page 19 and page 20. These are all examples of complaints put to me about mistakes that were certainly not 1993 or 1994; these are all 1995 examples of maladministration".
  My hon. Friend referred also to the ombudsman's criticisms regarding delay in transferring money from the agency to the parent with care. He pointed out, quite properly, that 97 per cent. of payments—an extraordinary figure—are now sent out within 10 days. My hon. Friend also emphasised the fact that, while the ombudsman looked at just under 200 CSA cases, the agency deals with 1.25 million cases. Therefore, two lines of defence are being advanced in response to the ombudsman's report: first, the ombudsman's investigations deal with historic difficulties; and, secondly, the Child Support Agency handles a large number of cases.
  In fairness to the House, I concede that 195 investigations are not many when viewed in the context of 1.25 million cases. It might, however, assist hon. Members if I were to adopt a more global perspective. In 1994, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration received 30 complaints about the Inland Revenue, which handles between 30 million and 35 million cases each year.
  Miss Chant, the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, recently gave evidence to the Select Committee. She contended that, as a result of the nature of the ombudsman's work, the cases in his report were not of recent origin. She gave examples of the way in which the agency's performance had improved. She pointed out that 18 months ago the agency received 370 complaints each week from Members of Parliament and that that rate had now steadied at just under 200. I think that that is an interesting measurement of success and improvement. I appreciate that any reduction in the number of complaints is laudable, but 200 complaints from hon. Members is still a substantial number.
  Mr. David Nicholson rose—
  Mr. Pawsey: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who is an indefatigable member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.
  Mr. Nicholson: My hon. Friend is right to point out the large number of complaints that Members of Parliament continue to make to the Child Support Agency. Does he agree that the parliamentary ombudsman does not investigate every complaint that Members of Parliament make about the agency, because many of them fall into the category of generic orders which he is already investigating? My hon. Friend mentioned a figure of 195 investigations, and I must have referred a dozen complaints to the ombudsman. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the importance that the House attaches to some of the agency's successes—for example, in chasing 120,000 absent parents—it is regrettable, and damages the legislation and the persons who promoted it, that such maladministration should be continuing?
  Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend makes a genuinely important point, and as it may be of interest to other hon. Members, I shall refer to it later.
  When I spoke to the ombudsman this morning, he told me that, since 1 January this year, he has received 205 complaints from Members of Parliament, and that 1,500 telephone inquiries have been received by his office—50 per cent. of which referred specifically to the Child Support Agency.
  Having said that, let me stress the other side of the equation. There have been a substantial number of genuine improvements to the agency's performance over the past 12 months. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister and the CSA's chief executive on their work. Their task is clearly herculean. The agency's staff have to cope with couples who have broken up, often in the most acrimonious circumstances, and with a campaign of deliberate obstruction. Piled on top of all those difficulties have been the changes to the law designed to improve the agency's operations. Such changes are necessary and beneficial but in the short term, they place an added burden on CSA staff.
  I make it clear that the problems highlighted by the ombudsman are not historical. In the interests of objectivity, I must inform the House that the ombudsman advised me today that there have been
  "a lot of improvements made to the work of the Child Support Agency."
  I am sure that the ombudsman would want me to put that comment firmly on the record.
  I will refer next to maladministration and the way in which complaints about the agency are dominating the ombudsman's case load.
  Mr. Michael Mates: I am glad to interrupt my hon. Friend at the moment when he is saying that the ombudsman is pleased, as we all are, with the agency's improvements. I ask my hon. Friend to address the fundamental reason that the parliamentary ombudsman was established—to serve as a backstop for the individual citizen who feels that any area of the Administration has let him down. My understanding is that, as a result of the case load, the individual citizen is

  371
  being deprived of that backup. I quote a specific example, because it may help everybody to address the problem. A constituent of mine, Mr. Jubin, made a complaint to me about maladministration by the CSA, which was looked at by the screening unit.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but interventions should be short. It sounds to me as though the hon. Gentleman is making more of a speech.
  Mr. Mates: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be as brief as I can. My hon. Friend was about to address the specific question of whether the ombudsman is able to carry out the duty that Parliament gave him. I want briefly to quote one example because—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is far too long. I cannot allow him to continue.
  Mr. Mates: Then I cannot make my point.
  Madam Deputy Speaker: No, the hon. Gentleman cannot. That is precisely correct.
  Mr. Pawsey: Despite the fact that my hon. Friend was cut off in mid-flow, I understand the essential thrust of his comments. The important point to which he referred was raised also by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson).
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) draws attention to the number of CSA cases that are reaching the ombudsman. The Select Committee will, as part of its continuing work, be taking evidence from the ombudsman about workload, the time taken to complete investigations, the number of staff and the resources available. I share my hon. Friend's concern. The ombudsman is the citizen's backstop. If the ombudsman is not seen to be performing the duties and responsibilities imposed on him by the House, that is a serious matter.
  As the issue is so important, I sought advice from colleagues. The view has been taken that a number of representative cases should identify administrative shortcomings needing to be remedied, and that the resulting improvements to the system should bring general improvement—so that complaints should not have to be referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner.
  Mr. Mates rose—
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Make it snappy, Mr. Mates.
  Mr. Mates: I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. Forgive me, but I am raising a fundamental point—and I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will allow me to make it. The ombudsman himself is saying, "I cannot do the job that Parliament gave me to do. I acknowledge that your constituent has a complaint, but I cannot look at it because there are so many of the same type." Where does that leave the ombudsman, in his duty to look after individual cases of maladministration? If he cannot examine a case because it has been raised before, that is denying the purpose for which Parliament established the ombudsman. I hope that my hon. Friend's Committee will address that aspect.
  Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend made his point most succinctly. I give him the assurance that the Select Committee that I have the honour to chair will examine that specific matter. His comments emphasise the need for a complaints examiner to be established within the CSA, so that problems will not filter through to the ombudsman but can be resolved within the agency. I believe that I saw my hon. Friend, the Minister, nodding his head sagely in agreement.
  As to maladministration and the agency's domination of the ombudsman's case load, complaints concerning the CSA accounted for one third of all those accepted for investigation in 1995. By the end of 1995, 195 cases were being investigated. The ombudsman has now decided to investigate only cases that appear to involve new issues or financial loss. Many other cases suggested maladministration but were not accepted for investigation. In parenthesis, I will observe that the ombudsman's office is not of the largest. It has 55 staff to deal with maladministration cases referred to the ombudsman by Departments, which is fewer than one member of staff for every 1 million of the population.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Pawsey: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. who is a staunch member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner. I am not at all surprised to see the hon. Gentleman in his place, because he is always in attendance at meetings of the Committee.
  Mr. Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments.
  Does not the Parliamentary Commissioner's report state that he is extremely concerned at further reductions in staffing levels? If further cuts are made in civil servants in Departments, complaints will become more frequent. If staff are cut in Departments, they will also be cut in the ombudsman's office.
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. He is right and that issue is being closely observed by the Select Committee, of which he is an important member. Throughout my time on the Select Committee, which must go back for nine years or so, we have always pressed to ensure that adequate resources exist properly to service the ombudsman's committee. It is important that I put on record the fact that resources have never been denied, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) on his point. In the ombudsman's report, he acknowledges the help given to the CSA, in the form of additional staffing, since his first special report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the agency has got the staffing right.
  Mr. Pawsey: I am enjoying the interventions, but I should make some progress in order to allow other hon. Members to speak.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton suggested, many complaints submitted by Members of Parliament suggest, at face value, maladministration. They were not

  373
  accepted because they did not raise new issues and because the ombudsman's resources are finite. Therefore, those complaints do not feature in his report. The House will also understand that it takes time to recruit and train new staff.
  The Select Committee was somewhat disconcerted last year to discover that the CSA did not mention the ombudsman in its complaints literature. We wonder how many additional complaints would have been made had the public been aware of the ombudsman's existence and his responsibilities. I believe, and I am sure that I am supported by other hon. Members, that complaints can be regarded as an audit of quality, but when an internal complaints system does not refer to the ombudsman, it is unwise to claim success from the smallness of the number of complaints that find their way to him.
  I remind the House that the ombudsman is both impartial and independent. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said, the ombudsman is charged by Parliament itself to investigate complaints about maladministration. He is above party and departmental battles. He has no axe to grind and it is important that the House remembers that.
  My second issue is complaints handling. In his recent report, the ombudsman stated:
  "A particularly disturbing theme in the complaints put to me is the number of individuals who have taken up their grievances with the Child Support Agency in a constructive and reasoned way without getting satisfaction. In some cases, the CSA have had matters under consideration for a very long time without resolving them. In other cases, complaints have simply not been given proper consideration or have been ignored altogether."
  Mr. Reid—the ombudsman—added, in oral evidence to the Select Committee:
  "Far too often in the cases I have investigated, they complain to me that they write, they get no reply and when they do get a reply it is generated by a computer that knows nothing about the up-to-date circumstances."
  The House will therefore not be surprised to learn that, when we took evidence from Miss Chant, we specifically asked about local complaints handling. She believed that the delegation of case responsibility to local offices would help with the efficient handling of complaints. I was, however, more than a little concerned at the lack of firm measures being advanced to improve complaints handling. Indeed, the failure to deal competently with complaints at an early stage suggests that there should be fresh initiatives within the agency. In my view, the agency should be given a maximum time after which complaints about maladministration will be considered. I look forward specifically to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's response on that point.
  I remind the House that one third of all complaints last year to the Parliamentary Commissioner concerned the CSA. That means that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is carrying the burden of an ineffective internal complaints system. The Select Committee welcomes the recent announcement about a complaints examiner, similar to the revenue adjudicator. That is good news, and I am delighted by it. The agency, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the chief executive must take a great deal of credit for establishing that post. We welcome it and we think it is good news.
  374
  We also have reason to believe that the creation of the post was a direct response to the recommendations both of the ombudsman and of the Select Committee, but whatever the reasons, we welcome it. It shows clearly that the agency is taking on board the recommendations that are made by the Select Committee and by the ombudsman.
  Sir David Madel: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the new system is to work properly, once individuals have complained they should not get letters and demands from another office in the agency? They would be furious about that, but one of the central problems of the CSA is that the left hand and the right hand do not know what the other is doing. When individuals' earnings change, the officer will order less to be paid in maintenance, but it takes too long to get the information across.
  Mr. Pawsey: That is a valid point. I have sought to persuade the chief executive of the CSA to appoint a named official to deal with each person's case, so that there is a direct point of reference. Miss Chant believes that that cannot be done because of the complexity of the agency's operations and because of its geographical spread. However, I look forward to proposals that will further improve the work of the agency.
  My third issue is that of redress. The Select Committee previously commented on the practice of the Department of Social Security and the CSA and the way in which redress is given to those who have been harmed by maladministration. That is an especial concern of the hon. Gentleman, whose constituency I cannot recall—
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Blyth Valley.
  Mr. Pawsey: Thank you. The specific concern is about those who have been wrongly identified as the absent parent. The hon. Member for Blyth Valley has brought that point to the notice of the Select Committee on several occasions. I shall bring matters up to date. In the ombudsman's second report on the CSA, he included three further misidentification cases and added that he was still investigating a further three. Mr. Reid says, with an element of Scottish understatement:
  "I regard cases of this kind as being particularly serious and having the potential for ruining stable relationships."
  I suspect that no one in the House will disagree with that.
  In all fairness, I must stress that the number of such cases is limited. At the time of the Select Committee's first inquiry into the agency, we were told that, out of the 203,000 maintenance inquiry forms sent out between 1 April 1994 and 2 December 1994, 70 had gone to the wrong person. From 1 April 1995 to 31 January 1996, the number of identifications made in error, in which the CSA was at fault, amounted to 28 out of 170,000 cases. That is a welcome improvement and the agency undoubtedly deserves credit.
  Both the Select Committee and the ombudsman believe, however, that, when misidentification has occurred, there must be a prima facie case for compensation. Clearly, the person wrongly identified has been the victim of a wrong and scandalous allegation. In the Select Committee's report last year, we recommended that financial compensation be paid to those who have been falsely identified as the absent parent.

  375
  The Select Committee was pleased that the Government have recently accepted the recommendation and, from 1 April this year, those wrongly identified as absent parents, through the fault of the agency, will receive a consolatory payment of £100. The House may feel that that is a small enough sum when compared to the magnitude of the false allegation.
  The consolatory payment does not, however, preclude a request for more generous compensation for worry and distress. Nor will it stop the ombudsman recommending greater generosity should he deem it appropriate. I deeply regret the fact that consolatory payments, small as they are, are to be paid only from 1 April this year. Payments will not be retrospective. The Select Committee—most of its members are present in the Chamber—asks the Government to reconsider the principle of consolatory payments. If it is admitted that payment is due, it is surely entirely indefensible to withhold payment from those who suffered before April. The numbers are small and the amount of cash involved is small.
  The Government have changed their policy on interest being paid on delayed payments. That is another change that must be welcomed. The Select Committee certainly applauds it. The ombudsman, in welcoming such changes, makes it clear that there should be a more fundamental reassessment within the DSS of its attitude to compensation and redress. A review is taking place and we look forward to a speedy and helpful conclusion.
  We were disappointed by the Department's attitude to making payments for worry and distress caused by maladministration. The Department has always insisted that such payments will be made only where medical evidence can be produced. The Select Committee has always criticised that approach as being far too inflexible. There must surely be occasions—erroneous identification of an absent parent would be one—where the mere facts of the case present ample grounds for assuming exceptional worry and distress. I was pleased when Miss Chant suggested that the agency is moving towards that position.
  The Select Committee believes that the Department should move away from its rigid insistence on a medical certificate to prove distress. The Select Committee asks for humane consideration. It will pursue with vigour those cases where it believes that compensation is being denied unreasonably.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even modest compensation, where the ombudsman finds in favour of the complainant and accepts that there has been maladministration, would be acceptable and more tangible than a report finding in favour of complaint, and that the agency should be required to make some compensation when a recommendation is made?
  Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I watched my hon. Friend the Minister noting carefully what the hon. Gentleman said. My hon. Friend may refer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention when he contributes to the debate. I have utmost sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's approach.
  The Select Committee wishes to express appreciation to the ombudsman and his staff for their work in connection with the CSA. The members of the Committee welcome Miss Chant's assurance that the ombudsman's reports are disseminated throughout the agency and are used in the training of its staff. I hope that as a result the
  376
  failures that the ombudsman has identified in the past will be avoided in the future. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister and the chief executive of the agency for the work that they have done to improve the standards of the agency's work.
  11.33 am
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: This is an extremely important subject and the debate will be far too short. We are debating a subject that has probably been a significant feature of most hon. Members' constituency mailbags, certainly for the past two years since the agency came into operation. As the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration took half an hour to introduce his topics, only an hour is left before the debate must be brought to an end. I hope that, in future, we can have at least three hours on these matters, especially when two Select Committees are involved in a major issue.
  The Select Committee on Social Security has produced three reports on the Child Support Agency, the third quite recently. Two features have characterised the taking of evidence and the preparation of reports. First, there have been many principled objections to the CSA and its operations in general. Secondly, there have been some serious criticisms of its administrative ability and its lack of sensitivity in dealing with the individual cases of a large number of people.
  The break-up of a partnership is a difficult and traumatic experience. When children are involved, it is difficult for both parents. It is also difficult for the child or children. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Miss Hoey) wishes to talk about the difficulties that ensue.
  The Social Security Committee's second report drew attention to the descriptions of parents—the "parent with care" and the "absent parent". The parent who is not living with the children who are a product of the partnership is, of course, absent, but that does not mean that he or she does not care for them, is not interested in them and does not want to have a long-term relationship with them. Indeed, the opposite is the case. I hope that the Minister will recognise that that is not a minor point of political correctness. Descriptions are important because much flows from them. I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
  Many of those who have objected to the CSA have done so on the ground that it collects money to meet targets set by the Secretary of State. It attempts to meet those targets. It has often gone for targets that are easy to deal with rather than the more difficult ones because that has been the way to meet short-term objectives. The amount of money collected and handed back to the Treasury is considerable, whereas the amount collected to benefit the children involved in break-ups is very much smaller.
  There has been much discussion about the administrative procedures and principles that lie behind the CSA; little consideration has been given to what is happening to children, who have often gone through a traumatic experience, and who continue to do so. As the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said, the inefficiencies and lack of sensitivity of the CSA in dealing with many cases have led to further problems for children and exacerbated an already difficult situation in relationships.

  377
  There are many who strongly supported the approach of a court order system for settlements of marital break-up and dispute. They did so because there would be an element of discretion. The court would have been able to consider the situation in the round, take a sensible view of things and apply orders accordingly. In its initial stages, the CSA had no discretion to enable it to operate any half-sensible policy. That resulted in many difficulties.
  The Secretary of State sets collection targets. The Government's obsession with targeting is not necessarily helpful. It leads to a culture of grabbing the fastest return possible, which permeates the agency. Those who work in the agency should be considering the needs and happiness of children of partnerships that, unfortunately, have broken up. Perhaps they should consider the parties and the children involved in a more caring way than they do at present.
  I shall be brief, because I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. It is important to say, however, that the Social Security Committee's role in these matters must be to try to reflect public opinion about the efficiency and administration of the CSA. The Committee must try to ensure that the public's opinions are taken up in debates—as we, its members, will try to do this morning.
  Opposition to the Child Support Agency will not diminish or go away because of the high level of demand that it places on parents who are no longer in a partnership and who no longer live with their children—I do not want to use the title "absent parents" because many of them are not. They feel bitter and aggrieved at the way in which the CSA has treated them, and we must reflect that.
  The main conclusion of the most recent report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration states:
  "It has not been our intention to investigate or question the policy decisions relating to the CSA. Recent changes introduced by the Government are an implicit acknowledgment that … not all such decisions were correct."
  There have been enormous changes—112 have already been made. The report continues:
  "What is evident, however, both from a mass of circumstantial evidence and from the Ombudsman's report, is that any policy deficiency was cruelly exacerbated by administrative incompetence. Despite the recent experience of the DLA, basic measures to improve the handling of correspondence and complaints, the training of staff, replying to MPs, dealing with backlogs of work, were all delayed far too long. We trust that any review arising from the experience at the CSA will take much more seriously the need to learn permanent lessons about how to administer any major new project."
  Serious questions must be asked about an agency that was rushed in in such a way, which has resulted in massive public criticism and huge mailbags for Members of Parliament.
  Initially, the CSA was not able to deal even with the criticisms of Members of Parliament. I am not asking for privileges for Members of Parliament—I do not think that anyone is asking that—but if a constituent cannot get anything done by a Government Department or Government agency, they properly go to their Member of Parliament, who rightly demands a rapid response and rapid treatment. What credibility do Members of
  378
  Parliament or this place have if they, too, cannot get an answer from a Government Department? That matter must be considered thoroughly.
  In 1994–95, only 44 per cent. of all assessments were accurate. I know that claims have been made of an improvement in accuracy, but only 44 per cent.—less than half—is a dismal performance by any stretch of the imagination. There has also been a failure to meet assessment targets, so arrears of payment have built up, which is a serious matter.
  In 1995, unpaid maintenance reached a total of £701 million, which is a serious figure. I recall dealing with cases in which the failure to pay maintenance to the family or the caring parent with the child meant that they had to go back to the Department of Social Security to try to secure a crisis loan to get through a process that should have been resolved in the first place. That is bureaucratic inefficiency gone mad, and must be examined.
  From the evidence that the Select Committee took, there were suggestions that self-employed people were treated much less rigorously than employed people, and that self-employed people could deflate their income by transferring legitimate personal expenditure to business expenditure, thus falsely lowering their income and the amount that they were liable to pay. That is easy to do and must be examined much more assiduously.
  There are concerns about poor customer service, which we have referred to in our report. There are also extreme concerns about the poor quality of information and its comprehensibility.
  We must consider other concerns. The level of assessment that is being made by the Child Support Agency often means that the parent who is no longer in direct care of the children—who is described as the absent parent in all the reports—is often left with insufficient money on which to survive. I think that, in our advice surgeries, we have all met people whose partnership has broken up, who are no longer in direct day-to-day charge of the children, but who want to have a good relationship with them.
  Women and men have visited my surgery who are no longer in a direct day-to-day relationship and who have been told to pay such a huge amount of money to the CSA that they can barely live themselves, never mind find the fare to visit the children, buy presents for them or take them on holiday, which are all important for a proper caring relationship between parents and their children. The complete lack of discretion in the CSA formula has led to many of the problems.
  Likewise, where parents on income support are in care of the children, the lack of a sufficient maintenance disregard means that they are no better off. The state is benefiting because it is taking money from the so-called absent parent, but the money is not going through to the parent to pass on to the children. There should be a sufficient maintenance disregard. The Select Committee has discussed that in previous reports.
  The CSA has been targeting cases that are the easiest to deal with. More complex cases, where threats of violence are involved and where a parent feels extreme fear, seem to be shoved to one side as too difficult to deal with—and because the CSA must deal with the targets that the Government are always pushing it to meet as rapidly as possible.

  379
  The other general point is that, sometimes, on the break-up of a partnership, informal arrangements between the parents have been effective. Both parents are satisfied with the arrangements. The children are happy with them. They see that their estranged parents at least have a relaxed relationship. I have come across cases where such a satisfactory arrangement has been made, where a sum of money has been paid to the parent who is looking after the children and where, informally, the other parent is spending much more money on the children—presents, holidays and trips—as part of the relationship. The CSA, however, comes along and demands a doubling or trebling of the amount being paid, so the other parent has no money left to develop a normal relationship. There is a complete lack of flexibility in the arrangement.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: In the case that the hon. Gentleman has cited, the Child Support Agency would not be involved. Where a mother and father agree on the maintenance that should be paid and the taxpayer is not involved by paying benefit, that is an arrangement between them and there is no need for the agency to become involved.
  Mr. Corbyn: I appreciate that, but where one of the parents is on benefit, the CSA does become involved. I was referring to that situation. I hope that the Minister understood my point.
  Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again but, in that situation, it must be right and proper for the CSA to hold the ring—that is what Parliament decided when the Child Support Act 1991 was passed—between the mother, the father and the taxpayer. It is wrong that the taxpayer should have to pay unnecessarily. Taxpayers often bring up children of their own on low incomes. We must have an eye to that in deciding the fair maintenance level that should be paid.
  Mr. Corbyn: It is all very well for the Minister to say that, but there are two problems. First, the child is not any better off as a result of money being taken from the other parent—necessarily if the family is on benefit. Secondly, the Minister will be aware of the disruption that can be caused to other arrangements and other relationships, which is a serious consideration. There must be much greater flexibility.
  The Social Security Committee has considered and visited Child Support Agency offices and centres. We remain concerned about the service's efficiency. The agency's apparent achievement of targets in 1995–96 is astounding. For example, the target of 90 per cent. of payments to be made to the parent with care within 10 working days of receipt from the absent parent has apparently been overshot by 7 percentage points—it is 97 per cent. I should like to know the basis on which that information was collected because, knowing just the cases that I deal with, I have some serious questions about it. I am sure that other hon. Members are in the same position. A little more detail, therefore, on how the scores have been achieved would be extremely welcome.
  11.48 am
  Mr. Michael Lord: I want to make just two points, but before making either of them, may I say how sad it is that we must have a Child Support Agency in the first place. It is a sad comment on the state of our country. Whatever financial arrangements are made for children
  380
  when marriages or partnerships—as they are now sometimes called—break up, the children are almost always deeply damaged. We fool ourselves, as a House and as a nation, if we think that by making proper financial provision for them—at whatever level—we can compensate for the damage that has been done. We should not think that money, new arrangements and what is sometimes called quality time with children can put things right.
  My first point relates to whether legislation passed by the House does what the House expects it to do. When we debated the Bill that became the Child Support Act 1991, we all thought that its purpose was to chase errant parents who were contributing nothing to their children's welfare; but once the Act was in operation, the priority seemed to be increasing existing payments, about which we already knew, because they were the easier targets. Meanwhile, the errant parents got away with it because it was harder to catch up with them.
  The figures suggest that we are now getting those people into the net, and that they are contributing to their children's upbringing. Nevertheless, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister not just to increase the payments of absent parents to a reasonable level—it should not be an unreasonable level, as hon. Members have pointed out—but, despite the complications, to pursue even more vigorously parents who are paying nothing. That, after all, was the driving force behind the Act.
  Secondly, as a member of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, I must say that I am appalled that we could introduce a Bill that would have such far-reaching consequences, and affect so many people in relation to such sensitive issues, without having the faintest idea how we would cope once it was in operation. Our Select Committee has seen example after example of grotesque incompetence—and nothing is worse than the fact that, the day before the button was pressed to launch the system, it must have been clear to those involved that it simply would not work. On one occasion, in the Select Committee, I compared it to the charge of the Light Brigade. The idea that the administrative system could deal with the volume of problems and the deluge of correspondence was clearly nonsense, and it should have been recognised as such long before the legislation was initiated.
  Every hon. Member can cite individual cases. I encountered a happily married man who was suddenly told that he would have to start paying for an eight-year-old son who did not exist. Despite his protestations—his letters telling the agency that it had the wrong initials and the wrong details, and my letters trying to put the matter right—the case dragged on for months, doing huge damage to the man and his family, until, finally, the agency admitted that it was wrong and relieved the family of their distress. There has been much talk of compensation this morning, and I agree with what has been said, but I think that all that my constituent and his wife want is to be left in peace. They wish that they had never been assaulted by the Child Support Agency in the first place.
  Mr. Michael Connarty: As a fellow member of the Select Committee, the hon. Gentleman will remember that that happened twice to a constituent of mine. Although he was assured that his experience would not be repeated, in the following year the same claim was made against my constituent in relation to a child whom

  381
  he had not fathered. It turned out that the actual father lived 300 miles away. Should not the victims of such errors—especially double errors of that kind—be allowed compensation, even if their cases date from before April 1996?
  Mr. Lord: I entirely agree, but my point is that there are some things that money cannot put right. Those responsible should bear that in mind, and think carefully before they act.
  I believe that the system operated by the CSA is fundamentally wrong. It has now introduced an arrangement known as "total functionalisation". The hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) will know that one of my big beefs in the Select Committee is about communication, and the way in which we get things wrong through the use of jargon. "Total functionalisation"—two words that no one can understand—is a prime example. I understand that it means that, when an organisation such as the CSA is being set up from scratch and there are misgivings about how it will work, instead of one member of staff being responsible for a particular client there is something resembling a car production line: different people have different inputs at different stages, whether the case relates to birth certificates, national insurance numbers or whatever.
  If one person does not have individual responsibility, it is not surprising that there are problems. It may not be possible to remedy the situation in the short term—I acknowledge that there are huge pressures on the CSA—but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to think seriously about changing the system fundamentally, so that individual members of staff can have individual responsibility for individual cases and see those cases through. We should know who is responsible for a case, our constituents should know and, most important, the member of staff concerned should know that the buck stops with him or her.
  The Select Committee constantly emphasises that, although there is a good deal of point in dealing with complaints as we do, if, when the Parliamentary Commissioner makes his reports, we do not learn from all the damage and distress that our constituents have experienced—if we do not put things right so that we do not keep receiving complaints—we shall have missed a golden opportunity.
  11.56 am
  Ms Liz Lynne: I realise that we have very little time, so I shall try to be as brief as possible.
  We are debating some important reports, and I think that it would be wrong not to mention the report of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as well. It stated that lone mothers and children had obtained no net financial gain from the Child Support Agency and that there was no evidence that lone mothers were getting back into work, or being encouraged to do so. It also stated that emotional harm was being done to children. We know that that is true from what we are told by constituents in our surgeries; I know from a man who was sitting in my surgery in floods of tears.
  The man in question had had a reasonable relationship with his ex-wife and an excellent relationship with his son, who lived some distance away. He used to visit his son
  382
  regularly, take presents, and make masses of telephone calls. As soon as the Child Support Agency became involved, his ex-wife used it as a stick to beat him with. She started to say to his son, "Your father does not love you any more. He is not giving you presents; he is not coming to see you as much." The man—who was a tough man—sat in my surgery in floods of tears. He had just received a telephone call from his son, who had told him, "I don't want to see you any more. I don't love you any more," and then put down the receiver. That is the emotional harm. That is the cost of the CSA in human terms.
  In his report, the Parliamentary Commissioner says that the same mistakes are being made as were being made at the time of his last report. There are cases of mistaken identity, inadequate procedures, delays and confusion, but now new faults have been identified, such as breaches of confidentiality. At long last, the Minister is to appoint an independent complaints examiner. I welcome that, but let us consider mistaken identity.
  Is £100 any compensation for what might happen to a family when a letter accusing a man of fathering a child arrives on the doormat? Of course he will discuss the matter with his wife, but the untold damage that results from wrongly accusing a man of fathering a child—perhaps during the course of his relationship with his wife—cannot be compensated by £100. Those mistakes should not be occurring.
  The DSS says that the CSA is getting better, but it still has a dismal record. In April 1995, 50 per cent. of cases were being cleared within 26 weeks. I gather that provisional figures show that, by the end of March, the rate was 48 per cent.—down, even, on April 1995.
  In response to a parliamentary question about confidential information, I was told that, up to 31 October 1995, eight staff had been dismissed and that 10 had been disciplined. The CSA has a worse record than any other agency in the Department of Social Security.
  What about telephone calls? A letter arrives—again—from the CSA, panic sets in because someone is being asked for more money than they can afford, and they try to make a telephone call to the CSA. In about 50 per cent. of cases, they do not get through—they either give up trying or calls are not answered. That cannot be right when people are supposed to try to have their queries answered as quickly as possible.
  On the Social Security Committee report—
  Dr. John Reid: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Lynne: I have very little time, I am afraid.
  The Select Committee used as a source the answer to one of my parliamentary questions. The answer to that question revealed that, of the 46,000 full assessments between April and August 1995, 20,700—45per cent. of the total—were for £2.35 or less. That really is small beer when we consider what the CSA was supposed to accomplish.
  In evidence to the Select Committee, the Child Poverty Action Group spoke of the review backlog—it was one of the main aspects of its evidence. That problem has to be dealt with.
  As for the computer system, why on earth was a system that was based on a Florida system—and used in a collection agency—chosen in the first place? The hon.

  383
  Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) drew that matter to the attention of the Select Committee. The Department of Social Security must have realised, in view of the work that the CSA would have to do, that it was simply not adequate—and it was brought in far too quickly. I gather that the same company is being used by the Inland Revenue, and that that system, too, will be brought in far too quickly. If there have been problems with the CSA's system, imagine the problems that the Inland Revenue will have using it for self-assessment. The system is just not up to the job.
  I do not believe that there is any evidence that the CSA is improving the lot of the parent with care. It is certainly not improving the lot of the liable parent, and it is damaging children. First and foremost, children should come first—as the Child Support Act 1991 stated.
  The CSA is causing untold human misery, and it is less effective than the old liable relatives unit—although that operated in a pretty crazy way and certainly did not collect the maintenance that it should have done. The CSA is even worse than the liable relatives unit. It is a total, unmitigated failure, and it should be scrapped. A fair unified family court system should be introduced so that every case can be assessed individually. Children might then come first.
  12.3 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I was struck by the coincidence that the House is this morning discussing child support and, this afternoon, the Family Law Bill. In broader terms, the timing is not a coincidence because Governments and Parliaments, not only in Europe but worldwide, have to grapple with the very difficult issues of family formation and family dissolution, and particularly with the issue of divorce. I was struck by those links.
  I wonder whether the Under-Secretary of State has had any talks with the Lord Chancellor's Department about the relationship between child maintenance processes and the new divorce procedures—not least for mediation—that are being proposed in the Family Law Bill. I know that the issues are complex and that they differ from one another in many respects, but if this Parliament is to discuss and perhaps adopt a new process of mediation for divorce cases, the issue of child maintenance will not be irrelevant to those proceedings. I should like to feel that the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Department of Social Security are at least in talks, and that any interface has been explored by the Government.
  Much has been said—not only in this debate—about the sorry history of the Child Support Agency. I listened with great interest to the way in which the debate was introduced by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). I also listened to the other speeches with great care.
  We do not need to rehearse the arguments about the CSA because we all know that it has, in many respects, been an administrative failure on a very large scale. My concern is that we are in danger of missing a great opportunity of getting this policy right. One way or another, we have to establish—not only in principle but in practice—the fact that both parents have a financial responsibility for their children. If we fail to bring about, in some respects, a cultural change so that it is widely accepted that both parents have a financial responsibility
  384
  for their children's maintenance—almost whatever the circumstances, although there will always be some exceptions—it will remain a recipe for new forms of family and child poverty, growing social disadvantage and new forms of social and economic inequality.
  My anger about the CSA debacle is that it may have eroded public confidence in the Government's ability to introduce decent proposals for child maintenance. We need to rescue the policy. It started off in public debate as a recognition that fathers who had never paid a penny in support should be traced and made to face up to their responsibilities, but it has now led to a grave undermining of public confidence. There is much work to be done.
  The Minister will no doubt talk about the Government's indicators and he will point to improvements. I recognise that there have been improvements, but I also recognise that we are starting from a very dire base. The word "dire" was, in fact, used by the Select Committee on Social Security to describe the history of the policy's first 18 months.
  The agency's targets, such as procedures taking no more than 26 weeks, are fairly modest. If we were dealt with in 26 weeks by our bank or some other crucial institution in relation to our personal affairs, we would not be overly impressed.
  I also argue that the targets do not include all the right objectives, and that other indicators are more important. At the broadest level, it is crucial for social policy and family law to enable more parents, whatever their situation, to be responsible for bringing up their children. One of the saddest statistics that I have seen in recent years was from the York survey—commissioned by the Department of Social Security a few years ago—which showed that, in 43 per cent. of one-parent families, there was no contact between the child and the so-called absent parent, who was usually the father. That is an extraordinarily sad statistic. We need to encourage in various ways—in very difficult demographic circumstances—both parents to have a responsibility. That responsibility includes financial maintenance, but it is hardly the only issue.
  As mentioned earlier in the debate, one of the crucial indicators will be how the policy impacts on children's material circumstances and on the issue of child poverty. One of the reasons why we have consistently argued for a disregard is that we feel that people on income support should receive some net benefit and net income increase from what is, after all, meant to be a child support policy rather than a policy to support the Exchequer. Will the Minister tell the House what proportion of parents with care have a net benefit and net income increase from child support policy as the strategy is now operated?
  Another important indicator is whether the child support policy can be made to ensure that more parents with care who are currently out of work can return to the labour market should they wish to do so. We need to examine the strategy in those circumstances, too. I am concerned that many parents with care who are in work and receiving family credit can find that, because of a rule that many of us regard as beneficial in general—the rule that states that family credit is reassessed only after six months—they are worse off when child maintenance stops. Will the Minister share his thoughts on that with the House? Can we improve the situation so that mothers who are doing their best to be independent, albeit with

  385
  support from the state, are not penalised when child maintenance suddenly dries up and family credit appears to be pretty inflexible?
  I am also concerned that there are still a large number of cases in which, sometimes literally, fathers have never paid a penny or a pound, but are still getting away with not doing so. I am impressed by the fact that, alongside cases of fathers complaining about the inequities of the CSA and how it affects them, I am receiving more correspondence from mothers—or the parents with care—saying that they thought that Parliament had passed an Act for them, that they have given the CSA all the details but that, two or three years later, the guy is still getting away with it. Often, those people have children from more than one relationship. How is Government policy working out in that instance?
  The Select Committee had something to say about collusion and the "good cause" for the parent with care not to give information to the CSA. We are concerned to tackle the problem of collusion. We recognise that it exists and that it has to be targeted as part of a more comprehensive anti-fraud strategy, but the safety and welfare of the mother who is genuinely worried about violence and who may have been the victim of domestic violence is still absolutely paramount when it comes to trying to get a difficult policy right in practice.
  The Select Committee also made some interesting noises about whether the Inland Revenue might be the best agency to collect child support. We are interested in what proposals the Committee will come up with and we are very open-minded about it. It would be interesting to hear the Minister's view at this stage.
  12.12 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): I am grateful to the Chairmen of the two Select Committees for providing us with an opportunity to discuss the Child Support Agency's work. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, for his generous personal remarks and for what I thought was a balanced presentation of his Committee's work in respect of the CSA. I reiterate what the chief executive of the agency said in giving evidence to that Committee. She said that the agency was truly sorry for the enormous work load that it had imposed on the ombudsman and that it was determined to make considerable advances, to ensure that the work load in the future was dramatically reduced.
  My remarks will be brief as I do not wish to detain the House for long. This is an opportunity for my colleagues and me to listen to the comments of the members of the two Committees, and I have certainly done just that. I shall respond in writing to any comments that they may have made which I cannot respond to now.
  There is no doubt that the context of our debate on the CSA has changed, despite the views of the Liberal Democrats. Its targets, which were referred to rather dismissively by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), concern not only collection and arrangement but a range of the agency's other activities. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that there are other aspects
  386
  that we should try to target in terms of service standards, I hope that he will tell us, because we would certainly consider his views.
  The funding arranged for children and for mothers, principally, over the past year has increased dramatically. It is not money for the Treasury, as the hon. Member for Islington, North suggested. In fact, 75 per cent. of the £301.5 million maintenance paid by absent parents has gone to parents with care, and 25 per cent. has been retained by the Secretary of State, but that, of course, is to offset social security benefits that have been paid for their children by the taxpayer. That is a remarkable improvement. In the last month alone, the agency collected more money than in the whole of its first year of operation. That reveals how dire the performance was in the early days, but it also shows how far the agency has come.
  Accuracy has been mentioned. Accuracy to within 1p, which is the measure that we use, has increased from 50 per cent. to 79 per cent., exceeding the target of 75 per cent. Accuracy is a matter of great concern to both Select Committees, and I pay tribute to the agency for that dramatic increase. We have set the agency a harsh target for next year, and I am determined that it shall meet it.
  Mention was made of the speed with which money is passed to the parent with care. The hon. Member for Islington, North said that he found the figure of 97 per cent. suspicious. The figure is all the more remarkable, in that the remaining 3 per cent. covers bouncing cheques and so on. That shows that the agency is getting the money through quickly, which I know has been a matter of great concern.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk (Mr. Lord) hit the nail on the head when he explained the circumstances in which the CSA operates. In relation to the CSA's performance and whether it aims at soft targets, I can say that about 77 per cent. of all clients of the agency were getting nothing at all when they first approached the agency. Therefore, it is not a case of the agency aiming at easy targets.
  The agency has traced 133,000 absent parents and now traces about 1,000 a week. They are people who are trying to get away without meeting their commitments. The agency's performance in that respect has also improved significantly.
  Of course, the CSA undertakes not only a child support assessment operation but enforcement, which has also been mentioned today. One thousand deduction from earnings orders are imposed each week, and there has been a massive increase in the number of liability orders that have been sought and obtained in the past year. The CSA will shortly be able to register debt on the register of county court judgments which, in other instances, have proved to be an effective way of ensuring that the self-employed meet their obligations.
  As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth made a very balanced speech from the point of view of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. We shall shortly hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes), the deputy Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security. The Chairman has an unbreakable appointment and is not able to be with us, but my hon. Friend will fill his shoes admirably.

  387
  The Government have replied to the report published by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and we greatly welcome that issued by the Social Security Select Committee. Its robust approach to and support for the principles of our child support policies are greatly welcomed. I also welcome the comments made by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), and agree with all of them except for that in relation to the disregard.
  The agency is unique among Government operations in that it needs to balance the interests of a number of parties, including the mother, father and taxpayer, in every case that it handles. The process is inevitably complex and therefore at risk of error or deliberate obstruction. There is therefore the potential for any part of the processes involved to break down, and there is more likelihood that one or other of the parents in any case will complain. A good result for the parent with care may well be a bad result for an absent parent, or vice versa.
  The changes that the Government introduced in—
  Mr. Connarty rose—
  Mr. Mitchell: I apologise for not giving way, but time is short. I must make progress.
  The changes that the Government introduced in 1995 addressed the main areas of concern. They were introduced to avoid undue hardship for the parents involved and to enable the CSA to operate more effectively. Some of the changes resulted from the considered and helpful Select Committee reports.
  We introduced a cap on maintenance assessments, which restricts the amount that an absent parent can be assessed as having to pay to a maximum of 30 per cent. of his net income. I urge the House to judge some of the lurid hardship stories that we read about in that context.
  There is now also an allowance in the formula for travel-to-work costs and provision to recognise existing property and capital settlements. Future changes, which are currently being piloted, will allow for a departure from the formula assessment in prescribed circumstances. We also plan to introduce a child maintenance bonus, which will provide a lump sum payment for parents with care moving off benefit into work, which will be introduced in April 1997.
  In addition, we have introduced changes to improve the agency's administration, including some simplifications in the assessment of housing costs and earnings, and changes in the review procedures. The agency has introduced measures to improve the accuracy of its assessments through enhanced training and better targeted quality checks. It is making better use of local office staff, by extending the availability of the child support computer system to local offices. Those changes have led to the significant improvement in accuracy that I mentioned earlier.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth referred to the CSA's functional approach to inquiries. What in CSA jargon is called the CAST—complete action service team—system, which means that cases will be handled virtually totally on one desk, will be introduced in the coming year and result in a much more user-friendly service being available to the agency's clients.
  388
  Those and other changes to the policies have been introduced speedily and efficiently by the agency, which has been acknowledged by the Select Committees on Social Security and on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in recent reports.
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Mitchell: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because I shall not. I want to make a number of other points.
  As I announced recently, an independent complaints examiner will be appointed later this year, which is in response to the ombudsman's suggestion in his report. I also recently announced improvements that we are introducing to the CSA's compensation scheme. Parents with care will now receive interest payments on any maintenance that is collected by the agency but not passed on quickly. In addition, we have reduced from three months to one month the period after which compensation will be considered for "culpable delay". A new type of conciliatory payment has been introduced for cases where a maintenance inquiry form is sent to the wrong person.
  The Social Security Committee is critical of the fact that some
  "violent or threatening absent parents are rewarded for their unacceptable behaviour by being exempt from paying maintenance".
  We share that concern. The extent of the problem has been highlighted by the report, "Good Cause", which we recently published. Its findings suggest that there is a high level of collusion among some parents with care and absent parents who use the alleged threat of harm and undue distress to avoid being assessed by the agency.
  We have therefore made a number of recommendations to address those findings. In particular, we are considering doubling the amount of the reduced benefit direction. That penalty is imposed when the parent refuses to co-operate with the agency for no good reason. We are also proposing that the penalty should remain in force for as long as the relevant child qualifies for child support maintenance, rather than for 18 months as at present.
  The Social Security Committee has said that it is considering a radical simplification of the formula method of assessment. The less complex the formula, the greater the level of rough justice. I should tell the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West that in Australia and New Zealand, where there is a simpler method of assessment, pressure groups claim that the approach is less fair than those in use elsewhere.
  Last year there was major change in primary legislation. There have been many further administrative and legislative changes in the agency. The aim is to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its work, and the figures that I was able to announce to the House yesterday demonstrate that a significant start has been made. The agency is getting maintenance through for children. Above all, it is increasingly doing what is absolutely key to its work—providing for fair maintenance levels.
  There will still be difficulties. Both Select Committees are at pains to point out that the agency touches on the most difficult and sensitive aspects of many people's lives. There are still far too many complaints about its work, but the nature of them is changing. As the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West said, the balance of complaints often comes from women who know that they can receive the

  389
  maintenance to which they are entitled because of examples of payments among their friends and neighbours. They write to the agency to ensure that they get what they deserve.
  It is also true that, by and large, complaints from fathers are about the imposition of a deduction from earnings order. That is the nature of the vast majority of complaints that I receive from absent parents. It is right, however, and in the interests of children that a deduction from earnings order should be imposed, and we do so only when it is impossible to secure payments by any other means.
  The Government are committed to doing whatever is necessary to continue the recent steep improvement in the CSA's work, and to ensure that it delivers the service that Parliament originally set for it, and which its clients have a right to expect.
  12.24 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for creating the new position of deputy Chairman of the Select Committee on Social Security and for appointing me to it. Doubtless I shall recover eventually.
  Mr. Corbyn: I doubt it.
  Mr. Hughes: I have been told that I shall not recover from it, and I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for saying so.
  Debates on the CSA are too often more historical than contemporary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, said. That is in essence the apparent difference between the reports of the two Select Committees.
  I do not want to put it too strongly, but I am impelled to question how seriously we should take the comments of the Parliamentary Commissioner, who does not have targets to meet on the time taken to consider cases, on how long the CSA takes to consider cases—
  Mr. Connarty: That is not true.
  Mr. Hughes: He takes rather longer than the CSA. I welcome what my hon. Friends the Chairman and the Minister said about the improvements in meeting those targets.
  Mr. Connarty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: No, I will not, because I have very little time.
  The Social Security Committee's recent report marks quite a change. It says:
  "The Agency has shown that it is able to implement significant changes … quickly and efficiently … the Government should be confident that the Agency will be able to efficiently implement further changes".
  390
  It is important that people recognise that and that the CSA is here to stay. It will need to change and to continue to evolve. I echo the praise of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth for the changes that have been made by my hon. Friend the Minister and by the chief executive, Ann Chant, who has transformed the way in which the agency works.
  Managers and staff at the agency have worked extremely hard and effectively in dealing with a backlog, a raft of substantial changes and abuse from people who do not like either the way in which they have been treated or—very often—the decisions that have been made. We should consider two things. First is the effect of our words on the staff. They need to understand that we recognise that improvements have been made. Of course there are problems, but we recognise that they have worked hard and made improvements.
  Secondly, we need to recognise the effect on CSA customers. A rather rose-tinted view of absent parents has run through the debate. Yet many such people are absent. They connive and lie to exempt themselves from paying for the upkeep of their own children and simply think that the taxpayer should pick up the tab. Of course, many have been the victims of bad administration, but many others deserve—and will receive—the full weight and pressure of the CSA.
  I should like to comment on the report "Good Cause", to which my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) referred. The Social Security Committee's recent report recommended that a review of the practice and procedure in this area should be undertaken by the agency, and that its findings should be made known and acted on. We wanted a simplified complaints procedure.
  My hon. Friend the Minister has broken new ground. He has set an admirable precedent in asking the Select Committee to consider a number of issues such as the level of benefit deductions made because of non-co-operation, the duration and circumstances of those deductions, whether the cooling-off period should be abolished, whether benefit should be dependent on co-operation, and how procedures can best be applied to guard against collusion. This afternoon, we shall consider when and how we shall respond.
  I agreed entirely with what the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West said about the protection of the woman who has been threatened with violence. However, apple pie is not policy and that is all that he gave us today.
  Plainly, our Committee, like the other Select Committee, will return to the subject many times. However, we must accept that when changes are made, those very improvements and administrative successes will be used by people to criticise the work of the CSA. If one does not want to pay, an effective CSA is worse than an ineffective CSA.
  There are three messages. We welcome the massive improvements, we look for more effective administration and better handling of customers—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

  Housing (Sheffield)
  12.30 pm
  Mr. Clive Betts: I put on record what may be a technical interest, in that, whenever I refer to the need for additional resources for Sheffield city council, I am arguing not for resources for the organisation itself, but for resources that may be spent to the benefit of my constituents.
  I am pleased to be able to raise this issue today. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I spent 16 years on Sheffield city council, nine years of which were spent on the housing committee—of which I was chair for six years. I intend to address several matters. First, there is the requirement for new house building in Sheffield, which was set out by the city council in its strategy statement. More than 5,000 new homes are required by the turn of the century and it is estimated that about half those new homes should be provided in the rented sector at affordable rents because not all individuals can afford to buy their homes, whatever their aspirations may be.
  There is a need for more money to be spent on improvements and repairs in older private sector housing. Again, the council strategy statement says that, on the latest estimate, 9,000 homes in the private sector in Sheffield are unfit. Some 900 people are on the waiting list for improvement grants.
  In the council sector, there is a need for expenditure on repairs and improvements. There is a need to modernise all our inter-war property and a need for major refurbishment work on tower blocks. I do not have such tower blocks in my constituency, but I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), who is sitting beside me, has a number of tower blocks in need of refurbishment.
  Work is needed on deck access blocks, although Sheffield has already done a lot of work on them. I think especially of the partial demolition and partial renovation of the Hyde Park scheme to which the then Minister, David Trippier, gave special approval as part of the package of facilities provided for the world student games. That was one housing benefit that came out of that event.
  Work is also needed on basic improvements, such as the installation of central heating. The difficulty is that the city's housing investment programme of £30 million is totally inadequate to deal with that range of problems within a reasonable time scale.
  We have in this case a local authority with an excellent track record of identifying and using all kinds of capital resources. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, it has used all its housing investment programme and it has used other programmes such as the urban programme. It has frequently been given additional resources because it has been able to spend its money up to the limit and in a proper way.
  The authority used prescribed receipts in the 1980s up to the maximum possible and it therefore developed very good planned maintenance programmes. In the 1980s, it installed almost 30,000 central heating schemes in local authority homes through a leasing arrangement. It developed a housing partnership scheme with local builders and housing associations which built more than 1,500 homes to rent. It used original techniques, such as the enveloping scheme which benefited 2,000 homes in
  392
  the private sector, which was followed by the use of the block grant scheme. That benefited 250 households in the private sector.
  During the 1980s, perhaps in contrast with what was happening in some parts of the country and despite Government policy, Sheffield city council boosted its housing investment programme from about £20 million to about £100 million. That was a substantial increase to the benefit of local people. That was where much of Sheffield's expansion of capital development went.
  Sheffield also pioneered many innovative measures in housing management. The area-based management scheme was introduced to devolve and decentralise arrangements, and area offices were built so that people could have access to housing services at a local level. A major consultation programme was introduced to ensure that tenants participated in the decisions being taken about their homes.
  Tenants' associations were formally recognised, and a tenants' levy scheme—the only one of its kind still operating in this country—was introduced whereby, through their rents, tenants could pay a levy that was passed on to recognised local tenants' associations so that they could have a full and active involvement in what happened in their locality.
  An official repairs scheme was introduced. It is interesting that, when I became a councillor in 1976, the majority of complaints in my surgery were about repairs. Now they are about the fact that people cannot get a home at all, and few complaints are about the repairs system operating in the city.
  The problem is one of reduced resources; that is the key issue in this debate. Housing investment programme allocations were cut progressively throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s. At the same time, investment for housing associations and the housing action grant were reduced.
  The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 meant that local authorities could no longer use non-prescribed receipts for planned maintenance schemes. That was a devastating blow because planned maintenance schemes were an efficient use of resources. Roofs were replaced, homes were rewired and windows were replaced. Maintaining the basic fabric of properties eventually saved money because less money had to be spent on responsive repairs.
  The council embarked on a partnership scheme; again, that was an original idea and the scheme was the only one of its kind in the country. Some 1,500 new homes were built, but what did the Government do? They introduced specific legislation to stop such schemes. I remember sitting in a room in Sheffield town hall and signing the agreement for the scheme at 11.30 pm as the new legislation, which would stop such schemes, was coming into effect at midnight.
  The council introduced a leasing scheme for central heating whereby tenants paid a rent increase to cover the cost. That was stopped as part of the Government's clamp-down on local authorities' right to borrow in various ways to improve their housing stock. It is nonsense that people who buy their council house can go to a gas company and can borrow money to have central heating put in from the financial institutions that were doing deals with Sheffield city council to put central heating in council houses through a leasing scheme.

  393
  One is good; the other, apparently, is bad. If it is investment in the private sector involving borrowing from private institutions, it is good. If the public sector borrows from the same private institutions and tenants pay a rent increase to cover the cost, apparently that is bad and should be stopped. That was nonsense, but it stopped a worthwhile programme in its tracks.
  Nationally, the Government have cut housing investment by almost half since 1992. The figures I have given show that, since 1990, Sheffield's investment programme has been cut from £100 million to £30 million. That is the scale of the reduction. The problems have not lessened, but the resources to tackle them have.
  The Government's belief that, if they stopped local authority building, the resources would go elsewhere was not true. The number of private homes started in Sheffield was about 800 a year throughout the 1980s. The figure has not risen since 1980. In the 1980s, housing associations developed about 400 homes a year; the figure was lower at the beginning of the 1980s, but similar to the figure for the end of the 1970s. It is simply a fact that local authority building has come to a complete standstill, whereas during the 1970s, Sheffield built more than 1,000 homes a year. As late as 1980, it built 1,200 homes.
  I now turn to the problems in my constituency which reflect those across the city in many respects. There is a diversity of needs. We need new homes. We have an innovative project called the Attercliffe village project. Local housing associations, the local authority, local builders and the local community are working together and we have the prospect of building new homes.
  The difficulty is that there is no housing action grant to support the housing association scheme, although it is hoped that English Partnerships may help. The project is brown-field development on contaminated land. It can be cleaned up, but there is a price because housing there is more expensive. However, it is housing relatively near the city centre which local people want. If we could develop a scheme that also involved local people training to build those homes, so that we could do something about the high unemployment in the Darnall area, that would be a bonus. We shall work hard at that, but so far we have not had the necessary Government support.
  In another part of my constituency, which is nearly out in the countryside, what almost amounts to a new town is being built in the Mosborough area. My hon. Friend the Member for Heeley, who was chair of the planning committee, will remember the initial aspirations to build a balanced community there, with public and private sector housing. Of course that balance has gone, because only the private housing is being built. It is a shame that some green fields are being built on, when we ought to concentrate our investment on the brown-field sites—the disused industrial sites nearer the city centre. Again the balance is wrong, and we need to sort it out.
  Many people who have moved to private housing in the Mosborough area say that they want their elderly parents to come and join them there—but where is the council housing and the housing association property for them to move to? All too often, it does not exist.
  There is enormous demand in the council sector. There are 13,000 people wanting immediate housing on the waiting list in Sheffield, and there are now nearly 10 times
  394
  as many homelessness acceptances as there were in 1979. The right to buy has had a disproportionate effect on the number of rented properties in my constituency. In parts of my area, we have had the highest percentage use of right to buy in the city, and for some sorts of property there is a ten-year waiting list.
  When one talks to housing officers in Sheffield, it is interesting to find out that although there is a great demand for some property, at the other end of the scale properties are becoming almost unlettable. People's aspirations have increased, and they also know that if they get into an unmodernised property without central heating, they will have little chance of getting a transfer out in the foreseeable future. With the current resources available, there is also little chance that the house will be modernised,
  So people say, "We'll wait a bit; we'll wait for a modernised property." In this day and age, who wants to move into a home without central heating? There are still 15,000 such homes in Sheffield, and that is not acceptable in this country, as we move into the new century.
  Mr. Bill Michie: There is a logjam in all housing authorities nowadays. Because of the lack of investment, many families and single people are in the wrong properties. We are not building new housing, which would give them a choice, so we are left with people in three-bedroomed houses who could do with only two bedrooms. Unless we get some new build, that anomaly will remain for years to come.
  Mr. Betts: My hon. Friend is right; in certain parts of the city there are shortages of larger properties for larger families, of properties for disabled people and elderly people, and of various other sorts of specialist housing.
  All the time there is the feeling that the clamp-down on local authority housing resources is worsening the quality of the housing stock. The Government's policy of always talking down council housing and local authorities leads to such property being stigmatised and treated as a form of "welfare housing", rather than as an alternative form of tenure.
  In my constituency there are estates of good quality houses built to Bevan standards in the 1950s, such as Ballifield, Thornbridge and Base Green. Although the houses are basically good, they need investment in improvements such as central heating. After 40 years, the metal windows in the houses in the Hackenthorpe estate are rotting and decaying, and they need replacing. People deserve better than that.
  A delegation came to me from the flats in Richmond road. The old-age pensioners there look at the condensation running down their windows and the rotting frames, and know that there is no money to replace them. That is not acceptable. In the 1980s we used non-proscribed receipts for planned maintenance schemes to rectify such problems.
  The city council has been imaginative. It has put in for Government schemes such as estate action and single regeneration budgets, and has been successful. We are not pushing Government schemes, or any other help that is offered, to one side; we simply say that that help is not sufficient.
  In the private sector we have a major renewal project in the Darnall area. Did I say a major renewal project? In fact we are renewing only 40 homes a year. At that rate

  395
  it would take more than 10 years to do all those houses, and that is not acceptable, considering that many of them are unfit. Alongside them, we can see the great successes in Tinsley road and Staniforth road, where enveloping schemes saved the houses and the communities. We went in and did all the work on all the roofs and walls, the damp proofing and the rewiring. The fabric of the properties was tackled all together. Those were good schemes but, unfortunately, Government legislation stopped them.
  The Minister will probably say, "The solutions are obvious. All Sheffield city council has to do is to let its vacant properties." So before he does, let me tell him that the council has an excellent record. Only 1.6 per cent. of its properties are vacant—a figure below the Government target of 2 per cent. And before the Minister tells us that we should collect our rents better, I shall tell him that in each of the past five years Sheffield city council has collected 99 per cent. of the rent due for the year. Last year it collected more than 100 per cent., and over a five-year period it has reduced arrears as a percentage of the rent due by one third. The council can be proud of that record, which has been achieved despite the fact that in cash terms rents have increased fivefold since 1979.
  Mr. Michie: Tell the Prime Minister.
  Mr. Betts: My hon. Friend is talking about the response that he got from the Prime Minister to one of his questions last week.
  The solution is obvious. It is about more investment, and the release of capital receipts. Sheffield now has £40 million that could be spent on housing investment, and if it were available we could start the process of renewing housing there, and creating more new homes.
  I accept that that would be only a start, but the Government could signal a different attitude towards local authority and other public sector housing. They could accept that there should be diversity in housing, that public sector housing is not second class, and that different people need different types of housing because they have different housing needs at different times in their lives. Some of those needs will properly be met by local authorities, and some by housing associations. There should be no stigma attached to being a council tenant. People should not be regarded as failures if they have not achieved owner-occupier status.
  We can investigate innovations such as local housing companies, which are allowed under the Housing Bill. However, I argue strongly that most tenants—certainly those in Sheffield—want to remain with the local authority. Of course there are occasionally complaints about the authority, but by and large there is a good relationship, and tenants want to remain. We should allow investment from the private sector to be made in local housing companies that remain within the public sector.
  We must also tackle the problem of renewal in private housing in the old inner-city areas such as Darnall. We need more resources for that, and perhaps we should consider innovations such as combinations of loans and grants to maximise the use of resources, both public and private, to save the infrastructure of those houses before we have to embark on a new slum clearance programme.
  We must also deal with the rents in the housing association sector. The idea of rents of £60 a week, which take one third of the income of people who move into the properties, is nonsense.
  396
  The housing needs of Sheffield are clear for anyone to see. It is now time to give housing there and throughout the country the priority that it deserves. It is time to give to Sheffield council and other local authorities, and to housing associations, the resources that they need to ensure that housing needs are met. We cannot tackle all the problems at once—no Government can—but at least we can start moving in the right direction.
  12.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I welcome the opportunity to set out the Government's policies to meet housing needs. It may assist the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) if, before turning to the particular issues that he has raised in connection with Sheffield, which I shall discuss in due course, I set those policies in a wider context and deal with some of the wider issues that arise from what he said.
  The issue of housing need in general has achieved some prominence recently, with my Department's White Paper and with the work of the Select Committee on the Environment. It may be helpful if I take those, and the Government's policies, as a starting point.
  The Select Committee commended the Government for publishing estimates of future housing need. We want to encourage debate—informed debate. The Committee also acknowledged many of the uncertainties in estimating need, and the fact that there is no clear "right answer". It also commended our efforts to improve methodology.
  The Committee supported the Government's estimate that 60,000 to 100,000 additional social lettings were required each year. In view of the hon. Gentleman's comments, and his concentration on local authority new build, I shall deal in some detail later with exactly how we are meeting those needs in diverse ways. We share the Committee's view that that estimate is a good starting point for debate. We are considering the Committee's recommendations carefully and will respond to them shortly, so I do not want to anticipate that response today.
  At the lower end of the range, public investment is providing an average of about 60,000 additional lettings a year. Investment at that level means that about 300,000 households every year move into a home in the social sector. Provision at that level leaves proper scope for some of the demand to be met by the private sector through additional growth in home ownership and renting.
  Home ownership has continued to grow in recent years, and the number of private rented homes has increased faster than expected—to some extent as a result of the Government's successes in reforming the legislative framework for the private rented sector. That does not bear out the view of the pessimists who argue for very high levels of provision of social housing. The number of people in severe housing need is small in absolute terms, and the Government are taking steps to drive the figure lower. We regularly monitor a number of indicators of housing stress, and those show that the numbers of people in overcrowded conditions, in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and sleeping rough have all fallen substantially in recent years.
  It is right to put it on record that home ownership is still what the vast majority of people want. Low interest rates, stable house prices and sustained growth in the economy and jobs help to make it more affordable for many.

  397
  Our estimate of 1.5 million more owner-occupiers over the next 10 years reflects current trends. They include the replacement of older households by younger and middle-aged households that are more likely to own, and existing rates of right-to-buy sales, to which we attach considerable importance. With continuing growth in home ownership, there has been a 200,000 increase in the past five years in the number of private rented homes and an improvement in quality.
  It is important to emphasise, in response to the hon. Gentleman's concentration on local authority new build as the form of provision for social housing, that we must consider the total number of new social lettings that public expenditure provides in several different ways in addition to those that he specified. It would be inaccurate to consider only the figure for local authority new build. That ignores the homes built by housing associations, with local authority housing association grant in some cases; building for low-cost home ownership through housing associations; housing associations that buy rundown private property; and the dwellings freed by incentives to buy in the private sector. All those means help to create provision for meeting social housing need.
  Over the five years from 1991 to 1996, public investment has provided about 250,000 homes for social renting or shared ownership by building new homes and rehabilitating old ones. That is meeting the need of the social tenants who move into those properties, irrespective of whether the accommodation is provided by the local authority, a housing association or whatever. The important point is that social housing need is being met. An additional 7,000 social lettings have been created by incentives for tenants to buy their own homes in the private sector, which is good in itself because it gives tenants opportunities as well as releasing homes for others who need social housing.
  Public expenditure on new social housing remains high. The Housing Corporation's approved development programme in 1996–97 exceeds £1 billion and it is expected to lever in £827 million in private finance. I take issue with the distinctions that the hon. Gentleman made between public and private finance. He should bear it in mind that that private finance is, in its own way, going to help meet social housing need. It is not adding to the burden on public expenditure and the public sector borrowing requirement. That is an important point. Housing associations have attracted around £6 billion in private finance since 1988–89 to supplement approved development programme and local authority funding.
  It is also essential that we make the best use of existing housing stock, both for the housing opportunity that empty dwellings represent and to reduce the need for new development. More than 4 per cent. of housing in England is vacant—about 800,000 homes. In the White Paper, we set a target to reduce that figure to 3 per cent. over the next decade. We intend to do that by encouraging people to rent property rather than leave it empty, by creating the conditions for a healthy housing market so empty homes are sold, by investing through housing associations that buy up rundown properties, repair them and bring them back into use, and by improving the performance of all parts of the public sector, including the local authorities'
  398
  strategic role working with the Empty Homes Agency. We are also addressing the issue of homelessness in the Housing Bill that is currently before the House.
  The debate about the provision of affordable housing usually involves comments what about could be achieved by freeing up authorities' accumulated capital receipts. That has been touched on tangentially today. There is no escaping the fact that any extra money spent by local authorities from their capital receipts would add to public expenditure and to the public sector borrowing requirement. Local authority debt stood at more than £36 billion in March 1995 and it cost £3.4 billion to service in 1994–95. Our policy of requiring certain proportions of capital receipts to be set aside for debt redemption reduces the burden of servicing local authority debt. That is a prudent approach.
  It is important to recognise the separation between the need to spend and the ability to generate receipts. The competitive housing investment programme and local authority capital control systems allow resources to be allocated to the authorities with the greatest needs and those that make the most effective use of them.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, in its housing strategy, Sheffield city council estimates a need for 5,600 new homes by the year 2001 and that 40 to 50 per cent. would need to be rented by households that cannot afford to buy at current prices. During the five and a half years to the end of June 1995, an annual average of just over 900 dwellings were started. Sheffield will, of course, benefit from the range of policies that I have described. Homelessness in Sheffield has been falling, from an earlier peak than the national one. In 1995, the homelessness rate in Sheffield was 0.9 per thousand households, compared with the national rate of 1.4.
  The hon. Gentleman adverted to the housing investment programme. As he knows, HIP resources are distributed first to regions, then to local authorities using the generalised needs index and indicators for specified capital grant. Housing Corporation resources are allocated in a similar way through another index. A fundamental review of those indicators, especially the new provision indicator, was completed last year and used in the allocations for 1996–97. The changes to both indicators have significantly benefited Sheffield. In addition, stress area enhancement was introduced into the generalised needs index and Sheffield has been a significant beneficiary of that.
  On the Housing Corporation and meeting need through housing association, the Housing Corporation's approved development programme resources allocated to Sheffield increased from £5.8 million for 1995–96 to £8.2 million for 1996–97. The total number of lettings provided through all programmes is up from 323 to 500. The competitive approach to housing investment programme allocations continued in allocations for 1996–97, and that produced a £17.9 million HIP allocation to Sheffield.
  Sheffield has also benefited from the single regeneration challenge fund, providing a new opportunity for partnerships locally to determine their priorities and develop a holistic approach to regeneration. In the first two years of the single regeneration budget, Sheffield has chosen to concentrate regeneration on areas of housing disadvantage. It has secured two of the largest SRB awards nationally, with approvals of £38 million and £36 million in rounds 1 and 2 respectively. The content of any round 3 bids will be for local decision.

  399
  However, Sheffield's performance on some of the housing management indicators remains disappointing in some respects. The hon. Gentleman referred to some of those. There is an issue over the number of empty local authority dwellings available for letting. I understand that there are 708 empty local authority dwellings available for letting. That represents a management voids rate of 1.6 per cent. compared with an average of 1.2 per cent. for similar authorities in the region. It takes an average of 48 days to re-let management voids in Sheffield. I understand that current tenants' rent arrears amount to 4.4 per cent. of the rent roll. That compares with a regional average for similar authorities of 2.8 per cent.
  Mr. Betts: First, will the Minister confirm that, in its allocation policy, Sheffield gives people on waiting lists a choice so that they do not have to accept the first home that is offered? That can mean longer periods in which houses are vacant, but it is a good policy. Secondly, on rents, does he accept that overpayments of benefit are put into rent arrears figures in Sheffield but that they are not in many authorities? That distorts the comparison.
  Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman speaks with his special knowledge of Sheffield. The comparisons that I am making are relevant—
  Mr. Betts: They are wrong.
  Mr. Clappison: They are not wrong; they are accurate. They are between the performance of Sheffield and that of other local authorities in the region.
  While I am pleased when Sheffield benefits from Government programmes such as the SRB and estate action, it is important to consider its performance and the ways in which it can be improved. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want to cast a critical eye over that performance when it comes to important issues such as voids, which are keeping additional people in housing need through inefficiency, and also rent arrears, which must be an important issue for any local authority. Those are important matters to which Sheffield must give some attention. Clearly, there is room for improvement.
  The White Paper emphasised the Government's continuing commitment to improving the condition and diversifying the ownership of social housing through the voluntary transfer of council housing to local landlords. I welcome Sheffield's work on the local authority stock management options study, which has been developing our knowledge of the practicalities of such transfers. We have also initiated the estates renewal challenge fund with £310 million of new money to deal with those issues.
  That approach is somewhat at odds with the hon. Gentleman's approach, which concentrated heavily on local authority new build provision as being the only way to meet need. The hon. Gentleman is aware that there are many other ways of doing that.

  West Bromwich Building Society
  1 pm
  Mr. William Powell: I rise to express the anger, frustration, disappointment and despair of thousands of our fellow countrymen and their families who found themselves caught up in the disgraceful scandal over the selling of failed bond-based home income plans.
  This is not the first time that the matter has been raised in the House or that I have spoken about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) was the first person to raise the matter in the House, and did so before the last general election. Since early 1992, I do not think that a single day has passed without my being faced with some problem that has arisen because of the outrageous and dishonest way in which such plans were sold, leaving in their wake a trail of human tragedy and disaster.
  The home income plans have been a major cause of the suicides of at least three people, because of the circumstances in which they found themselves trapped. The first was a former constituent of mine, Mr. Cyril Whitta. The matter before the House has caused immense grief and great pain, and there is much frustration that, after all these years, the problem has still not been solved.
  Although that is the basic background and the general picture is one of gloom and despair, a few shining lights of heroism have inspired me and other right hon. and hon. Members as we have tried in one way and another to tackle the consequences of this fiasco.
  I must single out three remarkable individuals—one, a Mr. Craven from east Yorkshire, whom I have never met; the redoubtable and determined Mrs. Hawkins of Bromley in Kent; and Mr. Philip Cheal, formerly of Peterborough and now of Charford—who have held together the group of people who have found themselves to be victims—I use the word advisedly—of that scandal. Their constant work, all of which has been given freely despite the fact that they are no longer as young as they were and have been substantial victims of the scandal, has enabled countless hundreds and even thousands of people to fight on and try to achieve some recompense and justice in the circumstances. Without their efforts, the matter would have been forgotten a long time ago.
  I pay tribute to the scores of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been in touch with me and other hon. Members to ensure that matters that their constituents raised with them were properly pursued with the various authorities, including, but not exclusively, those in government. I also pay tribute to the courageous and determined way in which the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have pursued the matter.
  Again and again, we three have endeavoured to co-operate on this matter at least, to ensure that it was pursued on an all-party basis and not merely as a series of one-offs affecting individual Members of Parliament but without any co-ordination. Informally, we have tried to act together, and have spent many hours pursuing the matter.
  Many other hon. Members have played a part. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) has come into the Chamber

  401
  for the debate, because he played a distinguished part in the proceedings of the Treasury Select Committee when it looked into the operation of the Financial Services Act 1986.
  I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who inherited the responsibility last summer, taking over from my hon Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), who is now Minister for Trade and who had handled it for years. She has done all she possibly can, as he did, to ensure that some justice is found for those who were so unhappily caught up in this scandal.
  I pay tribute to those in the Securities and Investments Board and the Building Societies Commission. I have taken the matter to the Serious Fraud Office, and it has been in the hands of a number of police forces. All sorts of public authorities of one sort or another have tried to use their influence to bring some pressure to bear and to achieve some solution, so far, for the most part, with an inadequate result.
  Those who took out home income plans certainly number more than 10,000. Incredibly, we keep discovering new ones every day. It is likely that around 18,000 people purchased between 1986 and 1988, and the average age is now 74 to 75. Some have achieved settlements with societies and are assured of lifetime occupation, but many are left with debts of £20,000 or more and rising. As time passes, they find that they own less of their home, and, in many cases, the larger part of their equity has already gone.
  Several hundred, including most recently Mrs. Vera O'Neil of Woodfield grove, Corby, a constituent of mine, have died not knowing how the matter would finally be resolved. The strain that she and others have been under and the worry of not knowing how the matter could be properly sorted out was extraordinary. All of us who have had personal contact with those involved have seen some of the enormous pressures they faced as a consequence.
  The simple fact is that the financial regulatory system has failed because of widespread mis-selling by undertrained and largely under-regulated sales people. Many independent financial advisers have been involved in selling failed plans, which were regulated by the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Organisation—FIMBRA—but which have defaulted.
  There are some extraordinary examples. Fisher Pruw Smith was a front for the West Bromwich building society. One of the gentlemen concerned—Mr. Fisher—is still in this country, in Southport, Lancashire, but Mr. Pruw Smith is enjoying the life of Riley no doubt, in Spain. Aylesbury Associates is another front responsible for selling many such plans. Mr. Boerr, the gentleman behind it, is no doubt currently trout farming with great success at Westerham in Kent.
  These organisations made outrageous claims to the people who purchased the plans—in particular, that there would be no mortgage involved and that they could not possibly lose their homes. Solicitors acting on behalf of various people failed to point out the legal implications of these matters. I raised this matter in the House a couple of years ago, when we were debating the Report stage of a Finance Bill. We saw examples of application forms
  402
  stating incomes that had been forged—sometimes a nought was added on the end of the alleged income of the applicant. We have seen fraudulent misrepresentations, forgery, and disastrous misrepresentations that have left human misery in their wake.
  The West Bromwich building society heads the list of infamy of those who were responsible for this behaviour. However, it is not the only building society in the list—alas, Cheltenham and Gloucester building society has not played a distinguished role. I know that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will draw the remarks that are made in the Chamber today to the attention of those who are mentioned.
  When Lloyds bank was contemplating buying out the Cheltenham and Gloucester building society, I wrote to the chairman of the bank and asked him what its policy would be towards Cheltenham and Gloucester home income plan holders. However, I did not have the courtesy of a reply—a matter that did not reflect any credit on Lloyds bank. There are many people in the list of infamy.
  Today the Chelsea building society has been drawn to my attention. It is hiding behind another independent financial consultant and claiming that it was not involved in this fraudulent and dishonest behaviour. The case relates to constituents of my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman)—the Shawcrofts, of Burton Latimer, Kettering, Northamptonshire.
  I shall concentrate on the West Bromwich building society. At least 800 people purchased home income plans that were backed by the West Bromwich building society. The building society has always sought to defend itself on the grounds that it did not sell the plans, but that independent financial agents did so on its behalf. If that is true, the building society made no attempt to check the integrity of the claims that were being made by independent financial agents who were using the building society to back, sustain and support their product.
  I indict the management and the directors of the West Bromwich building society for behaviour and conduct that can be described only as an utter disgrace. These matters were drawn to the attention of the House in early-day motion No. 99 in the session 1994–95 and in a subsequent early-day motion in the following Session of Parliament. They are on the record. The only reaction to the charges that have been made against the West Bromwich building society is libel writs. Like the late Mr. Maxwell, as soon as they are caught and cornered, they aim to stifle criticism by the use of writs.
  That is exactly what happened when the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee took evidence from the West Bromwich building society—evidence that many hon. Members will have the opportunity to read. They will see what a miserable show Mr. Baker and Mr. Elliot made of defending the building society. As soon as they left, they issued a libel writ to prevent the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee from publishing documents in its memorandum of evidence that indicted that the building society in the most savage and lethal terms.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I thank the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) for the way in which he has led our little informal group on this issue. I underline the point that he was making, and ask him to extend it one step further.

  403
  Is it not true that the perception outside this place and outside Government is that this exercise has been one of prevarication, procrastination and gagging, and that it involves some frail and vulnerable people, whose livelihoods, security and homes are at stake? As the case of the West Bromwich building society indicates, the system has not worked for some of our most frail and vulnerable citizens.
  Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: I am quite certain that, if thousands of depositors in the West Bromwich building society knew the truth about the way in which the managers and directors of the building society have behaved, they would shift their money out of it and hang their heads in shame that a building society could behave like that.
  Until recently, I had assumed that the chief executive was the principal villain in this matter and that the board of directors was incapable of controlling a chief executive who was clearly out of control. There is some evidence—I put it no higher than that—that I may have been unkind about the former chief executive, Mr. Elliot, who has now left the West Bromwich building society.
  There is no decisive evidence that I am wrong, but one of the ways in which Mr. Elliot can seek to redeem his reputation is by lifting the veil on the true relationship between the West Bromwich building society and Fisher Pruw Smith. He can do that by going to the police. He can spell out exactly what the secret commissions were, and why Fisher Pruw Smith was constantly putting those who sought to borrow in this way under greater pressure to borrow larger sums of money. At no stage was it spelt out that these bond-based plans could never succeed. It has been claimed that a collapse in the housing market and in the stock exchange is why it went wrong. That is not true.
  I shall outline a case for hon. Members. A couple borrow £18,000 and, under the bond, in the first month and ever thereafter they have to repay at least £400 per month. If they fail, the shortfall is met out of capital. Meanwhile, if power of attorney is given—whereby the managers of the fund can reinvest it in whatever way they choose to maximise the amount of money that they receive for the investment—each time a reinvestment in different stocks, shares or whatever is made, the managers take 1 per cent. and the building society takes 1 per cent.; that is, 2 per cent. is taken immediately. It is exactly like churning in the Lloyd's market—one does this as often as one possibly can. The capital that was supposed to produce the income that would pay the mortgage was constantly being reduced and, often, fines were added on top. It is small wonder that so many of our constituents now find themselves with debts that cannot possibly be repaid.
  The West Bromwich building society has gone out of its way to avoid accepting the moral responsibility it faces for allowing Fisher Pruw Smith, Aylesbury Associates and others to behave as they did. It failed to recognise that it was the principal in all this. In the circumstances, any building society concerned about its reputation would have acted at once to put right the wrong that had taken place. In these cases, the borrowers did not know the truth, and it was never spelt out. The West Bromwich building society took no steps whatsoever to ensure that the truth was spelt out. That is why it deserves our contempt.
  404
  Beyond our contempt, and beyond the police action that needs to take place in relation to the directors and the senior managers of the building society, we need to recognise that bodies such as the SIB and others who have the responsibility of making the best they can of our legislation, have stretched the elastic—if I can put it that way—as far as they possibly can. Even then, they have not reached a settlement, because the Financial Services Act 1986 did not contemplate or allow for that position; those who saw teh opportunity to drive a coach and horses through investor protection did so by stealth, and often dishonestly.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, having regard to the report of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, will take urgent steps to introduce legislation as soon as possible to fill the gaps that have been revealed in this case, and to ensure that a similar scandal can never happen.
  1.19 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) for initiating the debate and for drawing attention to important points. He has worked hard and assiduously on behalf of his constituents and all those who have home income plans. The hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) and for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have also played a valuable part in ensuring that the matter is discussed continually in the House and elsewhere, so that the cases of the many people who have been affected are properly and thoroughly considered.
  The story of home income plans has been a long and unhappy one for many elderly people. I recognise that it continues to be a worrying time for a considerable number of those who took out such plans. I sympathise deeply.
  The schemes were attractive in their time to a specific vulnerable section of the community. Retired people tend to live on a fixed income, which they have little opportunity to augment. Members of that generation believe in helping themselves, and the schemes appeared to offer a way to do just that.
  Home income plans were associated with a range of deferred interest mortgages offered by mortgage lenders in the late 1980s. As the term implies, equity release schemes were devised to enable borrowers to release some of the capital from their houses to spend on something specific, to improve their income or for other purposes. In the case of home income plans, which were often targeted at the elderly, the borrower used the proceeds of the loan to purchase a bond or other investment instrument, often from an independent financial adviser, to provide that additional income.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Corby has ably shown, difficulties have arisen for a sizeable number of elderly people who purchased home income plans in that period, for a combination of reasons that I do not propose to go into, as they have been described so well.
  The Securities and Investments Board and the other financial services regulators, the Building Societies Commission, and the Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd. have made strenuous efforts to help. To a large degree, they have been successful in dealing with the investment element of those schemes and encouraging many lenders involved to put in place measures that go some way to reassuring people.

  405
  The financial services regulators issued strong warnings from 1989, and effectively put a stop to investment-based schemes in 1991. In addition, the Building Societies Commission gave prudential guidance from September 1989 onwards, warning societies of the special problems associated with the equity release loans offered to older people.
  Dr. Lynne Jones: Does the Minister agree that, although those home income plans were fundamentally flawed, the West Bromwich building society continued to process applications after the Building Societies Commission had issued those prudential notes? We agree that the regulatory bodies have done their best to encourage the West Bromwich building society to shoulder its responsibilities.
  Will the Minister join me in urging the West Bromwich building society today that, if it does not accept any legal obligation toward those borrowers, it should accept a moral obligation? Those elderly people would not have taken out those loans had they not been associated with the good name of building societies, so the West Bromwich building society has a moral obligation to compensate those people and put them back where they began—and certainly not charge premium rates of interest, as it continues to do.
  Mrs. Knight: I cannot comment on the reasoning of every individual who took out such a scheme, but, like the hon. Lady, I am worried that some building societies—she mentioned the West Bromwich building society specifically—may not have granted terms similar to those that other building societies have granted in dealing with customers with those plans. The legal position must be considered in detail, but there is a moral obligation.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Selly Oak will agree that the meetings that she has had with the Building Societies Commission and the Securities and Investments Board, which have been offered to the three hon. Members who take a special interest in this problem, have been satisfactory—indeed, helpful. I hope that hon. Members will join me in congratulating those two organisations on the help that they have given and the efforts that they have put into this case.
  Compensation totalling about £67 million has been paid, which has covered claims from 2,700 investors. I accept that it is not a perfect solution for those who feel themselves victims of home investment plans, but without the compensation arrangements under the Financial Services Act 1986, their position would have been even more difficult. Considerable resources have been deployed by regulators to try to help with these problems.
  The subject of the debate is home income plans and West Bromwich building society. The SIB has worked hard to make an arrangement with the society, and is satisfied that the agreement reached is the best that could be achieved in the circumstances.
  Mr. William Powell: My hon. Friend mentions the agreement of 11 December between the SIB and the West Bromwich building society. Several other building societies which backed home income plans—such as the Chelsea building society—are not party to that agreement,
  406
  and are offering terms even less generous than those that the West Bromwich building society is offering as a result of the agreement of 11 December. Will she therefore use her position to try to ensure that all building societies are covered in similar terms to those laid down in the 11 December document?
  Mrs. Knight: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that to my attention; I will look into that matter as soon as the debate is over. I understand that the West Bromwich building society is now explaining to every individual borrower what the terms mean and how they apply to them. The Building Societies Commission has launched a separate investigation into several issues that fall within its responsibility as a prudential supervisor, arising from the FIMBRA material about the activities of the West Bromwich building society in connection with home income plans.
  Legal actions are pending. Their conduct is for the courts, but I hope that there will not be too many delays. I deplore heel dragging by any group, organisation or individual. It would inevitably have detrimental effects on borrowers who are already in a difficult position. We must wait to find out what happens in the courts, but I sincerely trust that no one will delay the cases or impede their reaching court as soon as possible.
  I am told by the West Bromwich building society that hon. Members especially concerned about the activities of the society have not taken advantage of an invitation to visit the society for a discussion with the directors. Obviously, I do not know the ins and outs of invitations that may have been made, but it might be a useful avenue. In a time when annual general meetings provide an opportunity for shareholders to question companies' policies, it is open to members—including borrowing members—of building societies to express their views and anxieties to the board. That avenue is worth considering.
  Where does that leave us? Several other building societies have been, and still are, negotiating settlements with individual borrowers. I commend their efforts to help home income plan victims to reach acceptable solutions to their problems. It worries me that cases are still coming to light. Perhaps it does not surprise me, because it is often difficult for people—especially members of the generation involved—to acknowledge that they are in difficulty.
  Lenders can take action only if they are aware of the problems. Therefore, I reiterate the advice that has been given on many occasions: borrowers who are in difficulties should approach their lenders to discuss ways in which they can resolve them.
  I take this opportunity to welcome the proposed code of mortgage practice about which the Council of Mortgage Lenders is consulting currently. The scheme will enable an ombudsman to oversee the affairs of members who are not parties to existing schemes. The code's form has not yet been worked out, but extending an existing code seems to be a practical way forward. It will certainly assist people in future.
  I sincerely sympathise with the difficulties faced by home income plan borrowers and with the views expressed during this brief debate. I will continue to do all within my power to push matters forward and to see the issue resolved. Leaving aside the strict legal argument,

  407
  I add my voice to those urging all building societies and other lenders to follow the route of those who have agreed settlements, and to consider seriously—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order.

  Sea Empress Disaster
  1.30 pm
  Mr. Nick Ainger: At the outset, I put on record my tribute to those individuals who were involved in the struggle to save the Sea Empress and to limit the pollution that resulted from her grounding. I pay tribute also to those who have been involved in cleaning up the significant oil pollution affecting not just my constituency but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and those of other hon. Members who represent West Glamorgan.
  The debate is about the need for a wide-ranging inquiry—independent of the Department of Transport—into how 70,000 tonnes of oil was allowed to pollute probably the most sensitive and environmentally important marine habitat in the United Kingdom. The Government have asked the marine accident investigation branch to conduct an inquiry, but we do not accept that the inquiry is independent, as Ministers, officials and agencies of the Department of Transport were involved in the disaster, either directly or indirectly. It is the first time that the MAIB has been asked to investigate the actions of Ministers and of civil servants who were operationally involved in an accident which resulted in probably the most damaging oil spillage ever to affect United Kingdom shores.
  To appreciate why the marine accident investigation branch inquiry is inadequate, one must understand the events leading to the grounding of the Sea Empress at 20.07 on Thursday 15 February, its subsequent grounding on the night of Monday 19 February, and its final refloating from that position on Wednesday 21 February. The vessel ran aground at seven minutes past 8, and she was refloated within three hours. It is now accepted that less than 2,000 tonnes of oil—possibly as little as 250 tonnes—was spilt in the initial grounding, as the vessel was rapidly refloated by harbour tugs.
  On Friday morning, the salvers, Smit Tak—in consortium with the towing companies Cory and Klyne—were appointed. A strategy was apparently agreed early on with the salvers, the marine pollution control unit, the Coastguard Agency and the Milford Haven port authority, that the vessel should be lightened using a small tanker, and held in position in deep water from where she could float safely. It was then planned either to bring the vessel into port or to take her elsewhere for repairs. In the press conferences—fronted by an official from the marine pollution control unit—that were held regularly over the weekend, the media were informed that the situation was under control.
  On 15 March, Lloyd's List International published an interview with Mr. Geert Koffeman, the salvage master working for Smit Tak. When asked about the strategy and the decisions that were taken, he replied:
  "We did not make this decision alone. All parties, from the owner, to the coastguard to everyone involved, contributed to the decision".
  It is patently obvious that the marine pollution control unit and the Coastguard Agency were involved in the decision-making process regarding the salvage operation.
  Sadly, the expert knowledge of local pilots was ignored, and two opportunities were lost to take the vessel away from what is probably the most dangerous stretch of coastline in western Europe. On Saturday afternoon,

  409
  an opportunity was lost to move the vessel from its position, when a pilot with more than 20 years experience suggested that he could take the vessel out to sea safely at high tide. The harbour master informed him, "I'm in a room full of men, and they are all saying no." I believe that the strategy was fundamentally flawed, because the tugs available were not powerful enough to hold the vessel safely in position.
  On Monday afternoon, the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to the House, in which he said:
  "Every effort will be made to prevent any further release of oil."—[Official Report, 19 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 34.]
  Within two hours of the Secretary of State's resuming his seat, the salvers had put the Sea Empress on to the rocks in calm weather, during one of the highest tides not just of the year, but of the decade. Despite claims to the contrary, the incident occurred in good weather. That night, I asked pilots who were involved in the operation what had gone wrong. They said that the vessel had been towing the tugs and not the other way round. That is a very important point.
  The Government have accepted 80 of the recommendations in Lord Donaldson's report "Safer Ships, Cleaner Seas"—including those relating to salvage. In chapter 20, paragraph 127 of the report, Lord Donaldson says:
  "We therefore propose that there should be interim arrangements during the winter months until the new system is fully operational."
  He is referring to placing powerful salvage tugs at key positions around the United Kingdom coast.
  Lord Donaldson continued:
  "the UK Government should be prepared to bear the full cost of such interim arrangements. We cannot specify just what interim arrangements will be needed, but they should concentrate on the three key areas we identified: north west Scotland, the Dover Strait and the Western Approaches."
  Only two salvage tugs were put in place—one in the Dover strait and the other in north-west Scotland. No tugs were placed in the western approaches. Lord Donaldson also recommended that five powerful salvage tugs should be stationed around our coast.
  As a result of the failure to control the Sea Empress, 70,000 tonnes of oil was spilt. Eye witnesses allege that, following the second major grounding on Monday evening, oil was forced from the cargo tank in order to increase the vessel's buoyancy and refloat it. It had been planned to force water from the tanks, but it is alleged that oil was also forced from the vessel in order to allow it to float free. In other words, oil was discharged deliberately—which we know is an offence—and it is claimed that that was done with the agreement of the marine pollution control unit.
  The damage caused to the coast of south-west Wales, to the Bristol channel and to the Irish coast is quite appalling. More than 3,000 seabirds were killed. A similar number were cleaned, but, unfortunately, many of them will not live very long. Two marine nature reserves, Skomer and Lundy, were polluted, and 26 sites of special scientific interest were affected. Many forms of wildlife have suffered, and we believe that one—a rare species of starfish, the asterina phylactica—has been wiped out. It was only discovered in 1979 in West Angle bay, and that bay was the one most polluted by the spillage.
  410
  Miles of holiday beaches have also been heavily polluted. The whole fishing industry operating between St. David's head and Port Eynon point has been put on stop, as well as all angling on the rivers leading into that sea area. In addition to the massive environmental damage, from which the area will take years to recover, there is likely to be long-term economic damage.
  The main holiday beaches have been cleaned and other beaches are being tackled. I pay tribute again to all the people who have done that excellent job. There is no reason for tourists not to return to those beaches. The intention is to have all amenity beaches fully cleaned by Whitsun—but the damage has been done. It is impossible to cost the environmental damage. What price a rare starfish or oiled scotes? The estimated clean-up costs are in the region of £10 million, and compensation for the fishing and tourist industries is likely to run into many tens of millions of pounds.
  No wonder such anger is felt in my constituency, in Wales and throughout the United Kingdom. Last night, I presented a petition to the House signed by 25,000 people, calling for an independent inquiry. This morning, I was part of a deputation that delivered to 10 Downing street pledges and petitions signed by more than 80,000 people, calling for the protection of wildlife and an independent inquiry. More than 100,000 people have expressed their outrage at the environmental damage done, and the need for a truly independent, comprehensive inquiry.
  Not only individuals but literally every organisation directly or indirectly connected with the environment—including local councils, community councils, district councils, new unitary authorities, the National Trust and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds—is calling for an independent inquiry, which should examine not just why the Sea Empress grounded and the salvage operation, but why Lord Donaldson's recommendations were not fully implemented.
  The inquiry should also examine salvage law and the operation of Milford Haven port authority, which did not have an operational radar covering the entrance to a particularly dangerous stretch of water. That inadequacy is almost beyond belief, and that radar is still not fully operational.
  It is clear from evidence already available that the current marine accident investigation branch inquiry is perceived as an inquiry by the Department of Transport into itself. How can we ask civil servants—at the end of the day, that is what they are—to investigate and comment on the decisions of their political masters, Ministers, in relation to whether Donaldson's recommendations were implemented? How can we ask civil servants to investigate their colleagues in the Department of Transport who were directly involved in the salvage operation?
  The MAIB inquiry cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be perceived as independent. It is like the arms to Iraq scandal, which Lord Justice Scott was rightly appointed to investigate. What would have been the public's response if civil servants from the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office had been asked to investigate the actions of Ministers and other civil servants? Such a proposal would have been laughed out of court, yet that is the situation in relation to the Sea Empress incident.

  411
  I do not cast any aspersions on the integrity or expertise of the marine accident investigation branch, but it is totally unfair of the Secretary of State to make it undertake such an inquiry. The Secretary of State has told me that nobody questions the independence of the air accident investigation branch. However, as far as I am aware, the AAIB has never been asked to investigate an air crash in which civil servants from the Department of Transport were in the pilot seat and the Secretary of State was in the air traffic control tower—which was the comparable situation in the case of the Sea Empress.
  The Government fail to understand that the Sea Empress incident was different in its size and impact from any other major pollution incident. It was also more complex, and, most importantly, Ministers and civil servants were directly or indirectly involved in the whole operation. It is vital for my constituents, the rest of Wales and everyone concerned about the environment that the inquiry and its report has credibility and the confidence of the individuals and organisations affected directly or indirectly by the pollution. The inquiry's recommendations must carry weight.
  Effective recommendations are urgently needed and lessons must be quickly learned, so that such a disaster can never happen again. I urge the Government to appoint Lord Donaldson of Lymington, who has already said that, if the Government were minded to invite him to oversee the inquiry, he would be pleased to accept. That is the only way to produce rapidly a report that is thorough, objective and independent.
  I have been assured by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench that, when the next Government are in place—and it will be ours—they will insist that an independent element is injected into the inquiry. We do not want to restart the inquiry, but if the report is to be credible, it is vital that the inquiry is independent and that Lord Donaldson is asked to oversee it.
  1.46 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) on securing a debate on the circumstances surrounding the Sea Empress disaster. I heard a large number of assertions, anecdotes, conversations at third hand and snippets of apparent conversations with some of the persons involved in the inquiry. No doubt some of that material is relevant, but I suspect that a great deal of it will prove not to be so.
  There is no disagreement between us that, following the grounding of the Sea Empress at the entrance to Milford Haven harbour on that fateful 15 February, the subsequent salvage operation was severely hampered by heavy weather—and that, by the time the ship could be successfully refloated and its remaining cargo transferred to another vessel, an estimated 72,000 tonnes of oil, roughly half the ship's cargo, had been spilled.
  The Government—not only the Department of Transport but the Welsh Office; I note that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is in his place—are as concerned as anyone about the incident, particularly as it occurred in an area of outstanding natural beauty and environmental importance.
  412
  I acknowledge entirely what the hon. Member for Pembroke said about the crisis nature of the effect on some of the flora and fauna; that is to be regretted, whatever the outcome of subsequent inquiries or proceedings. It is accepted that, despite the best efforts of Governments and industry in every country, we will never be able totally to eradicate the possibility of marine accidents of that type. We must do, we are doing and we will continue to do, all that we can to reduce the risk.
  The marine accident investigation branch, about which I will say more later, has begun a comprehensive investigation into all aspects of the grounding and the planning, execution and direction of the salvage operation and its effectiveness in minimising the pollution. It has already released a special bulletin that included its interim findings on the cause of the incident. The MAIB's final report will be published.
  The MAIB was established by Parliament in 1988 to provide an expert body capable of carrying out investigations of the kind that we are discussing today, independently of the shipping industry and of the Department of Transport. The chief inspector of the MAIB reports directly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Under the terms of the legislation which created the MAIB, its investigations are to determine the circumstances and causes of accidents, with the aim of improving safety of life at sea and avoiding accidents in the future.
  The chief inspector will consider all evidence and arguments submitted to him which he feels are relevant. He has said that the investigation into the Sea Empress will consider, in addition to the issues that led to the grounding, the conduct of the salvage operation; the availability of salvage tugs—
  Mr. Ron Davies: Will he consider ministerial competence?
  Mr. Norris:—the implementation of Lord Donaldson's recommendation that consideration should be given to a salvage tug being stationed in the western approaches; the question of double hulls, which the hon. Member for Pembroke did not mention, although I know he has raised the question before—
  Mr. Davies: What about ministerial incompetence?
  Mr. Norris:—the safety of port operations, which the hon. Member rightly raised today; and the effects, if any, that current salvage law may have had on the actual conduct of the salvage operation.
  I shall now deal with the sedentary remarks from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) about the competence and culpability of Ministers. The hon. Gentleman is the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, but he is free with his remarks on a wide variety of subjects. I always listen to those remarks with avidity and interest, but on this occasion we should confine his responsibility merely to Wales.
  The implication of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is offensive to the chief inspector and staff of the MAIB, and I say that in all sobriety and seriousness, for the following reason. It is quite outrageous to suggest that the chief inspector would be prepared to do other than to report fully, in terms, about the causes, circumstances

  413
  and necessary remedies surrounding the Sea Empress disaster. If there were to be questions that touched on the competence or conduct of Ministers, be they my noble Friend Lord Goschen or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, the chief inspector would not for a second hesitate to address them.
  If I may say so, the extraordinary remarks by the hon. Member for Caerphilly are matched by the equally offensive implication from the hon. Member for Pembroke that the independence of the marine accident investigation branch would be so compromised that, simply because both its staff and the officers in my Department are civil servants, the marine accident inspectors would not be prepared to criticise the conduct of fellow officials.
  The hon. Gentleman made a laughable comparison with the Scott inquiry, as if there were the slightest relevance to the Scott inquiry. The hon. Gentleman is a very bright Member of the House, and he knows perfectly well that the real analogy is the equal independence that is afforded to the air accident investigation branch.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Norris: No, I will not, because I have only six minutes left.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke asked whether there had been any precedent for the investigation of the conduct of Ministers. It may not or may not be the case that this is the first occasion on which an Opposition Member has alleged that somehow a Minister has been personally responsible for the conduct of operations of that sort: I cannot comment on that. However, whether that assertion arises from Opposition Members or from any other source, if there is the slightest substance in such an assertion, the chief inspector will report on it.
  I confirm, here and now and on the record, that the chief inspector need not fear for one second the consequence of making whatever recommendations he feels are right. I can say that, in the entire confidence that the chief inspector and all his staff are officials of the highest integrity, for whom we have the greatest respect.
  Mr. Ainger: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Norris: I am sorry, but I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman took his allotted time, and I refused the request of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). I now have just under five minutes.
  The hon. Member for Pembroke said that he has managed to persuade many people that they should sign petitions calling for a public inquiry. That is not an entirely astonishing result, given that, for the vast majority of people, the idea of a public inquiry is synonymous with the idea of coming to an independent result and conclusion on an issue that is undoubtedly of considerable importance.
  I am frankly not in the slightest surprised that the hon. Gentleman managed to collect thousands of signatures—indeed, had he been more diligent, he would probably have collected many more. I am astonished at the ability
  414
  of countless thousands of our fellow citizens to sign petitions, and I admire immensely the comprehensive nature of their understanding of such issues.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: The Minister is being contemptuous.
  Mr. Norris: I may have been contemptuous to the hon. Member for Pembroke, but I am not contemptuous about those who have signed the petitions.
  My assertion, which the hon. Gentleman would not seriously seek to deny, is—I guarantee it—that the vast majority of those who signed those petitions were unaware of the existence of the MAIB. I defy the hon. Gentleman to tell the House that his petition, at any point, referred to the relative merits or otherwise of a public inquiry or a MAIB inquiry; I note that he does not seek to do so.
  The Government have frequently made the point that a public inquiry is an adversarial inquiry, involving legal representation, which takes a long time to organise, to hear and to sift through enormous amounts of wide-ranging evidence and to produce a report. It would also be difficult to prevent the evidence to a public inquiry from ranging far beyond what is relevant to the Sea Empress accident.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I hope that this is a genuine point of order, because there are only two minutes to go in this debate.
  Mr. Jones: Is it in order for the Minister to ignore completely the issue which is being debated here today, for an independent inquiry—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister is responsible for his speech.
  Mr. Norris: I note the further time-wasting by the Opposition.
  Experience has tended to show, if one compares the relative merits of an MAIB inquiry with a public inquiry, that the latter tends to obscure the truth rather than illuminate it.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: What about Donaldson?
  Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Liberal Democrats is far too intelligent to fail to appreciate that the Donaldson report considered all matters relating to vessels' safety and the prevention of pollution from merchant shipping following the Braer disaster. It was not, as he well knows, an inquiry into the accident itself.
  Until the MAIB report and Professor Edwards' assessment—Professor Edwards will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales—have been completed and their recommendations considered, it would be inappropriate to suggest that there is a need to

  415
  re-examine or amplify any of Lord Donaldson's recommendations. We have made it clear that we respect the conclusions of Lord Donaldson's report—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half- past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    Access to Work
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if unemployed people will be required to make a personal contribution to support given under access to work. [25078]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. James Paice): Unemployed people will not be required to make a contribution to approved support under access to work.
    Mrs. Jackson: I wish slightly to extend my question so that the Minister can tell us whether the Government's U-turn on increasing the budget for access to work so that individuals in work can also benefit is a result, in his view, of impressive campaigning for restoration by disabled people throughout the country in work and out of work.
    One of my constituents is Julie Smethurst, a self-employed Braillist. Will the Minister take the opportunity to clarify whether she, as a self-employed worker, will be able to benefit from restoration for the maintenance of her essential equipment, which enables her to stay in work?
    Mr. Paice: The hon. Lady obviously has not studied what has already been going on, or she would not have been so nonplussed by my main answer. We have studied what took place in access to work and the increasing demands that were being made on it last year. That is why the Government made available a 50 per cent. increase for access to work's budget this year. That is a clear demonstration of the Government's understanding of the importance of access to work for disabled people.
    The hon. Lady should know that self-employed people will be eligible again for access to work as from 1 June. My noble Friend the Minister of State, who deals specifically with these matters in the Department, is reviewing precisely the terms of assistance for self-employed people under access to work, but I can confirm that they will be eligible.
    Mr. David Nicholson: The earlier exchange that my hon. Friend had with the hon. Lady is the best example that I can remember in recent years of a typical Labour party smear falling, as it were, at the first fence. Will my hon. Friend continue his efforts to improve all the resources and services that are available to unemployed people, whatever their age? Will he contrast this country's record in reducing the number of unemployed of all ages with the records of countries that until recently were governed by socialist Governments, such as France and Spain?
    Mr. Paice: I am not even sure that the hon. Lady's question reached the first fence, but the idea of a smear jumping a fence leaves me somewhat perturbed. It is more likely that it slipped over before it started.
    418
    My hon. Friend is entirely right to draw careful attention to the Government's success in reducing unemployment for all people, be they disabled or otherwise. Through access to work and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Government have put in place important measures to help disabled people, but he is also right to identify the fact that jobs are created by successful businesses. The countries to which he has drawn attention, such as France, have prevented their businesses from being successful and from creating jobs because they have burdened them with the minimum wage, the social chapter and various other burdens on employers, which act against the interests of all people, disabled or otherwise.
    Mr. Llwyd: I welcome the access to work budget increase, but has the Minister considered the effect of employer contributions on smaller firms? Surely it is not right that multinationals and small firms employing typically fewer than 20 people should pay the same amount of contributions. Will he consider targeting the scheme slightly better and enabling smaller firms to take on more disabled people?
    Mr. Paice: Eighty-four per cent. of disabled people are employed in firms of more than 20 employees—more than the number employed in firms of fewer than 20 employees, which are exempted from the Disability Discrimination Act. It is not possible specifically to target help at smaller firms, because the legislation says that access to work is assistance to the individual, not to the firm. Therefore, in terms of the size of firms, we are prevented from discriminating in targeting the scheme.

    Youth Unemployment
    Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the prospects for youth unemployment in (a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU countries. [25079]
    The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Mr. Eric Forth): Unemployment among young people in the United Kingdom is well below the European Union average. The prospects for our young people are good, so long as we do not destroy jobs by a national minimum wage or other unnecessary and damaging regulations.
    Mr. Waterson: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in this country, unemployment among the under-25s is some 5 per cent. below the European average and roughly half that in France? Is he aware of the Employment Policy Institute's view that a national minimum wage would destroy job prospects, especially among small firms? Would a minimum wage not be a gross betrayal of our young people?
    Mr. Forth: It must now be the case that the Labour party is the last organisation in this country not to recognise the folly of a statutory national minimum wage. Everyone else has—the expert institute that my hon. Friend has mentioned, and, more significantly, the electorate and especially young people. All of them realise that countries that have statutory national minimum wages have extraordinarily high youth unemployment and,

    419
    generally, higher unemployment. I expect that, eventually, the Labour party will notice that connection, but not, I hope, before the general election.
    Mr. Byers: Will the Minister confirm that, as a percentage of total unemployment, in 1995 youth unemployment in the United Kingdom stood at 28.8 per cent., twice that in Germany and lower than that in only three other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries in the European Union? In the light of that, will he concede that this is an issue not of the minimum wage but of the opportunities that we give to our young people? When will the Government invest in young people's future by providing a high-quality training programme to give them the skills that they need, or are the Government prepared simply to stand to one side and see a whole generation be the innocent victims of their failed economic and social policies?
    Mr. Forth: I readily pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's ever more ingenious use of statistics and figures. He has excelled himself today by digging up a convoluted and obscure figure which means nothing to anyone. Let me give him a straightforward fact that will demonstrate that he is on the wrong track. The latest figures available show that, six months after leaving training, 71 per cent. of young people completing youth training in England and Wales were in a job. That demonstrates the effectiveness of what we are doing as well as anything else could.
    Mr. Garnier: If my hon. Friend wants evidence to support the facts that he has announced, will he come to my constituency, where he will find that the unemployment level is 1,750, out of an electorate of more than 79,000, and that schools are actively engaged in making links with industry and industry is actively engaged in making links with schools to produce the courses, both at apprenticeship and in schools, that benefit the employment sector? Will he further invite the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers), who asked that fatuous question, to have a look for himself at what is going on in the real world?
    Mr. Forth: I am delighted by my hon. and learned Friend's typically positive approach. It typifies the Conservative party's recognition of real success at local level, with different institutions working together to achieve positive results. I doubt very much whether Opposition Members are sufficiently interested or motivated to go to observe a success story for themselves, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will have more luck in persuading Opposition Front Benchers of the success to which he referred than I seem to be having.

    Secondary School Places
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has received from parents regarding allocation of secondary school places for 1996–97. [25080]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Cheryl Gillan): The Department receives many inquiries from parents about school admissions in general.
    Mr. Pike: Because schools do not have elastic walls, it is not possible for all children to go to the school of their
    420
    choice. Does the Minister accept, however, that often parents are disappointed if they cannot send their children to a school that is one of their first three preferences, given that all three preferences are reasonable? Will she support local authorities that must provide additional capacity to meet the demands of such parents?
    Mrs. Gillan: I hope that my hon. Friend on the Opposition Benches has checked the policy that he is developing with his Front Benchers. The Government are committed to continuing to extend parental choice and ensuring that as many parents as possible can send their children to the school that is their first preference.
    There are, of course, good schools that are always over-subscribed, and parents who have been disappointed by the result; but a recent survey by the National Foundation for Educational Research shows that 85 per cent. of parents are satisfied, or very satisfied, with admission procedures or outcomes. I should have thought that, following the decisions of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) and the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in regard to the allocation of secondary school places, rather more representations would have been received by Opposition Front Benchers than by my Department.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that extra money from the Funding Agency for Schools for England to increase the size of excellent secondary schools such as the direct grant schools in my constituency is not a full solution to the problem in residential and highly built-up areas such as Ruislip-Northwood? Will she ensure that parental choice is better achieved by preventing pupils from flooding across boundaries to the detriment of such choice?
    Mrs. Gillan: I agree with my hon. Friend, but I repeat that the Government are committed to extending choice and diversity. That is a key element of our overall strategy of levering up standards and enabling pupils to realise their full potential, regardless of which school they go to and where it is.
    Mr. Spearing: The Minister claims that parental choice is being extended in regard to selective secondary schools. What evidence has she that the performance of secondary school pupils at 16-plus can be assessed on the basis of assessments of primary school pupils at 11-plus?
    Mrs. Gillan: It is obvious that the Government's strategy to extend choice is driving up standards throughout our schools. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman's party does not adopt our policies. We have given parents more choice through more open enrolment; we have provided them with more and better information, partly through the publication of performance tables and school prospectuses; we have given them the right to vote for grant-maintained status; and we are encouraging schools and local education authorities to respond to parental demand for selection, partial selection or specialisation. It is a pity that Opposition Front Benchers do not take a bit more notice of the hon. Gentleman's views.

    Special Schools
    Mr. Booth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on special schools. [25082]
    Mrs. Gillan: The Government believe, after taking account of parents' wishes, that pupils with special educational needs can usually best be educated in mainstream schools, but for the small proportion of children with exceptional difficulties there is a continuing need for a thriving special school sector.
    I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work in this sphere. His report, "Going the Distance", has highlighted key issues in relation to children with autism.
    Mr. Booth: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her kind remarks and for her excellent answer. Will she also praise my local school that deals with autism—Oak Lodge—and tell the House that the care and education of children with autism are very high priorities for the Government?
    Mrs. Gillan: I am willing to pass on my congratulations to my hon. Friend's local school, and I assure him that special schools are of course given great consideration by my Department.
    I hope that my hon. Friend will continue his sterling work in the sphere of autism—with the National Autistic Society and with the North East London Autistic Society. Perhaps he and other hon. Members would like to know that, among others, Ealing, which has an independent school for autistic children, recently increased its number of places; Enfield recently opened a new primary school for 60 pupils with autism; and Waltham Forest, which has a grant-maintained special school, has extensive provision for autistic pupils. There are many more examples of such schools, which I should be happy to provide to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister be kind enough to consider the effects on special schools of vandalism and arson, which are causing those schools to spend a great deal of money on security that should be spent on the children? I refer especially to the Emily Forte school in my constituency. which has suffered greatly from a recent arson attack and does not have the money to build the security fence that it so badly needs.
    Mrs. Gillan: I join the hon. and learned Gentleman in expressing sadness that the Emily Forte school should have suffered an unprovoked attack. I am very willing to listen to any representations that he has to make on this matter, and I join him in sending best wishes to the school.
    Mr. Barry Field: May I extend an invitation to my hon. Friend to come to visit St. Catherine's school at Ventnor on the Isle of Wight? She will be pleased to know that, very unusually for an Isle of Wight institution, that school does not serve many residents of the island and their children, but it performs a wonderful job on behalf of the local authorities that send to the island children who have very severe speech impediments. In no time at
    422
    all, those children are able to earn GCSEs and leave the island with a good education. I think that the hon. Lady would be very impressed to see the work that it does.
    Mrs. Gillan: That is a charming invitation, and I shall certainly consider whatever possibility there is of visiting the Isle of Wight, as my hon. Friend suggests. I know of the extremely good work that is carried out across the country in special schools. In my constituency, the Heritage House school for pupils with severe learning difficulties provides an excellent service to the community, as does the Endeavour centre, which is next to it and provides on-going learning for adults with disabilities. I should be pleased to consider my hon. Friend's invitation.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Minister agree that, for a minority of pupils with special needs, there will almost certainly always be a need for special schools? Will she tell us exactly what is the Government's thinking on the great challenge of moving ahead to mainstream education for the children who will not always need special schools? Will she tell us, for example, the practical actions that her Department is taking to improve accessibility for special needs children in primary and secondary schools? Will she accept that, because of the absence of necessary funding, very often local management do not regard that as a priority, and that is one of the saddest and most unacceptable features of our modern educational system?
    Mrs. Gillan: I would be delighted if the Labour party would develop clear policies on these issues, because its policies have been notable by their absence so far. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has also failed to note that the Government recently announced a £10 million boost for local education authorities and school governors to make almost 800 primary and secondary schools more accessible to pupils with disabilities.
    On individual education plans and special education needs co-ordinators—because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is interested in them—we are examining the assessment process and good practice, and we plan to report in the autumn on good practice for preparing IEPs and on good practice in schools in relation to SENCOs.

    Group of Seven Summit
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the recent G7 summit. [25083]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): All the G7 countries agreed on the need for stable macro-economic policies and for a more flexible and deregulated labour market. Those policies are in place in the United Kingdom, which is why we have a higher proportion of our people in jobs and fewer people out of work than most of the rest of Europe.
    Mr. Bottomley: Did the Presidents, Prime Ministers and other Ministers of the G7 countries explain why countries outside Europe found many of their businesses investing here and why other G7 countries in Europe are copying many of the policies carried out by this Government?
    Mrs. Shephard: The question of inward investment was discussed at some length, and some envy was expressed about the United Kingdom's position. Many people shared the views of the chairman of the executive board of BMW, who recently said:
    "Structural change has made Britain by far the most attractive place to invest in Europe."
    Mr. MacShane: As a great student of France, the Secretary of State will welcome the visit to the House to be made by President Chirac in a couple of weeks' time. At the G7 Employment Ministers' summit in Lille, President Chirac appealed for what he called a third way in which social rights would be respected. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the International Labour Organisation, whose director-general addressed that summit, is now a welcome partner at the G7 discussions? Will she also confirm that Britain should turn the page on an era of some hostility to the ILO, accept ILO recommendations on British labour law and not treat it as some authoritarian, tinpot, third-world countries do, refusing to co-operate and work with it in the future?
    Mrs. Shephard: The ILO does a valuable job in those spheres with which it should be concerned. My opposite number—the French Employment Minister—was so impressed by what she heard about what we are doing in this country that she is visiting not only some of our Employment Service offices but some of our regeneration areas. The President of France intends to do the same. I think that is quite a compliment to this country's successes.

    Employment Creation
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on employment creation over the last 24 months (a) in the United Kingdom and (b) in other EU countries. [25084]
    Mr. Forth: Over the past two years, the United Kingdom has created more jobs than any other major European Union country.
    Mr. Fabricant: I thank my hon. Friend for that surprising answer. Might it have anything to do with the fact that the cost of employing someone in France is apparently an extra 32 per cent. and that in Germany it costs an employer an extra 41 per cent? Is it true that in Britain the figure is only 18 per cent? Could it have anything to do with the social chapter? Could it mean that, if we signed the social chapter, we would have as many unemployed in this country as the rest of Europe has?
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to a very important difference between us and many of our partners on the continental mainland, which is that the Government have made a determined effort over a period to reduce the burdens on business and to reduce the cost of employment in order that businesses can expand and take people on. Our falling unemployment figure demonstrates the success of that policy.
    424
    We must not allow other countries to seek to impose their failed policies on us. We must all, as member states of the European Union, be free to pursue those policies which most suit us and allow us to maximise our competitiveness. That will continue to be our intention.
    Mr. O'Hara: Could not it be the case that the suggested increase in the number of jobs created and the suggested fall in unemployment have more to do with changes in the number of the population who are economically active? What evidence does the Minister have that we have created more jobs in this country? The Government commonly make comparisons with France, where unemployment is indeed now higher than in this country, but, whereas there has been a fall of more than 300,000 in those economically active in this country, there has been an increase of more than 500,000 in the number of those economically active in France. The one is the mirror image of the other—is it not about time that the Minister came clean instead of doing it with mirrors?
    Mr. Forth: Talking about mirrors, we are hearing a series of convoluted and clever, but utterly irrelevant, manipulations of figures from Opposition Members. [Interruption.] The truth is much more simple, as always. By any comparison, the record of this country compared to that of our major partners and competitors in the European Union is much superior. I could cite a whole range of factors in evidence.
    For example, our female participation rate, something of which we can be proud and in which we can take pleasure, is infinitely higher than in France—especially—and many other mainland continental countries. In almost every respect, we are demonstrating that the policies that we are pursuing are much more favourable and beneficial to employment and competitiveness than those of our partners. All the figures suggest that, and no amount of mirrors or manipulation by Opposition Members will conceal it.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Has my hon. Friend noted that one in three young people in Spain are unemployed? Could the Spanish Government's adherence to the social chapter and their adoption of socialist policies such as a national minimum wage have more than a little to do with the defeat of that socialist Government at the hands of the Spanish electorate?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, indeed. It gives me no pleasure, as I know it gives my hon. Friend no pleasure, to record that, in Spain, there is extraordinarily high unemployment, an extraordinary percentage of the working population are on temporary contracts, and youth unemployment, for example, is unacceptably high. There must surely be a direct link between the policies of the failed socialist Government—recently rejected by the Spanish electorate—and the alarmingly high unemployment figures that have been inflicted on the people of Spain. I hope that that penny will drop here and that that message, which I am sure my hon. Friend will help to disseminate, will draw people's attention to the failure of socialist policies.
    Mr. Meacher: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in the past two and a half years, the Government's deeply flawed unemployment figures have shown a fall of 750,000 but their much more reliable employment figures

    425
    have shown a rise of only 300,000? Far from getting a job, 400,000 people have given up even trying, because there are no jobs. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his own Department's figures also show that more than half those who got a job a year ago are back on benefit?
    Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, since 1979, which is what matters, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's figures, Britain has the worst job creation record of any of the 15 EU states, with the exception only of Sweden and Finland? There are now fewer jobs in Britain than there were in 1979. Does that not show that, contrary to what the Secretary of State says, other European Governments at the Lille jobs summit were absolutely right to reject her deregulated labour market policies out of hand and with the contempt that they deserve?
    Mr. Forth: It used to be thought that most of the Labour party's resources were going on spin doctors. I am beginning to get the impression that even more resources are going on numerical manipulation in support of Labour Members. So desperate are they about our record of success in bringing unemployment down—this is a sad comment on them—that they are having to dig up the most obscure and irrelevant figures they can find to create an atmosphere of gloom and pessimism, when in fact it is one of increasing confidence.
    It is a sad comment on Opposition Members that they should feel the need to do that. They must understand that the electorate will not be impressed by such a message.
    Mr. Michael Brown: I am sorry to take my hon. Friend to task. However, when the most recent unemployment figures were announced and a reduction occurred, I did not see my hon. Friend on the electronic news media. Can he confirm that it was only because the figures were falling that the media were not interested in interviewing him? Do they interview him only if the figures go up? Did he seek to go on the media to explain the excellent figures?
    Mr. Forth: I can confirm that my humble services were indeed offered to the electronic media the day before we were due to announce the unemployment figures. It was indicated to us by at least one television channel that it would be interested in interviewing me only if the unemployment figure went up and that if, tragically, the figure went down, that fact would not be considered newsworthy. My hon. Friend, therefore, sitting, as ever, eager for my appearance, failed to see me on that occasion. He has put his finger on one of the great sadnesses of the media's attitude today, which is that bad news is news and good news is ignored.

    Manufacturing (West Midlands)
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of employment prospects in the manufacturing sector in the west midlands. [25085]
    Mr. Forth: The number of employees in manufacturing has risen by 2 per cent. in the west midlands since 1992, reflecting the United Kingdom's success as the enterprise centre of Europe, not least the highest output in the car industry of any February for 20 years.
    Mr. Cunningham: Given that answer, is the Minister aware of, and would he like to comment on, the Confederation of British Industry survey and the Department of Trade and Industry survey, which state that 16,000 jobs so far have been lost in the manufacturing sector this quarter and which project that another 5,000 will go by June? Is that not in sharp contrast to the Government's earlier boasting about the jobs that they were creating? Yet we do not have a social chapter.
    Mr. Forth: The more relevant figures can be obtained by looking at a longer period. One then sees that the number of people employed in manufacturing generally, as in the west midlands, is going up. The snapshot figure that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is not representative. The reality is that the proportion of the work force involved in manufacturing in this country is broadly similar to the proportion in France and in Italy, for example. It is greater than the proportion in north America—the United States and Canada.
    The reality is that our manufacturing sector is proving to be extraordinarily successful in that productivity, production and exports are continuing to go up. However, manufacturing does not need to employ the same number of people as in the past. That is a record of success, not failure, and we should recognise it as such.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Is it not the case that, in a survey published today, the west midlands chambers of commerce forecast that, over the next 12 months, there will be an increase in profitability and turnover in manufacturing industry in the west midlands? Is it not the case that the only thing that can prevent that from flowing through into more jobs is the old Labour policies of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher)?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, indeed. My right hon. Friend and I are right to celebrate the success of the west midlands and the effect that that has on our constituents. We can see the vigour of the west midlands manufacturing industry. It is enjoying the environment created by the Government which has enabled industry to increase its output and to increase exports. The automobile industry in particular is now a spectacular success story in the west midlands, enabling more and more people to be employed in meaningful manufacturing industry. That should be recognised and celebrated, as it is by Conservative Members.
    Mr. Ian McCartney: The Minister's response is incredible only a few days after a 22 per cent. swing against the Conservatives in South-East Staffordshire, which is in the midlands. That swing was due entirely to the Government's economic record of job insecurity. Across the midlands as a whole, 96,000 young people are still unemployed. Across the midlands, there were more people unemployed in March 1996 than there were in March 1991. There have been 50,000 job losses in manufacturing since—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am waiting for the hon. Gentleman to put a question.
    Mr. McCartney: I apologise, Madam Speaker; I was just trying to cheer the Minister up. In fact, I shall cheer him up—
    Madam Speaker: And ask him a question.
    Mr. McCartney: Yes. Will the Minister tell us clearly whether he agrees with the analysis in a letter sent by the President of the Board of Trade to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in which the right hon. Gentleman says that he expects further job losses in manufacturing over the next few months?
    Mr. Forth: Yes indeed; there will be further job losses in manufacturing over the next few months—but almost certainly there will be a greater number of job gains in that sector over the same period. That is the economic reality that we recognise. Unfortunately, Opposition Members still seem to live in some dim and distant past in which they think that jobs can be made permanent and protected.
    Regrettably, in a modern, flexible, competitive economy, jobs are lost in some sectors—but they are gained in others. This country attracts more than one third of the total inward investment into the European Union, which signifies that overseas investors have full confidence in our economy and in our management of it. We shall continue to see an increase in the number of manufacturing jobs, but those will not necessarily be the same jobs as they were yesterday, last year or the last decade.

    Independent Schools (Inspections)
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement about the inspection of independent schools. [25086]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Robin Squire): All independent schools in England are monitored by Ofsted to ensure satisfactory standards. Those with boarding provision are also inspected by local social services departments to safeguard pupils' welfare.
    Mr. Jamieson: As the Government originally proposed to inspect independent schools once every seven years, can the Minister explain why the chief inspector of schools has written to me to say that up to three schools, out of 2,294, will be inspected next year? I make that an inspection once every 700 years. As £350 million of taxpayers' money is being spent in independent schools, how will the Minister ensure that the taxpayer is getting good value for money, and, more importantly, how will he ensure that children's education does not suffer in the poorer state-subsidised private schools?
    Mr. Squire: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for pursuing that subject in general. Exactly a week ago he pursued it at greater length in a speech that I have read, and will return to, which was answered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. The hon. Gentleman made several suggestions, and I shall think about them.
    As for the issue that he has just raised, he and the House know that the inspection of independent schools, like many aspects of that sector, is separate from the way in which we treat maintained schools—essentially because we believe in minimal regulation, commensurate with proper protection of children at those schools. I welcome the interest that the hon. Gentleman and his party take in independent schools. Of course, I recognise that both his
    428
    party and the Liberal Democrats would be leaderless without independent schools, so obviously those schools must perform a useful function.
    Lady Olga Maitland: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one factor in the success of independent schools and their standards is that, if parents are dissatisfied, they can walk away and take their children to another school? Will he also confirm that the Government are totally committed to the vigorous independent school sector that has undoubtedly added to the strength of this country. Moreover, the children in those schools do not cost the country one penny for their education.
    Mr. Squire: My hon. Friend, with her wide knowledge of education, is absolutely right. The independent sector in general is indeed a jewel in the crown of education in this country. In that sector parents have the choice of withdrawing their children and taking them elsewhere. There are a variety of different inspections that cover the independent sector, and as my hon. Friend knows, but as it is worth reminding the Opposition, our faith in that sector is strong enough for us to have announced the doubling of assisted places for children whose parents are not so well off.

    Schools (Selection)
    Mr. Tredinnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations she has had regarding selection as a means of extending choice and diversity in education. [25087]
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I receive frequent representations on that subject.
    Mr. Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Dixie grammar school and Wolstan preparatory school in my constituency on joining the new assisted places scheme for seven, 10 and 11 year-olds? Does she not find it strange that a scheme that assists the children of the less well-off should be so fiercely opposed by Opposition Members? When will she expand the scheme further?
    Mrs. Shephard: I have no difficulty in congratulating the successful schools that my hon. Friend mentioned. We are firmly in favour of the assisted places scheme because we believe that it extends further choice to children from less well-off families—a policy that one would indeed think that Opposition Members would be happy to espouse but against which they have firmly set their faces.
    Mr. Blunkett: Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether on Monday, when she was attempting to curry favour with the right by backing the Euro-sceptics, she knew that the Prime Minister would today slap them down and whether, as a consequence, her efforts to try to stop the Prime Minister introducing secondary moderns—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This question is about diversity in education. Supplementary questions must follow the substantive question.
    Mr. Blunkett: With respect, Madam Speaker, I am getting there. I was asking whether the Secretary of State

    429
    was withholding her support from the Prime Minister's efforts to introduce secondary modern schools in every town. Does she agree that it would cost £2.5 billion to introduce grammar schools into 300 towns and that excluding 95 per cent. of the local population from access to those schools is entirely contrary to lifting standards and providing excellence for every child?
    Mrs. Shephard: It took the hon. Gentleman a little time to get there. I would like to set the record straight. Selective schools are popular with parents. We shall continue to examine ways of meeting parental preferences that also drive up standards, as selective schools do. That is in stark contrast to the so-called policies of Opposition Members, who believe in choice and selective schools but that that choice and such schools are only for selected members of their Front Bench team. The hon. Gentleman said, and it is worth repeating,
    "Watch my lips: no selection."
    What a pity that the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) was not watching at the time.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a chronic shortage of places in secondary schools, selective and non-selective, in the north of Lancashire, especially in Lancaster and Garstang? That is because the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council insists on keeping empty places in the east and centre of the county, especially in Skelmersdale and Burnley, which was mentioned earlier, when the money should be going to north Lancashire and to Lancaster and Garstang in particular.
    Mrs. Shephard: It is extraordinary that parental preference should be so ignored as my hon. Friend described in her inimitable way. That is yet another example of Labour setting its face against choice.
    Mrs. Mahon: Does the Secretary of State accept that, when Calderdale council says that it wants to end selection in the two grammar schools in Halifax, it does not mean that it intends to close them? Will she tell the Tory group on the council that lying about that simply debases political debate and causes anxiety to parents, children and teachers? The Labour group on the council does not intend to close the two grammar schools. Publishing rubbish that says that it will debases the debate.
    Mrs. Shephard: I believe that Calderdale council is unable to close the schools as they are grant-maintained.

    Religious Schools
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on religious schools and assemblies. [25088]
    Mrs. Gillan: Denominational schools are popular with pupils and parents and will remain a vital part of our education system. Daily collective worship makes a major contribution to pupils' spiritual and moral development.
    Mr. Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of parents in my constituency
    430
    strongly support the Christian and other moral and social values that are advanced through religious assemblies in schools? Will she join me in strongly deploring the commitment given recently by the Liberal Democrat education spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), to scrap Church schools and end religious assemblies in schools? Will my hon. Friend give me a firm commitment that she will preserve the richness of the contribution to our education system made by the Anglican, Catholic, Jewish and other faiths?
    Mrs. Gillan: On behalf of the Government, I have no hesitation in giving my hon. Friend that commitment. I agree that the remarks by the Liberal Democrat spokesman on education, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), are disgraceful. The millions of voters who send their children to denominational schools should take careful note of his remarks. The intention to destroy Church schools and abolish all acts of worship in them is his stated personal agenda—disgraceful.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister accept that she should not necessarily believe all that she is told, either by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) or the Prime Minister? Does she accept that it is my view and that of my party—and frequently stated—that in our multicultural and multi-faith society, religious education plays a vital part in the national curriculum? Will she accept that I have never stated that I believe that we should abolish religious schools? Will she also accept that there is considerable concern nationally about the legislation on the collective act of worship—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is under attack. He has every right to speak his mind.
    Mr. Foster: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the Minister also accept that members of the National Association of Head Teachers believe that the legislation is unhelpful and unworkable, and that a similar view is shared by the Secondary Heads Association? Finally, will she accept that expressing views on the current legislation on the collective act of worship is in no way an attack on the important role of religious education?
    Mrs. Gillan: What I will accept is that that was the grossest act of wriggling on a hook that I have seen from a politician for a long time. The House should know that the record says that the Liberal Democrat spokesman said:
    "in an ideal world there would be no religious state schools. We would put a stop to the daily act of worship in an attempt to encourage all children to be educated together".
    Those are his words and they are taken from a press release issued by a colleague and member of his party, who said:
    "The millions of voters who send their children to church schools will want to consider Mr. Foster's comments at the next election".
    I think that the case is proved.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my hon. Fried agree that the daily act of worship and proper religious instruction in schools go together and that that is the most important subject in any school, because, if children do not know

    431
    how to live with one another and in a civilised, cultured and ethical society, they do not start to live and will learn nothing else?
    Mrs. Gillan: I agree absolutely. My view and that of the Government is that denominational schools are vital to the British education system. They make up a third of all state schools, with more than 7,000 providing an excellent education. They are popular with parents and many have very high academic standards. Part of their popularity and success must be attributable to their denominational status. That is why I believe so firmly in them and so do the Government.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister accept that we may live in a multicultural nation, but we are still mainly a single faith nation and, therefore, it is important that the worship in our state schools should be based on the Christian faith?
    Mrs. Gillan: I have no hesitation in agreeing with what the hon. Gentleman said. I believe that collective worship is an important part of the school day. It can develop community spirit, it can promote common ethos and it can reinforce positive attitudes among pupils. I believe that collective worship should be predominantly Christian. It brings a great strength to our system of education.
    Mr. John Marshall: I ask my hon. Friend to thank her colleagues for demonstrating their commitment to religious schools by granting voluntary-aided status to Hasmonean prep school, Beiz Yaakov school and Pardes House school over the past two years. Does not this demonstrate the Government's commitment to helping religious schools?
    Mrs. Gillan: Yes, it does. Any voluntary group of any religious persuasion can apply to set up a new voluntary-aided or grant-maintained school. All proposals are considered on their merits, in the light of the individual circumstances of each case. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations.
    Mr. Madden: First, will the Minister confirm that her Department and the Government regard Britain today as a multi-faith society? Secondly, will she confirm that it remains the policy of her Department that representatives of any faith can apply for voluntary-aided school status provided that they meet the education and the accommodation criteria? Finally, will she make urgent inquiries into the arrangements pioneered in Bradford for religion and education and promote them throughout the country? The arrangements have served the city of Bradford extremely well over the last decade or so and I believe that they would be extremely helpful in other places.
    Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and I take it that he is inviting me to look at the religious schools in Bradford. I have no hesitation in considering his invitation.
    Mr. Nicholls: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if multi-culturalism is about defending the rights of people of other faiths to worship freely and peacefully, that is something to which we should all subscribe? However,
    432
    did my hon. Friend detect in the smearing attack on Christianity by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) the idea that multiculturalism means that the Judaeo-Christian tradition of this country is no more or less valid than any other tradition? Is that not something that she and I should reject completely?
    Mrs. Gillan: I repeat: the Government are committed to the provision of religious education, to Church schools and to religious schools in this country. It is an important plank of choice and diversity. These schools deliver good education throughout the country and I hope that any potential Liberal Democrat voter will notice the attitude of the Front-Bench spokesman towards these schools.

    Schools (Rochdale)
    Ms Lynne: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the estimated backlog of repairs facing primary and secondary schools within the Rochdale education authority. [25089]
    Mrs. Gillan: It is for local education authorities and school governors to assess the need for repair work in respect of school premises that they own and maintain.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that, since the Labour party lost control of Rochdale borough council in 1992, the new administration has made education a top priority? I thank the Government for including St. Patrick's school in the new start programme. Will the Minister confirm that either she or the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), will visit Rochdale schools to see the backlog of repairs for themselves?
    Mrs. Gillan: I can see that this is my day for receiving invitations, and I shall be delighted to consider an invitation from the hon. Lady. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment has heard his invitation and will consider it. Like the hon. Lady, I was delighted that the Labour party lost control of Rochdale and I am delighted that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have put education at the top of their agenda.
    I thank the hon. Lady for her kind remarks about St. Patrick's, which is a voluntary-aided school and which will be transferring to a new site with a new building. The total cost of the project will be in excess of £1.1 million. The start of this major improvement was facilitated by a grant of £175,000 this year. I wish the school well with these major improvements.

    Grant-maintained Schools
    Mr. Nigel Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many grant-maintained schools there are in the north-west of England. [25090]
    Mr. Robin Squire: There are 96 grant-maintained schools in the north-west of England.
    Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend will know, four of those grant-maintained schools are within the Ribble valley. They are excellent schools—and that does not detract

    433
    from the excellent dedication provided by other schools. Surely the important thing is that it was the choice of the parents as to whether they should be grant-maintained schools.
    Will my hon. Friend give a commitment that he will continue to prioritise parental choice in this regard and that he will not allow dogma to get in the way of denying parents the final choice about whether schools should be grant-maintained, irrespective of whether they happen to come from Peckham, Sedgefield or any other part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Squire: I willingly give my hon. Friend that assurance. As he knows, since the start of this year alone, another five schools have gone GM in his region. I also give him an assurance that, in the White Paper to be published in June, we shall specifically consider ways to allow GM schools better to develop and take advantage of that state of self-governance.

    Activity Centres
    Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the cost compliance assessment of the Activity Centres (Young Persons' Safety) Act 1995. [25091]
    Mr. Paice: The most recent cost-benefit assessment by the Health and Safety Executive suggests that the costs to industry will be less than £9 million at present values, spread over 10 years. A copy is in the Library.
    Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that no one has lost a life in any of the activities that will be regulated under the Act except in the Lyme bay disaster, and that the Health and Safety Executive provides licences only for nuclear reactors, for ammunition dumps and for removal of asbestos? Now we are adding a licence for fell walking and archery. Is that not a priceless example of the Government over-regulating, and should not the Government refer the matter to the Deregulation Committee?
    Mr. Paice: While I respect my hon. Friend's diligence in pursuing the object of deregulation, which we all share, a balance must be struck between the needs to protect children and to deregulate. Although, as he rightly says, there have been only those four tragic deaths, I hope that we do not have to wait for deaths before we legislate. Perhaps my hon. Friend should be aware that the final report of the Health and Safety Executive into the safety of outdoor activity centres reports that there were 175 reportable—that is, relatively serious—accidents in the two years before the visit. That demonstrates the need for some protection, which we have provided.
    Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the Minister for being so positive in the face of his hon. Friend's outrageous question. He mentioned accidents. That £9 million will go a long way towards reducing the incidence of some accidents that do take place in activity centres. Will he join me in congratulating the HSE, and others involved in drafting the final regulations, on including areas that were not included in the original considerations of the Bill, such as some of the places—such as mountainsides—where outdoor activities take place that are dangerous by their nature?
    Mr. Paice: The Government set out to achieve a balance between protection and avoiding over-burdensome regulation. As the hon. Gentleman says, consultation took place; the 96-page document that my hon. Friend the Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) mentioned was a consultation document. Its aim was to achieve that balance between the two objectives. We ended up with only 11 pages of regulations as a result. As the hon. Gentleman says, in certain areas we did increase the number of activities that were covered; in other areas, we chose the deregulatory route. It was a genuine consultation, and I believe that we have struck a balance.

    Special Needs
    Mr. French: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to improve job training for those with special needs. [25092]
    Mr. Paice: The Government continue to provide a wide range of job training for people with special needs. They will benefit from proposals for national traineeships and new entry arrangements for young people—and from the pre-vocational and basic skills pilots in the training for work programme.
    Mr. French: Will my hon. Friend accept an invitation to visit Bridge Training in Gloucester? Is he aware that, if he does so, he will find an organisation deeply dedicated to the training of special needs, with experience and understanding developed over many years, which is increasingly asked to enter into contracts that do not fully meet the requirements of special needs applicants—that is, contracts that do not take account of the fact that special needs requirements take longer to fulfil and people with special needs take longer to reach a position from which they can enter employment than others? While I recognise that the training budget is adequate overall, will my hon. Friend try to ensure that organisations such as Bridge are not put in the position of having either to cut their training programme or to operate at a loss?
    Mr. Paice: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for ensuring that I was not left out of the battery of invitations that have been issued around the House this afternoon. I shall of course consider his kind offer.
    I am sure that the House is aware that training contracts are a matter for individual training and enterprise councils to negotiate with training providers. As a result of the lessons that we have learnt, we have provided much greater flexibility for TECs in contracts covering special needs. We have increased the weighting in terms of payments for trainees with special needs in order to try to recognise that there are clear cost differences when dealing with special needs trainees and those who do not have such needs.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the Minister acknowledge that training opportunities designed specifically for deaf people have been cut drastically? While we wish the greatest number of people to enjoy training opportunities in mainstream provision, a significant number of deaf people are unable to do so. What more will the Minister do for them?
    Mr. Paice: I have received no representations on the specific issue of deaf people. I am aware that there are special requirements for people with a number of different disabilities and special needs and that we must be precise about our language. That is why we have made further changes to our programmes, including ring-fencing a
    436
    large number of TECs this year to ensure that they devote the resources that we are making available to them to trainees with special needs. They must identify those needs in their areas and then ensure that there are sufficient contracts available to meet those needs.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Alan Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Earlier this afternoon during questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson)—entirely inadvertently, I am sure—suggested to the House that the Employment Policy Institute had pronounced against the minimum wage. I assure you, Madam Speaker, and the House that the Employment Policy Institute is scrupulously impartial in political terms. It publishes papers setting forth a variety of arguments in the general debate about employment issues. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to claim that the Employment Policy Institute has come out on his side of the argument. I speak as a trustee of the institute, as is the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman).
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order, but I am sure that it is welcome as a point of information.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise the question of the behaviour of a Minister towards the House and towards hon. Members. I refer to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), and his actions concerning a refugee, Mr. Mikrea Ilin, who is due to be deported from my constituency on Friday and who is currently being held in Rochester prison.
The Under-Secretary wrote to me last night—I received the letter late last night—to say that he would not receive any representations whatsoever from anyone concerning that man, who attempted suicide following a previous attempt to deport him from this country. Is it in order for a Minister to tell another Member of Parliament that he is not prepared to receive letters, representations, faxes or telephone calls about a matter of deep concern regarding a constituent's human rights? It seems to me that the Under-Secretary is setting his face against the Parliament to which he should be accountable.
Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order for me, although the hon. Gentleman certainly raises a serious and interesting matter. He will understand that I have no authority over Ministers' actions, their remarks or the
438
attitude that they adopt to such matters. The issue has now been drawn to the attention of those on the Government Front Bench with the relevant responsibilities and perhaps some action will be taken as a result of the hon. Gentleman's raising it on a point of order.
Mr. Don Foster: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the event of an hon. Member giving a clear assurance to the contrary, is it in order for a Minister speaking from the Dispatch Box to continue to peddle a view that the hon. Member in question has refuted? If it is in order, what protection does that hon. Member have?
Mr. John Marshall: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You act to defend Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who have raised the issue and said how wrong the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is in that particular respect.
Madam Speaker: I defended the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) when he was being shouted down by hon. Members. Any hon. Member who is a member of a minority party has every right to be heard and to express his views in the House. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to persist with his views, perhaps he will seek an Adjournment debate, introduce a ten-minute Bill or use some other method to make his views even better known.
Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to reinforce the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington. North (Mr. Corbyn) concerning the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Recently, that Minister refused on two occasions requests by me for meetings to discuss immigration cases. For that Under-Secretary now to refuse written representations is an extension of the barrier that he seems anxious to build between himself and hon. Members on important matters. If, on reflection, the Minister in question does not have a change of attitude, perhaps you will give a ruling, Madam Speaker—bearing it in mind that the right of hon. Members to make representations to Ministers is a basic right, but one that the Minister in question seems anxious to erode.
Madam Speaker: I will take the matter no further. I responded fully to the original point of order, and we will see how matters develop.

Association (United Kingdom, United States and Former Dominions)
3.36 pm
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to strengthen institutions to promote economic, cultural, and political ties between the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand.
Malcolm Turnbull is the leader of the republican movement in Australia, and he defended Peter Wright in the "Spycatcher" trial. Some have even said that Mr. Turnbull might have become Australia's first President. Although I do not support his republican views—I am a royalist—some of his arguments are interesting. Similarly, although I do not suggest that Britain should leave the European Union, Malcolm Turnbull's belief that we turned our back on our natural friends and allies when we joined the European Economic Community, as it then was, is persuasive.
A few months ago, Malcolm Turnbull was quoted in The Sunday Times:
"I think that was a terrible mistake for Britain. Why should you at this point in history, when technology has made distance more irrelevant than ever, suddenly choose to become a political part of Europe? Technology has made geographical proximity irrelevant and geographical proximity was the only reason for being part of Europe. Britain would have been much wiser focusing on and developing closer relations with those countries with which it really did have a lot in common in terms of language, background, human relationships and institutions. And those countries plainly were the Anglo-Saxon countries—the old Commonwealth and the USA."
I was educated for a while in America and like you, Madam Speaker, I have worked there. You were based on Capitol hill in Washington DC, working in Congress—and I worked not far away, from a base in New Haven in Connecticut, setting up and financing radio stations. As I have also worked in Europe, I have long held views similar to those of Mr. Turnbull, but with one big difference. There does not have to be a mutual exclusivity between membership of the European Union and strengthening ties with the old Commonwealth and the USA. The Government already do just that.
But I believe that we are reaching a crossroads in our nation's history. Our country cannot survive and prosper on its own. We have always needed to be part of a trading bloc. In the 18th and 19th centuries, that bloc was the British empire. People who now think that we can go it alone live in an economic cloud cuckoo land. But the crossroads are fast approaching as a confluence of technology and dissatisfaction with existing trading blocs fast approach each other. That creates a window of opportunity and an unlocking door to a future of mutual prosperity that this nation must not miss lest future generations rightly condemn our short-sightedness at the obvious and our failure of stewardship of our country.
Before I speak of the confluence of ways and the unlocking door, I shall state the obvious and the not so obvious about Britain, Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand. We all share a common language. We may speak in different dialects, but there is a greater diversity in the British Isles than between London and any state in the United States. We all share a common heritage. The kings and queens of England are still taught in Brighton near Melbourne and in Brighton near New York, even if not in Labour-controlled Brighton in Sussex.
440
We all share a common legal system. Do we all realise how important that is to British trade? Can that be why the US is still the biggest holder of investments in the United Kingdom and why the UK is still the biggest holder of investments in the US? Is not it startling that despite America having won its independence back in 1783, its independent legal system developed in parallel with our own after all those years? We still share a common basis in law. Our sense of natural justice is similar to that in America and in the old Commonwealth. Wittgenstein was right to illuminate the immutability between language and cognition and it is well demonstrated by our common jurisprudence.
We all share common economic cycles. While Britain and America enjoy growth, continental Europe wallows in recession. Let us pray that France and Germany's slump does not pull us down too. We all share a common state of economic development. There is no need for cohesion funds, huge fund flows or tides of immigration from one nation to another. We all share a view that we should not subsidise industries, such as airlines that should stand on their own two wheels.
We all share relatively wealthy populations. Britain, the US and the old Commonwealth combined have a population of around 356 million, slightly less than the European Union population of 369 million. But whereas the gross national product of the European Union is $7,280,975 million, that of the United Kingdom, the United States and the old Commonwealth is in excess of $8,274,500 million.
Finally, we all share a common culture bound together by a common history. Our nations' folk memories are not scarred by recent lesions caused by war and invasion. No need is felt to concede the nation state in order to seek the will-o'-the-wisp of peace for all time.
But what of the confluence of circumstances, which I mentioned earlier, which creates the unlocking door that we should now seek to push ajar? There are two aspects to that confluence.
First, the nature of trade has altered over the years. In extremis, we no longer export locomotives: we export microchips and software. We no longer export girder bridges: we export financial services, although not enough to Europe, where some borders are not yet open to the City of London. In 1970, 9 per cent. of our import costs were insurance and freight. In 1994, that figure had reduced to 2 per cent., and the trend continues downwards.
Distance is no longer the object in international trade. In my own experience, the selling price in Copenhagen of a broadcast console made in Britain is higher than the selling price in Auckland. The local market determines the price, not the distance of the goods travelled. I do not have to remind hon. Members that telephoning distant destinations has been transformed since the recent laying of trans-world fibre-optic cables. There is no more satellite delay or echo. Calling Seattle is as clear as calling Lichfield.
Secondly, there has been a more fundamental change. For the first time in its 220-year history, the United States is no longer isolationist. It has recognised the need to form strategic trading alliances, and that has not happened before. It has joined the North American Free Trade Agreement, of which Canada is also a member. Yet Canada and the United States find that they are exporting jobs to and importing finished goods from Mexico.

441
Australia and New Zealand trade with the Pacific rim, as we do. Yet Australia and New Zealand also export jobs to and import finished goods from countries such as Vietnam, Taiwan and South Korea. Those countries assumed wrongly that trading blocs must consist of geographically close nations, not economically and culturally close nations. They are beginning to recognise with growing unease that other more compatible partners may need to be sought.
Surely whether one enters into a marriage partnership, a business partnership or a geopolitical trading partnership, if the partnership is to endure, it must be more than merely a marriage of convenience. My Bill recognises today's reality and future certainty.
The world is going through a time of change. It is unlikely, but the general agreement on tariffs and trade may make all trading blocs unnecessary. But if no such agreement is reached, Britain will need to keep open all its many options. The Foreign Secretary and the President of the Board of Trade have rightly spoken time and again of the need for an international view.
The Bill recognises that Britain trades with the world, that no alliances are for ever, that Britain cannot be a little England and needs geopolitical trading partners, that our partners need to be compatible and that we should never allow Britain to be boxed in or to be without options. The Bill will strengthen the already excellent work undertaken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office through its own initiatives and participation in the work of international organisations including GATT, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the Group of Seven.
3.46 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: When I entered the Chamber and read the notice of motion for the first time, I thought to myself, "Who could possibly be against it?" It read like apple pie and motherhood. One would think that there would be a unanimous House in favour of it. Then I began to notice one or two hints in what the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) was saying. There was a certain sub-text and a certain linkage with yesterday's ten-minute Bill. I began to understand that perhaps the Bill before the House is not all that it appears to be.
The hon. Gentleman says that we must adjust to today's reality. We are not, I hope, against that. He argued that we should keep our options open. I suppose that no one could be wholly against that. He quoted Mr. Turnbull, who is not his ally on other matters. He quoted also Wittgenstein, and who can be against Wittgenstein?
In my judgment, the real sub-text and motive was an essay in nostalgia. Essentially, it was an essay in escapism. The key theme was that there is an alternative to our linkage with our natural allies within the European Union, involving Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand. There is, of course, a basic substratum of co-operation and of marriage of the heart with all those countries. Most of us have family in most, if not all of them. There is the binding of common law and of language, which in most instances brings us together.
The essential problem in looking to Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand as an alternative to
442
the EU is clearly that they are not options, in spite of important emotional and practical areas of co-operation. The key fallacy in the hon. Gentleman's approach is that it takes two to tango. History tells us, as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) knows only too well, that our country has been littered with attempts to escape from its destiny.
During the late 1950s, there was the attempt by the then Mr. Maudling to find an alternative to the treaty of Rome. We were labouring under the illusion created by Sir Anthony Eden in about 1956, that there were the three circles of America, the Commonwealth and the wider world, and that Britain was at the centre of those three concentric circles. We had the Maudling essay in escapism and the European Free Trade Association, which was built up as an alternative. Various other schemes were peddled in the 1960s, notably the North American Free Trade Agreement, associated with Senator Jacob Javits.
The basic problem with all those options was not only that the proposed partners were not terribly interested in the project, but that, basically, it ran against the facts and, notably, the pattern of trade. I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider the way in which our trade pattern has moved from when 40 per cent. of our external trade was with Commonwealth countries to now, when more than 50 per cent. of it is with members of the European Union, a dynamic organisation, at whose door other countries are knocking hard. Countries are trying not to leave the EU or to find an alternative, but to join because they know that, despite all its problems, it is a dynamic organisation.
When we confirmed our membership of the European Union in 1975 after the referendum, we joined not a static Europe, but a Europe that was developing. However much Conservative Members seek to avoid that, the dynamism remains, so, effectively, the apparently anodyne motion must be seen in the context of the agonies of the Conservative party—the escapism that we saw in respect of the European Court of Justice.
That is why we in Britain are not punching our weight in Europe and why, in a Europe that needs alliance-building that is based on partnership, we are increasingly pushed to the side, to the detriment of our interests. Such essays in nostalgia and escapism, however felicitously phrased, are not only contrary to our interests, but avoid the real choices facing the country.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Fabricant, Sir Ivan Lawrence, Sir John Hannam, Sir Michael Spicer, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mr. David Alton, Mr. John Butcher, Mr. Patrick Nicholls, Mr. David Martin, Mr. James Pawsey and Mr. John Wilkinson.

Association (United Kingdom, United States and Former Dominions)
  ASSOCIATION (UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES AND FORMER DOMINIONS)
  Mr. Michael Fabricant accordingly presented a Bill to strengthen institutions to promote economic, cultural, and political ties between the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, the United States and New Zealand: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 113.]
Orders of the Day

  Family Law Bill [Lords]
  (Clauses Nos. 5 and 7 and any new Clauses or new Schedules appearing on the Order Paper not later than Monday 1st April and relating to the circumstances in which a marriage may be taken to have broken down irretrievably or in which a divorce order or a separation order may be made by the Court, or to the period for reflection and consideration.)
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]

Clause 5

  MARITAL BREAKDOWN
  3.53 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 2, after '(1) ', insert
  'For the purposes of an application for a separation order'.
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: No. 6, in page 3, line 22, at end insert—
  '.—(2A) If the parties have entered into an agreement, following counselling by a body approved for the purposes of this section by the Lord Chancellor, not to make a statement unless each of them has sought further counselling (either from that body or from any other such body), any statement made by either of the parties, or by both of them, is to be disregarded unless the agreement has been complied with within the period of three months ending with the date on which the statement is made.'.
  No. 20, in page 3, line 27, after 'year', insert
  '(or such further period as shall appear to the Court in all circumstances to be just) '.
  Clause 5 stand part.
  New clause 1—Grounds for divorce—
  '.—(1) The court hearing an application for a divorce order shall hold the marriage to have broken down irretrievably if, but only if, the applicant has made a statement that he believes that the marriage has broken down and has satisfied the court of one or more of the following facts—

  (a) that the other party has committed adultery and the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least one year;

  (b) that the other party has behaved in an intolerable way and the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least one year;

  (c) that the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years and the other party consents to a divorce order being made;

  (d) that the parties have lived apart for a continuous period of at least five years.

  (2) In relation to an application for a divorce order "continuous period", in subsection (I), means a continuous period ending immediately before the application is made.'.
  Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor's Department for the considerable help that it has given us in drafting the amendments, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm, when he sums up, that the amendments' effect is simply to leave the present law
  444
  as it is, except to ban quickie divorces of under one year. We believe that it is important to give the House an opportunity to vote on such a matter.
  The amendments may look fairly complex to hon. Members who seek to understand them, but, as I have said, we took considerable advice. Consequential amendments may be necessary on Report if the Committee votes for these amendments in principle at 7 pm.
  The backdrop for this important debate is the marital breakdown crisis. Each year, 158,000 marriages—41 per cent.—end in divorce. Moreover, there is huge and mounting evidence, which I am sure would convince anyone, that children are suffering as a result of the divorce epidemic: children of divorced parents tend to be worse educated, more likely to become unemployed and less likely to be able to sustain stable marriages themselves.
  Many of us feel that what is needed is not a Bill to allow easier or slicker divorces, but a campaign in favour of marriage; but we can debate that on another occasion. This afternoon, we are simply debating whether we should retain the requirement either to give a reason for wanting a divorce or to allege fault.
  Those who support the Bill and oppose my amendments say that the present law simply does not work—that it does not stop divorces, but makes matters far worse. We claim that quickie divorces are to blame for much of the problem, but the supporters of the Bill argue that the present law breeds acrimony, and that, if there is conflict in a marriage, it is better for the partners to obtain a quick and easy divorce than to stay together. They say that they want to "humanise" the whole process.
  All those arguments are very beguiling; that is why many hon. Members support the concept of no-fault divorce. However, many of the same arguments were adduced back in 1969 in California, where, for the first time in American history—until then, American law had been very similar to our law—the concept of no-fault divorce was introduced by Governor Reagan. At that time, there was a "happy divorce" movement in California. All the arguments that I have just mentioned about the present law were used then to persuade Governor Reagan and his colleagues to introduce no-fault divorce, and his example was followed in all 50 states of the Union.
  Interestingly, just when we are thinking of copying Governor Reagan's legislation, there is enormous controversy in the United States about no-fault divorce. Many states are examining the position, and at least six have produced Bills seeking to repeal the no-fault divorce legislation. I shall not quote from obvious sources, although I could: there has been considerable criticism of no-fault divorce by America's right wing.
  A Democrat-based foundation, the Council on Families in America, has submitted a report entitled "Marriage in America". The report, headed "The Failed Revolution", states:
  "The evidence of failure is overwhelming. The divorce revolution—by which we mean the steady displacement of a marriage culture by a culture of divorce and unwed parenthood—has created terrible hardships for children. It has generated poverty within families. It has burdened us with unsupportable social costs. It has failed to deliver on its promise of greater adult happiness and better relationships between men and women."

  445
  Hillary Clinton, who is not noted as a right-wing guru, has written:
  "for much of the 1970s and 1980s, many believed that a bad marriage was worse than a good divorce. Now, however, we know that children bear the brunt of failed marriages and divorce. Divorce has become too easy because of permissive laws and attitudes."
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend accept that, every time people in this country have tried to "reform divorce", as they call it, they have always said that it will lead to fewer divorces, but that on every occasion it has led to more divorces?
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is correct, which is why we should consider these matters very carefully—it is a very risky business.
  The divorce rate doubled within two years after we passed the last divorce legislation, in 1969. I want to be fair to those who supported that legislation. Many of them argued that there was a backlog of cases, or that there may have been other reasons that contributed to the doubling of the number of divorces; but there was a doubling in the number of divorces. In America, since the introduction of no-fault divorces, there has been a 20 per cent. increase in the divorce rate.
  Sir Anthony Grant: That fact has been demonstrated by research not only in America but in this country—notably in Cambridge, by a very learned professor of criminology. He produced a report that showed very clearly that juvenile delinquency stems from causes at a very much earlier stage, and primarily in cases in which there has been a broken family.
  Mr. Leigh: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that both sides of the argument accept the catastrophic effect of divorce on children. Later in my speech, I might quote a study that demonstrates that there is mounting evidence that the catastrophic effect on children is not produced so much by acrimony in the marriage or even by the divorce proceedings, as by the divorce itself—because one parent is absent permanently from the matrimonial home.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because, although I shall not come to the same conclusion as he does, I accept what he has just said is the key to the issue. The fact is that divorce produces all the consequences he has just mentioned.
  As a former divorce lawyer, I do not understand why my hon. Friend thinks that, if one approaches a marriage in crisis or a marriage that is effectively over and produces "a fault"—whether it is an act of adultery, an act of unreasonable behaviour or an act of desertion—it will reinforce marriage. How on earth will merely producing "a fault" and saying that it is the instrument of dissolution reinforce marriage? I do not understand that thinking, and it rebels completely against all the experience I gained when I was helping people to come to terms with the consequences of divorce.
  Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I shall deal with his points in some detail, because they are, of course, central to our arguments.
  446
  We do not claim that divorce legislation or Parliament can stop people getting divorced, but one answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is that, to divorce under current legislation—as he well knows as a former divorce lawyer—one does not need to allege fault. There can be a separation, and one can achieve a divorce with no fault and no consent after five years, or with no fault and consent after two years.
  The recent, much publicised divorce of the Duke and Duchess of York was based not on a quickie divorce but on a two-year separation. They remain, as we know, the best of friends after their divorce. I do not think that that divorce, which occurred under current legislation, has contributed to acrimony or bitterness or affected their children.
  The answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge is that, while Parliament cannot stop people getting divorced, it can lay down a moral cornerstone or a moral foundation for the nation. It can provide some guidance. We believe that that is what the existing law does, and that is why we believe that it should be retained.
  Mr. David Chidgey: I take the hon. Gentleman back to the figures he quoted about the doubling of the divorce rate after the relaxation of divorce law. Could he contrast that with any statistics on changes in the number of couples who separated, either legally or through some less formal arrangement, and tell us whether the number of separations decreased as the number of divorces increased? Separation and divorce cannot be the same thing.
  Mr. Leigh: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I do not understand the point he is making, and I do not think that it is germane to the argument. I do not want to lengthen this debate over statistics, because we know that they can prove anything. As we all know, however, it is undeniable that divorce has dramatically increased in this country, and that we have more divorces than any other nation in Europe. I and those who share my views argue that there is a crisis. We may not be able to stop people getting divorced, but do we want to make divorce even easier, given the state we are in?
  I was referring to the American experience. Why should we look into the crystal ball or examine statistics when we can read the book? The book is open in front of us—the American experience is there for us to see.
  Ms Jean Corston: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leigh: I shall finish this point and then give way.
  Six American states now have Bills before their legislatures that would repeal no-fault divorce. They are Oklahoma, Michigan, Iowa, Idaho, Alabama and Minnesota. The matter is also under discussion in New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Georgia.
  Ms Corston: The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that the purpose of the amendment is to make divorce harder, or at least not to make it easier than it is now. Those of us who have worked as family lawyers know that, under the present divorce law, often when clients ask how they can get divorced, they are told that they have to wait two years to show that they can no longer live together and that the

  447
  marriage has irretrievably broken down. They often say that that is too long, and ask whether they can get a divorce more quickly.
  The answer is that they could allege adultery or unreasonable behaviour and be divorced within six months. The Bill is going to make divorce harder, and make people think about it more thoroughly than they do when they can allege fault.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Lady is making my point. That is the problem with the present divorce legislation. The fact that people can within three or four months obtain a divorce based on fault or allegations of unreasonable behaviour or adultery, means that divorce lawyers often advise them to make such allegations. That is what is wrong with the existing divorce law, and it is why we fully support Ministers who want to ban divorce being obtainable in under a year. The hon. Lady makes my point. I am not in favour of quickie divorces.
  Sir David Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with the existing system is that, as soon as a case gets into the hands of solicitors, clients get into a confrontational situation? It is that situation which poisons the atmosphere and makes it worse for the children and harder to reach a settlement. Would it not be much better to avoid confrontation and see where a reconciliation process leads, without the usual tension and crisis?
  Mr. Leigh: We all agree, and, although the Opposition spokesman seeks to amend it, the Bill as drafted unfortunately gives no time for reconciliation. It provides for a year's waiting period, but that is a period in which there can be mediation over the division of assets and issues affecting the children. The Bill does not provide time for reconciliation, which we want to build into it. Under the existing legislation, lawyers advise potential clients that the way to get a quick divorce is to allege fault. I agree with my hon. Friend that that breeds acrimony.
  My argument is that it is wrong that someone who has been married for a considerable time should not have to be given any reason for the dissolution of the marriage, and that that person's partner is being granted a divorce on demand. Is that fair? That is the question that the Committee must consider very carefully.
  Mr. Stephen Timms: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendment does not remove the problem that there will still be an incentive to make an allegation of fault—possibly a fictitious one—because there will still be the possibility of obtaining divorce more quickly that way?
  Mr. Leigh: Not, of course, if the Committee accepted my subsequent amendment at 10 pm—that is the simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
  Why will the Bill not work? Why will it not achieve the objectives in which we all believe?
  Mr. Win Griffiths: I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said about America. From all the briefing material that we have been sent, I understand that several other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, have no-fault
  448
  legislation. Can he tell us a little about what happened to divorce rates in those countries following the introduction of no-fault?
  Mr. Leigh: Yes, I can. There is some dispute about Australia, because the rate went up considerably and then seemed to settle down, but it seemed to increase by about 11 per cent.
  Opposition Members might think that they must pass the Bill unamended because acrimony is so bad. They should not be under any illusion that the Bill will not lead to more divorce—it will; it will make divorce easier. In considering how to vote at 7 o'clock, hon. Members should consider very carefully which is more damaging to society—the fact of divorce or supposed acrimony in the divorce process. The Bill's main purpose is to get rid of acrimony, but of course the truth is that it will not.
  Last year, there were only five divorce trials in this country. Most divorces are based on petition, and one obtains one's divorce by post. There were, of course, a huge number of trials about very acrimonious disputes over division of property and children, and they will go on.
  Whatever the Bill says, whatever its worthy arguments for mediation, one or other partner will be advised by their lawyer either of their rights or that the lawyer should be present at the mediation process, so such legal disputes will continue. The Bill is therefore addressing the wrong target. In Scotland, there is less acrimony, because assets accrued through marriage are divided 50-50. In our system in England, the courts are given almost complete discretion. That is what breeds so much acrimony. We are, first, not dealing with the acrimony issue, and, secondly, sending out the wrong message.
  There is another point on acrimony. What about the bitterness of the injured party if no-fault divorces were introduced? Occasionally there are injured parties. We are not always equally to blame in life, although often we are partly to blame. What about the bitterness, the feelings of rejection and the denial of rights of the injured parties to have their day, even on a divorce petition? Those things are being swept away by the Bill, which is very dangerous.
  It is therefore not surprising that the Bill is enormously controversial, right across the political parties. Not only Conservative Members feel strongly about it. Norman Dennis, a respected Labour party supporter and academic, said in his book "English Ethical Socialism":
  "The institution of marriage protects children. Generations of children will not welcome an Act which sends out the message that the sexual convenience of adults is of paramount importance."
  Many ex-Labour Ministers in the House of Lords supported my noble Friend Baroness Young in the amendments she tabled.
  There have been a number of academic studies on the matter. The Exeter study, for instance, says on page 55:
  "The most significant factor of those examined was the reordering of the family—the loss of a parent on one or more occasions—rather than the presence of serious conflict or violence. That was most closely associated with children's poorer outcomes as measured".
  The academic world, politicians, and lawyers themselves are divided on the Bill.
  If the Bill were so obviously needed, why has the Scottish Law Commission rejected it out of hand? A jurisdiction not so very different from our own has

  449
  rejected no-fault divorce. There is not even any overwhelming evidence of public support for the Bill. A MORI poll conducted by the Lord Chancellor's Department showed that 60 per cent. of the public reject divorce based on the unilateral demand of one party.
  Mr. John Patten: Has my hon. Friend noticed that not one Scottish or Northern Irish Member has spoken in this place in favour of the legislation?
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Leigh: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. What he says is not surprising, because, in Scotland, 63 per cent. of divorces take between two and five years, and in Northern Ireland, 75 per cent. of divorces take between two and five years. This is largely an English problem.
  Quickie divorce is not just the creation of Parliament. It was the creation of the Lord Chancellor's Department in 1977, when the period between decree nisi and decree absolute was cut from six months to six weeks. The Department, although not alone, has to a great extent created the problem of quickie divorces. My answer, therefore, to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Ms Corston) and to others who have intervened is that we should get rid of quickie divorces.
  Sir David Mitchell: Surely, by the time a decree nisi has been granted, a person is effectively divorced, because the whole thing has broken up. The fact that one shortens the time between decree nisi and decree absolute does not affect the fact that the family has come to an end in terms of the operation of normal family life.
  Mr. Leigh: The point that my hon. Friend is missing is this—and the hon. Member for Bristol, East made this clear from her own experience. When one is contemplating divorce, one's lawyer will advise one, that if one wants to get divorced within three months and does not want to wait two years, the only way in which to do so is to make allegations. That is what is wrong with the present system.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I too was a divorce lawyer. I often found that a middle-aged lady would come to our chambers who had loyally supported her husband for many years by helping him to get on in his industrial life and by bringing up his children. In fact, she had done everything she could. Her one crime was that she had become middle-aged, fat and possibly a little dull. Her husband, therefore, wanted a shiny new model. In what way has such a woman ever committed a fault? As my hon. Friend said, she would feel bitter if she were just discarded like an old glove with no good reason being given.
  Mr. Leigh: I understand that my hon. Friend has been very happily married for a long time. She is a beacon and an example to us all.
  Another answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell), which may be more germane to the second debate, is that if, under the
  450
  Bill as unamended, we reduce the time to one year, people will have to settle everything within one year. Under present legislation, after the decree nisi, one can go on talking and arguing about ancillaries. Lawyers refer to disputes over children and property as ancillaries. However, that is another argument, which we can have after 7 o'clock.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I do not want to intervene at length during my hon. Friend's argument, because it is important that he should have the opportunity to develop it. However, it would be wrong if the Committee were of the view that 12 months is the period during which arrangements in relation to finance and property must be concluded. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Bill permits that period to be extended by up to two years.
  Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he makes the point that I want to make, especially forcefully, in the second debate. Under the Bill, people will not be required to settle everything within 12 months but I suspect that that will become the expectation. Under schedule 1, if one goes to the court and argues that one party is being obstructive—one does not have to prove that—the court can override the objections of the other party. That is, of course, more substantially a matter for the second debate.
  However, that point is why we say that, where there is a dispute, where children are involved or where there are difficulties, the period should certainly be extended beyond 12 months. There should be a difference between how quickly a person obtains a divorce if there is consent and no children, and how quickly a divorce is obtained if there is a dispute or if there are children. My hon. Friend the Minister is not being entirely fair.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: May I draw my hon. Friend out a little on the distinction between the view of the Scottish Law Commission and the advice of the English Law Commission? It is interesting that Scotland has not decided to go down the road that is proposed in the Bill. I believe that my hon. Friend said that public opinion in England was against the line taken in the Bill. Does that mean that the English law commissioners totally ignored the views of our people?
  Mr. Leigh: It is not one of the duties of the English Law Commission to consider public opinion. As my hon. Friends and I will argue, one of the problems with the Bill is summed up by the question: who has been calling for it? Have our constituents been writing to us in droves asking for it? Was it in the Conservative party manifesto? Or was it driven by lawyers sitting in the Law Commission—one of whom, who is now a High Court judge, has questioned the very institution of marriage?
  Should we in this Parliament make laws based on what the Law Commission advises, or laws based on our own experience and on common sense, and on what our constituents tell us is necessary? Every opinion poll tells us that our constituents support the institution of marriage, and do not want divorce to be made easier.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: Will my hon. Friend continue along that line? Considering public opinion, and reading the letters that I have had

  451
  from my constituents, it seems to me that the institution of marriage is greatly valued, that it is regarded as a contract made between two people, partly for their mutual enjoyment but also for the procreation of children, with the intention that the children will be brought up within that marriage.
  It therefore seems an odd idea to try to undermine in any way the moral obligation that the two people feel towards each other and the basic contract that they make between themselves. I should have thought that we would want to concentrate our efforts on trying to ensure that that contract was made more rather than less solid, and I hope that my hon. Friend agrees with me.
  Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and also for what Cardinal Hume said at the end of last week—that, as a society, we must put far more emphasis on preparation for marriage. I do not know whether hon. Members know that, at a civil marriage ceremony in a register office, there is no requirement to make any promises whatever about the long-term stability of a marriage.
  Every society and every culture, throughout history, has recognised that the best way to bring up children is in a secure and stable marriage. That is why every society and every religion in the world envelops the marriage ceremony with solemn vows. It is recognised that human nature is weak; that is why we are required to make those vows, to buttress our determination to stay together. Is the message that we want to give to the nation as a whole the idea that those vows mean nothing, and that, on the demand of just one partner, they can be broken?
  Dr. Robert Spink rose—
  Mr. Chidgey rose—
  Mr. Leigh: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Dr. Spink: My hon. Friend may remember that, in a previous debate, I called for marriage to be made harder, with the Churches leading the way in preparing people for marriage, rather than for divorce to be made easier. As for public opinion, is my hon. Friend aware that a MORI poll in 1993 showed that 56 per cent. of people who wanted a change in that area of the law wanted to see divorce made harder?
  Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and now I shall give way to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey).
  Mr. Chidgey: May I draw the hon. Gentleman back to a comment made a few moments ago and supported by several of his hon. Friends, concerning the case of injured parties who have suffered considerably through divorce through no fault of their own and who, as the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) explained, are left bereft? That is a real problem, and it is important to realise that either partner may be in that situation, when a divorce of which he or she had no foreknowledge nor any wish to be part of, is forced upon him or her. However, I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would explain to the House how his amendment would overcome that problem.
  Mr. Leigh: If someone is not at fault, the present law makes adequate provision. People simply have to wait two
  452
  years, or, if there is no consent, five years. If one is the injured party, one will not be able to stop the divorce. We accept that; we cannot prevent people from getting divorced. But at least the fault of the other party—whether that be adultery, desertion, unreasonable behaviour or, in the words of my new clause, "intolerable" behaviour—will be on the divorce petition, and in that sense the injured party will have had his or her day in court.
  Mr. Phil Gallie: Much has been said about the situation in Scotland, and it is time that a Scottish voice was heard. I will be in the Lobby tonight with my hon. Friend. However, if there were a Scottish Assembly, I would be able to go into the Lobby with him to judge English law, but if there were a change of heart in Scotland, I would not be able to take part in the debate.
  Mr. Leigh: That is interesting, but I had better not be beguiled down that path.
  Mr. David Alton: I support the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I welcome his amendments. Is he heartened not only by the shift in public opinion that has been alluded to but by the fact that commentators such as Ruth Deech and Melanie Phillips, who come from a very different part of the political spectrum to him, have argued strongly against the abolition of fault? They recognise, as many of us do, that it is absurd to pretend that we can remove fault by Act of Parliament. There will continue to be fault; surely redress is the issue.
  If people feel that they cannot get redress in law and can be divorced on demand against their wishes, the Bill will have brought an unacceptable principle into British law. Does he accept that the children who are littered throughout our broken-hearted communities are the casualties of divorce? There are 750,000 children who no longer have access to their fathers. The collapse of family life is one of the major causes of our social problems.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman presses his point well. Ruth Deech has written penetrating articles and made speeches on that subject.
  I was advising the Committee about what we can do. First, we can get rid of quickie divorces. Secondly—this is built into the amendments—we should replace the subjective test of unreasonable behaviour with the more objective test of intolerable behaviour. We were advised to put that in by the Lord Chancellor's Department. Thirdly, we should consider changes to court procedures. We cannot, of course, resurrect divorce trials, but at least judges should be allowed under judges' and court rules to question affidavits. If there is an open-and-shut case of fault, it is absurd that the judge should not be allowed to consider it at all.
  Above all, we should not abolish the right of people to demand reasons for their marriages being terminated. Clause 1 states that the objective is
  "to promote as good a continuing relationship between the parties and any children affected as is possible in the circumstances".
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: I am slightly at a loss to know what the benefit of fault is, except in the relatively small number of cases in which one party is manifestly not at fault. That is difficult to establish. If the

  453
  party that is at fault got a less generous settlement than if that party had not been at fault, it would raise all sorts of questions about which parent should have custody of the children. Presumably the settlement should go mainly to the parent with the children. I am not certain what the establishment of fault secures.
  Mr. Leigh: I can give my hon. Friend a good reason. It is not because we want to say, "You're guilty, you should admit it." We do not want to build up bitterness in marriages. It sometimes serves a purpose to say, "I'm sorry, I was wrong." We all know that from our personal relationships. If I broke the rules of the House and the Chairman of Ways and Means called me to order, he would expect me to apologise, and we could then move on.
  If we try to solve problems on the basis of no pain, no shame and no apology, it can make it even harder to start again and rebuild a relationship. If our present fault or reason-based divorce legislation is so bad and is creating all this acrimony, why, every year, do 20,000 to 30,000 couples who have embarked on the process change their minds? Perhaps our present process helps many people to resolve their difficulties to some extent, and decide that they must try to make their marriages work.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend said that everyone is entitled to know, in a legal context, why their marriage has failed. Does he accept that marriages do not fail because of an act of adultery, desertion or unreasonable behaviour, but because, for a variety of reasons, they simply will not work any longer? The law as an instrument is capable of recognising that fact, but is incapable of carrying out the sort of moral audit which we might want in an ideal world but which, in the reality of a law court, is completely impossible.
  4.30 pm
  Mr. Leigh: That is my hon. Friend's view and the view of people who want to promote no-fault divorce—they all say that it is six of one and half a dozen of the other.
  Mr. Nicholls: It is not.
  Mr. Leigh: It is to a certain extent. In fact, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, a former president of the family law division, who opposes no-fault divorce and spoke eloquently in the other place, pointed out that in his experience—he is a practitioner in the field—most divorces result mainly from the fault of one party. My hon. Friend is right: there may be circumstances that lead up to that fault, but that former president of the family law division recognises that fault should be acknowledged in divorce proceedings.
  Mr. Tim Devlin: There seems to be a fundamental fallacy in my hon. Friend's proposal. Present law is not based on fault—one is granted a divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. That is evidenced in one of five ways, but none of those is grounds for divorce. At the moment, we have no-fault divorce.
  Mr. Leigh: That is a semantic point, if I may say so. Under existing legislation, of course irretrievable
  454
  breakdown is the ground for divorce, but one has to give a reason or allege a fault, or there has to have been a separation. Under the unamended Bill, one does not have to give a reason—it is divorce on demand. One proves irretrievable breakdown of a marriage by saying, "I divorce you." After one year, one can obtain a divorce without giving a reason.
  Sir Michael Neubert: Is not the problem the fact that the Bill, this debate and even my hon. Friend's speech in moving his amendment, concentrate on the point of marriage breakdown, whereas, if we are to avoid the terrible crisis of divorce in such high numbers that he has described, we must go back to the original commitment? Is not the removal of fault the equivalent to saying that there is no contract, and therefore that there can be no breach of contract? Is not my hon. Friend trying to establish once again the commitment that comes at the start of a marriage and which will be so much more important later in the event of difficulties?
  Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, as he has put his finger on it. We all accept that the marriage contract should be the most solemn contract that one makes in one's life. It should be uniquely unbreakable. In fact, it will be uniquely breakable. In any other contract, one has to allege a fault. As one of my hon. Friends said on Second Reading, if one buys a television set and wants to sell it and get one's money back, one alleges a fault. In this, the most important contract of all, one has to allege nothing. One simply says that the marriage is over. None of us thinks that that is the way to proceed.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Does my hon. Friend accept that, under the present proposals, if a couple get married on Saturday, and if, on the same day, they take out a finance agreement for 24 months, they have a firmer commitment to that agreement to purchase than they have to the marriage that they are embarking on, which is nonsense?
  Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend is right.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I have been trying to follow the hon. Gentleman. He talked about a contract and a breach of contract. In our civil courts, judges are regularly able, knowing the law, to state whether there has been a breach of contract in a case. For example, in an industrial accident, a personal injury accident or an accident in which someone has been run down, judges are able to say who is responsible and whether there has been contributory negligence. The question is whether, in a short hearing, a judge is capable of ascertaining whether fault in the lifetime of a marriage is apportioned 50:50, 60:40 or 75:25, and, secondly, whether any proper public purpose is served by that attempt.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is a distinguished lawyer, and, as he well knows, that is precisely why the Divorce Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act was introduced in 1968, and why we have only four or five divorce trials every year. We are not saying that we can or should return to the days of the full-blown divorce trials that we saw in the 1930s—we realise that we cannot do that, whatever our private opinion about divorce and the sanctity of marriage may be.

  455
  We are saying that a general public understanding and consciousness is underwritten by the existing law, that, if people want to get a divorce, the State will not stop them and they will get their divorce, but that marriage is for life, and that, if people are going to get a divorce it has to be based on separation of more than two years, on fault, on adultery or whatever. It serves a purpose. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not seeking to return to the old divorce legislation that operated before 1968. We realise that we cannot do that, whatever our private view may be.
  Hon. Members have been patient, and I hope that they understand that I have had to give way to the hon. Members who wished to intervene. I shall now draw my remarks to a conclusion.
  What sort of message do we want to send to young people? Do we want to send out the message that solemn promises, often made in a religious context, do not matter? Do we want to say that desertion does not matter? Do we want to say that adultery is not reprehensible? Are we saying that the law does not influence behaviour?
  Do we deny that the public have a right to express a point of view? Do we deny that this is a solemn moment in our history, because, for the best part of 2,000 years, our law in this area has been based on our Judaeo-Christian inheritance? I believe that there was no-fault divorce in Roman times. However, in the past 2,000 years, the divorce law has been based on that Judaeo-Christian inheritance. This afternoon, do we wish to sweep that all away?
  The Chairman: I remind hon. Members that with this amendment the Committee is considering amendments Nos. 6 and 20, and new clause 1.
  Dr. Jeremy Bray: My amendment is amendment No. 6, which states:
  "Clause 5, page 3, line 22, at end insert—
  —(2A) If the parties have entered into an agreement, following counselling by a body approved for the purposes of this section by the Lord Chancellor, not to make a statement unless each of them has sought further counselling (either from that body or from any other such body), any statement made by either of the parties, or by both of them, is to be disregarded unless the agreement has been complied with within the period of three months ending with the date on which the statement is made."
  I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor's Department and to parliamentary counsel for helping me draft my amendment. I puzzled long and hard over the question whether counselling, reconciliation and attempts to save a marriage can have any part in the divorce process. They have precious little to do with this Bill. If one party believes that the marriage could be saved and wishes to save it, provision is effectively limited to the giving of information and does not extend to counselling, to the financing of counselling or to support of it in any way.
  There are people who will use any provision out of malice to delay or to refuse divorce. There are other people who believe, out of love and a sense of reality—perhaps a greater sense of reality than their partner—that the marriage can be saved and they want to make every effort to do so, even while their partner is pursuing the divorce process. Counselling, where people have no wish to be counselled, is futile. Any requirement for counselling may rapidly become a dead letter, as indeed
  456
  the requirement to give information on counselling has done in previous legislation since the Divorce Reform Act 1969.
  The amendment caters for people who have made a commitment not only to their marriage partner but to seek help to maintain the marriage if it comes under strain. They may wish to seek help from the community. The amendment opens the way to serious preparation for marriage and support to maintain the marriage during its course.
  At present, a conscientious clergyman will meet a couple for two or three sessions in preparation for a marriage, but his or her resources, and the resources of the registrar and the register office, are extremely limited. Properly resourced and supported, marriage preparation sessions may become a highly popular institution. People are required to pay fees for various purposes when they marry, and they incur much heavier expenses at their weddings in a great many cases. A modest fee for marriage preparation and continuing support would not be an objectionable imposition.
  A well-managed counselling organisation would keep in touch with couples throughout their married life, as a properly functioning church does with couples who have been married in that church, and would be there to give help if at any time during the marriage it were called on to do so to maintain the marriage.
  In making an agreement first to seek counselling at the time of marriage or during its course when there are no problems, the couple can accept that, in the last resort, the court will require them to seek further counselling before they seek divorce under the provisions of the amendment. The divorce process will not be affected, but such an arrangement would work on the fortunes of a marriage at an earlier stage, preventing it from sliding into irretrievable breakdown.
  One of the Bill's difficulties is that its sponsors see only the fact of marriage and its breakdown. They do not witness the increasing strains that gradually lead to the breakdown of marriage, and the thousand and one times when it is possible to budge it back or it may slide further forward. It is in that constant help in maintaining the marriage that sensitive counselling has a role.
  Some years ago, the Church of England called for the introduction of two types of marriage—one for those who wished to make a lifelong commitment and another for those who would qualify that commitment in various ways. Rightly or wrongly, the Church decided against it, on the grounds that, understandably, it did not wish to detract from commitment in any marriage.
  However, the amendment does not seek to set up two types of marriage. It recognises the divorce law and it sets up a reservation, before that divorce law can take effect, that counselling will be sought.
  If it is argued that the provision belongs in a marriage Bill, not a divorce Bill, that is not the choice of the House. Many of us feel that, indeed, a commission on marriage and a Bill on marriage is the only context in which a Law Commission report should have been pursued on divorce law reform. Marriage and divorce cannot be treated separately in law in our society. There is very little in the Bill as it stands relating to marriage. Something can usefully be introduced into it so that divorce is viewed in the wider perspective of a lifelong marriage or its breakdown.

  457
  It is possible to strengthen the provision for counselling elsewhere in the Bill, and my hon. Friends have tabled amendments to that effect. I am advised, however, that, if it is intended to link the counselling to marriage preparation and guidance in establishing whether a marriage has irretrievably broken down, this is the place to do it.
  Not only does divorce law reform affect marriage breakdown, as we argued on Second Reading and will argue continually in Committee, but it is possible to do something positive and use the Bill to strengthen the institution of marriage by direct provisions such as preparation for marriage, counselling, support for counselling and the maintenance of marriages. The amendment's intentions could no doubt be provided in other ways, and the Committee may exercise its ingenuity in exploring those alternatives later in the proceedings.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Nicholls: I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) outline why he had reached particular conclusions. I agree with much of what he said, although I do not agree with the conclusion that he draws. He made the point—as did the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray)—that we should be talking about a campaign for marriage, as divorce is the ultimate failure of the usefulness of marriage.
  I was somewhat puzzled, initially, that a Conservative Administration should approach the matter with a view to altering divorce law rather than by addressing the social context of marriage, to which my hon. Friend referred. I found that slightly strange. I am concerned also that a commission of lawyers is the driving force behind the proposals. As a lawyer, I draw two conclusions: first, that I am entitled to be rude about lawyers; secondly, that I am entitled to say that lawyers are not the best people to conceive legislation of that sort.
  I am distinctly unhappy about a measure that was not trailed in the manifesto and that has been prompted by the academic ideas of lawyers on the Law Commission. In some extraordinary way, it has emerged as party policy and, as such, must be accepted. The measure seems completely devoid of politics, which I rather favour.
  There is nothing ignoble about politics: it is a matter of trying to identify the aspirations of the people who send us here. Sometimes, the aspirations of the Opposition and the Government parties will differ. What brings me here is perhaps different from what brings Opposition Members to this place, but the political process is the same in both cases: each of us tries to reflect the views of our constituency and answer to it. I must admit that, initially, I could not conceive what Conservative constituency had called me to debate a Bill such as this.
  Mr. Patten: Has my hon. Friend received any letters in support of the Bill from any known Conservative supporters—of which there are a great many in his constituency as he is such a popular and excellent Member of Parliament?
  Mr. Nicholls: My right hon. Friend may say that, and I could not possibly contradict him. I do not know the
  458
  politics of the two people concerned, but I have received letters from Cardinal Hume, the Archbishop of Westminster, and from the Bishop of Liverpool writing on behalf of the Archbishop of Canterbury. I would not hazard a guess as to whether they are Conservatives—my right hon. Friend may try to make the point that they are not my constituents, but that is not important. I do not know where those eminent people have their holiday homes—perhaps that will qualify them as my constituents.
  My right hon. Friend makes a serious point. When confronted with a piece of legislation with which I was profoundly out of sympathy, I thought it would be a good idea to canvass the views of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England. That is not to say that I intended, having sought their views, to put my independent judgment to one side, but I was greatly assisted, reassured and impressed by the quality of the arguments advanced by Cardinal Hume and the Bishop of Liverpool. To the extent that I have made any sort of odyssey in relation to the issue, I was greatly assisted by those contributions.
  I was assisted also by the fact that politics entered the process for the first time when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department held negotiations with my colleagues and me in an effort to identify a possible Conservative agenda in the Bill. I was impressed also by the approach of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—I hope that he is pleased rather than embarrassed—when dealing with the matter on Second Reading. I began to appreciate that several points needed to be examined.
  It was possible simply to walk away from the Bill, saying, "I'm not quite sure how it got here and I will not play any part in it," but I decided not to take that view because of the responses that I received from both the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England and as a result of conversations that I had with my right hon. and hon. Friends. There was another reason for my decision: although we may lament the fact that it ever appeared in the first place, if the Bill is to pass into law—which seems likely—we have an obligation to ensure that it performs a useful purpose. It troubles me greatly that, if the Bill is left as it is, the one-year period of separation for pause and reflection would go through unchallenged, which would be a mistake. The Bill also poses the problem for the Committee—with which my hon. Friend is dealing—of whether fault should be brought back into divorce.
  It is always dangerous to make a speech in the House on a subject about which one knows something, and I declare an interest in that I do not do that often. However, for many years I made my living as a divorce lawyer. I did not handle just a few divorces, as many other humble country solicitors do, but practised nothing but divorce law. That was a few years ago, but people do not change greatly over the centuries. I learned fairly quickly that the misery and unhappiness that two people deadlocked in matrimony can cause each other was a bottomless pit.
  When I was a practising divorce lawyer in my 20s and 30s, at least the point was to some extent academic—in so far as the misery of another human being is ever academic. I have grown older and become greyer, and I am at that miserable time in life, in late middle age, when the marriages of my friends, which I thought were as

  459
  stable as I believe my own to be, are cascading around me. That brings home to me how utterly miserable is divorce.
  The prospect of bringing fault back into divorce must be addressed. I say without any attempt at sarcasm that I understand to the hilt that which my hon. Friend is trying to achieve. A contract of matrimony is not the same as a hire purchase contract. On one level, a marriage contract should be harder to enter and leave—but it is anyway totally different. I have seen in the past the way that fault has been used as an integral part of the divorce mechanism, and it does not work. If fault has to be produced, in conjunction with time or without time, one must pull fault out of a hat in a prize rabbit way and say, "Guess what. I've found a fault. I've found an isolated act of adultery. I've found a desertion. I've found a pattern of unreasonable behaviour."
  Persons who have not practised in the divorce courts as long as I did can have no conception of the difficulty of using a judicial process to carry out that sort of moral audit, which is what we are talking about. Those of us who are inclined superficially to believe that we should reintroduce fault are looking for a certificate of moral righteousness to show that one person has measured up to their obligations and to bring upon the person who has not a sort of contrition that will help to carry them through. That is a marvellous aspiration, but it cannot begin to work.
  What about the situation in which a wife deserts her husband and commits an act of adultery? That is a bad enough fault, but wait a moment. She may claim that she was driven out by a hard and domineering husband, so perhaps the fault was his. But hold on another moment—the husband may claim that he had to control and direct his wife because she was a rotten housekeeper, was getting the finances wrong and the children were suffering. Then the wife might say, "Come off it. I married at 18. I didn't know enough, so obviously I was going to get it wrong." What is the answer? God knows—and He is not going to come down to tell us to help us with our deliberations.
  Such a scenario is far from fanciful, as anybody who has practised in the courts knows. It is unreal to think that, in such a complex pattern, we can use the courts to work out definitively and fairly who was at fault and who was not. I am just about old enough to remember how it used to be in the old days, when people had their day in court. No video nasty that I have ever seen is more squirmingly embarrassing and heartbreaking than two people having their day in court, trying to explain to the man up there in the wig how they felt and why they acted as they did. It does not work. I do not see how a moral audit in which the circumstances could be brought out and expanded, to produce a definitive version of events, could ever be workable.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I think that everyone in the House will agree with my hon. Friend's analysis that the attribution of fault at the point at which the marriage is breaking down is destructive, but how can we allow couples to enter the contract of marriage—the most solemn contract that we ever enter—on the basis that
  460
  a breach of that contract carries no fault and no penalty, although there is never no penalty for the breakdown of such a close relationship?
  Mr. Nicholls: If I may say so, my hon. Friend has given half the answer to his question in his concluding remark, but the real answer to his question is that we should have started a debate—in many ways, it is the great debate—about how matrimony has got into its current situation. Is there a campaign for matrimony that could reverse the process that we have seen? God knows, there is not much in present-day Britain that readily unites hon. Members on both sides of the House, but very few hon. Members would deny that stable marriage is the ideal. We do not have that now.
  Perhaps we should have a joint manifesto for the parties at the forthcoming general election about the subjects on which we agree. A good one for the shopping list would be the institution of matrimony, but we are not in that situation. We have the Bill, and we must decide whether we will do something useful with it.
  Mr. Jenkin: with respect, my hon. Friend has not answered my question.
  Mr. Nicholls: I have not given the answer my hon. Friend wanted.
  Mr. Jenkin: My point is whether it is right to advertise the marriage contract as a penalty-free contract. That is the question with which we are wrestling. The point is not whether there is an easy way through the divorce process, but whether the marriage contract should be advertised as a penalty-free contract, whatever the pain of breaking that contract may be.
  Mr. Nicholls: My hon. Friend has again given the answer to his question himself. There is no penalty-free aspect to the failure of a marriage. Of course, we have all met the people who are so callous, so unfeeling or so plain stupid that they can go through the process of divorce and feel perfectly happy at the other end, but they constitute a tiny minority. The reality is broken dreams, broken aspirations, humiliations and pain, not just for the couple, but for their family, their extended family, their children, their whole circle of acquaintances and society itself.
  Mr. Jenkin: Will my hon. Friend give way again?
  Mr. Nicholls: I shall give my hon. Friend another shot in a moment, but others also wish to speak. My hon. Friend suggested that it takes a law court to impose penalties. A broken marriage imposes penalties that are far more hideous and draconian than anything that any court in today's Britain is likely to dish out. Does my hon. Friend wish me to give way again?
  Mr. Jenkin indicated dissent
  Mr. Nicholls: I am surprised that I was able to satisfy my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Jenkin: You did not.
  Mr. Nicholls: In that case, I shall pick up my hon. Friend's sedentary heckle to confirm that that is not so.

  461
  There is some confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) was accused of indulging in semantics, but to be fair it is not indulging in semantics to make the point that fault is not ground for divorce, even as we sit here today. The irretrievable breakdown of marriage is the only ground for divorce, and it can be proved in five particular ways. That point is more than semantics because the great public outside might think that at least some fault is currently needed for a divorce and that the wicked old Tory Government are removing the concept of fault. That is not accurate.
  A second point stems from that issue. At times, there is real confusion in the public's mind and, sometimes, in ours—that when we say that fault will not be present, we are also outlawing conduct. The two are different. The issue that matters most is usually the care of the children, who are the ultimate victims of divorce. Clearly the conduct of the parents, their ability to look after themselves and to handle their own lives correctly will be relevant matters for the court.
  I can think of many cases, in which I have acted for one party or the other, in which the divorce went ahead on the grounds of two years' separation and was superficially done amicably and without attribution of fault, but when we came to custody and access to the children, the most appalling, distressing and painful allegations about conduct had to be made because it was only by examining those allegations that the court was able to make its decision about the care and control of the children. That is a reason—a distressing, painful, but necessary, reason—to consider the conduct of the parties, but it is a world away from the insistence that fault should be apportioned between the couple involved.
  I accept to the hilt that no Conservative Government should be in the business of making divorce easy, but the idea that fault is in some way a means of buttressing marriage does not make sense to me for one moment. I still wish that the Bill had never come before the House, but in one way it could perform a valuable service. We should be talking positively. We should be advancing the campaign for marriage. We can say that it should be harder to get out of matrimony, and in so doing reinforce exactly the points that have been made by some of my hon. Friends. That is an issue that is covered by the next group of amendments and, accordingly, I shall mention it in no detail now.
  There is a real debate to be had about whether one year should be extended to 18 months or two years. That is the way in which those of a conservative inclination could consider the Bill. They could say that the Bill, even now, could be made an instrument for doing something, in a small way, to recognise the fact that marriage is a unique institution. That fact should be acknowledged. That is something that the courts can do. They can say arbitrarily, "If you are going to go into this, it will take you time to get out." That is within the competence of the courts; the allocation of fault, the moral audit, is not.
  5 pm
  Mr. Michael Jopling: My hon. Friend has told us at some length about the agonies that are experienced by participants in a divorce where fault is involved. Would it not be true to say that
  462
  the agonies of the participants are nothing when compared with those of the children, which seem to be infinitely more important? The evidence suggests that, by moving to no-fault divorces, the number of divorces increases. That process brings with it even more agonies for children. How is it sensible for us to move away from divorces that are based partly on fault? The move to the no-fault concept is likely to cause infinitely more agony to the children of marriages that break up.
  Mr. Nicholls: If I accepted my right hon. Friend's analysis, I would accept his conclusion at once. I cannot pretend to have a grasp of all the evidence that may emerge from America, Canada or other overseas places. I make no attempt to disguise the fact that I have come to my conclusions as a provincial lawyer who worked a long time ago in divorce and from personal experiences that I am sure are similar to those of other hon. Members.
  Introducing a concept of fault in divorce will not help children. If parents will not stay together, they will not. It would be entirely artificial in many marriages, although not all, to say to the children, who in the end remain, "The court decided that mummy was at fault and daddy was not," or "Daddy was at fault and mummy was not." I do not think that children's interests are served by trying to introduce such a construct.
  I believe passionately that, to some extent, we are talking about the wrong issues. We should be talking about the positive side of these matters and examining how marriage ever came to be under such threat. Being a legislator is one thing; to an extent we are today reduced to being undertakers.
  Dr. Bray: To the ordinary man and woman in the street, the Bill seems to say—this is what will shape their attitudes—that all they need do to obtain a divorce is to claim that their marriage has broken down. They will be given the impression that either party can say that at any time.
  Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman is entirely correct to say that people may have that perception. In terms of carrying the political debate, the way in which we put over these matters initially was defective. If we consider the detail of the Bill—I am not too sure how many people in the street will do that—it is clear that the court must be satisfied that a marriage has irretrievably broken down.
  At present, the situation is every bit as bad as the hon. Gentleman suggested. A solicitor in private practice will know that a party to a divorce may well say, "Yes, I have committed adultery. I will tell you the circumstances briefly. It happened at a particular time in a particular street. I cannot identify the exact address because I do not want the other person to be implicated." The solicitor will look that person straight in the eye and say, "I cannot possibly be party to a conspiracy. I am not quite sure that you mean this," and the response will be, "Yes, I promise you that it is true."
  The solicitor then writes out a confession statement, including a pretty paragraph about why the party does not want to identify the other person. That is what happens now. It is thoroughly corrupt. It is corrupt in the sense that it draws solicitors into that practice. There is no ideal way of dealing with the situation that I have described, even now. There are many examples of artificiality.

  463
  The final and ultimate consideration is that we cannot force people to remain together and to remain married in any meaningful sense if they do not want to. We can make it harder, however, to get out of a unique contract. That is what the next group of amendments would do. I should like to think that, as a consequence of the debate, we may yet, one day, have an investigation into why we ever, as a society, found our way into the jam that we now face.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: As was rightly said earlier, there is only one ground of divorce, and that is the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage. I was a divorce lawyer when I was in civvy street. The facts that had to be pleaded in support of irretrievable breakdown were merely facts to establish the main ground. Two of those facts involved no concept of criticism or fault. As was also rightly said, we have a no-fault concept of divorce already.
  The proponents of the amendment have signally failed to explain what possible good would come of accepting it and the grouped amendments. What possible good can there be in reintroducing the fault concept, as eloquently stated by the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who has experience of divorce law?
  Another important fact is that we cannot legislate to keep parties together when de facto they have decided that they will not—either both parties or only one. It is not feasible, possible or reasonable to try to do that. We should not attempt to legislate for morality. As I have said before, I believe that it is illogical and intellectually unsustainable for proponents of the fault principle to argue that, by encouraging bitterness and mud-throwing, we shall protect the institution of marriage. Fault has never been a deterrent to divorce.
  As for making divorce easier, I ask the following question: How many divorces per annum are refused by the High Court? The answer is very few. There may be a couple of dozen refusals. The idea of making divorce easier is nonsense and cannot be sustained.
  Certain problems stem from current law. By pleading conduct, one party is sometimes given a bargaining advantage when it comes to dealing with ancillary matters. There is often a scramble with one party wanting to get in with the first set of nasty allegations before there is retaliation or before the other side decides to throw up his or her hands and say, "I will not be bothered with this. I will let the thing carry on as it is." There seems to be a rush to get in with the first set of insults. That provokes unnecessary and pointless hostility and bitterness.
  Even when a couple have agreed that their marriage cannot be saved, there is the possibility under the current system that matters will be made worse by encouraging one party to make allegations against the other. It is interesting to note that the Law Commission commented that those people who responded to its consultation paper confirmed the view that there was every reason to believe that the present law added needlessly to human misery.
  Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. When he says that couples agree that their marriage cannot be saved, that is exactly what happens, but I suspect that, in many cases, they mean that they have no idea how to set about saving it. That goes back to what the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) said
  464
  about the paramount importance of finding ways in which acceptable forms of assistance can be found at an earlier stage.
  Mr. Llwyd: I agree entirely with that view. It is of the utmost importance. I made the point on Second Reading that we should concentrate on assisting in particular young people going into marriage because the divorce rate among teenagers is horrendously high. They should be counselled into understanding the full obligations that they are entering into in the contract of marriage. The earlier we realise that and get something done, the better it will be all round. Incidentally, that might be a reason why divorce rates have shot up so much in the United Kingdom: we are simply not concentrating on the lead-up to divorce, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that.
  Mr. Devlin: The hon. Gentleman put his finger on a glaring omission in the legislation. It is called the Family Law Bill, but it deals chiefly with divorce. It should deal also with the circumstances in which marriages are made. I would like couples to go through a much more elaborate procedure, perhaps with counselling or arrangements before people get married. Like him, I have met teenagers of 19 who have been divorced after one or two years.
  Mr. Llwyd: That is also a useful and valid contribution.
  There is no doubt that the law has made it difficult for a small proportion of estranged couples to get divorced. It does so in an arbitrary way, depending on which facts might be proved. As the Law Commission has clearly stated, the present law can make things far worse for the children. Having parents semi-publicly calling each other all manner of things in affidavits and court documents is not the best backcloth for rearing any child. Despite having a thick-skinned constitution, I have frequently been embarrassed in divorce courts and seen the agony in the eyes of young children when mother and father call each other names across the court and say things that would be best left unsaid. The new framework, if it is to pass into law, will do away with much of that heartache and pointless name-calling.
  Mrs. Peacock: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about children having to listen to such awful things in court and sometimes outside, but does he really believe that those children will benefit from having either father or mother missing all the time? Has he not ever heard the sobs of a child whose father is not there any more? Is that any worse than listening to parents arguing, certainly in those early stages?
  Mr. Llwyd: I hear what the hon. Lady says and I understand her point, but I go back to what I said earlier. If father has decided that the marriage has broken down and cannot live with mother, it is not ideal in any circumstance, because their child will be brought up amid constant bickering, with one parent—perhaps two—who is desperately unhappy with the position. Frankly, the sooner that is put an end to, the better, although I understand the hon. Lady's question and motives and I appreciate what she says. From my experience, however, I cannot agree with her.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Having known the hon. Gentleman for some time, I appreciate

  465
  the genuine sincerity with which he is advancing his argument, but, if we accept the Bill, are we not reaching the position where an increasing number of people will say, "Why get married? Is there any purpose?"
  Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman makes a strong argument, but I return to the point raised earlier. If we are to prepare people for marriage, that is undoubtedly a question that they will ask. I do not know what the future holds, but I do know from my experience of divorce law that too many teenagers marry without any thought and suddenly find that they are not matched to their partner at all. They do not understand the obligations involved. I honestly do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question. Perhaps at some point someone else can respond. Clearly neither of us can predict what will happen, but he made his point with much force and I understand it.
  5.15 pm
  It behoves us to regard children's interests as paramount. Their welfare is the main issue in all this. The Law Commission states:
  "The present system can also make things worse for the children. The children themselves would usually prefer their parents to stay together. But the law cannot force parents to live amicably or prevent them from separating. It is not known whether children suffer more from their parents' separation or from living in a household in conflict where they may be blamed for the couple's inability to part. It is probably impossible to generalise, as there are so many variables which may affect the outcome, including the age and personality of the particular child. But it is known that the children who suffer least from their parents' break-up are usually those who are able to retain a good relationship with them both. Children who suffer most are those whose parents remain in conflict."
  That is true and I have seen it in practice over the years.
  I shall not quote at length, because I know many hon. Members wish to speak, but the Law Commission makes one or two other important points. It states:
  "the present law can, for all the reasons given earlier, make the conflict worse. It encourages couples to find fault with one another and disputes about children seem to be more common in divorces based on intolerable behaviour than in others."
  It goes on to suggest various points and reaches the conclusion that a no-fault concept should be proposed. That is correct, based on good sense and a useful contribution to family law.
  The simple fact is that divorces are about mud-slinging. To my utter regret, some of that mud sometimes splashes on to the innocent children. They are the parties we should be thinking of. Why should private arguments about personal things be made public in that way, especially as it serves no useful purpose? if I may make the obvious point, divorce, however "amicable", is always a calamity. It is an anxious time for everyone. Why should we, as legislators, make it worse? If a marriage cannot be saved, our duty surely is to ease the way from the point of realisation of the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage to the decree absolute. That is common good sense. It is in the interests of both parties and in the children's interests, which is important.
  May I draw a brief analogy? When I was a law student, during lectures on the law of tort, we were told about the New Zealand no-fault system in relation to car accidents,
  466
  which was hailed as a great step forward. In much the same way as the proponents of the fault principle are arguing today, people in favour of retaining the negligence aspect of the law argued that there would be more so-called accidents, bogus claims and a rash of litigation. That was never borne out. I cannot for the life of me see how the no-fault system here will lead to more divorces.
  With respect, the proponent of the amendment is a considerable Euro-sceptic. He did, however, travel the whole world to look for evidence to support his argument. I leave that without further comment.
  Some opponents have suggested that there will be a drastic increase in the number of divorces. I honestly do not believe that. May I put it differently? If I did believe it, I would not oppose the amendments, and I do not think that other hon. Members would either.
  I do not think that amending the law to do away with the concept of fault will increase the divorce rate. I think that it will ease the way towards so-called amicable divorce for small family units, making divorce less painful for the parties concerned and for their children. That is what a family law Bill should be about.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: Thank you for calling me so early, Mr. Morris.
  I greatly enjoyed the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls). I agreed with all of it except the end: I did not agree with his conclusions. Like him, I had considerable doubts about the way in which the Bill arrived in the House; I also had considerable doubts about the politics involved—politics with a large or a small "p". I was worried about the fact that a Conservative Administration wanted to introduce such legislation. That is all in the past, however: we are now considering amendments.
  My hon. Friend spoke of the awfulness of marriage breakdown and divorce. I do not want to increase the difficulties involved in a very bad marriage and the irretrievable breakdown of a relationship; I do not want to make it harder for people who have lived in difficult and upsetting conditions for years to extricate themselves. For obvious reasons, I do not think that hon. Members should pontificate about how important it is for people to struggle on simply for the sake of the institution of marriage.
  I am not a divorce lawyer. I am simply an ordinary woman—a Member of Parliament, a mother and a woman who has been happily married for some 38 years. They have been very good years. I have also worked with children. One aspect of the Bill worries me enormously: we are saying that people must be able to extricate themselves from difficult marriages, and that fault in itself is not a good reason for them to be able to do so, but non-lawyers outside this place will not see the Bill in that light. People will say, "That is fine. We need not do anything except say that the contract into which we entered no longer need exist or bind us."
  That probably does not apply to my generation, or even to people who are 10 or 15 years younger than me, but the effect on young people will be different. To an extent, young people are already saying, "Let us have a happy marriage. Let us float down the aisle in white dresses. If it all gets too difficult and we do not enjoy ourselves later on, that does not matter: we can always get out of it."

  467
  I do not think that my generation has done enough to make the marriage contract more meaningful to those young people, and I feel guilty about that; but I do not want to participate in legislation such as this.
  Hon. Members who are divorce lawyers may disagree with the impression gained by people outside, and I accept their opinion, but the general perception will be that parties can extricate themselves from the contract without having to give any particular reason, or answer to the commitment that they have made—in church, in many instances. I find that difficult to understand.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Many people would agree with the right hon. Lady's general argument, but is not one of the basic problems the fact that marriage is not merely a contract between two parties—although young people may see it as such, because we have not made the position clear? Surely marriage is a contract between two individuals who are committed to each other, and society as a whole. Society says, "We too will sustain the couple in sickness and in health, and the quality of our legislation and our community life will help them to maintain their ideals." Is it not our duty to make that clear in a positive way, so that the real meaning of the contract—which I think the right hon. Lady understands—can make things easier, and deal with the terrible tragedies that can and, alas, do occur?
  Dame Angela Rumbold: That is probably true to an extent. My point is that, when people enter into that contract and make that commitment, there is a deep understanding that it is not all that easy to extricate oneself. I want to make that clearer.
  Over the years, a range of factors will have an effect. We should not consider just what happens in a first-generation marriage breakdown; when they grow up, the children of that marriage are likely to follow the pattern set by their parents. They, and subsequent generations, may say, "Mummy and daddy didn't make it. Now that we are grown up, if we make the same mistakes we can do the same to our children." The legislation should not allow people to say that no fault is involved, and to assume that they can walk away from the commitment that they have made.
  Mr. Nicholls: No one is suggesting that there is no such thing as fault. We are considering whether the courts are an adequate instrument for the apportioning of fault.
  My right hon. Friend has spoken about the difficulty or otherwise of getting out of the commitment. Surely, the message that can be conveyed—even through the Bill; it is connected with the way in which the Bill came to the House in the first place—is that, although we cannot stop young people getting married, because we have not thought about a campaign for marriage yet, it will be much harder for them to extricate themselves. They may have to wait not just a year, but 18 months or two years. If my right hon. Friend said that, we might wind up in the same Lobby.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I have no doubt that we will wind up in the same Lobby when we vote on the second amendment, because I agree with that point entirely.
  I cannot for the life of me understand why young people still want to opt for the commitment of marriage. They no longer have any reason to marry. What is the
  468
  purpose? Why do they not do what the majority do anyway to begin with, and simply set up home together? A shared mortgage is more of a commitment than a church ceremony.
  Mr. Rowe: As my right hon. Friend is no doubt aware, in Great Britain the proportion of unmarried women aged between 18 and 49 who are cohabiting has almost doubled in the past 13 years.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: I am grateful for that information, but it does not surprise me.
  We have a major responsibility, not so much for adults who make commitments such as marriage, as for the children. I fear that the Bill—whether for the best legal reasons or not—sends the outside world the message that the children will not suffer, because it is far better for parents to live together squabbling and fighting. I am worried that it sends the message that it is far better for children to live in a single household in which there is one parent who is happy and contented.
  I do not know how many people realise that small children blame themselves when their parents do not get on and seek to divorce. Little Johnny or Mary wonder what they did to make mummy and daddy think that they could not live together. When we examine this type of legislation, I hope that we do not simply take the point of view of lawyers or of people who sit on committees and say that it must be much better for children to live with one parent under a sensible arrangement in which daddy will have custody of the children at the weekend and mummy will have them during the week.
  5.30 pm
  Let us think about what the children feel. They ask themselves, "Why don't my mummy and daddy live together, like the parents of little Fred or Johnny at school?" All those things go through children's minds and have a profound effect on them as they grow up. I ask the lawyers, as I have asked many times before, how they can be so certain that what they have decreed for children is best, merely because it seems to be a convenient, clean and better way. What makes anyone think that a single woman will find bringing up two children on her own better than struggling along in a relationship that is perhaps less than good but in which there is another person who will be there sometimes to give her some support?
  People experience very difficult periods in most marriages, and most marriages have ups and downs. But the reality is that, if one gets over those difficulties, two people in a household can ultimately come together to provide a stable background for children to grow up in, even if they occasionally argue or if one partner is sometimes away.
  Mr. Nicholls: How will the reintroduction of a concept of fault in the eventual divorce make it more likely that parents will stay together for the sake of their children?
  Dame Angela Rumbold: That is the very nub of the question. People have to have a greater reason to divorce than simply because they have disagreements. The point that I am trying to make—probably not very well—is that I fear that couples think that a reason for divorce is because

  469
  they have had a quarrel or because one partner has spent too much from the bank account or fancies someone down the road for three or four days. The situation is straightforward if a greater reason has to be demonstrated, such as when the partners have parted company for two years and the relationship has demonstrably broken down or when one partner has gone and is never coming back.
  My concern is that if we do not have a greater reason for divorce, we will hand it on a plate to those who do not have such a sense of responsibility—partly because people such as myself have not given them a sense of responsibility over the years—and that it will become all too easy for them to have children and to part company without serious thought.
  I shall not say anything further on the issue, but I feel very strongly that it is important to examine the consequences for children of divorce. We should not accept divorce legislation without some concern for and thought about exactly what will happen to small children, rather than considering the views of the elderly people who sit on commissions and in committees who have decided what will happen to children.
  Mr. Devlin: Something needs to be done about the current law on divorce. One matter that everyone—practitioners, commissioners and respondents to the White Paper—agrees on is that the current law does not work and that the current, intolerably high divorce rate is not helped by the current system.
  As I said in an intervention on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), the current law is that divorce is available on demand. The current law is a cop-out and represents a failure in the 1960s to bite the bullet in terms of the role of fault in divorce. The result has been a hybrid system that is not satisfactory from anyone's point of view. Fault is not a ground for divorce, but the sole ground for divorce is irretrievable breakdown that must be witnessed by one of five facts. In some cases, that amounts to faults.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said earlier in the debate, if one wants a divorce under current law, one can go along and allege adultery—one's own or one's partner's—and obtain it in about three months. Nothing else would have to be said about the adultery, such as when or where it took place. We no longer have the grand old days in which the Queen's commissioners, or whatever they were called, went down to Brighton to take photographs of people coming out of hotels after an indecent amount of time.
  The current system has four main shortcomings, such as encouraging recrimination by retaining the fault element. It may seem controversial to remove all elements of fault, but if acrimony is to be taken out of divorce in the interests of saving marriages, we must stop couples blaming each other for the break-up of their marriage. Of course there is an important proviso that the courts must be able to take into account the behaviour of one partner if it would be manifestly unfair to the other partner not to do so.
  As the Bill is drafted, clause 3 states:
  470
  "If an application for a divorce order or for a separation order is made to the court under this section by one or both of the parties to a marriage, the court shall make the order applied for if (but only if)—
  (a) the marriage has broken down irretrievably".
  The Bill does not say what evidence should be adduced to say that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, but I imagine from my experience—I must confess to the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) that I am a lawyer—that that will be done by means of an affidavit. The affidavit could be as short as saying that, "This marriage has broken down irretrievably", or it could be as long as saying that, "This marriage has broken down irretrievably for the following 59 or 600 reasons", as some affidavits currently do.
  Although I have never practised divorce law, I have seen divorce petitions that have gone on describing so-called "unreasonable behaviour" for page after page. One Sunday magazine—I cannot remember which one—not long ago carried a mildly humorous account, or at least it would have been humorous if had not been so tragic, of the reasons currently cited as unreasonable behaviour. The reasons varied from such terrible crimes as cutting one's toe nails and leaving the pieces on the bathroom floor to regularly beating up one's wife, going out and getting drunk and not coming home at night. There is obviously an enormous range within those parameters. but the bulk of that survey showed that the vast majority of incidents of so-called "unreasonable behaviour" were very trivial. Anyone who takes a responsible attitude to a marriage would overlook such trivial matters, or at least try to accommodate one's partner to achieve a longer-term good.
  The current system has shortcomings in that it affords no opportunity for reconciliation or mediation, not even on such issues as what will happen to the children or how the family finances will be settled. The current process also contains nothing to show that any thought has been given to the children. The principal issue in the current system is the divorce or the breakdown of the marriage, and any thought for the children is purely secondary.
  When the Family Reform Act 1969 was passed, it was thought that the period between the decree nisi and the decree absolute would be used as a period for reflection and to make financial arrangements and arrangements for the children, but that has not happened: people get their first decree and then just wait the minimum amount of time until the court automatically grants them the second decree.
  Anyone who thinks that the current system in any way apportions blame to either party going through a divorce is living in cloud cuckoo land. Ever year, hundreds of thousands of divorces occur for which a variety of reasons are given. No one feels any shame, publicly or privately, about an allegation of adultery. Yet adultery is given as the reason in the vast majority of cases in which men divorce women. Women tend to prefer to cite unreasonable behaviour. None the less, no one feels any shame about such allegations, and the allegations are rarely, if ever, made public. Indeed, there is no shame these days—if there ever was—in being divorced. It happens to the best of us, and sometimes for reasons that we do not understand until later.
  Divorce can occur too quickly. Once a person has made the difficult decision to get a divorce, it is easy to go through the whole process in well under a year and look

  471
  back later, wondering about everything that was thrown up. The process, once entered into, becomes acrimonious because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge pointed out, there is a cycle of allegations against the other party, which does nothing to resolve simple issues that may need to be resolved on the back of a divorce.
  As for the amendment, I counsel my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle to take account of three points which constitute a test that I have used when considering legislation since I became a member of Parliament. Good legislation should be comprehensible, enforceable and fair. The current divorce law is not really comprehensible. Indeed, it is widely misunderstood. The Bill is widely comprehensible, although perhaps differently from how we might imagine from listening to the debate. In any event, it will be easily understood.
  Secondly, it is easily enforceable. Thirdly, the Bill is fair, not just to the two parties involved but to the community at large and, more particularly, to the children. Children do not need to know what father said about mother or what mother said about father in order to get a separation when they felt that their marriage was at an end.
  As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), if a family law Bill proceeds purely on the basis that it sets out the arrangements for the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage and the separation of two parties, it is fundamentally weakened. It should prescribe not only the circumstances in which divorce will be granted, but those in which marriage can be entered into in the first place.
  It should be made more difficult to get married, and much more difficult to get divorced. With the social status of marriage should go fiscal and other advantages, but that is a much bigger issue than can be dealt with in the Bill. However, when debating a future Finance Bill, we should settle down to consider that matter comprehensively in the round.
  Mr. Rowe: The debate has shown that there is unanimity in the Committee about the importance of trying to improve the existing system, whether in relation to marriage, divorce or the upbringing of children. As I understand it, the principal motive for introducing the Bill was an attempt sharply to improve the way in which children's affairs are handled in the event of the breakdown of a marriage.
  Hitherto, there has been virtually no concentration on the well-being of the children. Indeed, one of the most depressing features of the many cases that come to my surgery and, I have no doubt, to that of other hon. Members, is the ease with which arrangements made in court are effectively set aside in practice the moment that the decision has been gazetted, whether because the wife moves with a new boyfriend to another part of the country and the father cannot afford to follow or for some other reason.
  5.45 pm
  We have already heard this statistic, but it bears repeating because it is horrendous: in this country, 800,000 children have no contact with their natural fathers. It is said that in Britain 50 per cent. of children lose contact with their fathers within three years of divorce; yet I am absolutely convinced that the vast majority of children need fathers. The way in which the
  472
  current system is manipulated to prevent fathers from having a fair deal is very frightening, but I fear that the proposed system will be equally manipulated. I agree that that is one aspect of the problem that we need to consider carefully.
  Ten days ago I experienced one of the happiest days of my life. My elder stepdaughter was married from my house. She was given away by her own father, and we had the most lovely day. One can only hope that the young couple will enjoy a marriage of permanence and stability for the rest of their lives. That is an uncovenanted blessing for which I am deeply grateful, but I fear that it is not an especially common experience.
  The nation has to deal seriously with the pressures and stresses of divorce on children of whatever age.
  The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that marriage is not just a personal matter, but one in which the state, the Government and society at large have a tremendous stake—not only because marriage provides a solid basis on which many children can thrive and the next generation can prosper, but because of the colossal costs payable by the state in the event of a marriage breaking down.
  We have grossly neglected our responsibility for preparing young people who want to get married, for sustaining them when they are married and, indeed, for continuing to sustain them when they have children. One feature of the sorry story of the escalating number of divorces in this country is that we have grossly underestimated the financial cost to couples of bringing up children. We need to consider that, because there is no doubt that financial pressure is one of the many pressures that can effectively work to break up marriages.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) spoke eloquently and asked how we got where we are. That question is worth considering. We have not recognised or understood the effects of, for example, the rapidly falling age of puberty, remarkably better physical health and the extraordinary impact of birth control and the extension of education.
  Half the nation's young people—or more than half—are sexually capable and aware much earlier than previous generations were. However, circumstances mean that many are incapable of setting up a household of their own until they are perhaps 25 or 26. That means that, throughout their most sexually active years, society's constraints prevent them from taking the next step. Their methods of dealing with that often contribute to the instability of relationships, which do not always provide the very best basis for a stable marriage. The other group of young people who do not have or take the opportunity to stay in education are in a similar situation: their incomes are so low that they cannot easily set up and sustain a household—certainly not one in which they can rear children successfully.
  Those are some of the reasons why we are where we are. They are exacerbated by the fact that, increasingly, young couples do not have the extended family close by to help take the pressures off them. There is no doubt that a grandparent looking after children during the working day is very different from a series of casual baby sitters who may be taking hard-earned money out of the household.
  I would take issue with right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) in one respect. The preservation of the concept of fault at the

  473
  time of a divorce does not achieve any of the things that she hopes. We know now—it has been said several times—that people who are bent on breaking up their marriage will cheat. They will tell lies about the reasons why they want a divorce if it is the only—or the quickest—way to achieve their purpose. We should make no mistake about this: people who want to get out of a marriage for whatever reason become quite ruthless. I do not think that it helps anybody to provide false reasons simply in order to get out of a marriage.
  I also think that we are curiously naive to trust judges to make the best disposition for families. Some judges are remarkably sensitive, experienced, sophisticated and sympathetic in what they do, but, as Lord Kilbrandon pointed out when children's hearings were introduced in Scotland, the whole training of judges makes it less likely that they will be able—especially in a short time—to make appropriate decisions about sensitive family matters. If decisions are to be made about the best disposition for a family's future, they should be made by people who have had a considerable degree of special training, rather than in ordinary courts, even though some judges are extraordinarily good at making such decisions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) made the point that, in the United States of America, a number of states are now moving away from the concept of no-fault divorce because they say that it has increased the rate of divorce. Although I cannot comment on that, because I have not looked in detail at the research, it seems equally probable that such an increase is post hoc, ergo propter hoc. The divorce rate is rising anyway, for the reasons to which I have referred, and the introduction of no-fault divorce may not have been especially instrumental in that.
  I do not intend to support the reintroduction of fault. I believe that it has all the ill effects of which hon. Members have spoken so eloquently, and it does not create any of the appropriate safeguards that we seek.
  We believe passionately that careers advice is useful to young people. Many young people undergo a series of quite sophisticated careers advice at school. Part of the purpose of that is to discover what they are good at and what they will fit into to their satisfaction, but part is to do with how much money they can make in the course of their working lives. It is high time that we realised that the most expensive thing that can happen to a person is divorce. It is hugely costly and one of the reasons why a substantial number of people are, in the slightly exaggerated words of the Child Poverty Action Group, "living in poverty". Many such people are living in households that have broken up.
  It seems absurd that we should spend so much time, effort, energy and skill on teaching young people what sort of career they might enter to maximise their earnings while spending so little time, effort and energy explaining to them the costs as well as the opportunities of marriage.
  Sir Edward Heath: To a layman such as myself and, I believe, many laymen outside the Committee, we appear to have an incomparable ability to make this matter extraordinarily complicated. When they read Hansard—which of course they will not—they will find themselves asking what the
  474
  debate was all about. It would not appear so complicated if we separated the two major objectives and recognised the difference between them. The first is how we deal with a broken marriage; the second is how we deal with the consequences of it. If we confuse the two so that the one influences the other, we are making it unnecessarily complicated and storing up a great deal of trouble for everybody.
  The breakdown of marriage is in many ways a tragedy. I cannot accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), who I think has left the Chamber, that marriage is a contract for life that people ought to regard like any other contract. Most people regard marriage both as much more than a contract for life and as much less than a contract for life.
  It is much more than a contract because people regard it as a relationship between two human beings which rests on a wide variety of aspects of character in both people. It is much less than a contract because people recognise—most of them right at the beginning—that when things begin to go wrong it is not a business contract that one can say is worth a certain amount and determine how it is to be spread. It is possible for arrangements to be made, of course, and many are, but not in the form of a business contract such as that described my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North.
  If one tries to make divorce more difficult, fewer people will get married. There is evidence of that already. Our whole society has changed dramatically since the end of the second world war—
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Sir Edward Heath: Perhaps I may just finish one sentence.
  Many people are just not getting married. They have their children and sometimes spend their whole lives together. Sometimes, by the time their children have grown up, they reach the stage where they want a change. That has now become part of our society. I do not believe that making it more difficult is any solution to the problem, because all that will happen is that people will not get married.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: In the 19th century, one had to have an Act of Parliament to get divorced. Until relatively recently, it was extremely difficult to get divorced in this country. Yet far more people got married.
  6 pm
  Sir Edward Heath: I question those figures. I also question the remark by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that we have had 2,000 years of Christianity in this country, during the whole of which period Christian values in marriage have been maintained. My hon. Friend should take another little glimpse at the history of this country over the past 2,000 years, because it does not correspond to his description.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle moved on to another point which has been raised in various forms: how one deals with fault. I believe that it would be absolutely wrong to restore fault in the Bill. The concept of fault breeds perpetual discontent and it especially affects children; quite rightly,

  475
  we have heard a great deal about children. It complicates legislation, as we heard from my hon. Friend, who has spent much of his life dealing with divorce suits. We should not in any circumstances reintroduce the notion of fault: we should be absolutely clear about that.
  The question was raised why a Conservative Government should introduce this legislation. It is absolutely right that they should do so, because the responsibility of the Conservative party and of the Conservative Government is to our community as a whole. We have to make provision for everybody. We may not agree with some people, but we have that responsibility as an elected Government and as the party in power.
  In the population today, there are those who, as a result of their religious convictions, believe that divorce cannot be permitted. That is very well for those who accept that belief—there is no challenge—but they are not entitled in Parliament to impose their belief on other members of the community. That is the basic difference, whether they accept it or not. Other Christian beliefs have varying views about what is permissible in terms of marriage. Very well—they are all entitled to their views.
  All Governments today have to face the fact that a majority of the population do not acknowledge Christian belief at all. Even if one accepts that 52 per cent. of people do not want to change the law, that still leaves 48 per cent. of the population with whom the Government must cope and whom they have to consider. I cannot possibly accept that a Conservative Government cannot introduce changes in approach to these matters, which will affect many people even though some would claim that they are not the majority. The Government are absolutely justified in dealing with this matter.
  My second objective is to improve the situation after divorce, or to prevent divorce. To a large extent, that is the responsibility of the Churches and the social organisations; it is also, in part, the responsibility of our education system. That responsibility is not being carried out. If the Churches approach the matter—to answer the question about the point of getting married—we shall begin to do some good overall. That is why it is so important to keep the two objectives separate and to deal effectively with cases in which breakdown has occurred.
  We should also do everything possible to deal with the situation before people enter marriage, so that they recognise what the requirements are, what can be achieved and the happiness that they can get. After a marriage has broken down, we should ensure that the right action is taken for the welfare of children, whether one parent is looking after them or whether both are looking after them. We should ensure that people get the necessary guidance and every possible assistance to allow their children to have a proper life of their own.
  For those reasons, I believe that the amendment should be defeated. I cannot understand why my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle based the greater part of his speech on the argument that because the Americans were throwing out some aspects of legislation we should therefore do the same. There may be things that we still have to learn from the Americans, but I do not think that morality is one of them. I well know the way in which social forces in the United States work to bring about their ends—we can see what is happening in terms of capital punishment, for example. I know that my hon. Friend will not base his argument on Europe; I hope that he will not base it on the United States either.
  476
  I strongly support the position taken by the Minister and by the Government and I hope that the House will defeat the amendment.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Those of us who try to follow the Christian way have to recognise that divorce law has come a long way since its origin in the old ecclesiastical courts. We have to recognise that times have changed. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) said, we have to realise that we cannot impose our views on the generality of the population. Nevertheless, we have a right to point out the effects of a failure to follow the precepts that we seek to follow. It is especially important in human and family law to say that we, as far as we are able as legislators, should consider ways—not only at the time when, alas, families break up—in which to bolster the institution of marriage.
  Whatever the trends may be, we can point out the sad victims of those trends—the children—and we can point out the great unhappiness that follows. We are entitled to do so and we are also entitled to press the Government to look at ways, across the board, in which the institution of marriage, which is the bedrock of a civilised society, can be strengthened, whether in terms of education, as the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said, or across the range of policy—fiscal, housing or employment policy. Clearly, it would be going beyond the scope of the amendment to look at those matters.
  There are costs, both financial and in terms of human distress, caused by the high incidence of divorce in this country. It has been said that we are the divorce capital of Europe. We may ask why that is so. We see the victims and the costs that flow from divorce.
  Mr. Alton: I strongly support the points that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Does he accept that the argument is always advanced—it was advanced even against Wilberforce and his companions—that legislators are trying to impose their morality on the nation? Wilberforce and his friends fought successfully in the House for 40 long years to repeal the slavery laws. Is it not the case that, in a democratic society—we live in a pluralist society—it is not just a question of the imposition of values? No one seeks to do that.
  However, there is a responsibility and a duty to share what one believes to be right with the rest of the populace in the hope that people will embrace those virtues. If one believes that that is the best way in which to live, that marriage, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, is the bedrock of our society and that the strengthening of family life should be our objective, surely it is legitimate for all hon. Members, regardless of whether they have religious values, to try to achieve that objective.
  Mr. Anderson: I wholly accept that it was right—as it is at all times—for slavery to be abolished and that Wilberforce and his friends in the Clapham sect were right to pursue that aim. I would not put some of the moral issues that we face today—whether abortion, homosexuality or divorce—in the same category. The equivalent of the anti-slavery argument is to ensure, as far as we are able, that the state uses every possible instrument available to support the institution of marriage.
  I accept that our divorce laws may well have an influence, for good or ill, on the incidence of divorce. That is one of the key elements that we need to discuss

  477
  today. However, I shall come quickly to the nub of the question. Is fault helpful in terms of divorce, and if so, what should be done about it?
  Like one or two other hon. Members, I am a lapsed practitioner, so my knowledge is somewhat out of date. However, I recall that our judges, as has so often been said, are brought up in an adversarial tradition and may be ill suited to look into the minds and conduct of members of the public. All too often, the position depends on which party gets to the solicitor first.
  It has been said that, in general, the public say, "Yes, we think that divorce should be made more difficult," but when they talk about individuals whom they know—such as their relatives, or people who live in their street—they are far more understanding, and tend to say, "Because we know this couple, we accept that it is not a simple question of 100 per cent. or 0 per cent. There was fault on both sides."
  It would be improper if I were to stray into discussing the royal family, so I shall not be specific, but in connection with one or two well-publicised difficulties of some of the senior members of the royal family, it is certain that both the parties could, if they were so minded, rely on various faults in a divorce petition. I shall leave it at that, Sir Geoffrey.
  In the generality of cases, the course of events often depends on who goes to the solicitor first. There may be a 10-year marriage, and the wife will say to a solicitor, "I am unhappy." The solicitor will then ask whether, over the life of the marriage, she can think of occasions on which her husband has been difficult. It is a pretty unusual marriage which has not had a fair number of difficult moments over 10 years. The solicitor will then crystallise and distil those examples into 10 or so incidents which, when put together, read in a lurid way, as if the marriage was especially wicked and abnormal, whereas in fact it was probably very normal.
  When the petition is passed to the husband, the respondent, he will immediately hit the roof, and will not recognise what he reads in it. That is hardly a basis for dealing with the sad after-effects of marriage breakdown, particularly from the point of view of the children, for whom we should all be concerned.
  I am extremely sceptical about the divorce court's searching for where the fault lies. I understand hon. Members' motives, derived from the old ecclesiastical traditions. They will say that there must be contrition—but I say that there must be contrition on both sides. That is a personal matter, and the interest of the state should be rather less concerned with it.
  Like the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) and others, my experience is that in very few marriages is the fault wholly on one side. Even if the fault could be accurately divided, there is no real public purpose in seeking to establish its exact apportionment. So although I shall be with the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on his next key amendment, my experience as a lapsed practitioner leads me to tell him that I shall not support him now.
  I believe not only that for a court to ascertain with precision the degree of fault is an impossible task, and a highly artificial process, dependent on factors such as who
  478
  goes to a solicitor first, but that it serves no useful purpose. Indeed, it may exacerbate the situation, which is contrary to our public purpose.
  Mr. Michael Alison: I support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). It focuses the Committee's attention on the issue of fault, to which most of my right hon. and hon. Friends have addressed themselves in their speeches, not the least of which was the important speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath).
  The only point at which I parted company from my right hon. Friend was over his absolute repudiation of the necessity for fault, both in the Bill and in the amendment. I must draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that fault is already part of the Government's proposals. They have not evacuated fault, or castrated the Bill so that it is a eunuch in terms of fault. Fault remains in the Bill.
  6.15 pm
  I shall quote from the guidance that was circulated to Members of Parliament by a mysterious agency not a hundred miles from the Lord Chancellor's Department:
  "In addition, the present law, which requires the court to take conduct into account in decisions relating to finance and property orders, where it would be inequitable not to do so, is not altered by this Bill".
  So fault is at the very heart of the Bill.
  The fundamental issue that we must decide is whether fault should be the sting in the tail, or more up front, as a possibly curative and preventive factor, affecting the way in which divorce proceedings may take place.
  I take the point cogently argued by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who is also a practitioner, and who repudiated the idea of fault being up front. My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is also a practitioner in that area of the law, and I believe that he thought that, although fault is bound to come into consideration at some point, to have it up front as a major initial hurdle is likely to exacerbate the situation and make things more difficult. That was advanced as one reason for disallowing fault up front.
  Mr. Nicholls: The point that I was making was simply that, when we deal with the relatively narrow questions of who looks after the children, or how the money is divided, conduct is a subject with which a court can competently deal—whereas to conduct a moral audit between two people, and to work out how they fulfilled their obligations towards each other, is beyond the competence of any earthly court that I have ever come across.
  Mr. Alison: There speaks the reasonable voice of the practitioner in the law. However, I shall quote from a letter to the Committee that shows the attitude and approach of a victim—in this case, a feminine victim—of the various processes that make up a divorce. I make no apology to the Committee for quoting from the letter, which says:
  "to have no 'fault' actually harms reconciliation attempts. Jim"—
  I shall call the lady's erstwhile husband "Jim", although that is not his name—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sir Jim?"] Having caught the eye of my hon. Friend the Member for

  479
  Broxtowe (Sir J. Lester), I shall immediately abandon that pseudonym and call the man "Marmaduke" instead, in the hope that I shall not be causing offence anywhere in the Committee.
  If one makes that change, the letter reads:
  "Marmaduke would not tell me what I had done wrong from a November to the March when I received the divorce petition in an envelope at the breakfast table."
  Divorce by post. The letter continues:
  "When I did not know what I had done wrong I could not say sorry to specific things, I could not try to make amends for specific things, and there was no way of negotiating agreement if one did not know what the problem was. Also no one else could come to the rescue and try and reason, if there was nothing to reason about and no way to make amends.
  The registrar told me that the law upheld Marmaduke's viewpoint, however trivial the accusations were, because the law recognised the feelings of the petitioner as to what he felt was unreasonable, and therefore if I attempted to defend my actions this was counted as being even more unreasonable!"
  In other words, it needs to be defined in law that the accusations are based on behaviour and not only on the feelings of the petitioner. That is a fundamental reason for bringing the factor of fault, which is latent and irreplaceable in the Bill, right to the forefront in the hope that it will help with reconciliation.
  I shall again quote from the important document that the Government have circulated. Under the explanation for the minimum period, the 12-month option, it states:
  "Once a statement of marital breakdown has been registered with the court, a minimum twelve month cooling-off period will follow during which couples will be encouraged to reflect on whether their marriage can be saved".
  How can someone be encouraged to reflect on that if the Bill, without fault, conspires to conceal the underlying factors? We must have up front the factors that the Government themselves propose should be specified and placed under the microscope later in the divorce proceedings.
  The very divorce proceedings that are the subject of the 12-month limit are flexible if the factors of fault are not properly dealt with. All that the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle asks is that the realities of fault be specified, placed up front and used to help focus attention on the root of the problems of the marriage, so that the mediation and reconciliation that is in everyone's sights can be fruitful. It is for that reason that I hope that the Committee will see the sense in the Government maintaining fault. There is a half-open door in the Bill, and the amendment will push it a little wider to add logic to common sense in our approach.
  Mr. Patten: I am glad to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), and agree with everything that he said. I shall not labour the point any longer.
  It has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) on the way in which he introduced it. He put forward a case that many hon. Members, certainly many Conservative Members, find persuasive. He gave way on many occasions and replied with great authority. The debate lapsed into agreeable high farce only when the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) suggested that this was a Euro-sceptic issue. One of my
  480
  hon. Friends who was slumbering behind me woke up and rushed off to find whether there was some proposal for a Euro-marriage. He has not come back—Lord knows what he has found out.
  Alas that we are where we are. This is a classic case of listening to experts. I have listened to experts; many of my best friends are experts. We have listened to lawyers—many of my closest, oldest and most stalwart friends are lawyers. We have ended up with a process-driven Bill that deals with technicalities and misses the main point, which is about marriage, the family and our social fabric. That is why we are where we are.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) made a remarkable speech. I have listened to him often in the past 13 years, and it was one of the best that he has made. He said that we should use the Bill in Committee and on Report to try to introduce elements that will help to support the institution of marriage.
  We are, alas, where we are, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said, but we must try to use the Bill as constructively as possible to underpin the institutions of marriage and family. I suspect that there is much cross-party agreement on that. The arguments will go on in Committee and on Report. At least two days of debate on the Floor will be necessary for proper and careful consideration on Report. There will be changes at each stage to improve the Bill to support marriage, even though it was introduced to expedite and tidy up divorce.
  I have only three points: first, a brief comment on the nature of contracts; secondly, a point about what has happened elsewhere in the world where such changes have been introduced; and thirdly, one about what will happen in 2020 if the Bill passes largely unamended.
  Much has been said about the importance of contracts and of not lightly entering into agreements. That must be considered most solemnly, whether in a religious or secular sense, when two people decide to marry and live with each other for the rest of their lives. If a marriage contract is empty and has no meaning, marriage has no meaning.
  I fall back, as I have on several previous occasions, on one of my distinguished constituents, Dr. Ruth Deech, the principal of St. Anne's college, Oxford. I do not know what her politics are. Lamentably, she is not a member of the Oxford, West and Abingdon Conservative Association. Equally lamentably, she persecutes me from time to time with attacks on the Government's education and other policies. I do not think that she is a close friend of the Government. In 1969, on the previous occasion when we set out to reform divorce law, she was a young researcher at the Law Commission. She saw it happen. She saw the results. Every time that we have legislated on divorce, as we propose to do today—whatever we have done or said—there has been a surge in the number of divorces thereafter.
  We do not need to look to the United States or Australia for such evidence. If the Bill is passed, Dr. Deech says:
  "The contract of marriage will become an empty one; there will
  be no rights and duties, no standards of behaviour, no commitment … Under the proposed new law marriage will be terminable with less formality than, for example, the ending of a lease or the hiring of a car."
  I only wish that there were another way of filling the marriage contract with meaning that did not force us to consider the issue of fault. It would be agreeable to find

  481
  some other way of putting commitment into the marriage contract. Alas, fault is all we have. I am totally persuaded by my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison).
  It is interesting to consider other parts of the world. Wherever no-fault divorce, to use that convenient shorthand, has been introduced, there has always been an immediate spurt in the number of divorces, which has gone on for several years and then plateaued, leaving divorce at a higher level than it was before the legislative change.
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Mr. Patten: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, but he must remember that I have been very nice to him this afternoon.
  Mr. Nicholls: I say this with all obsequiousness. My right hon. Friend has pointed out that there has been a surge in divorces. Is he saying that there must therefore have been a surge in marital breakdowns, or is it simply that broken marriages have been formalised?
  Mr. Patten: To the best of my knowledge, in Australia, New Zealand and the United States, there has been a surge in marital breakdowns.
  I was not invited by President Clinton to his national prayer breakfast in Washington on 1 February, but he was quoted as saying—referring to his lawful wedded wife—
  "Hillary said in her book that 'Till death do us part' has often become, 'Till the going gets tough.'"
  Speaking with American experience, the President said:
  "It may be that it ought to be a little harder to get a divorce where children are involved".
  I say, "Hear, hear Mr. President," to that.
  Nor have I ever met the Governor of Iowa, a Mr. Terry Branstad. In his state of the state of Iowa message on 9 January 1996, he said:
  "I believe that we can, as a state, reinforce the two-parent family for the good of children … I do believe we should reform our divorce laws to require mutual consent or specific grounds for divorce. Our present no-fault divorce laws have transformed marriage into an arrangement of convenience rather than an act of commitment. Parents need to understand that a divorce can severely hurt children".
  Again, I say, "Hear, hear."
  My third and last point is about what happens in Britain. Some say that we should not look to legislators in America, New Zealand or Australia. We do not have to look so far to see that our European brethren in Germany, France and elsewhere are, very sensibly, not seeking to go down the road of no-fault divorce. They generally have a much more stable social set-up as far as the family is concerned.
  I end with two quotations from two letters. One is from my constituents Dr. and Mrs. W. D. Hawes of 74 Hurst Rise road, Oxford, who wrote to me saying:
  "One-year divorce would send out the wrong signal for the nation. Marriages are entered into by two adults making binding vows before God in a church or public promises in a register office and should not be treated lightly."
  482
  They continue, and this is such a telling phrase:
  "If we continually dismiss our vows and pledges as worthless we are undermining the very basis of our civilisation. Are our words to have no meaning at all? What conclusions will our children come to?"
  6.30 pm
  My constituents are right, as was the head teacher of a primary school in Norwich, Mr. Keith Piercehouse of 57 Christchurch road, Norwich, who wrote to me saying:
  "Why should divorce always be on the basis of no fault? Faults like wrong and responsibility are concepts that are readily used in other branches of law and morals. Often there is wrong done by one party in a marriage to the other and this should be acknowledged … We do not have no-fault crimes so why should there be no-fault divorces?"
  That is very telling from a practised head teacher.
  What will happen if the Bill passes into law? The signal will go out from this place that we do not regard the marriage contract as a binding contract and as something which is, or should be, full of commitment, which one should strive to keep to for the rest of one's life.
  The evidence from all other countries where that form of divorce has been introduced is that there has been an immediate surge in the number of divorces. My prediction is that our alarmingly high divorce rate, which makes us the divorce capital of Europe, will so increase that by 2020 there will he just as many applications for divorce as for marriage licences in any one year.
  We are dealing with a solemn and difficult issue. I wish my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench well in wrestling with these arguments, but I thoroughly commend to the Committee the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle.
  Mr. Paul Boateng: The Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, when reflecting on the Bill earlier in the year, thought back to a statement made by the Catholic bishops conference in November last year.
  The bishops said:
  "differing judgments can be made sincerely, honestly and legitimately on the details of the bill and its predictable effects".
  Anyone listening to this debate and to the contributions from the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), my hon. Friends the Members for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls)—the latter made a particularly worthwhile and important contribution—would agree that that is the case. All were sincere and genuine in their concerns, but were arriving at differing conclusions about the effect of the legislation and calling on us to go into different sides of the Lobby.
  It is a good thing that, on both sides of the Committee, we have agreed to treat the issue and the other amendments tabled this evening as matters of conscience and matters for a free vote. Therefore, anything that I say from this Dispatch Box should not be seen as in any way seeking to persuade my colleagues or anyone else how to exercise their vote. It is a matter of conscience.
  The right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) is right to say that lawyers should claim no particular wisdom in this area, as we have a particular role and responsibility in relation to our

  483
  professional lives, but we make a muck of our marriages and relationships just as anyone else does so we have no particular wisdom. Like other hon. Members, I have some experience of what goes on between a lawyer and a client during the breakdown of a marriage. One has a special relationship with one's client in that context.
  I have learnt that, whether one considers the old matrimonial offences, which I can just about remember, or fault as evidence of irretrievable breakdown—there is a distinction, which is not just semantic—the role of fault in divorce and the role of fault as the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) would have it—up front—almost universally has the effect of engendering bitterness and conflict between the parties. Almost invariably, it is a source of harm and suffering to those parties and to the children. That is my experience.
  Mr. Clive Soley: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Boateng: May I first complete this point?
  I am driven from that experience to the conclusion that we ought to take the steps on fault proposed in the Bill. Having said that, we must be clear about what the law can achieve and about the messages it sends, and the importance of ensuring that the law reflects reality. Part of that reality is that there is culpability in the breakdown of marriage. It is no use pretending that, when a relationship breaks down, one can divorce that from fault. One cannot do so.
  It is no use pretending either—here there is a real danger—that what we say in this House because many of us are from a different generation and we are in a different place is irrelevant to the way in which people behave out there—or, indeed, the way we behave ourselves. It is not.
  Therefore, the law can never be value-free. We have somehow to build into what we are doing in this place in the next few weeks some messages about values. If we do not do so, the continuing escalation of the breakdown of the family and the undervaluing of marriage, which we all regret on both sides of the Committee, will continue. That is a difficult task, but it is one that we have to embrace.
  The cardinal archbishop went on to say that the Bill has to be the starting point of deliberations on the topic, and added:
  "any necessary reform of the divorce law can only be part of a larger project of supporting and strengthening the institution of marriage and family life."
  Written into the Bill, in terms of a practical policy and a mechanism, must be the means by which we can support and strengthen the institution of marriage and family life. It must not be only a pious aspiration.
  That is a challenge for us, and it will be a challenge in Committee and on Report. In creating those practical mechanical structures for making something of reconciliation and of education and support for marriage, we need to be clear that we cannot hope to do it in this House unless we change what is on the face of the Bill.
  If the Bill were to pass through the House in its present unamended form, or if it were to pass in only a marginally amended form, it would be a disaster of enormous proportions for society. In fact, it would be a disaster comparable with the child protection agency fiasco—
  484
  I shall refer to child protection in due course, because I believe that it should be written into the Bill. It would be a disaster for the Child Support Agency, and it would go beyond that in terms of its social impact.
  In 1971, in the aftermath of the last great reform of divorce law, Lord Scarman said:
  "The law is groping its way towards a new conception of the duties of married life."
  The duties of married life have been cast aside. Married life and the importance and value of marriage are being widely questioned. Marriage is undervalued, marriage is not supported, marriage is now something that one can win on a game show.
  If one turns on the television on a Saturday night, one can see someone win a marriage. The young couples who walk down the pink staircase—I do not know why the staircase is not white; no doubt pink looks better on television—get more preparation for marriage, in terms of what they will get at the end, than we give them in relation to civil marriage today.
  The couple I saw the other night were at least asked—as they were about to make the last step down the staircase to their honeymoon in Barbados—what one felt about the other and what one believed the other felt about them. If they got the answer right, they got the marriage and the honeymoon. They were asked whether it was respect or sexual attraction. They gave the right answer: respect—as it happened. They got some preparation.
  At the moment, there is no preparation at all for civil marriage, and there is absolutely nothing on the face of the Bill to give any hope whatsoever that that will occur or is envisaged. Are we going to have any assurances about that tonight? That is something that hon. Members want to hear. We also want to look at the experience of other nations within the common law jurisdiction where no-fault divorce has been introduced. The most useful example in this regard is Australia. In 1975, no-fault divorce was introduced by a narrow margin and on a bipartisan vote—I suspect that that experience will be replicated in the House on a number of issues.
  There is debate in Australia about what the figures subsequently show. Some statistics, in some forms, show that there has been an increase in marital breakdown; other statistics, in another form, show that there has been a decrease in marital breakdown. I do not see much point in arguing about those statistics.
  However, we have to recognise that with that Bill came a whole raft of other proposals—including the proposal to establish the family law court and the Australian Institute of Family Studies. With that proposal came court counselling services; with that proposal came suggestions for the custody and guardianship of children to be subject to independent analysis and review by a court-based officer; with that proposal came a positive mechanism for underpinning reconciliation and supporting marriage generally.
  Marriage and the family are the fundamental units of society—and this Bill is silent in that regard. If we are to pass the Bill into law—if we are to see the vote that I think we will have tonight on this issue of no fault become part of a Bill that actually addresses the crisis in marriage and the family—the Government will have to come forward with proposals in relation to reconciliation, or they will have to accept our proposals in that regard.

  485
  The Government also have to come forward with proposals in relation to preparation for marriage and with proposals that recognise the need for concerted and focused action to support the institution of marriage and the family. Only then can hon. Members rest easy in terms of the consequences of their deliberations today.
  6.45 pm
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): We have heard some powerful speeches in this important debate. I confirm, for the benefit of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that we will have a genuine free vote. Government Members, and—I am pleased to hear—Labour Members, must reach their own conclusions. They must use their conscience and their judgement as to how they should vote. Undoubtedly, the Government will be divided by opinion, but not by party loyalty. The contributions of hon. Members, expressing both sides of the argument, have been very powerful.
  There is common ground: the need to campaign for the institution of marriage—I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) on that. I note what my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) and my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) and for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) said in that regard. I support their views and the need for all hon. Members to do everything possible to support the institution of marriage. It is a tragedy that two out of five marriages in this country end in divorce. All hon. Members are seeking to reduce that number.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) asked me to confirm the consequences of voting for amendment 1 and new clause 1. The Bill, as presently drafted, provides for no fault to be given as a reason for divorce, and for a one-year minimum period for reflection and consideration, with or without children.
  Amendment No. 1. on which we are about to vote, is a paving amendment for new clause 1. New clause 1 provides reasons of fault—that is, unreasonable behaviour and adultery—as grounds for divorce, and there will have to be a one-year period of separation. New clause 1 also provides for divorce with consent, but no fault, after two years; and without consent, and without allegations of fault, after five years.
  I confirm that, if this new clause is passed and we then come to amendment No. 7 after this vote—in the debate that is to be taken by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department—the only consequence of amendment No. 7 will be to extend to a minimum of two years if there are children, even if there is an allegation of fault, the period before divorce can take place. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are consistent with new clause 1. If new clause 1 is passed, and if amendments Nos. 7 or 8 are subsequently passed, the Government will facilitate appropriate amendments to ensure that they are consistent with the rest of the Bill.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) prayed in aid the examples in other countries, particularly the United States. I urge hon. Members to treat with some caution the statistics that are
  486
  available from other countries—from Scotland, Northern Ireland and, in particular, the United States—in arguing for or against the amendment. Circumstances are different. Provisions in the divorce law other than those relating to the minimum period, such as whether there is fault or no fault, may influence people's behaviour. In any case, I have to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster that, sadly, there is an upward trend in the rate of divorce throughout the western world, whatever the provisions in national legislatures concerning divorce.
  I suggest to the Committee that we should take into account two important criteria in reaching a judgment tonight. First, we should ask ourselves: are the steps that we are taking in voting on clause 5—that is to say, fault or no fault—likely to reduce the rate of divorce to lower than it would otherwise be?
  I cannot hold out any hope to the Committee, on behalf of the Lord Chancellor and my other right hon. and hon. Friends who have been involved in the preparation of the Bill, that in itself it will reduce the absolute number of divorces. The argument is whether the provisions in the Bill at the moment would reduce the number to lower than would otherwise be the case. The second criterion, as so many hon. Members have said, is the effect on children.
  I emphasise that this debate is not about the minimum period for reflection and consideration; it is not about the minimum period before a divorce can occur. Indeed, the lengthening of the minimum period from the few months that can occur at present under our present law to a minimum of one year will, in itself, make divorce harder and send a signal to all those who are contemplating marriage—or, regrettably, contemplating divorce—that it will be harder than at present. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 lengthen that period to 24 months or 18 months respectively.
  I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) that everyone recognises that there are always faults when a marriage breaks down and when a couple look at the prospect of divorce. The issue before us tonight is not the statement of faults, which often occur on both sides and obviously must be explored through the process of reflection and consideration, through mediation and through counselling. The issue is whether the two very narrowly defined faults—adultery and intolerable behaviour—in themselves should be grounds for divorce.
  The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle still leaves fault as an optional remedy; indeed, it is not necessary always to allege fault in order to cause a divorce under my hon. Friend's amendment, because he holds out the prospect of divorce after two years—
  Mr. Leigh: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend will forgive me.
  He holds out the prospect of divorce after two years with consent and five years without consent, where fault is not alleged.
  Sir David Mitchell: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no relationship between the question of fault or no fault and the form of the financial settlement that may follow?
  Mr. Freeman: No. As my hon. Friend will know, in Committee there will be discussion of, and amendments

  487
  will be tabled concerning, the division of financial assets, but that is a separate issue. I am sure that there will be a formal detailed debate about the alleged shortcomings in present practice—that is to say, the way in which the courts take account of behaviour in the allocation of financial assets.
  In the remaining few minutes, I shall try to sum up the arguments for and against fault in divorce proceedings. There were three arguments in favour of the amendment.
  The first argument was that it sent a moral message—a sanction—that the reason of fault could be used by one partner against another, and my hon. Friend argued that that might stiffen people's resolve, that it would send a clear message that marriage was a lifetime's commitment. My hon. Friend would be the first to concede, however, that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge said in a powerful speech, it is not always the case that 100 per cent. of the fault is on one side. In reality, in most cases, fault is on both sides.
  The second argument, advanced in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, was that of vindication. She described the situation of a middle-aged wife who had forsaken her career to support her husband, who then deserted her for a younger woman. The argument was that her ability to allege fault was a vindication and a necessary weapon, as it were, for the wronged party to use. However, as the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) said, when there is fault on both sides, much depends on who gets to the divorce lawyer first and who lodges the petition.
  Thirdly, the argument has been advanced, especially by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), that marriage is a contract, and there is no penalty if the concept of fault is removed. I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Bill, as drafted, provides for a minimum of one year for reflection and consideration. That makes the marriage contract more important than it is at present, as it is currently possible to obtain a divorce in weeks.
  I shall now mention the arguments against the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir D. Mitchell) pointed out clearly that, if one uses fault as a reason for divorce and it is only one of the grounds for divorce, one is in some ways building oneself into a confrontational escalation of the procedure. The mere fact of alleging fault and ascribing the evidence can in itself lead inevitably to the conclusion of divorce, so it can be argued that it makes reconciliation less likely.
  As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department will explain later in other debates, at the heart of the Bill is the introduction of a new procedure of mediation, of reconciliation, of trying to save marriages after the initial process has begun—that is to say, the statement of an irretrievable breakdown. Some marriages can be saved even though proceedings have begun.
  The second and final argument against amendment No. 1 advanced by some, although not shared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling), was about the effect on children. The Committee must ask itself tonight, what would be the effect on the children of a marriage if we reinserted into
  488
  the Bill allegations of fault, which would inevitably involve greater acrimony and hostility between the partners?
  I will give way at the end of my remarks to allow my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle the last two minutes in which to speak.
  I urge in the Committee, in a free vote, to use not only its conscience but its judgment.
  Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to all those who have spoken so movingly in this debate. I remind the Committee of the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling). He reminded us that, whatever the agonies of the participants in divorce, nothing can compare with the agonies of children of divorced parents.
  Of course we want to lessen acrimony, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) said, what message are we sending out to young people? If we do not pass the amendment, we would send the message of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) reminded us—that the contract of marriage will be a uniquely empty one.
  If I may, I shall end by paraphrasing Benjamin Jowett. It is of course true that you cannot make people moral by Act of Parliament; yet the laws and institutions of a country do make it, to a degree which it is difficult to exaggerate, either easier or harder for men and women to walk in the right way.
  As we vote today, we should ask ourselves, are we really ensuring that it has sunk into the thinking of all people that, in the wonderfully telling words of the Book of Common Prayer, marriage
  "is not … to be … taken in hand unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly"?
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 137, Noes 267.

  Division No. 105]

  [18.59 pm

  AYES

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Alton, David

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Amess, David

  Day, Stephen

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Dixon, Don

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bates, Michael

  Dunn, Bob

  Beggs, Roy

  Eastham, Ken

  Benton, Joe

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Booth, Hartley

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Bowis, John

  Evennett, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Faber, David

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

  Burns, Simon

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Butcher, John

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Carttiss, Michael

  Gale, Roger

  Cash, William

  Gallie, Phil

  Clappison, James

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gill, Christopher

  Congdon, David

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Conway, Derek

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  489

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Hendry, Charles

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  Horam, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

  Rogers, Allan

  Jessel, Toby

  Ross, William (E Londonderry)

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Sackville, Tom

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shaw, David (Dover)

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

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Leigh, Edward

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Lidington, David

  Spellar, John

  Lord, Michael

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Spink, Dr Robert

  McGrady, Eddie

  Sproat, Iain

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Sumberg, David

  McNamara, Kevin

  Sweeney, Walter

  Maginnis, Ken

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Marland, Paul

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Mates Michael

  Thornton, Sir Malcolm

  Merchant Piers

  Tracey, Richard

  Mills Iain

  Trend, Michael

  Molyneaux Rt Hon Sir James

  Trimble, David

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Twinn Dr Ian

  Montogomery, Sir Fergus

  Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

  Murphy, Paul

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Watts, John

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Willetts, David

  Paisley, The Reverend Ian

  Wilshire, David

  Parry, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Wolfson, Mark

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Yeo, Tim

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Rev. Martin Smyth and

  Purchase, Ken

  Mr. Robert Hughes.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

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

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Burden, Richard

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Burt, Alistair

  Allen, Graham

  Butler, Peter

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Butterfill, John

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Byers, Stephen

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Caborn, Richard

  Ashby, David

  Callaghan, Jim

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Barnes, Harry

  Carrington, Matthew

  Barron, Kevin

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Batiste, Spencer

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clapham, Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Berry, Roger

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Betts, Clive

  Coe, Sebastian

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Coffey, Ann

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blunkett, David

  Corston, Jean

  Boateng, Paul

  Couchman, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Cousins, Jim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Cran, James

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

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

  490

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Dafis, Cynog

  Jenkins, Brian (S.E. Staffs)

  Darling, Alistair

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Devlin, Tim

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Dewar, Donald

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Dover, Den

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jowell, Tessa

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

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

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Khabra, Piara S

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Fatchett, Derek

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Fisher, Mark

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Flynn, Paul

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Forman, Nigel

  Knox, Sir David

  Forth, Eric

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Foulkes, George

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  French, Douglas

  Livingstone, Ken

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Garnier, Edward

  Loyden, Eddie

  Gerrard, Neil

  Luff, Peter

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Godsiff, Roger

  McFall, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  MacKay, Andrew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  MacShane, Denis

  Grocott, Bruce

  Madden, Max

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Mahon, Alice

  Hall, Mike

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Malone, Gerald

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mandelson, Peter

  Hannam, Sir John

  Marlow, Tony

  Hanson, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Harris, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Harvey, Nick

  Maxton, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Hayes, Jerry

  Meacher, Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Michael, Alun

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Heppell, John

  Miller, Andrew

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Hicks, Robert

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Mudie, George

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

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

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hoyle, Doug

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Page, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Paice, James

  Hutton, John

  Pawsey, James

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jack, Michael

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Pope, Greg

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Janner, Greville

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  491

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stern, Michael

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Stevenson, George

  Radice, Giles

  Stott, Roger

  Raynsford, Nick

  Streeter, Gary

  Reid, Dr John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Rendel, David

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Timms, Stephen

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Tipping, Paddy

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Tredinnick, David

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Turner, Dennis

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Tyler, Paul

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Sheerman, Barry

  Walden, George

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wallace, James

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Ward, John

  Short, Clare

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Simpson, Alan

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sims, Roger

  Whitney, Ray

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whittingdale, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

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

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Wood, Timothy

  Snape, Peter

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Soley, Clive

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spring, Richard

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mr. Peter Bottomley and

  Steen, Anthony

  Sir Jim Lester.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  It being after Seven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Orders [25 March and 17 April], put the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Question agreed to
  Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Jopling: On a point of order, Sir Geoffrey. The Committee has just had a Division in which more than 100 Conservative Members voted against the guts of the Bill. I ask the Leader of the House, who is in his place, to reconsider the Bill when things have cooled down a little. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider whether the Bill ought to be proceeded with.
  The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): That matter is not for the Chair. We must move on.

Clause 7

  PERIOD FOR REFLECTION AND CONSIDERATION
  Mr. Roger Sims: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 40, leave out 'first' and insert 'second'.
  The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 14, at end add—
  '(9A) Where an application for a divorce order is made by one party, subsection (9D) applies if—

  (a) the other party applies to the court, within the prescribed period, for time for further reflection; and

  (b) the requirements of section 9 (except any imposed under section 9(3) are satisfied.

  492
  (9B) Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (9D) also applies if there is any child of the family under the age of sixteen when the statement is received by the court.
  (9C) Subsection (9D) does not apply if—

  (a) at the time when the application for a divorce order is made, there is an occupation order or a non-molestation order in force in favour of the applicant, or of a child of the family, with a power of arrest attached under section 44; or

  (b) the court is satisfied that delaying the making of a divorce order would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family.

  (9D) If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of one year, but without invalidating the application for a divorce order.'.
  Amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 14, at end add—
  '(9A) Where an application for a divorce order is made by one party, subsection (9D) applies if—

  (a) the other party applies to the court, within the prescribed period, for time for further reflection; and

  (b) the requirements of section 9 (except any imposed under section 9(3) are satisfied.

  (9B) Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (9D) also applies if there is any child of the family under the age of sixteen when the statement is received by the court.
  (9C) Subsection (9D) does not apply if—

  (a) at the time when the application for a divorce order is made, there is an occupation order or a non-molestation order in force in favour of the applicant, or of a child of the family, with a power of arrest attached under section 44; or

  (b) the court is satisfied that delaying the making of a divorce order would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family.

  (9D) If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of six months, but without invalidating the application for a divorce order.'.
  Amendment No. 17, in page 5, line 14, at end add—
  '(9A) Where an application for a divorce order is made by one party, subsection (9D) applies if

  (a) the other party applies to the court, within the prescribed period, for time for further reflection; and

  (b) the requirements of section 9 (except any imposed under section 9(3) are satisfied.

  (9B) Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (9D) also applies if there is any child of the family under the age of sixteen years when the statement is received by the court.
  (9C) Subsection (9D) does not apply if the court is satisfied that the case is one of exceptional hardship suffered by the applicant or of exceptional depravity on the part of the other party; but in determining the application the court must have regard to the interests of any child of the family and to the question whether there is a reasonable probability of reconciliation during the additional period mentioned in subsection (9D).
  (9D) If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of one year, but without invalidating the application for a divorce order.'.
  Amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 14, at end add—
  '(9A) Where an application for a divorce order is made by one party, subsection (9D) applies if

  (a) the other party applies to the court, within the prescribed period, for time for further reflection; and

  (b) the requirements of section 9 (except any imposed under section 9(3) are satisfied.

  (9B) Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (9D) also applies if there is any child of the family under the age of sixteen years when the statement is received by the court.

  493
  (9C) Subsection (9D) does not apply if the court is satisfied that the case is one of exceptional hardship suffered by the applicant or of exceptional depravity on the part of the other party; but in determining the application the court must have regard to the interests of any child of the family and to the question whether there is a reasonable probability of reconciliation during the additional period mentioned in subsection (9D)
  (9D) If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of six months, but without invalidating the application for a divorce order.'.
  Clause 7 stand part.
  Mr. Sims: The amendments to which amendment No. 3 is linked refer to the period that should elapse between a statement of intention to divorce being lodged and the divorce itself. On Second Reading—[Interruption.]
  The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members should leave the Chamber quietly—and I ask the hon. Members who are holding a sub-committee in the right-hand corner of the Chamber to hold it somewhere else.
  Mr. Sims: On Second Reading, I supported the Bill's proposal for a period of consideration, so that mediation and reconciliation, if possible, can take place before divorce is finalised. I shall listen to hon. Members who propound arguments in support of the other amendments, as to whether 12 months or a longer period would be appropriate. I want to go further back in the process, and I invite the Committee to consider how soon after a couple have married they should be permitted, to use the language of the Bill, to make
  "a statement of marital breakdown".
  7.15 pm
  It is common ground among hon. Members that the family is the foundation of our society, and that the basis of the family is marriage. Of course two people can live together and produce children without any civil or religious ceremony having taken place—the state cannot prevent that—but a couple's public commitment to each other in a religious or civil marriage ceremony must surely add to the stability of their relationship to the benefit of the man and the woman, the children of the marriage and society.
  Ideally, such a commitment should be lifelong, not only on religious grounds—promises made before almighty God should be inviolable—but because it must be in the interests of a stable society that marriage be permanent. We must acknowledge that sometimes, with the best will in the world, things do not work out and the marriage breaks down. If it is desirable for the state to have a formal, public procedure for marriage, there should be a formal, public procedure to enable a couple who feel that their marriage has broken down to break that contract—and to do so as far as possible on mutually acceptable terms, with appropriate arrangements with regard to property and, especially, children. The Bill is all about doing that, and we have been debating and will continue to debate the best way for procedures to be followed.
  When framing legislation, it is important to consider—to use the expression that has been employed a number of times this afternoon—the messages that the Committee is
  494
  sending about the institution of marriage and its status. Our legislation should surely be saying how important and solemn is the undertaking into which a couple enter on marriage, and how important and solemn is the breaking of the marriage contract.
  Mr. Rowe: My hon. Friend raises an enormously important point. Does he agree that, for a variety of benevolent motives, we have over years unpicked the vast majority of the secular benefits of being married, so that, when people enter into a solemn marriage, the state's investment in that relationship is a great deal less than it used to be?
  Mr. Sims: I cannot dispute that point—in fact, I strongly agree with my hon. Friend—but I fear that if I were to go into the matters behind his intervention, I would quite properly be ruled out of order. God forbid that that should happen to me, a member of the Chairmen's Panel.
  If we were to say that, if a couple have married, there can be no question of divorce for 10 years, that would certainly demonstrate the importance of the commitment, but I fear that it might be seen as a deterrent to marriage. If, on the other hand, it was suggested that we should tell people that they can get married and, if it does not work out, be divorced in three months, we would surely oppose that on the ground that it would devalue the institution of marriage. So what should be the minimum period between a wedding taking place and the point at which a statement of intention to divorce can be lodged? What length of time would be reasonable and practicable and yet at the same time demonstrate the seriousness of the marriage vows?
  Before the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, that period was three years, which I suggest is about right, but that Bill sought to reduce the period to one year. I opposed that proposal and sought a compromise of two years. Despite my arguments and my vote, the period on the face of the Act is one year. That is now the minimum period.
  We have asked the question so often, but it is appropriate—what messages does that convey to the sort of young people about whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) spoke so eloquently in the previous debate? Are we not telling people, in effect, that, if they are thinking of marriage, they can give it a go, but they should not worry if it does not work out because, in 12 months' time, they can get out of it? Are we saying that marriage can be entered into on a trial basis rather than for life? All of us who have been married will know that the first year can be difficult, especially if a baby arrives. To allow the lodging of divorce petition after one year, as now, seems to me to be to allow it far too soon.
  Whatever other changes will be made by the present Bill, it still proposes that that one-year period shall remain. That is enshrined in clause 7(6), which reads:
  "A statement which is made before the first anniversary of the marriage to which it relates is ineffective for the purposes of any application for a divorce order."
  The effect of my amendment would be to replace the word "first" with the word "second". I believe that that would give a more appropriate period. If my amendment were passed, a couple who are contemplating marriage will know that, if they proceed, at least two years must elapse before they can embark on divorce proceedings. As the

  495
  Bill now stands, there would then be a further 12 months for reflection and consideration, making three years in all. If the amendments with which mine is grouped were passed, that period of reflection could be extended for a further six or 12 months. Whatever the views of the Committee on the other amendments, I hope it will accept the arguments that I have adduced and support my amendment.
  Mr. Soley: I am sorry to have missed the opening of the debate, but I was chairing the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. I regard this subject as very important, because I have spent much of my working life working with families who have been in trouble for one reason or another, frequently because relationships have broken down. I am very much in favour of arbitration and conciliation, and that is why I support the general thrust of the Bill. I am not, however, generally in favour of extending the length of time before it is possible to get a divorce.
  I am not as worried about amendment No. 3 as I was about amendment No. 1, because I believe that bringing fault into divorce immediately puts children in the firing line of the battle. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) made that point powerfully and I am pleased that the amendment was thrown out. However, there are a number of contradictions here. If it is the view of the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) that we should make it more difficult for couples to separate, and tell people who are about to marry not to marry without a lot of thought, because, if they do they cannot undo it easily, that is a reasonable position and I understand it, but that course is likely to increase the number of people who choose to live together outside marriage.
  I do not mind that—there is something to be said for people living together outside marriage to see whether their relationship works before they make a longer-term commitment by having children. For me, the crucial issue is the welfare of the children, and we should never lose sight of that factor. I would not mind an increase in the number of people living together, but I suspect that the hon. Gentleman might not want that to happen.
  I have been struck by the number of times that states or Governments—of the left and right—that have tried to intervene to dictate social relationships between people, have nearly always failed to achieve their aim. People make relationships because of the quality of those relationships. If a relationship does not work, those involved will separate. The problem that we have to face is that, if children are involved in a relationship that does not work, it is very painful for them. The ending of a close relationship is also painful for adults, but it is the children on whom we must focus and for whom we should have most concern.
  That brings me to another point, which was mentioned at the end of the previous debate and which the hon. Member for Chislehurst mentioned. We make a fundamental mistake if we assume that a marriage is the same as a family. It is not. Families predate marriage by thousands of years. Marriage is a relatively recent innovation. That does not mean that I am against marriage. If people wish to marry, it is important that the state, the Church or any other organisation involved makes the experience positive and pleasant for them. If people wish to marry, the experience should be an
  496
  important one for which they make preparation. If the Churches are worried about the divorce rate, they should provide more preparation.
  If people do not want to marry, the state should not moralise, find fault or blame. Many people—of whom I am one—live outside marriage. I can tell hon. Members that my children are perfectly happy, they are quite well brought up and we are perfectly happy as a family and as individuals. Many of my constituents, and many other people in the country, live in exactly the same sort of relationship. I would not seek to impose on people who are married a moral code for the structure of their relationship and I ask only that they do not seek to impose on me a structure that I am not willing to accept.
  Dame Jill Knight: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. He said at the beginning of his speech that, if the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) were adopted, it would put people off getting married and they would live together. If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he has just said that he sees nothing wrong with a decision to live together outside marriage. The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing from both sides at the same time. Will he clarify his argument a little?
  Mr. Soley: I am saying that, when the state, through Parliament in this instance, tries to legislate on these matters, there are many unintended consequences. If we make it difficult for divorce to take place, people will vote with their feet. They are likely—I put it no higher than that—to do one of two things. The first is that they will choose to live with a partner outside marriage rather than marry first. I do not mind if that happens, but I gather that some people do.
  The second is that, when a marriage breaks up and it is necessary for the partners to wait a long time for a divorce—let us assume that there is no doubt that the marriage has ended and neither party is looking for reconciliation—one or both will enter into another relationship and live with that person. That is a common background. If we make people wait three, four or five years for a divorce, more people will live in sin, if that is the phrase that people choose to use.
  I am merely setting out the possible unintended consequences of legislation. That does not trouble me too much—I am much more worried about the quality of relationships in people's lives and the way in which we support the family post marriage, including children.
  7.30 pm
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The hon. Gentleman has said twice that, if it is made difficult to get a divorce, people will be less inclined to marry. That is not true. Until the second half of the century, it was extremely difficult to get divorced. In the previous century, it was necessary to secure one's own Act of Parliament, for heaven's sake. That did not put people off getting married. Only recently has divorce been made easier; before that happened, people married willingly.
  Mr. Soley: The hon. Lady is right. If she listens, she will hear what I have to say about the matters that she has raised. I merely say that those who support the amendment should understand that there will be

  497
  unintended consequences if it is adopted. The consequences will not be quite what they expect. As I have said, from my standpoint I am relatively relaxed about the amendment. I advance my arguments in that context.
  The problem is that marriage has come to be seen as a passport to happiness. It is assumed that getting married is a good thing—"You will be happy, you can have children and you will be a good parent." Those things do not follow automatically. There is evidence that many young people—I think that I will take hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber with me in this instance—have seen marriage as something of a celebration, almost to the point of its being a party, without necessarily thinking through the longer-term consequences of having children and living together.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: One of my hon. Friend's most telling observations is that many people enter marriage ill prepared. Surely the task is to make the preparation for this most intimate of relationships much more effective. That involves many voluntary organisations, such as Churches, apart from the state.
  Mr. Soley: That is absolutely right. I shall say something about the registering of children, which we tend to ignore. As I have said, my hon. Friend is right.
  Not so long ago, one of my constituents telephoned to complain bitterly that the vicar would not marry her. Hon. Members do not often receive such calls. In any event, I intervened to find out why the vicar was not prepared to marry the lady. He said, "She does not understand that it is not just an excuse for a party." He wanted to make preparation available and she was saying, "I want a party. I have been brought up to believe that getting married is a good thing to do. I will be happy and have children." Someone like me was saying, "Marriage does not equal happiness. Similarly, it does not equal being a good parent. It is much more complex than that." We should be focusing on that.
  Divorce rates are high and, in my judgment, they will remain so, primarily for economic reasons. There are, of course, other factors. People are living longer and children become independent. People are divorced at different stages and at different ages nowadays.
  In my parents' generation, parents stayed together in loveless marriages. They were bitterly unhappy. It was tragic watching people of my parents' generation locked together in loveless, unhappy marriages. They felt that, because the state had said that they should not get divorced, they had to continue living in that way. I saw many sad elderly people who missed so much in life after their children left home. The same was true of people who did not have children. They, too, were locked into loveless, unhappy marriages. We have no right to impose that sort of life on people through a social code that does not fit with the experience of real life.
  If the Government wanted to do something about reducing the divorce rate, they would have to change the role of women. They would have to make women much more dependent on men's earnings once more, so that it would be difficult for them to leave. That will not happen. In a strange way, there is an element of reversal.
  498
  Men, especially in some of the old heavy industry areas, are now much more dependent on women than hitherto. They are not especially useful as parents, because they were brought up in the macho culture of building ships or digging coal, for example. They suddenly find that they have no role in life because they have no job. They have had no preparation for parenthood, so what use are they to a woman? It is a real problem. It is why we find a fairly high number of single-parent women living in some of the old heavy industry areas. That is also why, in south Wales—many of us would not have believed this some years ago—close to 50 per cent. of the main carers of children at home are men. A fundamental and radical change has taken place in other parts of the country as well.
  Before coming to this place, I was a probation officer. I worked with damaged and, at times, extremely violent families. I worked also with families that came to see me because the divorce court or the family court had asked that that should happen. Three things can be done when a family or a marriage is in difficulty. I say "marriage" advisedly, but I am talking about two people living together in that situation.
  First, I could say, "You can stay as you are and not do anything about the situation, in which case I can guarantee that you will probably continue to be unhappy together." Secondly, I could say, "You can separate. If you choose to do that you should separate in the least painful way for you and to the children if any are involved." Thirdly, I could say, "You can attempt reconciliation or conciliation." The third option is an important one and it is one that the Bill takes on board, which is why I welcome the relevant part of it.
  Of the three broad philosophies that I have outlined, the most damaging one is that people should stay together when they are not able to change an unhappy relationship, believing that they are doing so because they should, or for the good of the children. If parents are staying together unhappily, they are almost certainly not performing well as parents. That does not mean that people should automatically divorce and separate; it means that it is not possible to be a good parent, or as good as one would like to be, if the relationship with one's main partner in life involves much friction and fighting. That is especially true if there is violence. That is the worst and most damaging scene.
  Some of the most damaged clients with whom I worked as a probation officer—I worked with some extremely violent offenders—came from families where the father was coming and going and violent and the mother was ambivalent about the relationship, switching love on and off. If we perpetuate such relationships—they often were perpetuated—we produce very disturbed children.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: When there is severe violence in a family, no one would suggest that the children might not be better off in a different situation, but all the research that has been undertaken to date shows extremely clearly that children are better off when their parents are still together, even unhappily, than when they are divorced. They are better off in terms of their health and education and every other factor. Virtually every organisation that deals with children says that.
  Mr. Soley: I have to dispute that. I could list many organisations that work with children which would

  499
  dispute that view. The research does not prove the case one way or the other, not least because it is hard to do the research reliably.
  The research, including that which supports my case, normally relies on small samples, often does not compare like with like and does not take into account all the many and varied factors that affect these situations. What I am concentrating on—and what I ask the hon. Lady, who I know cares deeply about this, to concentrate on—is the quality of the relationship. We should focus on that. Where a relationship is not working, we should help it to work. That is the advantage of conciliation—it does not need to have a time limit; it can be one year, three years or one month—and people will go for it if it is available and they want to make the relationship work.
  If, for whatever reason, people do not want to make the relationship work, we can wait one or 10 years, but the chances are that they will not come for conciliation. If we try to make them come, the chances are that it will not work. It must be voluntary—that is the only way to make it happen.
  Mrs. Peacock: The hon. Gentleman is obviously considering the children in any broken marriage—we would all want to do that. What protection can he envisage being given to a mother who takes the children away, perhaps from a violent situation, and gets a live-in boyfriend? They are not his children and what happens is—I have quite a few cases of this, although I am not a lawyer—that the violence restarts and the children suffer twice: they go through a second stage of violence at the hands of someone who is almost unknown.
  Mr. Soley: I am worried about the amount of time that I am taking up, but I want to deal with that point towards the end of my comments.
  Mr. Rowe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Soley: Yes, and then I had better get on.
  Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. One of the great turn-offs for people seeking help with their marriages is that it is often provided by people from a different social background from their own. Does he agree that there is a huge opportunity out there for an explosion in what I call mentoring, by people who have time on their hands and who have been through rearing children and can give support and comfort?
  Mr. Soley: A host of important groups do not receive support and can give the type of support that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of. I would widen it to other family issues.
  On the divorce rate, some hon. Members hark back to a golden age that never existed. There will be no repeat of the past because the economy, the role of women and a number of other things in that respect have changed.
  I want to be a bit more positive. In the period of reconciliation, be it one year or three, we must ensure that reconciliation and arbitration are available, well resourced and provided by suitably qualified people. Otherwise, it becomes meaningless. It would be especially wrong to have a law that said that couples must consider
  500
  reconciliation first and then under-resource the service so that, when they tried to use it, it was of poor quality or inadequate. That would be the worst of all things.
  I say to hon. Members who support the amendment—I am sure that I carry the hon. Member for Chislehurst, who moved it, with me; I hope that I carry also one or two of the hon. Ladies who intervened—that, if they pass the amendment, they must ensure that they vote for the money to go with it. If they do not make it work, they will be giving people false hopes of what can be achieved. I want to make reconciliation available.
  My last two points are also about children and the family. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) made an important point. One thing is lacking in all the debate—it has been lacking in the political debate in Britain for many years: family policy. There is no family policy in this country worth the name. Government Departments do not liaise and co-ordinate with each other or with local authorities. There is no liaison with the private sector. Because there is no family policy, we put families into positions in which they are likely to break down.
  I shall give just one simple example, but it is dear to my heart. If homeless families with young children are put in bed-and-breakfast accommodation or high-rise flats, parenting problems are produced. Even the best parent cannot bring up kids in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and will get frustrated with kids under their feet in a high-rise flat. Many of them will let them play outside unsupervised and then everyone is surprised when graffiti, violence and crime grow.
  I must mention another important lesson to all hon. Members. We are quick—the tabloid press is especially bad—to damn someone who has been through everlasting hell and who has been caught being cruel to children, or vicious or brutal. I agree—I have no problem condemning people for cruel behaviour, but we hardly ever pay attention to the fact that the causation of that is often a breakdown in parenting, and often violent parenting.
  7.45 pm
  It was interesting that, in the case of Dunblane, we were all quick, understandably and rightly, to say, "What a wicked act." We also ignored the fact that the man who killed in Dunblane was not only abandoned by his father when he was very young, which happens to many others, but brought up to believe that his mother was his sister. We did not intervene. We did not do anything. We had no policies.
  I could produce a hundred and one cases where the whole nation is deeply sympathetic to the child who is battered, brutalised and badly treated or who is not given the love and consistent care that he requires. Fifteen years later—I have seen the pattern in my working life as a probation officer—that person is up in court for some violent action and everyone is damning him to hell and back, but we did not intervene when we could have done, because of the lack of a family policy.
  On the final important point, people sometimes say to me, "It is all very well saying that marriage and the family are different. I understand and accept that, but is there not one thing that makes the marriage aspect special? Marriage is about legitimising the couple's position with children." Sadly, it is not. The real thing that legitimises

  501
  the position with children is the couple's registering of the child in their name. The mother and father's registering of the child is the important act, as they accept responsibility for the welfare of the child. It is one of the most important acts; unfortunately, there is no ceremony for it.
  To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Batley and Spen, we do not even develop the system differently so that a person who moves into a family where there are children by a previous marriage has some mechanism by which he or she can take on responsibility without full adoption, which might not be wanted by other party. We do not allow them even to register it in a meaningful way.
  Mr. Spearing: The Committee has listened to a sincere and important speech. Does my hon. Friend agree that the real opportunity for expressing responsibility, and for society to take responsibility for children, happens at the point of marriage, when the partners are perhaps looking towards children and their responsibility for them—society has a responsibility in that respect as well—and towards each other? Is not that the answer to his question, "What is marriage about?"
  Mr. Soley: Yes, but that is why I said in my opening comments that, for people who want to get married, marriage is profoundly important. If people want to get married, that ceremony is not only important to them, but should be made attractive to, and important for, the Church and the state, but we should not assume that it equals happiness or that everyone wants to do it.
  We must understand that marriage is different from family, from being a good parent and, above all, from a happy family. There are plenty of good parents who are not married. Plenty of societies before ours never even heard of the word "marriage" before it was invented 2,000 years ago—or whenever it was invented. Let us not forget that they were good parents and good families.
  I have no objection to the Church taking this on board, but it must stand on its own feet and not use the family as though people must necessarily get into the family or can become a good parent only by the marriage route. They can do it through a number of other routes. Registering children is important.
  I apologise for going on for longer than I intended. Although the amendment would be nowhere near as harmful as amendment No. 1 would have been, my general approach would be to keep the period fairly short, emphasise arbitration and conciliation, and make sure that resources are available for it. We should not worry too much about the period we lay down in law. It is not that important. What matters above all is more support for families and parenting, and the existence of a family and parenting policy. Moreover, it is vital to register children in the name of the parent: in that way, parents undertake to society to be responsible for those children.
  Mr. Leigh: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 7 and 8. At this point, we must decide how long it takes to conclude that a marriage has broken down irretrievably. Like many other people, I believe that a year is not long enough. My view is shared by most people in Scotland, where 63 per cent. of divorces take more than two years,
  502
  and by most people in Northern Ireland, where 75 per cent. of divorces take more than two years. It takes even longer to divorce in other European countries.
  My view is also shared by most members of the public. Most respondents to the MORI poll to which I referred in an earlier debate supported the present two-year period for separation with consent, although they felt that the five-year period for separation without consent should be shortened to four years. Interestingly, those who supported the concept of no-fault divorce favoured an average period of 20 months. There is a good deal of support for my amendments from all sections of the community—not least from Cardinal Hume, former Chief Rabbi Jakobovitz, the Archbishop of York and the Bishops of London, Chester and Chichester.
  Amendment No. 7 would extend the waiting period to two years; amendment No. 8 would extend it to 18 months. A number of safeguards are provided in regard to children. The waiting period would be only one year if both parties consent to divorce, and if there are no children of the marriage. It could be shortened to one year—but not less—if there is a clear case of domestic violence, with a court order and power of arrest under part IV of the Bill, or if the court concludes that to extend the period beyond a year would be detrimental to the children. Those are clearly special cases.
  The amendment is itself a compromise. I know that at least one of my hon. Friends will not vote for the amendments, because he believes that there should be no exceptions. We decided, however, that support for the amendment would be maximised if we extended the period beyond a year, but provided for exceptions—for instance, clear cases of harm to children or violence to a spouse. Let us leave those exceptions aside, however. If the Committee agrees one or other of the amendments, it will send the important message that, if there are children in a marriage, that should make a difference to the divorce process. In such circumstances, the parties should think not just of themselves but of the interests of the children.
  How long a period is needed in which to prove that a marriage has broken down irretrievably? "Irretrievably" is a word of great finality: it means that there can be no turning back. Under the Bill, once a divorce order has been made that is it. Under the existing legislation, a number of people do turn back—between 20,000 and 30,000—and we want to give those people a chance. We know from the results of various polls that 50 per cent. of men and 28 per cent. of women regret divorcing, and that—interestingly—10 per cent. of both men and women regret divorcing each other. That is extraordinary, given that everyone agrees that divorce damages society as a whole.
  I suppose that, if both parties want to divorce from the start, there will be little chance of reconciliation, but there must be some chance, and there must be a much greater chance if one party does not want to divorce. Should we not make a distinction between divorces that involve consent and divorces that do not? In that way, we would promote reconciliation.
  Other European Union jurisdictions that do not have the concept of no-fault divorce make such a distinction. In Germany, it is possible to divorce after a year if there is consent, but if there is not consent the parties must wait for three years. In Spain, it is possible to divorce after one year if there is consent, but the parties must wait for two years if there is not, and there must be a two-year

  503
  separation. In France, it is possible to secure a no-fault divorce after only nine months, but if there is no consent the parties must wait for six years. It seems that other European Union countries that have introduced no-fault legislation recognise that, if there is no consent, there should be a considerable difference in the waiting time.
  Under the Bill—unless it is amended in the way that I propose—a spouse who may have been married for a long time cannot possibly signal his or her objection to divorce. It makes no difference: the divorce will go through within a year. I consider the amendments sensible and moderate; they are certainly in line with what other jurisdictions have proposed.
  A practical point is also involved. Again, we should consider what is happening in other countries. Surely, if one party does not agree to a divorce, it may take rather longer to sort out what lawyers call the ancillaries—matters involving children and property, for instance. Under schedule 1—I discussed this earlier with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State—if one spouse is deemed by the court to be obstructive, the court can impose an agreement.
  Of course, it is possible that the partner who does not want a divorce is not being obstructive; complicated matters may be involved. Children, and future children, give rise to complicated matters, which may take a long time to consider. For those reasons—certainly if children are involved—we should allow more time. That is not just my view; I think that, in a funny sort of way, it is also the view of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I understand that he told a meeting of, I think, the Conservative Family Campaign that the median time for divorce was 14 months. If I have misquoted him, I hope that he will correct me; I heard that at secondhand.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Jonathan Evans): I have always made it clear that the median time is currently seven months. The latest statistics, which are due to be published shortly, confirm that.
  Mr. Leigh: I am sorry: I was obviously given wrong information. But my hon. Friend is not the only person who is alleged to have said that: Lord Justice Ackner, a considerable authority on such matters, told the other place that in his view, in the ordinary course of events where there are children involved or where there is resistance to divorce it takes a good 18 months to achieve a divorce. That is in column 628 of Hansard.
  The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the rule that does not allow Members to quote from debates in the other place unless they are quoting ministerial statements.
  Mr. Leigh: I was deliberately paraphrasing because I was aware of that rule. I did not read out the entire statement. I do not know how Hansard will deal with that—whether it will paraphrase my paraphrase or report the entire quotation. We shall have to wait and see. In any case, to paraphrase Lord Justice Ackner, it is his view that, in the normal course of events, it takes 18 months if there is a dispute or if children are involved. If people are arguing that waiting really damages children, why is there no uproar about the different waiting times in Germany, France or Scotland?
  504
  8 pm
  In debating these amendments, we could argue about making arrangements for the future. Under existing law, a person can get a decree absolute just six weeks after the decree nisi but he cannot get any final orders on lump sums or property transfers until the decree absolute. In reality, arguments are mainly about ancillaries. As we established in the previous debate, there are only four or five divorce trials every year. People argue about how to divide the assets, but people can continue arguing about the ancillaries long after they are effectively divorced. Expert barristers in this field have confirmed to me that it can often take more than a year.
  Under the Bill, everything has to be settled before the divorce is completed. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier, it is therefore possible to delay the period beyond a year but, as I said to him—I think that this is what will happen—there will be an expectation under the Bill that the period for achieving a divorce will be a year.
  Even if hon. Members do not support my wish to extend the period to two years, there is a very strong case indeed for extending it to 18 months. That idea is confirmed by various academics. Peter Duckworth, a leading practitioner in divorce legislation, wrote to me. As he is not a Member of the other place I think that I am allowed to quote him. He said:
  "If there were a genuine breathing space of 12 months before steps were taken to end a marriage, then I would be prepared to believe that many marriages would be saved. But that is not on offer.
  Instead what is proposed is a radical alteration from present law, whereby you cannot obtain substantive orders for ancillary relief before decree nisi, to a situation where all the relevant financial orders not only can but must be made before the divorce, even if in general they will not take effect until afterwards. Translated into practical terms, it is my view that these proposals will eliminate any realistic prospect of reconciliation within the 12 month period, for the simple reason that parties will be so preoccupied with sorting out their children and property that they will have no time to think.
  In many if not most cases, arrangements for children and money require complex and detailed negotiation. While the Children Act 1989 permits residence and contact arrangements to be settled out of court, the same is not true of money and property orders which need the finality of a court order under the 1973 Act".
  Peter Duckworth knows what he is talking about—he is a practitioner in this sphere. He is telling the Committee that, unless we extend the period beyond 12 months, there is a real possibility that we shall not get the kind of reconciliation process which I know the Opposition spokesman is so determined to include in the Bill.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: I am listening to my hon. Friend with great care. Were the period to be, say, two years. does he think that the time for reconciliation would be before people reached agreement on ancillary matters, after they had done so or at the same time?
  Mr. Leigh: If one of the amendments were passed and the period were extended to 18 months or two years, I suggest that early in the process there would effectively be a litigation-free zone. Such a period, which is similar to what the Opposition spokesman is arguing for, would be built into the Bill. It would occur early in the divorce process, before people were allowed to start arguing about assets or what to do about the children and before mediators arrived to determine or advise on such matters. The time after a partner had lodged a statement of marital difficulty would be devoted to reconciliation.

  505
  My argument and that of Peter Duckworth is that, if the period is as short as 12 months, it is simply impossible to have a meaningful period of reconciliation—there is not enough time because there is so much to sort out. If children are involved and if there is not consent to the divorce, reconciliation will not be effective.
  A final problem with the Bill, if not amended in the way that I am suggesting, is that permanent arrangements could be in place within three months of the beginning of the process. In theory, everything could be agreed within three months. Were that to happen, one would effectively be divorced within three months although, in practice, one could not remarry for 12 months.
  If a woman wanted to eject her husband from the marital home—it is usually that way around—it could be done early in the process, especially if there were an allegation of domestic violence. A lawyer could be obtained to settle these matters quickly and one could effectively be divorced within three months. I know that that is not what the Under-Secretary wants, but often what Ministers want, as we have seen in previous divorce legislation, is not what happens after the courts have interpreted or re-interpreted the legislation.
  Ruth Deech has already been cited once or twice in this debate. She is a good person to cite in this instance because she has apparently always opposed us on everything else and so cannot be accused of being a Conservative party stooge. She is, after all, the principal of St. Ann's college, Oxford and a very distinguished lady. In the context of what I am about to read out, it is important to note that she is a woman. She wrote:
  "Our ancillary relief is already a vengeful process and is based on the premise that all husbands should maintain their wives regardless of conduct, and regardless of her ability to keep herself. The pressure to settle in twelve months will make it worse in every respect.
  Mediators will perforce lend themselves to this process of settling everything regardless of justice within 12 months. The wife who is reliant on Legal Aid will be at the mercy of the mediation process whereas the husband who can afford to pay a lawyer will be able to use ancillary relief for his own ends. Will mediators be able to tell wives about pension-splitting, the effects of the Child Support Agency, mortgage relief, intestacy law, joint bank accounts, etc? It is not surprising that where there is any money at all, ancillary matters can take more than 12 months."
  That is a powerful point. Before hon. Members consider voting down the sensible amendments, which are themselves very much a compromise, I hope that they will consider what Ruth Deech said in her letter to me.
  Writing in The Independent, Polly Toynbee said that the break-up of a marriage should be a cause for celebration. I do not think that most hon. Members would agree with that. Children want their parents to stay together. We would wholly reject any amendment that would reduce the waiting time to less than 12 months. Public opinion supports us on keeping parents together, and the verdicts of other jurisdictions in Europe also support what I am suggesting.
  My view and that of many people who practise in this field is that one year is simply too short a time where children are involved or where there is a dispute. I urge the Committee to accept my amendments.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I find the arguments proposed by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle
  506
  (Mr. Leigh) quite compelling. It is in that spirit that I and the right hon. Member for Barkston Ash—he is my right hon. Friend in this matter—tabled amendments Nos. 17 and 18, which would achieve the same aim. My remarks will be brief as much of the background was covered in the previous debate in which I was not with the hon. Gentleman for the reasons that I gave.
  There is broad agreement on the principles set out in part I of the Bill and on the notion that divorce is extremely costly, not only to the individuals involved and their children but to the state. There is also clear agreement that there should be some restriction on divorce in the early years of marriage. To that extent, I wholeheartedly concur with amendment No. 3, which was so ably moved by the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims). The question therefore is one of judgment—how long should the restriction last and in what circumstances should it be abridged? It was with those objectives in mind that I and—for these purposes—my right hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash made our own stab in response to the Minister's invitation to use his Department's resources in that respect.
  I looked at the established principle—the formulation that was in being when I was called to the Bar in 1969. At that time, a petition could only be presented within three years of marriage if the court was satisfied that the case was one of exceptional hardship suffered by the applicant or exceptional depravity on the part of the other party. I had a word on that with the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten), who thought that the word "depravity" very considerably appealed to him. The right hon. Member for Barkston Ash and I thought that, effectively, the formulation that we had proposed was not only more general, but had an established body of case law behind it and judgment on it, and could therefore be well understood.
  I must confess that, having looked more carefully at the formulation and having reflected on the matter, especially in the light of the criticisms of it in pages 12 to 15 of the Law Commission's 1982 report, No. 116, "Time Restrictions on the Presentation of Divorce and Nullity Petitions", I have come to the view that that proposed by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle is infinitely preferable. I shall briefly explain why.
  The time-hallowed formulation, which included the remarkable word "depravity", had in practice proved quite difficult. It encouraged, if not ensured, that the particulars had to be made very unpleasant to bring the applicant within its terms. Setting out the case under it caused immense distress and humiliation. It led to very subjective judgments throughout the country, and, in effect, exaggerated the adversarial element. The task was therefore to find a formula that avoided those drawbacks, but which was simple, comprehensive and did not add further to the conflict between parties.
  I wholly adopt the arguments of the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle. The proposed formula will not encourage further conflict when, for example, the case has already been before the court and there is a relevant non-molestation order. If there had been conflict, it would have been litigated previously and the court would have come to a decision in that respect. His formulation is simple, and using the phrase that has been used before, it gives all the right messages and signals.

  507
  The key question is therefore one of time. As a former practitioner who, certainly in the 1970s and early 1980s, practised in this field, I well accept what the legal adviser to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said. There needs to be more than one year. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), whose attitude to the Bill has been to emphasise the key need for adequate time and facilities for reconciliation, will make those aspects a matter of public policy. I hope that, when the Bill is in Standing Committee, the Government will be prepared to look very carefully at reconciliation.
  There is also the question of resources. If the Government are really keen on reconciliation, adequate resources must be made available. The point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) must be addressed. Those who are in the business of counselling must be broadly from the same social class as those who need the counselling.
  In Chinese society, there was always an Auntie Wu in the village to whom people went when things were not going right. Rather than lawyers and people who will tell one about pension splitting, and so on, one needs an Auntie Wu from whatever particular group of society one comes—someone who has gone through the process herself, who perhaps has children, understands life and can help young couples who have embarked on marriage too early and without adequate preparation—with whom one can talk through problems.
  In the waiting period—two years or 18 months instead of one year—there has to be a two-stage process. There must be adequate time before the lawyers get involved, when those with experience of life are able to talk in a very open way in a language that the young people will understand. I repeat to the Minister that the process must be well resourced. Thereafter, if matters do not work out, only at that stage should the detailed question of children and the family assets be addressed. That will be in one sense necessary only if the key and first stage of the process is not successful.
  8.15 pm
  In my judgment, adequate time must be found. On reflection, and with the full concurrence of my right hon. Friend—for this purpose—the Member for Barkston Ash, we are convinced that our formulation is less simple and less relevant to the argument that we seek to address. Given those qualifications, and with total confidence that in Standing Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South will prevail and triumph in his views on reconciliation, I shall not be pressing the amendments that I have tabled and will give full support to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle.
  Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) only put one foot wrong in his admirable speech—in describing me as the right hon. Member for Barkston Ash. It does not matter, but for the sake of the record, I am now the right hon. Member for Selby.
  It was extremely reassuring to hear the introduction of the, to me, strange phenomenon of Auntie Wu. It made me think that perhaps you, Dame Janet, are the incarnation of Auntie Wu—or the nearest we can get to such a person in these highly tendentious and pressured proceedings and the great difficulties facing us all in matters of conscience and
  508
  decision making. Somebody is in the Chair to whom we know that we can instinctively go and never a cross word will be uttered. Perhaps the same applies to the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson). I wish that we had more Auntie Wus knocking around this place. As a former parliamentary private secretary to Lady Thatcher, I know exactly what I am talking about in terms of the desirability of having such marvellous Aunt figures. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for opening up a whole new dimension.
  On the basis of that commendation of you, Dame Janet, I trust that I shall be able to talk about almost anything I wish for any length of time. I want to dot the i's and cross the t's of the admirable speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) made—behind whom the hon. Member for Swansea, East and I now row in complete harmony—by pointing out once again to my hon. Friend the Minister the extent to which the Government already seem to have taken the essential point that we are trying to argue about the time parameters.
  Here again, I refer to the mysterious document which has fallen into the hands of most Members of Parliament. It obviously has its provenance in the Lord Chancellor's office and gives guidance of an authoritative, well printed and vivid kind to Members of Parliament. I refer to the "Key Points" heading in the document and I quote from the third paragraph:
  "The Bill will … allow a divorce to be granted only when couples have settled the arrangements for their children, and the division of property and finances. This can take up to two years".
  So the briefing says that the procedures can take up to two years, which is the very time frame referred to in the amendment.
  At the bottom of the page, reference is made to first marriages. The briefing says:
  "The Bill will retain the current bar on divorce in the first year of marriage. Couples will need to have been married for a minimum of two years before they can get divorced."
  Here again is the suggestion that a minimum of two years applies before married couples can get divorced. How easily and naturally the currency of the time frame for which the Government have argued slips into periods well beyond the 12 months to which they have referred as the basic period.
  I now quote from the annexe to this splendid document which has been circulated to Members of Parliament. The paragraph is headed, "Period for Making Arrangements", and it states:
  "Secondly the period people will have in which to decide their arrangements prior to divorce will be extended from 18 months to a maximum of 2 years, so that people may take a little longer, if they need it, to do this."
  A passage in parenthesis says:
  "The 12 month period for reflection on whether the marriage can be saved and consideration of the arrangements for a life apart, which is also set out in the Bill, has always been a minimum period. It has always been thought that many people will in practice need longer than this in order to decide the arrangements and thereby be able to proceed to obtain a divorce order."
  Ms Hilary Armstrong: We are wondering just what the document is. I understand that it is a Conservative central office document. As it is being

  509
  used somewhat fully in this debate, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could ensure that it is put into the Library so that we can all see it.
  Mr. Alison: I am sorry to tell the hon. Lady that this may be a case of going to Auntie Wu. There is no imprint on the document and I cannot tell the Committee where it comes from. All I can say is that it has the clarity, articulateness and elegance of prose which suggests that it has its provenance in lofty official circles.
  I can say without hesitation that the natural currency of references to time frames in the briefing document, which sets out broadly to make the case for the Government, keeps slipping into a suggestion that the 12-month rule is the minimum and that in many practical ways 18 months is more natural for most people. It suggests that the two-year rule will apply to first marriages and that the so-called minimum period is more for guidance and suggestion than anything else.
  I hope that, on the basis of the prior indications of flexibility, my hon. Friend the Minister will see the merits of crystallising substantively the inclination which seems to be lurking in the Government's subconscious—or perhaps conscious—predisposition. The Minister would solve many people's problems tonight by accepting at least one—perhaps the longer—of the two amendments, amendment No. 7, which contains the time frame references to which my hon. Friends have so admirably referred.
  Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) commended the amendment, as did his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), because it focused on the importance of marriage rather on the breaking of marriage as, alas, the Bill has to do. In that respect, the amendment has something in common with amendment No. 1, which we discussed before the Division. I sensed that those who were in favour of amendment No. 1 wanted to ensure that the concept of fault emphasised the importance of marriage itself.
  I thought that there were distinct disadvantages in that amendment and I did not vote for it. I do not, however, see many disadvantages—indeed, I do not see any—in amendments Nos. 3, 7, 8, 17 and 18. Surely one of our problems in this debate is that, understandably, we are talking about the law on the breaking of marriage and not about the law on making and sustaining marriage. Many people have referred to that understandable imbalance in our debate. This is a debate in which party makes no difference. Can Members of Parliament entirely estrange the two concepts? I would have thought not.
  That point was exemplified by the speech by the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) who, in a realistic way, summarised the attitudes to marriage of various generations. It is the generation who are just coming up to the married state or who have married recently for whom the House has a prime responsibility. They will be the beneficiaries or otherwise of any legislation that may result.
  Surely we, in looking at the matter, must consider what we are breaking. What is the general concept behind marriage anyway? Unless we are clear about that, how can we be clear about the morality and the law on the breaking of marriage? The two points must go together.
  510
  In an intervention during the speech by the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, I made a point about the great gap in much of the discussion that has gone on, not only in the other place, but in the media. As I understand it, there are three partners in marriage and, therefore, three parties to its dissolution. I refer to the two people concerned and to what Conservative Members often call the state, which I prefer to refer to as society or the community as a whole. The House of Commons is the centre of law-making for that community.
  I suggested in my intervention that the marriage ceremony was not just a commitment of two people to each other but, those two having made their commitment in front of their friends, relatives and representatives of the community—either the registrar or the registered person who is able to preside over marriages—a commitment made by those two people to the community. It is, therefore, a triangular arrangement and not just one between two people.
  I now turn to the other important speech this evening, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), whose sensitivity and courage I commend. He made many important points, based on his professional experience.
  I shall use my hon. Friend's speech as an example. As I pointed out when I intervened in it, he made one illogical assumption—that the registration of the birth of a child is at the time a moral and legal undertaking to bring that child up in the nurture of society, and to cherish that child as a new human being. I said to my hon. Friend that surely that was part of the purpose of marriage.
  Therefore, at the point of marriage it is not only the two people concerned who commit themselves to the process—if that occurs, which is largely a matter of chance, good luck, or whatever: there is also a contract with the society of which that family, that married couple and any future child are part, to sustain the new life and, by virtue of that, to sustain the family as such. We seem to have forgotten about that.
  8.30 pm
  I put it to my hon. Friend that, at least in connection with that aspect of his speech, he would concede that some people do not see marriage as he outlined it, as an optional extra—I do not think that that description is unfair. It is true, however, that that is the view taken by some of the younger people that the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned earlier.
  I suggest that that is not what marriage is, because it is the sort of contract, upheld in good will and love, which keeps our society together in a special way. I do not mean to say that that did not happen thousands of years ago, but in modern society it is even more important than ever.
  Mr. Soley: The point that I made about registration was that, sadly, it is a fairly cold and mechanical action. When we register the birth of a child we are fulfilling a legal obligation to the child. The ceremony is not especially attractive; perhaps it should be. As for the marriage factor, marriage is a confused concept to some people. For some it is an immensely important ceremony; for others, it is

  511
  just an excuse for a party. My point was that simply by getting married one does not undertake to have children. That is something that may or may not happen.
  Mr. Spearing: Indeed—I have conceded that. But the registration of a birth was never meant to be a ceremony as such. Like its opposite, the registration of a death, it is a legal undertaking.
  I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) wishes to speak, and perhaps to enlarge on a similar theme, so I shall finish with one more short point. The ceremony of marriage is not simply an opportunity for a party; it is far more important than that. I put it to the Committee, especially to Conservative Members who have been enthusiastic both about the amendment under discussion and amendment No. 1, that it is the responsibility of the community, and therefore of the House and of any Government, to sustain the institution of marriage. Yet that has not happened.
  Let us consider the places in which people can now get married. Marriage is now part of a marketplace, and is not upheld with the due degree of importance that it once had. People can get married in all sorts of places, and I wonder how many hon. Members thought of that aspect of those changes, although it may not have been possible to oppose them.
  We should think of the need to maintain housing, health, education for children and sustained employment for the breadwinner—and also, perhaps wrongly, the need for more women to go to work to maintain the family income, and the stress that comes from that. All those factors are important in sustaining the marriage and the family. In society, in making laws, and in considering the structure of our taxes, Conservative Members, like the rest of us, have a duty to sustain marriage as it should be and as we wish it to be.
  There is so much stress today. Much of the difficulty in marriage is surely caused by society's inability to sustain properly what each of us would like to see, what other people would like to choose, and what others, unhappily, regret that they have had to terminate.
  We should support the amendments, because they emphasise the fact that, although the breaking of marriage is important, we should pay much more attention both in the House and in society to the way in which marriages are made, and to the challenge that growing young people face when they advance into that happy state.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Although marriage is a public commitment, most of us who get married do not expect to expose our marriages to more than private reflection. I can tell the Committee that when I got married I knew that it would end in divorce, desertion, dissolution or death—and on the whole I prefer the idea of death, so long as it is natural.
  Marriage is something that people tend to catch; if it works, it is a matter of chance as much as of choice. I would not be surprised if I came home one night from the House of Commons to discover a note saying, "You've been a rotten person for the past 25 or 30 years and I'm off." I hope that that will not happen, but one always lives in some kind of expectation of discovering
  512
  that one has not been quite so good a marriage partner as one ought to have been—or at least, that things may look like that from the other person's point of view.
  Lady Olga Maitland: My hon. Friend undervalues himself.
  Mr. Bottomley: What I am really trying to say is—to put it another way—I have many friends who have lived in a state of non-marriage for decades, and I do not feel any the worse about them for that. I also have friends, and some members of my family, who have been divorced. That has never been a happy experience. It is clear that many who set out to get married find that it is a good choice, whether it is what they really intended in the first place or not. One cannot really extrapolate either from their experience or from one's own to decide what others should do.
  In general in politics it is better to say, "I must, you should, they may," rather than the other way round. However, we in the House and the Committee have the responsibility of making the law—and marriage, whether the ceremony is civil or religious, is a legal contract. We must face the consequences of experience and learn from them.
  That is why I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has done the Committee and the country a service in reminding us of a proposal that he put forward some years ago that was not then accepted either by Government or by the House. I do not know whether his proposed amendment will be accepted tonight, but it would not be a disaster for anyone if it were.
  The Committee must remember that the real consequence of divorce is to allow people lawfully to remarry. A divorce is not necessary for separation, desertion or cohabitation with somebody else; it is necessary only for someone lawfully to remarry.
  Table 1.10, on page 42 of the 1996 edition of "Social Trends", shows us that the state of being divorced and not remarried is a fairly unpopular one. There is no age group in which the proportion of people who are divorced is higher than 6 per cent., and in all age groups, 62 per cent. of people are married—although that does not necessarily mean that they are living together. In addition, 6 per cent. are cohabiting, 24 per cent. are single, 4 per cent. are widowed—obviously that is more likely in the older age groups—3 per cent., on average, are divorced, and 1 per cent. are separated.
  The state of being divorced is therefore transitional. The decision that we must make is how long people have to wait before they can remarry. To maintain the bar on an application for divorce during the first 12 months of marriage is essential, and I shall probably vote not to change the situation, although my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst made a cogent case.
  The alternative or additional way of setting about the issues is that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). Again, the Committee owes him many thanks for the thoughtfulness with which he has prepared his amendments and advanced his arguments. The same goes for the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison). I am not sure that their arguments were fully convincing. I regret that there

  513
  are not many more hon. Members here to listen to the debate. When there is a free vote, we have an opportunity to consider arguments that we may not have thought of before the debate. Although some of the issues have been rehearsed over the past year, it is of benefit to listen to other hon. Members and their quotations from people who have written to them and to hear of their professional experiences as lawyers or Members of Parliament.
  One problem involves helping people to know when to get married and how to build marriages. There should be many more discouragements to people getting married when they are pregnant. It is generally better to make that decision after a child is born or before conception. I suspect that that could be done by encouraging churches to have representations of a pregnant Mary with a sign saying, "Society didn't think much of me at the time." It would be helpful if we could make people more open about such situations.
  Most ministers of religion are able and willing, either themselves or with someone from their Church or faith, to give advice on when marriage may not be sensible. Some people get married only because society expects it for some reason rather than because of a willingness to make a commitment to becoming a lifelong couple—a union that lasts for life. People should not feel a social obligation to get married.
  If we go back to what appears to be old-time moral teaching—which is very up to date for many people—that warns people not to be sexually active unless they are married and that the only way to marry is with the intention of being married for life, we ask people to marry younger than is sensible, given the nature of modern society. This is not the time to unpack those issues, but they should be considered deeply by those who give advice to people.
  We must remember that celibacy is not inherited. When the rate of divorce is half the rate of marriage, we could do much to reduce avoidable disadvantage, distress and handicap, and to promote well-being through a mixture of wealth and welfare, by halving the divorce rate over the next five or 10 years. I suspect that were we to make no change in the law, the divorce rate would fall significantly. That is partly because it is linked to the marriage rate. It is a mathematical fact that if there were no more marriages—legal contracts to be together for life—after about 70 years there would be no more divorces. Divorce follows marriage; it cannot precede it or be independent of it.
  People can learn from the experience of others. We have to ask what are the ways of making that more likely. Because I was in a Select Committee earlier, I was unable to be here for the first debate, so I hope that I will not repeat what others have said by referring to the work of the BT Forum in its "Communication Matters" papers on the Bill. Its briefings, which do not say what the law should be, give background information. The titles include "The Importance of Information", "Communicating with Children during Divorce", and "Strengthening Communication in Stepfamilies".
  They point out that, when communication fails, divorce becomes even more stressful. It can affect people's health and work. Conflict can increase, which can have serious consequences for the couple and for children,
  514
  grandparents and other family members. Parents can lose touch with each other. Marriage may not be for life, but being a parent certainly is. If parents lose touch with each other and children lose touch with one parent—often the father—that is a loss. Second marriages can be threatened, with the risk of further relationship breakdown.
  If communication is positive, conflict can be minimised, parents and children can cope with difficult transitions and children can have the love and security of two parents, even if they live apart. Family networks are not destroyed and new families have a better chance of survival. In considering the law, we should be aware that it is not only the only thing that matters. Much emphasis has been given to mediation, conciliation and the opportunity for people to think and learn from the experience of others.
  We have been told about the number of people who regretted applying for a divorce. Those figures may not reflect what people think at all times; people will feel like that some of the time, but not necessarily all the time. We need to learn from the experience of others. In Canada, where there is a minimum period of one year between applying for a divorce and obtaining one, about one application in five is withdrawn. If people choose to withdraw an application because they think that they would be beater off without a divorce, that is clearly a gain. I doubt whether with two years 40 per cent. of people would so choose, although there may be some extra benefit—I do not know.
  It is reported from New Zealand—I have not seen the original research study—that if the problems of a first marriage can be tidied up before a second marriage starts, the failure rate of second marriages is reduced significantly. That is also a gain. Promoting better communication within married couples is important, whether or not they go on being married. Being more open about communication, and helping people to learn from experience, is important.
  The divorce experience needs to be shared with people who are considering divorce. They should not have to wait to discover it for themselves. Marriage experience should be shared before people get married so that they do not go in with the Pollyanna-ish view that marriage will solve all their problems and permit an easy progression through life.
  Relationship experiences matter. The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) told us of his work in the probation service. I think that he would agree that the problems of many people who are born to fail or, to put it a better way, who do not experience success in many parts of their lives, come down to relationships in the household or households in which they grew up. We cannot change that for everybody, but we can try to make more such information available.
  Next month's copy of the Reader's Digest has information about what every adult should learn about basic lifesaving techniques and asks:
  "Could you save your child from drowning?"
  I am looking forward to reading articles about what every young adult should know about marriage-building habits. They are not guaranteed to work, but they would include the sort of things that matter—such as doing things together and talking to each other.
  When marriage becomes difficult, and people find themselves in crisis, it is important that they should know where to go for help and have people who can explain the divorce process if that is what they seek.

  515
  The consequences of divorce should be outlined to them. They may regard some of those consequences as beneficial, but they will regard many as harmful to their happiness. Many couples cannot easily afford living together, and living apart is even more expensive. Re-formed families often add to the expense. Such information is important.
  Another important point that must be emphasised—this applies whether or not the amendments are accepted—involves children's need for communication. Can children in divorce communicate with a trusted adult? We cannot lay that down by law, but it matters a great deal. Children need to be kept informed and to have their say. They need to stay in communication with the whole family. They may need access to counselling. They need to be able to communicate, whatever their age. Even adults are not unaffected by their parents' divorce. It can be a difficult time in which certainties and familiar relationships may change. Their parents may form new households, to which it may be difficult to adjust.
  In general, people face problems by asking Parliament to change the law. That does not necessarily make much difference. We could make adultery a crime, as it has been in some states in the United States, but it would not stop it happening. The law can be used for dispute resolution. In effect, we are discussing dispute resolution today—how we can reduce the number of people who need to go right through a divorce, how to reduce the pain and ineffectiveness of divorce, and in what conditions and time scale divorce can be achieved.
  We should set out with some social policy targets, certainly in the short term, to make the process of divorce less damaging and, in some ways, more effective. It is important to ensure that the ancillary issues of children, property, assets and pension rights are settled. However, the main aim must be to try to reduce the number of people in marriages which break up at any time other than death. That requires a change in the way in which people approach marriage and in society's expectations. Perhaps most of all, it requires people trying to provide effective help for those in marriage by example, to some extent by exhortation, but most of all by understanding the constellation of factors that people find so difficult.
  However we dispose of the amendments, in 10 years' time I hope that the divorce rate will have been reduced by at least a third, if not halved, and that more people will find themselves able to commit themselves to matrimony not just in the hope but in the expectation that the marriage will last.
  8.45 pm
  Ms Armstrong: I am speaking in this debate largely because of my involvement, both professional and voluntary, in working with children. In that sense, I disagree with one of the things that the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) said. I do not see children as an ancillary issue in a divorce. Children and dealing with their problems are the prime concerns of our legislation—both in how we draft it and in how we see it. On that basis, I do not agree with the amendment.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) is not present, because we come from similar backgrounds. He described himself as a practitioner in the area, and by that he meant that he was a lawyer. I like to talk about myself as a practitioner
  516
  who wants to ensure that matters never get to the lawyers. I want us to make less work for lawyers, by trying to ensure that we give families the right support and framework so that they can begin to resolve problems without getting that far. That is way beyond being optimistic, but none the less it ought to inform the way in which we approach legislation.
  I am also sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East is not here because I. too, was interested in the prospect of Auntie Wu. The Auntie Wus are the people who work with families and children and who know them. So they are the people they go to first and foremost. They are the very people who are strongly urging us not to extend the period. From their experience of working with families, they know that, although a year seems like no time to us and we keep saying, "Goodness me, aren't the months going by quickly?", 12 months in a child's life is a very long time.
  We should be debating, not the time space, but what happens and what we are prepared to do to enable a family to face what is happening within it and the effect that it is having on the children.
  Measures that ought to be in the Bill are not. I hope that we shall consider such measures in Committee, to ensure that the effect on children of the procedures and of the breakdown in the relationship will be faced and that there will be no option other than to face that because of the way in which the process works.
  For many years, I have been involved with what is now NCH Action for Children—in the old days, it was the National Children's Home.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: A much better name.
  Ms Armstrong: Whatever the name, it is the work that the organisation does that I am concerned about. It is a Methodist charity, and I have been involved with it since I was young.
  I also trained as a family case worker and was involved as a volunteer in setting up one of the early women's refuges, so I have some experience in working with families facing the worst and most difficult of problems. Without doubt, all the people involved went into marriage thinking that it would be wonderful and that it would solve all their problems. The majority went into marriage without any preparation and also had no preparation for becoming parents.
  I grew up in a household that included my grandparents, with other members of the family close by. The family was always much more than merely my brother and me and our mother and father. Far fewer people have that sort of experience now than when I was growing up, because of the difference in social structure and the way in which families live. In such a structure, one learned about parenting because one was part of a larger family and a larger experience.
  In recent years, through NCH Action for Children and the Methodist division of education, which has the children's section within it at the moment, we have been constructing and doing much work on parenting courses. They are for ordinary, everyday parents, not necessarily for parents who are in crisis. Indeed, the courses are really not suitable for those in crisis. They recognise that the problems that families confront these days are different and seem much more complex than in previous years.

  517
  The experience of working together over a period and thinking about one's problems with children and so forth has been instructive. Courses in schools have grown out of that experience. A school in Durham county is part of a pilot scheme for running parenting courses for adolescents.
  I want the Government to think through how they can help people to confront what it means to enter a marriage relationship and to take on children in our society. The Bill cannot do all that, but if in passing it we miss the opportunity to face up to those things, we shall be making some serious mistakes. We must recognise that the world and our society have changed and that the demands on young couples these days are very different and more complex than they were even 25 years ago.
  Divorce affects children strongly. The breakdown in the relationship of their parents also affects children. So, whether it is divorce or other forms of breakdown, the effect on children can be enormously damaging. NCH is one of the charities that is concerned with the problem. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has enormous experience in working with the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and I have met and worked with him on the issue on a number of occasions.
  The children's charities do not simply say, "It's all right, we'll look after your problems." They confront families with what they are doing when they allow relationships to break down. They try to work on that and help families face their problems. They try to find ways in which children can be supported, so that they feel that their integrity can remain no matter what their parents do. They try to allow children to face these terrible issues with some feeling of self-regard and strength.
  However, if children's charities are to do that, they need the backing of a framework of legislation that says that when the law is brought in, the needs of the children will be paramount. We say that in the Children Act 1989, and we ought to say it in this legislation. The views of children—the voice of children—should be heard throughout the proceedings. The judge who is taking decisions should ask the sorts of questions that we believe should be asked so that that challenge is met. I hope that the Standing Committee will look at some of those issues.
  The NCH began, and has continued, the mediation service in this country. It has been an important way of enabling families who are facing separation and divorce to do so with as little bitterness and recrimination as possible. The worst thing for children is that they are caught in the middle and used as one of the appendages, as one of the accessories, of a divorce—they are bargained over and put one against the other. We cannot frame legislation which allows that or which at least does not diminish it as much as possible.
  It is our responsibility to diminish the manner in which children can be used in that way. We should frame the legislation so that we enable couples—whatever their anger with each other—to be helped to think about the future of the children.
  Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Lady is talking about an important point. From her experience with mediation
  518
  services, could she describe how much effort goes into reconciliation—in other words, the process before the couple try to sort out the end of a marriage?
  9 pm
  Ms Armstrong: It is a separate issue. The children's charities are involved in trying to support families, which they do in family centres and so on. Family centres work towards reconciliation. Mediation is a different thing. Mediators say, "You may have decided to separate or to divorce, but when you do so, the needs of the children must come to the forefront. The more you are bitter and the more recrimination there is, the less opportunity there will be for the child to grow up feeling respect for both parents. When children are not able to feel respect for parents, it has a damaging effect on them and on their ability to grow up and to mature."
  I did a quick survey of mediation services last year when the White Paper was published, and I shall give hon. Members a few examples of what was said in response to a question about how they would face the increased levels of mediation that were envisaged in the Lord Chancellor's initial proposals. Hampshire Family Mediation said:
  "We are unable to continue our level of provision unless we receive some additional funding."
  Lancashire Family Mediation Service said:
  "We are not equipped at the present time to cope with an increase in work which would inevitably occur if the changes are put into effect."
  Calderdale FMS and Bradford and Keighley FMS said:
  "We are dedicated, hard working people trying very hard to maintain professional standards on a wing and a prayer and very little support."
  Cleveland FMS said:
  "Mediation within services is still in a fragile and vulnerable state due to unstable revenue funding."
  Leeds Family Mediation Service said:
  "Help—the next three years are crucial to the survival of family mediation and the development of all issues. Mediation—without the support over this short term period it is difficult to see how our service can build on the expertise of 11 years and move into the public sector offering a professional well trained service."
  Worcestershire Family Mediation said:
  "If we are to continue to offer an efficient service and to cope with the extra cases envisaged it is imperative that we get central government funding. Without this funding we would eventually be unable to continue to operate."
  The London service is called Eye to Eye Mediation—it is an NCH project. It said:
  "Mediation historically has been provided as the result of the good will of mediators who have worked in the main unpaid for many years. The professional qualifications/standards expected of mediators are extremely high and it is hard to see how a full service can be provided to the public until such time as services are properly funded and mediators realistically remunerated."
  Throughout the country, mediation services have built up enormous good will. Most of the mediators are voluntary; they give of their free time and receive only expenses. Mediation is a very important part of the procedure in the Bill, and it will need the type of support that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) spoke about.
  Dame Jill Knight: Many of us are upset that in the Bill all the pressure seems to be for mediation—which was borne out by what the hon. Lady has just said—not

  519
  conciliation. Conciliation is not mediation. The point that I am sure is at the back of the hon. Lady's mind is that she is more in favour of doing a reconciliation job than of divvying up the ante, or the possessions and children of a marriage.
  Ms Armstrong: I want to draw to a close. I was going to say in closing that I strongly believe that the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith made about our need to get to grips with family policy are central.
  I know many families who are breaking apart because they cannot accept what is happening to them and around them. Income families in my constituency, the men have worked with pride in their industry for many years using their skills, and are now left at 45 or 50 without any prospect of work. That has an effect on the family. I also meet families who are confronted with homelessness.
  A family came to my most recent surgery. The grandfather had just lost the earnings supplement. He had been injured in the mining industry, which meant that he was living with his daughter and her husband and their young children. That family had suddenly lost £30 a week income, and they spoke to me seriously about the effect that that was having on how they looked after their children. That is not an excuse for breaking up, but we need to take account of the pressures that we are bringing to bear on families before we moralise and lecture them on how to meet the challenge of those problems.
  We must have a policy of enabling and helping people into marriage and parenthood, which we do not have at the moment. During the passage of the Education Reform Act 1988, I argued that education for marriage and parenthood should be included in the national curriculum, but that was pooh-poohed by the Government.
  We should do many things in recognition of the enormous difficulties that confront families these days. We should acknowledge our responsibility, not only to moralise about how things ultimately turn out, but to give people the right type of support and back them up at every stage—before marriage, after children are born, when the relationship is good and when there are signs of strain.
  We must ensure that we frame the legislation so that, if a marriage has irreconcilably broken down, the needs of the children are paramount. The needs of the children are that we have decent mediation and do not prolong it, and that we use whatever time there is effectively to challenge those involved, so that they understand what they are doing, take hold of that and work with it in the most effective way. I argue strongly that the means that we use during a period of breakdown—not the time limit—are crucial. The period that we are considering represents a huge part of a child's life. I believe that it would be irresponsible to extend that period without paying much more attention to what is occurring during that time.
  I shall not support the amendment, as I am not convinced that the Committee has focused on how to avoid marriage breakdown or how to ensure that the children are cared for properly in the event of breakdown. That is my major concern: we cannot condemn further generations of children to the agony and the distress that the many children of broken marriages have faced in recent years. We owe it to them to get the legislation right.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I speak in opposition to the amendments and in support of the Lord Chancellor who is responsible for the legislation. Much of my support for the legislation is based upon my respect for the Lord Chancellor, who has come in for an appalling amount of unwarranted invective regarding the drafting of the legislation.
  I have some sympathy with the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims), who said that couples should not be able to divorce immediately after marriage. I decided to check the figures and see how many quickie divorces result from marriages of convenience. In fact, the number of divorces that occur in the first year of marriage is minute—I cannot remember the figure precisely, but it is only 1 or 2 per cent. I do not think that it is an important consideration.
  My hon. Friend implied also that the pressures of having children may lead couples to divorce early in their marriage. I find it difficult to accept that argument, because I imagine that these days most people get married because they want to have children—after all, there is no stigma attached to "living in sin", as it used to be called. Most people get married in order to provide a sound family base for the children whom they are hoping to produce.
  Mr. Sims: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend's comments. My point is that, during the first year of marriage, when couples are living together for the first time, their lives may be complicated by the arrival of a child. They may face a difficult period, and they must not believe that their problems will be easily solved by a divorce at the end of 12 months.
  I accept that there are relatively few divorces after 12 months. However, I am concerned about the impression that the House is giving—the message that we are sending out—by saying that people can divorce after 12 months. I do not dispute the general thrust of my hon. Friend's argument.
  Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for those useful comments. I put it to the House that there is more to marriage than either religion or the civil contract: there is also a biological bond. Hon. Members may be aware that I am, by profession, a biologist. Throughout the animal kingdom there is a tendency for males and females to get together to produce offspring and to remain together in the early stages while rearing their young. We have not created an artificial situation: it is natural for people who marry and produce children to wish to stay together—and most of them do.
  Despite claims to the contrary, three quarters of all marriages last. In the past, couples remained together perhaps because they could not afford to divorce. We have a higher rate of divorce today, not simply because divorces are easier to obtain—although I do not deny that argument—but because previous generations of couples remained together in a very unhappy state. There are no statistics for the number of people who end up happily in second marriages. Perhaps both partners are better off for having got out of their first marriage and into a happy new union. We are fortunate that, these days, women in particular do not have to spend their whole lives unfulfilled and in misery. Divorce is not entirely negative. There is something to be said for the opportunity not to tolerate an unhappy relationship for a lifetime.

  521
  9.15 pm
  I have some sympathy with the argument that a civil marriage contract should be for a minimum period, so that one knows that one is entering into marriage for two years, or whatever. However, the main concern is the time allowed to end a marriage once a couple have decided that things are not working out. Couples often enter a period of separation, often for many years—they do not automatically run off to the divorce court. The important point is that the state should not artificially and unnecessarily prolong their agony.
  The divorce process will expand to fill the time available. If 18 months or two years is allowed, the process will take 18 months or two years—but if one year is allowed, a couple will resolve to sort matters out within that time, with all the advantages that that offers in respect of children of the marriage.
  Attitudes to marriage vary considerably, depending on whether couples have a religious or secular attitude. People who adhere to a particular Church will stick to its rules and have a stronger impetus to make their marriage a success, because the Church gives a high priority to marriage—although these days, it seems that a lot of clerics have difficulty keeping their marriages together. If the Church is to be so forceful, it would do better leading more by example than it sometimes does.
  The state has a role in dealing with the outcome of marriages that break down. There is something to be said for making civil marriage arrangements as clear as any other contract. The Government frequently change the rules, as they did with the allocation of matrimonial assets. There was a time when women could take hardly anything from a marriage, but today they can take more or less half the value of the matrimonial home. That is an example of the state intervening in the ending of a marriage.
  There is a strong case for including in the marriage contract an explanation of the obligations to which couples are signing up, such as the distribution of property and joint responsibility for children if the marriage ends. The Government have already intervened in the form of the Children Act 1989 and the Child Support Agency, saying that a couple must accept equal responsibility for their children. The Government also intervened by introducing legal aid, to help meet part of the cost of divorce proceedings.
  The state has not got it quite right in making it clear what it is that couples are signing up to in marriage. Although that aspect is not particularly relevant to clause 7, such an explanation might help to reduce slightly the divorce rate. I have no difficulty with the argument that couples can sort out their problems in one year.
  Although I sympathise with many of the points that have been made, I believe that, given the time that the Lord Chancellor spent in reflection before presenting the Bill—he has enormous experience and I am a great one for leaning on the experience of people who are much better qualified in a subject than I am—the Committee would be unwise to reject his proposals and his advice, even though many of us would like to see marriages that were made in heaven and that never ended up in hell, as many do.
  Lady Olga Maitland: I rise to add my support for amendments Nos. 7 and 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). I pay tribute to his work. He has put an enormous investment of effort into studying the institution of marriage, and he has played a major part in focusing our minds and those of the country as a whole on what is at stake.
  I believe that amendments Nos. 7 and 8 reflect deep public concern, which has revealed itself in the enormous mail bag of letters and in the telephone calls that I have received. Only today, I have received a fair wodge of them. I shall not delay the House too long by itemising them all, but I shall give two examples of the depth of feeling in people outside in the country. The people think that we are trying to destroy marriage.
  I received a letter from a constituent that states:
  "I am concerned about the Bill going through Parliament regarding divorce. We need to encourage couples and families to stay together. If divorce is going ahead, couples should have an adequate waiting period, giving a time for reconciliation."
  That letter is obviously from someone who is not very literate and who has found it difficult to write, but who wrote it none the less.
  Another letter from a constituent states:
  "I am worried that the reduced waiting period will encourage more couples to seek divorce when things begin to go wrong rather than to persevere and work at it."
  We must realise that we have reached a crunch point. It is almost as if long-lived marriages have gone out of fashion. I am proud to say that I have been married for 27 years. Some people would say that I would take that view, but all marriages have to be worked at. Mine had to be worked at. I am the product of very happy parents who will have soon been married for 60 years. Successful marriages are a role model for successful marriages in their children and grandchildren.
  It is also significant that children themselves draw together in friendships with other children who come from stable families, by and large. I have seen that in my own children's experience of growing up. Therefore, the lucky ones have had stability, but stability is not provided by chance. That point seems extraordinary, but stability is not just a stroke of good luck. It was provided because parents in each generation had recognised that they had come together in the sight of the community and made a public vow to each other, for the creation and rearing of children.
  The children, above all, are the lifelong commitment. One of the implications of the enormous debate that has been raging is almost that the children are expendable. I find it so frustrating to hear inside and outside the Chamber about couples who try to excuse themselves by claiming that the children understand, that they are being very adult and that they are coping. The truth is that they do not cope. They cry. They sob silently. In many different ways, they express themselves heartrendingly.
  There have been many studies of the effect of divorce on children. Exeter university produced one that showed conclusively that children do much better if their parents, even if they are in conflict, remain together.
  Ms Corston: I am following carefully what the hon. Lady says about stable marriages being good role models and how important it is for couples to stay together where

  523
  possible. What advice would the hon. Lady give to a woman who was a repeated victim of gross domestic violence?
  Lady Olga Maitland: One of the most important points that I made in my introductory remarks was that I supported the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle. If the hon. Lady studies the amendments, she will find that it is clear that there is provision for women who have been the victims of domestic violence. A far greater number of marriages come to an end, however, when couples are downright selfish. They do not like this, and they do not like the other.
  I had a conversation yesterday with a man in his 30s who had married a lady because he thought he should. As soon as he married, he formed another relationship because he thought that better and more to his liking. That relationship involved a woman with children.
  That example told me that we are living in such a selfish society that couples can have a row, fancy something better and say, "Right, I have had enough." As the law is proposed, a couple could have a blazing row on Christmas day and the following year be out of the relationship, with the children thrown to the elements.
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: My hon. Friend was not in the Chamber when I intervened earlier. It has been made clear for the purpose of debate that, if there is a row between a newly married couple, the earliest that a divorce can be granted is after a period of two years.
  Lady Olga Maitland: We are talking about established families with children. That is crucial. Such marriages have obviously lasted longer than a couple of years. Children become nervous and terrified. As they are surrounded by a world of divorce, they think that divorce can happen to them, as it were, even when they are growing up in a stable family. They have nightmares. They believe that, if their parents have a tiff, that will be the end. They have seen it happen to others.
  Dame Jill Knight: The debate was sparked off by real emotion. I was a child of a divorced couple. All this business about how good it is for children to get it over quickly is dead wrong. It has upset me to hear the contributions of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. I would have given anything in the wide world to have kept my parents together.
  The longer the period in which to consider whether or not to separate would have led me to think that there was more and more chance, and that just maybe divorce would not happen in the end. It is wrong to say that it is helpful to the child to have a quick divorce.
  Lady Olga Maitland: My hon. Friend has spoken so rightly, so much from the heart and so correctly. We must bear in mind that children do not sanction divorce. They are not the ones who call for hasty divorce. I have not seen them marching in Hyde park. I have not been aware of them pressurising the various children's charities to make divorce easier.
  I have heard and read so much about how children pray for their parents to be reconciled. Even if their parents are not entirely happy together, children would rather live in
  524
  a family that is one stable unit. Once children are cast out into the world and into other relationships, they are never No.1 to the original parents. They do not do so well at school. They suffer later in terms of their future relationships. Some even turn to crime. Some can turn to drugs. Some can experience such restlessness that they never settle down.
  We must remember that the crunch and crux of the matter is: what will happen to the children? Therefore, the essence is: are we talking about mediation or reconciliation? We must put more effort and more thought into reconciliation, and ensure that that period in the separation is given due regard, attention and investment.
  9.30 pm
  It is astonishing that a pitiful amount of money is being set aside for reconciliation, when surely that is what will be better not only for the children, but for the country. Funding of £3 million is too little, and almost too late. We should consider the cost to the country, which has been put at £5 billion: the consequence of supporting families when they split up.
  Time is moving on, and I know that we want to wind up this important debate, but may I say that we should be listening to the people outside and having regard to the fact that 100 peers on both sides of the House of Lords voted in favour of extending the year to 18 months, where both partners do not consent or where children are involved. If I had my choice, it would be two years.
  We should listen to the mood of the country. We have an enormous moral responsibility. We owe it to future generations to enable them to grow up in a stable family where their rights—rather than the selfishness of the world today, which I bitterly deplore—are considered.
  I hope that the amendments will go through overwhelmingly, and that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will carefully bear in mind not only my arguments, but the words of the Churches. Cardinal Hume on reflection conceded that we must ensure that we support families. We have had support from the Anglican Church and the Jewish faith. We can go no further than to say, "Hark to those children." They deserve a better deal than we are giving them.
  Mr. Boateng: Children have played an important part, as they should, in the debate. Both hon. Members for the amendment and those against it have referred to children and children's interests. Making an important point, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) asked us to make children's interests paramount in our deliberations, which we must do, because, if the current divorce rate continues, one in four children in England and Wales will see their parents divorce before they are 16. That is the scale of the problem.
  I hear what the Chancellor of the Duchy says about the expectations of the Bill, but we are entitled to say that we look to the passage of a Family Law Bill that will make a positive contribution to the reduction in the number of divorces. That is a legitimate object of social policy, which we are entitled to attach to our deliberations on the Bill. The question therefore is how we arrive at that position.
  I—like, I am sure, many other hon. Members—have agonised over the question of reflection and consideration of what the proper length of time should be. I have asked

  525
  myself for what purpose we are intending that reflection and consideration should take place. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight) pressed home the point—and, in my respectful submission, with good cause—that there is a distinction between mediation and reconciliation. That distinction has been lost.
  I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State indicating that that distinction is not lost on him, but it was lost on the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. As Opposition Members noted—along, no doubt, with many others, including the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)—the Chancellor said that the Bill provided for mechanisms to deal with both reconciliation and mediation, but that is not the case: the Bill makes no provision for reconciliation.
  There is a signpost to reconciliation. The Bill mentions reconciliation once—and that is the result of an amendment in the other place. I look forward to the Under-Secretary's clarification of the Government's priorities, but if that is the priority that Ministers attach to reconciliation, it is not good enough. We want the Bill to explain what will happen in the period of 12, 18 or 24 months.
  I support a 12-month period, and again my reason relates to children. Children are at the heart of our consideration of the Bill. I believe that extending the period is likely to damage children—that they will bear the brunt.
  Whatever period we choose, however, the Bill in its present form is likely to focus chiefly on mediation, but on mediation whose primary objective will be the reaching of an agreement about finances and children. Experience shows that, if all the emotional effort is directed at that, no effort will be expended on reconciliation. Th filing of a statement that the marriage has broken down irretrievably is a psychological breaking point, and it is difficult to recover from that and get into the mind set that is conducive to reconciliation.
  A number of studies have been carried out. A particularly helpful one was conducted by Professor Davis of Bristol university. He says:
  "We should not delude ourselves about the impact upon the relationship of that first signed statement. It is not the equivalent of a despairing chat with a friend or parent"—
  there is no Auntie Wu here—
  "it is a formal declaration; it is likely to be self-fulfilling."
  That is the problem. Once the declaration has been made, there is a real danger that it will prove self-fulfilling. It is a case of: "I believe that the marriage has broken down irretrievably; therefore it has." All of us who have practised law know that, under the old arrangements, solicitors had to sign a statement to the effect that they had considered reconciliation with the client. We have all signed such statements, and we all recall the nature of that consideration. I see a number of hon. Members nodding.
  The arrangement was farcical. Unless a designated period is allowed for reconciliation, whether it is 12, 18 or 24 months, there will be no reconciliation unless there is a clear and unequivocal commitment to the provision of resources. Unless there is a requirement for a meeting with a marriage guidance councillor—nothing else will
  526
  do; I am talking not about an information officer, but about someone with professional skills and aptitude in exploring the possibility of reconciliation—and unless that meeting is properly funded, it will not happen. That is why, in the absence of any proposal in the amendments to focus time and resources on reconciliation, I am unable to support an extension to 18 or 24 months.
  If the period is so extended, the parties will concentrate initially on money and the kids, but will be held together in a loveless, non-existent relationship. They will not be assisted in reconciling, and the marriage will simply continue as an empty shell. An empty shell of a marriage, continued for the sake of it, devalues the ideal of marriage at a time when we should be supporting and uplifting the notion of marriage.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is advancing an extremely good case, and I agree with much of what he says. However, does he agree that reconciliation, which should feature far more positively in the Bill—I must point out to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that it is glaringly absent from it—would be much more likely, and that there would be more time for it, if the time limit was increased to 18 months or two years? Having said that, and perhaps put the Opposition spokesman on the spot, I agree that the resources must be available to ensure meaningful reconciliation.
  Mr. Boateng: My fear is that such evidence as there is on the nature of the counselling process and the dynamics of the break-up of marriage suggests that
  "Time alone is unlikely to save marriages; better information and more coordinated interventions might"
  They are the words of Janet Walker, director of the Relate centre for family studies at the university of Newcastle upon Tyne. However, nothing in the Bill suggests that there is any intention whatsoever on the part of the Government to have co-ordinated intervention whose purpose is to save marriages.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does the hon. Gentleman think—this is something at which my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) half hinted—that, once the dust had settled and a couple had got the problems relating to the children and the financial arrangements out of the way, they could perhaps relax, and, with the extra year, might just manage to come together, having seen the difficulties that they set themselves in trying to make one budget do two families?
  Mr. Boateng: I very much wish that the hon. Lady was right. It is my experience that so much dust will have been kicked up by then that the couple will be blinded by it, and, what is worse, the children will be affected by it. I fear that so much bitterness will have been engendered by then that any hope of reconciliation will be highly unlikely. Intervention—
  Lady Olga Maitland rose—
  Mr. Boateng: I cannot give way any more.
  Intervention has to be at an earlier stage. That is why we tabled our amendments, although I greatly welcome those tabled by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and

  527
  Horncastle. Our amendments seek to provide for a dedicated space for reconciliation at the outset before the statement is made. It should be a requirement, not a wish, that such intervention take place at that stage.
  We must have a response from the Minister. We look to him to assure us that the Government accept in principle the notion of early intervention, that they will make available the resources for that intervention and, if the right messages are to be sent, they accept the need to strengthen the support that has to be seen in the Bill for the institution of marriage.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: If not?
  Mr. Boateng: If not, the following. The Opposition supported the Bill on Second Reading on the basis that we support its main thrust. If the Bill is not amended along the lines possible so that we can arrive at a consensus across the House that the Bill aims to save marriages that can be saved and supports the institution of marriage, the Government cannot rely on our support on Third Reading. Let that be made absolutely clear. We are not in the business of presiding over something on our statute book that does nothing to save, support and preserve the institution of marriage.
  9.45 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Evans: I should begin by thanking all hon. Members who have participated in the debate. Sadly, many parts of it have been thinly attended, but that in no sense gives the Committee a conception of the quality and intelligence of virtually all the speeches made—both by my right hon. and hon. Friends and by Opposition Members.
  We are faced today with a very heavy burden. The decisions we take this evening will have implications for many thousands of people and their children in years to come. We must therefore—I am sure that I, too, shall receive applause from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) for saying this—get it right.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Evans: In developing the policy underlining the Bill, the Lord Chancellor gave scrupulous attention to the responses that he received during the consultation. I should make it very clear to my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members that there is a lack of empirical research on what the most suitable minimum period for reflection and consideration may be. We are faced with forming a judgment—a personal judgment. That is why it is quite right that there should be a free vote in exercising that judgment.
  It is worth while reminding the House of the function of the minimum period for reflection and consideration. It has been said that, by introducing this period, we are in some way reducing from two or five years to one year the time in which parties can divorce. Those arguments have even been presented in Committee.
  I am bound to say that I do not think that there are accurate comparisons between the minimum 12-month period for reflection and consideration and the current time requirements for separation in divorce cases where,
  528
  for instance, no fault is alleged. The system proposed in the Bill is wholly different, and the period for reflection and consideration is in fact an entirely new legal concept.
  Under the current system, the two and five-year periods of separation require the act of living apart. It is determined by the parties themselves, and the divorce is applied for on the basis of the parties' evidence of how long they have lived apart. My right hon. and hon. Friends have rightly expressed the damage that is done to children—not by the mechanisms of law that are involved in divorce, but by the departure of one of the parents.
  So much in this debate has been quoted about the Exeter study. I was very glad to have a rather private word with my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) about it. The study says that there is clear damage to children who are in a relationship where there is argument between the parents, but that there is more damage to children when one or other party leaves. The point I make to some of my hon. Friends is that that is not the same as talking about the mechanisms of the divorce legislation.
  At the moment, during the separation period, parties simply have to wait out their legal time. It is a passive time, for which there are no clear objectives and there is no encouragement to consider the consequences of divorce or the possibility of reconciliation. That is the structure of the current law, and that is why, as I said on Second Reading, I believe so passionately that it is important to address the matter.
  Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend accept that, even as the law stands today, 30,000 couples who place their petition then withdraw it on reflection? If there is only one year in which to consider, reflect and mediate, there simply will not be time for proper reflection. We shall not, therefore, get the same number of people having second thoughts.
  Mr. Evans: I point out to my hon. Friend—we shall discuss the dynamics of this in due course—that we are talking about a minimum period. The current median time for granting a divorce absolute, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), is just under seven months. Yet we know that, even within that period, between 25,000 and 30,000 petitions do not proceed to divorce. Is that not a further reason why the introduction of a minimum period of 12 months is a constructive step?
  By contrast with the current position, under the Bill, once the divorce process is started, there will be a court-monitored period, with clear objectives. That period will not begin until a notice is served to the court, and that cannot take place until somebody has attended the information session.
  Deciding future arrangements is vital. It focuses on the obligations of marriage and the special responsibilities that those who enter into it have to each other and to their children. The introduction of a fixed minimum period for reflection and consideration is therefore vital. There may have been occasions when my hon. Friends and I have not seen altogether eye to eye on every aspect of the Bill, but I hope that we are all agreed on the introduction of a fixed minimum period for reflection and consideration.
  The length of the period is a question on which hon. Members have more difficulty agreeing. The views held on the length of the period are many, and, I am bound to

  529
  say, equally valid. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) reminded the Committee of the Catholic bishops' conference statement on 15 November last year. Indeed, I quoted it myself on Second Reading. I pointed out then that the bishops were of the view that differing judgments could be made about the predictable effects of such legislation, but that those judgments were made sincerely, honestly and legitimately. I am pleased to say that that has been the character of our debate this evening.
  However, we are here to make law, so, however much we respect each other's views, we must settle on one of the propositions before us. The amendments fall into two main categories. There is the extension of the minimum period in the Bill, which currently stands at 12 months, where there are children aged under 16 and where one of the parties does not consent to divorce. For each of the amendments designed to lengthen the minimum period, we have a choice between extending it by six months or by 12 months. That would make the minimum period either 18 months or two years.
  I shall discuss first whether the minimum period we decide on should be fixed, without the possibility of an extension if particular circumstances exist. I shall then go on to discuss differing lengths of the minimum period, depending on whether there is consent or whether there are children. The principal aim of a fixed minimum period is to establish, as far as we can, that the breakdown in the marriage is irretrievable. A fixed minimum period is also a clear, unambiguous and absolute statement about the importance of marriage and its obligations. It may be argued that introducing exceptions of any kind to the rule would weaken the way in which the period is regarded.
  We should ensure that irretrievable breakdown can be clearly demonstrated by a simple test that avoids scope for pressure by one party against the other to give in and to decide arrangements that will not necessarily be in the best interests of the children—pressure that may abuse the system.
  I suggest that we need to emphasise the importance of the full minimum period as the core test of whether a ground for dissolution exists. There is a strong argument against making any exceptions to the requirement that parties can apply for divorce only after some time spent reflecting and considering—and, indeed, only when they have been married for at least two years.
  In that context, it might be said that there is some merit in having a definite period that is clear, unequivocal and without any exceptions. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle said earlier that one of his colleagues who shared his views on such matters thought that there should be no exceptions.
  Now I turn to the subject of providing for differing periods when the divorce is not consented to by both parties, or when there are children under the age of 16 in the family. Many, including several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, have asked why one party should be able to obtain a divorce in the same time, regardless of whether his or her spouse agrees to the divorce.
  There is a strong view that, if one party to a marriage is hostile to divorce and believes that the marriage can be saved, every opportunity should be given to save the marriage. It is thought that time might help. Many might also think that it is different if neither party believes at
  530
  the outset that there is any hope left for the marriage, and that the length of the period for reflection and consideration should represent that view. Most seem to think the period should be shorter in such cases.
  However, it could certainly be argued that, where neither party believes that a marriage can be saved, the people concerned will actually need more time to work on saving their marriage than they would if only one party held that view. Contrary to the thrust of the amendments, that could be said to point to the need for a longer rather than a shorter period where there is consent. But there does not appear to be much support for that view in the Committee—although, of course, there are those who say that, where there are children under 16, the period should be longer even where both parties agree to divorce.
  Some argue that the period should be automatically extended where one party objects to divorce. However, in those circumstances, the withholding or granting of consent could become a powerful bargaining chip in negotiating about children and financial arrangements for the future. In such circumstances, it is important that children are not put at greater risk as arrangements for them become part of the bargain.
  It may also be felt that the potential for hostility between the parties would be greatly increased if a longer period were required where one party withheld consent, because the parties would enter a power struggle to get the best deal, and would keep at it, each trying to wear the other down. Again, that could significantly detract from the value of the period in encouraging reconciliation between the parties and getting them to focus on the future of their children.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has tabled an amendment designed to extend the absolute bar on divorce from one year to two years. If it were accepted, no divorce could be applied for on the basis of a statement made before the second anniversary of a marriage. The overall effect of my hon. Friend's amendment, as he told us, would be to provide that no divorces would be allowed during the first three years of marriage—that is, there would be two years' absolute bar, and then the minimum period for reflection and consideration.
  I fully understand the sentiment behind the amendment. I have discussed the matter with my hon. Friend several times, and I have much sympathy with the arguments that he has put to the Committee. It is to send out to the world at large the message that marriage is an important institution, and that it should not be devalued by a precipitate divorce.
  However, others have said that disallowing divorce for a period of that length may reintroduce the demand, which my hon. Friend will recall, under the old law that, in cases of exceptional hardship or depravity, access to a quicker divorce should be granted. My hon. Friend's amendments would allow no exceptions whatsoever.
  Therefore, I should make it clear to the Committee that, if they are carried, it is likely that the argument on abridgement will be raised at a later stage. If couples cannot get divorced in such situations, my hon. Friend will be interested to know that there is some evidence that suggests, surprisingly, that they may forum shop in other jurisdictions to obtain their divorce. I was surprised to learn that but I am told that that was what happened under the previous legislation during the 1980.

  531
  There is clear evidence that the number of divorces that are granted in the early years of marriage—
  It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
Question agreed to.

Family Law Bill [Lords]
Again considered in Committee.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Mr. Evans: There is clear evidence that the number of divorces granted during the early years of marriage has increased. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst therefore draws the Committee's attention to a serious issue.
Some recent press reports have falsely claimed that the Bill would enable parties to divorce on the first anniversary of their marriage. As I have made clear previously, that is untrue. The current law permits a petition to be served the day after the first anniversary of the marriage. The Bill would effectively double that minimum period before an application for a divorce could be made, although my hon. Friend's amendments would lengthen the period for a further year.
I turn now to the core issue of whether the period for reflection and consideration should be lengthened from the minimum of 12 months proposed in the Bill. Clearly, as I said earlier, that is a matter for the individual judgment of hon. Members. There is a need to restate the fact that the period that we are considering is the period for reflection and consideration following service of the statement of marital breakdown. Accordingly, from the time that the Bill comes into effect, we will be preventing couples from making an application for a divorce order until that minimum period has elapsed.
Although I have no doubt that some hon. Members will find it attractive to opt for a longer period as a quid pro quo for the removal of the need to make allegations of fault, it must be borne in mind that longer periods can create hardship. The longer the period that amendment may bring, the more the argument will gain currency that shortening the period should be granted in particular cases.
I want to make it clear to the Committee that I am strongly opposed to reducing the period below the bare minimum currently in the Bill. We must remember that we are trying to create balanced law tough enough to ensure that couples take marriage seriously and try hard, but not so tough that they reject it altogether. That was a matter of concern to several hon. Members who spoke. Although we have one of the highest marriage rates in Europe, we were reminded that it has been falling in recent years.
532
Sadly, marriage rates have fallen most sharply among younger people. There are those who believe that making the period for reflection and consideration too long, even if that is being done for the some of the honourable reasons that we have been debating this evening, might affect marriage rates among the young. If marriage is seen as something that is so difficult to get out of if things do go wrong, young people may decide that they prefer to demonstrate their commitment to each other by way of cohabitation rather than marriage. We should be cautious that, with the best of intentions, we do not take any step in the individual judgments we make that would in any way undermine marriage or adversely affect marriage rates.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) reminded the Committee at the beginning of these debates that we are all making individual judgments, and that no statements made from the Dispatch Box are anything other than the personal views of those who express them. I reiterate those words in relation to the words that I intend to make. In the circumstances, it is necessary for the Committee to know my personal view.
It is my view that the minimum period, even if that length of time is disputed, should be the same in all cases, whether there are children in a marriage or not. I find it difficult to see how extending the period for couples with children can be said to benefit children.
Children, as we would all acknowledge, suffer greatly from their parents' marriage breakdown. As I said to some of my hon. Friends earlier, they suffer particularly from a decision of one parent to leave the marital home. It is clear from all the evidence that that is one of the factors that causes much damage. One reason why we need to focus particularly on that is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) reminded us, sometimes children unjustly and wrongly attribute to themselves the responsibility for their parent's marital breakdown.
In considering those issues, it is important that we do not run the risk of parents, in moments of frustration, blaming their children for the fact that they may have to wait longer to be free of a marriage that they believe to be long finished. That is a danger, bearing in mind all the emotional and practical pressures that inevitably arise in the divorce process. I hope that there will be hon. Members who feel that placing that additional pressure on children is unfair.
The idea that drawing out the period for a lengthier time may be harmful to children is not just my personal view. On Third Reading in another place, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor quoted from letters that he had received from a number of children's charities. During this debate, we heard a contribution from the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), who referred to her experience with the National Children's Home—I call it that in order not to engage in any sort of backwards attack from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman). [Interruption.]
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members attending the Chamber should listen to the hon. Member who has the Floor; otherwise, they should have their conversations elsewhere.
Mr. Evans: The National Children's Home and a number of other children's charities have considerable

533
experience in the area. The Lord Chancellor quoted from letters that he had received from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, The Children's Society, Barnardo' s and the National Children's Home, all of which dealt with that concept of lengthening the period where children are involved.
I know that those organisations have written to hon. Members. I do not intend to repeat their comments, but hon Members will be aware that those are the views of some of the most highly respected children's organisations, who have a wealth of experience in this field and whose views I would not dismiss lightly.
At the beginning of this speech, I said that those who have contributed to this debate have done so with sincere and heartfelt opinions. In my opinion, the speeches that we have heard this evening have been sincere, passionate, intelligent and legitimate.
Many hon. Members quoted the injunction that was given to us earlier by the Catholic bishops. I applaud all hon. Members who contributed to the debate, all of whom listened with care to the arguments that were put before the Committee. As I said earlier, we must remember with caution that what we decide tonight will have far-reaching implications. We must examine our views very carefully—whatever decisions we make—and give careful and measured thought to those who will be affected by the way that we vote.
Couples, despite their best efforts, are sometimes involved in the trauma of marital breakdown. The innocent parties to that trauma—who have figured in many speeches—are the children whose whole lives will be affected by what we decide tonight. Therefore, we are not deciding just an intellectual question of how long it should take for couples to prove that their marriage has irretrievably broken down, or a quick gut reaction, or a gesture towards restricting divorce. We are making decisions that will have an effect on the lives of thousands of people and their children. It is a responsibility that we cannot take too seriously.
Mr. Sims: The debate this evening has inevitably centred on the length of time that will be devoted for the period for reflection and consideration. I remind the Committee that the debate started with the amendment that I moved, which would have the effect of making couples who are married unable to initiate divorce proceedings for two years, rather than the one year that is at present the law.
I believe that it is important for us to uphold the status of marriage. The Bill has been criticised for undermining the credibility of marriage—I think, perhaps, inaccurately. Nevertheless, we must send a message from this Committee that marriage is the foundation of our society, and that stable marriages are very important.
People should not get married "unadvisedly, lightly or wantonly"—to quote the Church service—and they should know that, when they get married, they cannot simply dissolve the contract within one year. I think that two years is a perfectly reasonable minimum period. That will be the effect of my amendment on which the first vote will take place. I hope that the Committee will support it.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 235.

Division No. 106]

[10.12 pm

AYES

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Horam, John

Alton, David

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Amess, David

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Hunter, Andrew

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Jenkin, Bernard

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Jessel, Toby

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Bates, Michael

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Beggs, Roy

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Beith, Rt Hon A J

King, Rt Hon Tom

Bellingham, Henry

Kirkhope, Timothy

Bendall, Vivian

Knapman, Roger

Benton, Joe

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

Booth, Hartley

Leigh, Edward

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Brazier, Julian

Lidington, David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

Lord, Michael

Budgen, Nicholas

McAvoy, Thomas

Burns, Simon

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Burt, Alistair

McLoughlin, Patrick

Butcher, John

Maitland, Lady Olga

Cann, Jamie

Marlow, Tony

Cash, William

Mates, Michael

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Merchant, Piers

Congdon, David

Mills, Iain

Conway, Derek

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Dafis, Cynog

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Murphy, Paul

Day, Stephen

Neubert, Sir Michael

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Nicholls, Patrick

Devlin, Tim

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Dixon, Don

Paice, James

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Paisley, The Reverend Ian

Duncan Smith, Iain

Parry, Robert

Eastham, Ken

Patten, Rt Hon John

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Porter, David (Waveney)

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Evennett, David

Powell, William (Corby)

Faber, David

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Riddick, Graham

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Robathan, Andrew

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

French, Douglas

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Fry, Sir Peter

Sackville, Tom

Gale, Roger

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Gallie, Phil

Shaw, David (Dover)

Gardiner, Sir George

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Gill, Christopher

Sims, Roger

Gillan, Cheryl

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Skinner, Dennis

Gorst, Sir John

Smyth, The Reverend Martin (Belfast S)

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Spearing, Nigel

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Hague, Rt Hon William

Spink, Dr Robert

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Spring, Richard

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Sproat, Iain

Hannam, Sir John

Steinberg, Gerry

Hargreaves, Andrew

Stern, Michael

Harris, David

Streeter, Gary

Hawksley, Warren

Sumberg, David

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Sweeney, Walter

535

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

Wilkinson, John

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Wilshire, David

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Tracey, Richard

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Tredinnick, David

Wolfson, Mark

Twinn, Dr Ian

Wood, Timothy

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Yeo, Tim

Waller, Gary

Tellers for the Ayes:

Watts, John

Mr. Michael Alison and

Widdecombe, Ann

Mr. Donald Anderson.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Fatchett, Derek

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Fishburn, Dudley

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Fisher, Mark

Allen, Graham

Flynn, Paul

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Forman, Nigel

Armstrong, Hilary

Forth, Eric

Ashby, David

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Barnes, Harry

Foulkes, George

Barron, Kevin

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bayley, Hugh

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Galbraith, Sam

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Gapes, Mike

Bermingham, Gerald

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Berry, Roger

Garnier, Edward

Betts, Clive

Gerrard, Neil

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Godman, Dr Norman A

Boateng, Paul

Godsiff, Roger

Boswell, Tim

Golding, Mrs Llin

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Bradley, Keith

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Brandreth, Gyles

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Bright, Sir Graham

Grocott, Bruce

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Burden, Richard

Hall, Mike

Butler, Peter

Hampson, Dr Keith

Butterfill, John

Hanson, David

Byers, Stephen

Harman, Ms Harriet

Caborn, Richard

Harvey, Nick

Callaghan, Jim

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Heald, Oliver

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heppell, John

Carrington, Matthew

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hodge, Margaret

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Clapham, Michael

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

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

Coe, Sebastian

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Coffey, Ann

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hoyle, Doug

Corston, Jean

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cousins, Jim

Hutton, John

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Illsley, Eric

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

Ingram, Adam

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Jack, Michael

Darling, Alistair

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Davidson, Ian

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Denham, John

Janner, Greville

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jenkins, Brian (S.E. Staffs)

Dover, Den

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dowd, Jim

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Dykes, Hugh

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Etherington, Bill

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

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Khabra, Piara S

Fabricant, Michael

Kirkwood, Archy

536

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Pawsey, James

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Pickthall, Colin

Knox, Sir David

Pike, Peter L

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Pope, Greg

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Primarolo, Dawn

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Quin, Ms Joyce

Livingstone, Ken

Radice, Giles

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Rendel, David

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Llwyd, Elfyn

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Loyden, Eddie

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Luff, Peter

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Lynne, Ms Liz

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

McCartney, Ian

Sheerman, Barry

Macdonald, Calum

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

McFall, John

Shersby, Sir Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Short, Clare

MacKay, Andrew

Simpson, Alan

Mackinlay, Andrew

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

Maclennan, Robert

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

MacShane, Denis

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Madden, Max

Soames, Nicholas

Madel, Sir David

Soley, Clive

Mahon, Alice

Spellar, John

Major, Rt Hon John

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Marland Paul

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Steen, Anthony

Martlew, Eric

Stevenson, George

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Stott, Roger

Maxton, John

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Tipping, Paddy

Meacher, Michael

Touhig, Don

Meale, Alan

Turner, Dennis

Michael, Alun

Tyler, Paul

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Milburn, Alan

Walden, George

Miller, Andrew

Wallace, James

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Ward, John

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Morgan, Rhodri

Wareing, Robert N

Morley, Elliot

Watson, Mike

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Whitney, Ray

Mudie, George

Whittingdale, John

Mullin, Chris

Wicks, Malcolm

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Wigley, Dafydd

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Worthington, Tony

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Oppenheim, Phillip

Ottaway, Richard

Tellers for the Noes:

Page, Richard

Mr. Peter Bottomley and

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Sir Jim Lester.

Question accordingly negatived.
It being later than three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the clause, THE CHAIRMAN put the Questions then required to be put.
Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 5, line 14, at end add—
'(9A) Where an application for a divorce order is made by one party, subsection (9D) applies if—

(a) the other party applies to the court, within the prescribed period, for time for further reflection; and

(b) the requirements of section 9 (expect any imposed under section 9(3) are satisfied.

(9B) Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (9D) also applies if there is any child of the family under the age of sixteen when the statement is received by the court.
(9C) Subsection (9D) does not apply if—

(a) at the time when the application for a divorce order is made, there is an occupation order or a non-molestation order in force in favour of the applicant, or of a child of the family, with a power of arrest attached under section 44; or

(b) the court is satisfied that delaying the making of a divorce order would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family.

(9D) If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of one year, but without invalidating the application for a divorce order.'.—[Mr. Leigh.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 144, Noes 243.

Division No. 107]

[10.24 pm

AYES

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Alton, David

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Amess, David

Hannam, Sir John

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Harris, David

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Hawksley, Warren

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Hoey, Kate

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

Horam, John

Bates, Michael

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Beggs, Roy

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Bellingham, Henry

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Bendall, Vivian

Hunter, Andrew

Benton, Joe

Jenkin, Bernard

Booth, Hartley

Jessel, Toby

Bowis, John

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Budgen, Nicholas

Kirkhope, Timothy

Burns, Simon

Knapman, Roger

Burt, Alistair

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

Butcher, John

Leigh, Edward

Cash, William

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Clappison, James

Lidington, David

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Congdon, David

Lord, Michael

Conway, Derek

McAvoy, Thomas

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Macdonald, Calum

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

McFall, John

Dafis, Cynog

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Maitland, Lady Olga

Day, Stephen

Martlew, Eric

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Mates, Michael

Dixon, Don

Merchant, Piers

Duncan Smith, Iain

Mills, Iain

Eastham, Ken

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Evennett, David

Neubert, Sir Michael

Faber, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Ottaway, Richard

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Paisley, The Reverend Ian

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Parry, Robert

Fry, Sir Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Gale, Roger

Porter, David (Waveney)

Gallie, Phil

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Gardiner, Sir George

Powell, William (Corby)

Gill, Christopher

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Reid, Dr John

Gorst, Sir John

Riddick, Graham

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Sackville, Tom

538

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Shaw, David (Dover)

Timms, Stephen

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Tracey, Richard

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Tredinnick, David

Skinner, Dennis

Twinn, Dr Ian

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Waller, Gary

Spearing, Nigel

Watts, John

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Widdecombe, Ann

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Wilkinson, John

Spink, Dr Robert

Wilshire, David

Spring, Richard

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Sproat, Iain

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Steinberg, Gerry

Wolfson, Mark

Stern, Michael

Yeo, Tim

Sumberg, David

Sweeney, Walter

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

Mr. Michael Alison and

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Mr. Donald Anderson.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Dewar, Donald

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Allen, Graham

Dover, Den

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Dowd, Jim

Armstrong, Hilary

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Ashby, David

Dykes, Hugh

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Eagle, Ms Angela

Barnes, Harry

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Barron, Kevin

Etherington, Bill

Battle, John

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Bayley, Hugh

Fabricant, Michael

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Fatchett, Derek

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Fishburn, Dudley

Bermingham, Gerald

Fisher, Mark

Berry, Roger

Flynn, Paul

Betts, Clive

Forman, Nigel

Boateng, Paul

Forth, Eric

Boswell, Tim

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Foster, Don (Bath)

Bradley, Keith

Foulkes, George

Brandreth, Gyles

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bright, Sir Graham

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

French, Douglas

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Galbraith, Sam

Burden, Richard

Gapes, Mike

Butler, Peter

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Butterfill, John

Garnier, Edward

Byers, Stephen

Gerrard, Neil

Caborn, Richard

Gillan, Cheryl

Callaghan, Jim

Godman, Dr Norman A

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Godsiff, Roger

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Golding, Mrs Llin

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

Carrington, Matthew

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Grocott, Bruce

Chisholm, Malcolm

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Clapham, Michael

Hall, Mike

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hanson, David

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Harman, Ms Harriet

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Harvey, Nick

Coe, Sebastian

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Coffey, Ann

Heald, Oliver

Corbyn, Jeremy

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Corston, Jean

Heppell, John

Cousins, Jim

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

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

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hodge, Margaret

Darling, Alistair

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

Davidson, Ian

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Denham, John

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Devlin, Tim

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

539

Hoyle, Doug

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Hutton, John

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Illsley, Eric

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Ingram, Adam

Oppenheim, Phillip

Jack, Michael

Paice, James

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Pawsey, James

Jenkins, Brian (S.E. Staffs)

Pickthall, Colin

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Pike, Peter L

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Pope, Greg

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Quin, Ms Joyce

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

Radice, Giles

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Raynsford, Nick

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

Rendel, David

Khabra, Piara S

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Kilfoyle, Peter

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

King, Rt Hon Tom

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Kirkwood, Archy

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Knox, Sir David

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Sheerman, Barry

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Shersby, Sir Michael

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Short, Clare

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Simpson, Alan

Livingstone, Ken

Sims, Roger

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

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

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Loyden, Eddie

Soames, Nicholas

Luff, Peter

Soley, Clive

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Spellar, John

Lynne, Ms Liz

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

McCartney, Ian

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

MacKay, Andrew

Steen, Anthony

Mackinlay, Andrew

Stevenson, George

Maclennan, Robert

Stott, Roger

MacShane, Denis

Streeter, Gary

Madden, Max

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Madel, Sir David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mahon, Alice

Tipping, paddy

Major, Rt Hon John

Touhig, Don

Turner, Dennis

Marland, Paul

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Walden, George

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Wallace, James

Maxton, John

Ward, John

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Meale, Alan

Wareing, Robert N

Michael, Alun

Watson, Mike

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Whitney, Ray

Milburn, Alan

Whittingdale, John

Miller, Andrew

Wicks, Malcolm

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Wigley, Dafydd

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Worthington, Tony

Morgan, Rhodri

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Morley, Elliot

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Tellers for the Noes:

Mudie, George

Mr. Peter Bottomley and

Mullin, Chris

Sir Jim Lester.

Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 8, in page 5, line 14, at end add—
'(9A) Where an application for a divorce order is made by one party, subsection (9D) applies if—

(a) the other party applies to the court, within the prescribed period, for time for further reflection; and

540

(b) the requirements of section 9 (except any imposed under section 9(3) are satisfied.

(9B) Where any application for a divorce order is made, subsection (9D) also applies if there is any child of the family under the age of sixteen when the statement is received by the court.
(9C) Subsection (9D) does not apply if—

(a) at the time when the application for a divorce order is made, there is an occupation order or a non-molestation order in force in favour of the applicant, or of a child of the family, with a power of arrest attached under section 44; or

(b) the court is satisfied that delaying the making of a divorce order would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family.

(9D) If this subsection applies, the period for reflection and consideration is extended by a period of six months, but without invalidating the application for a divorce order.'.—[Mr. Leigh.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 200, Noes 196.

Division No. 108]

[10.35 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

Eastham, Ken

Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

Alton, David

Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

Amess, David

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Evennett, David

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Faber, David

Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Banks, Matthew (Southport)

French, Douglas

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Fry, Sir Peter

Bates, Michael

Gale, Roger

Batiste, Spencer

Gallie, Phil

Beggs, Roy

Gardiner, Sir George

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Gill, Christopher

Bellingham, Henry

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Bendall, Vivian

Gorst, Sir John

Benton, Joe

Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Booth, Hartley

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

Bowis, John

Hague, Rt Hon William

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

Bright, Sir Graham

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Hannam, Sir John

Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

Hanson, David

Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

Hargreaves, Andrew

Budgen, Nicholas

Harris, David

Burns, Simon

Hawksley, Warren

Burt, Alistair

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Butcher, John

Hendry, Charles

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

Cash, William

Hoey, Kate

Clappison, James

Horam, John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Congdon, David

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Conway, Derek

Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

Dafis, Cynog

Hunter, Andrew

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jenkin, Bernard

Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

Jessel, Toby

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Day, Stephen

Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

Dixon, Don

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Khabra, Piara S

Duncan Smith, Iain

King, Rt Hon Tom

541

Kirkhope, Timothy

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Knapman, Roger

Rowlands, Ted

Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

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

Sackville, Tom

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Leigh, Edward

Shaw, David (Dover)

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Lidington, David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Shersby, Sir Michael

Lord, Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

McAvoy, Thomas

Skinner, Dennis

Macdonald, Calum

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

McFall, John

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Spearing, Nigel

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Spellar, John

Maclennan, Robert

Spicer, Sir Michael (W Dorset)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Spink, Dr Robert

Madel, Sir David

Spring, Richard

Maitland, Lady Olga

Sproat, Iain

Malone, Gerald

Steen, Anthony

Marlow, Tony

Steinberg, Gerry

Martlew, Eric

Stern, Michael

Mates, Michael

Streeter, Gary

Merchant, Piers

Sumberg, David

Mills Iain

Sweeney, Walter

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Timms, Stephen

Tracey, Richard

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Tredinnick, David

Murphy, Paul

Trend, Michael

Neubert, Sir Michael

Twinn, Dr Ian

Nicholls, Patrick

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

Walden, George

Page, Richard

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Paice, James

Waller, Gary

Paisley, The Reverend Ian

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Parry, Robert

Waterson, Nigel

Patten, Rt Hon John

Watts, John

Pawsey, James

Widdecombe, Ann

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wilkinson, John

Porter, David (Waveney)

Willetts, David

Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

Wilshire, David

Powell, William (Corby)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Reid, Dr John

Wood, Timothy

Renton, Rt Hon Tim

Yeo, Tim

Riddick, Graham

Robathan, Andrew

Tellers for the Ayes:

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Mr. Michael Alison and

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Mr. Donald Anderson.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Butterfill, John

Ainsworth Robert (Cov'try NE)

Byers, Stephen

Allen, Graham

Caborn, Richard

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Callaghan, Jim

Armstrong, Hilary

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Ashby, David

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Barnes, Harry

Carrington, Matthew

Barron, Kevin

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Battle, John

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Bayley, Hugh

Chisholm, Malcolm

Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

Clapham, Michael

Benn, Rt Hon Tony

Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

Bermingham, Gerald

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Berry, Roger

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

Betts, Clive

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Boateng, Paul

Coe, Sebastian

Boswell, Tim

Coffey, Ann

Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bradley, Keith

Corston, Jean

Brandreth, Gyles

Cousins, Jim

Burden, Richard

Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

Butler, Peter

Darling, Alistair

542

Davidson, Ian

Llwyd, Elfyn

Denham, John

Loyden, Eddie

Devlin, Tim

Luff, Peter

Dewar, Donald

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Dover, Den

Lynne, Ms Liz

Dowd, Jim

McCartney, Ian

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

MacKay, Andrew

Dykes, Hugh

Mackinlay, Andrew

Eagle, Ms Angela

MacShane, Denis

Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

Madden, Max

Etherington, Bill

Mahon, Alice

Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

Major, Rt Hon John

Fabricant, Michael

Marland, Paul

Fatchett, Derek

Marshall, John (Hendon S)

Fishburn, Dudley

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

Fisher, Mark

Maxton, John

Forman, Nigel

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Forth, Eric

Meale, Alan

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Michael, Alun

Foster, Don (Bath)

Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

Foulkes, George

Milburn, Alan

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Miller, Andrew

Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

Galbraith, Sam

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Gapes, Mike

Morgan, Rhodri

Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

Morley, Elliot

Garnier, Edward

Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Gerrard, Neil

Mudie, George

Gillan, Cheryl

Mullin, Chris

Godman, Dr Norman A

Needham, Rt Hon Richard

Golding, Mrs Llin

Newton, Rt Hon Tony

Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Oppenheim, Phillip

Grocott, Bruce

Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

Pickthall, Colin

Hall, Mike

Pike, Peter L

Hampson, Dr Keith

Pope, Greg

Harman, Ms Harriet

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Harvey, Nick

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Primarolo, Dawn

Heald, Oliver

Quin, Ms Joyce

Heppell, John

Radice, Giles

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Raynsford, Nick

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Rendel, David

Hodge, Margaret

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Hoon, Geoffrey

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Hoyle, Doug

Short, Clare

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Simpson, Alan

Hutton, John

Sims, Roger

Illsley, Eric

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

Ingram, Adam

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Jack, Michael

Soames, Nicholas

Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

Soley, Clive

Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Jenkins, Brian

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

Stevenson, George

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Tipping, Paddy

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

Touhig, Don

Kirkwood, Archy

Turner, Dennis

Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

Knox, Sir David

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

Wallace, James

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Ward, John

Lang, Rt Hon Ian

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Liddell, Mrs Helen

Wareing, Robert N

Livingstone, Ken

Watson, Mike

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Whitney, Ray

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Whittingdale, John

543

Wicks, Malcolm

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Wigley, Dafydd

Tellers for the Noes:

Worthington, Tony

Mr. Peter Bottomley and

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Sir Jim Lester.

on accordingly agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Dame Jill Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. For 30 years I have been proud to be a loyal Back Bencher, but the vote that has just been taken is unprecedented, as is the fact that, earlier this evening, no fewer than 112 Conservative Members voted, including 11 Ministers and five Whips. Note should be taken of this extraordinary vote.
The Chairman: The hon. Lady is an important constituent of mine, but nevertheless I must tell her that that was not a valid point of order.
Mr. Patten: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman: There cannot possibly be anything to add to that point, even by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Patten: On a separate point of order, Mr. Morris.
The Chairman: Order. That is a remarkable change in so few seconds.
Mr. Patten: It is a new point of order. Would it be in order for the Lord President and Leader of the House to approach you tonight if he wished to make a statement on Government business in light of this evening's vote, and the fact that an overwhelming majority—
The Chairman: Order. The Chairman does not anticipate anything that is likely to happen later.
Bill (Clauses 5 and 7), as amended, to be reported.
To lie upon the Table.

National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill
  New clause 1

    RESTRICTIONS ON FUTURE LIABILITIES
    '.—(1) This Act does not apply to any liability in excess of £5 million incurred after the Act is passed unless the conditions referred to in subsection (2) are fulfilled.
    (2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) above are—

    (a) the agreement of the Secretary of State and the consent of the Treasury were obtained before the liability was incurred, and

    (b) a statement has been laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State setting out the terms of agreement and the consent referred to in paragraph (a) above.'.—[Mr. Barron.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    10.50 pm
    Mr. Kevin Barron: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    New clause 1 is about giving back to Parliament the right to scrutinise and monitor decisions relating to the national health service, as they might mean a call on the public purse. It would ensure that the Executive, in the form of the Secretary of State for Health, and the Exchequer must approve the borrowing. It would also provide that the House be informed that new liabilities have been approved and will be incurred. Neither of those checks applies to existing liabilities; the new clause seeks to place them on any future liabilities below the sum of £5 million. It is constructive and designed to strengthen the Bill.
    Hon. Members who missed the Bill's Second Reading might wonder why we have tabled the new clause. We believe that it is not right or proper that the Executive should effectively let people in various outposts of the now fragmented national health service take decisions about public borrowing that has been okayed neither by the Executive in Whitehall nor by the House.
    Our case is that, currently, anything up to £5 billion could be borrowed by a national health service trust without statutory protection and without any proper Executive approval or parliamentary scrutiny. It is a unique condition that public liabilities are incurred entirely without public approval or knowledge. We want that changed.
    The new clause would guarantee parliamentary scrutiny and ensure that borrowing by NHS bodies was approved in advance by the Secretary of State. It is a straightforward measure that the Government should have thought of but, instead of considering carefully what the Bill proposed, Ministers have stumbled blindly to this point. They have been blinded by their desperate desire to revive the private finance initiative in the health service, which is in a state of chaos.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Is my hon. Friend aware of concerns expressed to me only last week by my local health authority about the implications of the private finance initiative for the long-term status of health authorities? Can he assure us that, when there is a change of Government, steps will be taken to resolve the problem?
    Mr. Barron: We are prepared to give the assurance that the private finance initiative will not take over clinical practice in the national health service or influence decisions that should be taken by clinicians who are in the NHS for the public good rather than for other purposes, as the PFI players will be.
    The whole purpose of the Bill is to gold-plate the private finance initiative in the health service. Since their opening remarks on Second Reading, Ministers have stopped pretending that the Bill has any other purpose than effectively to underwrite liabilities that we thought were quite the right type of risk to go with the benefits that the private sector receives. Our new clause would bring back what the Government are intent on giving away. It would ensure that the Secretary of State holds himself accountable for his current manipulation of the PFI rules and the constant change that is taking place under them.
    It cannot be right that health service bodies can borrow against a blanket guarantee from the Secretary of State without the Secretary of State's having to approve such liabilities as and when they are incurred. It also cannot be right that no Minister will be responsible to Parliament for sanctioning such borrowing as and when it occurs, and that the Treasury will be left paying the private sector's bills without ever having agreed to do so.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), tried to claim in Committee that, by approving external financing limits, Ministers will approve new liabilities. It is our contention that that is wrong. What the Under-Secretary claims counts as proper parliamentary accountability is in fact some vague approval of health service bodies' hypothetical ability to consider using borrowed money. They are hardly the tightly defined measures that our new clause proposes.
    It is equally important that the Under-Secretary's alternative does not represent proper parliamentary scrutiny. It certainly does not offer the openness and accountability that we want. The Under-Secretary has an obligation to explain where that openness and accountability will be found in his PFI support system. When and through what mechanisms can Parliament scrutinise the cheques that will be written to PFI contractors? How can Parliament hold the Secretary of State to account for agreeing to underwrite private contractors' returns for, in some instances, as much as 60 or 70 years into the future?
    As we understand it, contracts of that length are running at the moment. What does that mean for change in the health service, as has occurred in the past 20 or 30 years, new medical practice and new science that is now taken on board practically every day? We are not too sure whether we are disagreeing with a straitjacket not only on public liability but on the flexibility that the health service needs to be able to change and to deliver increasingly better health care for years to come.
    What is the device for limiting the level of exposure of the public purse to those gold-plated risks in the health PFI? We recognise that the Government have made a mess of investment in the national health service owing to their incompetent handling of the PFI, but is it right that they should ask Parliament to dig them out of the mire by passing the Bill and, in doing so, keep all of us in Parliament, including Conservative Members, in the dark about decisions that will be taken on our local health services in years to come?
    546
    We want parliamentary scrutiny of the private sector's involvement in the national health service. We want the secret system surrounding health service borrowing from the private sector—including the amounts of money, the terms of repayment, and the lengths of deals—made much more transparent than it is in the current chaos. Our new clause delivers scrutiny, accountability and openness, and I commend it to the House.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): The new clause returns to the issue that we discussed at some length in Committee and relates to the scrutiny and control of hospital trust borrowing and liabilities by the Government and the House. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) will recall that he tabled an amendment in Committee to increase scrutiny and control by the procedures that are repeated in the new clause. He will recall that my objection to his amendment in Committee was that it would bring about a huge increase in bureaucracy.
    He is asking that not only a contract that is part of the PFI, but every contract—including a supply contract, for example—should be brought before the House, and agreed by the Secretary of State for Health, by the Treasury, and, ultimately, by Parliament. The hon. Gentleman agreed, on reflection, that his amendment was not entirely sensible because it would require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to spend his entire time signing bits of paper. If the amendment had been intended to disrupt the sensible working of the health service, it would have been effective.
    Mr. Barron: Who takes the decisions now about public expenditure in the health service? To whom is he accountable?
    11 pm
    Mr. Horam: It is obvious that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State takes those decisions. The hon. Gentleman's comment is ludicrous. His amendment, which he wisely withdrew on reflection, would have obliged my right hon. Friend to sign every contract and to look at every liability incurred by any trust. One can imagine what would have happened. The hon. Gentleman would have built up a huge, bureaucratic nightmare. Anyway, he has since seen sense.
    Mr. Nigel Spearing: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Horam: No, because I would like to carry on.
    The hon. Member for Rother Valley has seen sense and we now have a new clause that limits the damage to £5 million. He is willing to let through anything below that bottom line. Even with that quite high limit, the new clause would involve extra regulation. That is interesting, in view of the fact that the Labour leader, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), pointed out only this week that the Labour party is now the party of deregulation.
    This evening, the hon. Member for Rother Valley and his hon. Friends are proposing extra regulation. They have not quite caught up with up the mood that has been evident in their party this week. The mood may change next week, but this week it is for deregulation—although we now have a

    547
    proposal for extra regulation. Week by week, Labour changes. We would like a little consistency from Labour Members.
    The new clause would involve extra regulation. We are not simply talking about the PFI. As I have already told the hon. Gentleman, if the new clause were accepted, it would affect not only PFI contracts and liabilities incurred under them, but supplies. For example, if the NHS supplies authority had a contract to supply bandages to an NHS trust, that contract would be covered by the new clause. In effect, the Secretary of State, the Treasury and Parliament would have to look into every contract for bandages involving national health service trusts. That is the nonsense proposed by the hon. Gentleman. It shows clearly—
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Horam: No. It is late and the hon. Gentleman should have made his points in Committee or on Second Reading.
    The new clause is regulatory when we are trying to deregulate—I thought that the hon. Member for Rother Valley was also trying to deregulate—and it would affect everything, not just the PFI, which I thought was its object.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Horam: No.
    The new clause would centralise. Trusts have the freedom and ability to run their own business. The hon. Gentleman seeks to bring all control back to the House of Commons, to the Treasury and to the Secretary of State for Health, in a heavily centralised way. The new clause is regulatory, heavy-handed and bureaucratic.
    Mr. Hugh Bayley: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Horam: No.
    The new clause would also add further delay. If all the relevant contracts had to go through the suggested procedure, the decision-making process would be lengthened, so there would be additional delay. Most important—
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Horam: All right. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hughes: I want to go back a few sentences. The Minister mentioned the effect that the new clause would have on supply contracts. What would the residual liabilities on, for example, the sale of bandages be? The Minister made quite a point about that.
    Mr. Horam: The whole point of the Bill is to ensure that liabilities are recognised by my right hon. Friend. That is the fact of the matter. Liabilities do not occur in that case, so why does the hon. Gentleman support the new clause? No problem arises, so the new clause is unnecessary.
    My final point in reply to the hon. Member for Rother Valley is that the new clause—
    Mr. Bayley: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Horam: No, I have already given way once on the point and, frankly, it was a waste of time, so I do not feel that there is any point in giving way again—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Bayley rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for York must see that the Minister is not giving way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Order. I certainly do not expect to hear anything from the Whips. If the Minister is not giving way, the hon. Gentleman should resume his seat.
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Member for York will recall that he had a very good deal from me in Committee, so he ought not to push his luck now.
    The new clause is unnecessary. The controls are perfectly satisfactory as they are, and we spelled them out at some length in Committee. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Rother Valley more than once, there are the external financing limits, which are agreed at the beginning of the year, and monitored—
    Ms Harriet Harman: They are voluntary.
    Mr. Horam:They are agreed at the beginning of the year, and then monitored quarterly. If anything is going wrong, it will be spotted quickly by the NHS executive. That is the effective managerial control that is in place, and it is backed by statute.
    Ms Harman: It is not.
    Mr. Horam: It is backed by statute.
    Mr. Barron: Where?
    Mr. Horam: If the hon. Gentleman reads section 10(2) of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990—
    Ms Harman indicated dissent.
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Lady is wrong. Section 10(2) of the 1990 Act gives my right hon. Friend the power to fix financial controls. [Interruption.] That is the fact of the matter; the hon. Lady is simply wrong. She should ask her researcher to go back and look at it again.
    Mr. Clive Betts rose—
    Mr. Gerry Steinberg rose—
    Mr. Horam: I shall not give way.
    The controls that are in place, both managerial and statutory, are perfectly adequate to deal with the situation. The new clause is entirely unnecessary, and I therefore urge the House to reject it.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister's response has not taken the debate much further.

    549
    In fairness to the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), I must say that the question is implicit in the new clause. The £5 million could have been £6 million or £7 million; that is not the fundamental question. The question is: is there a limit on the amount of money that any trust can incur as a liability which, of itself, will force that obligation to be called in to be double-checked?
    That is a perfectly proper question, and there are two reasons for asking it, which I offer to the Minister for his slightly more considered reflection. First, the NHS does not have a wonderful reputation for entering into capital commitments that prove to be terribly wise. Plenty of things go wrong, as the Minister may recall.
    The litany of things that the NHS has done under the arrangements that the Government have introduced has not always been a happy one. Contracts for the health service in Wales have not been satisfactory; neither have the contracts for computers in the west country, which cost millions of pounds. Nearer to home, and more recently, money has been wasted on contracts for computers in Greenwich. The Minister will be aware of that. There are all sorts of such obligations and implications.
    All the money involved is public money, and the bills have all been incurred by trusts. The monitoring system and all the controls—the accounting officers, the external financing limits and so on—have not worked so far. That is the first issue, but let us assume that it will all be dealt with by some method.
    We also have a second issue. It is no secret, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has conceded the fact, that the Government are now clearly seeking to replace public sector expenditure on capital projects in the health service with private expenditure. In this financial year, and thereafter, public expenditure on such projects will go down, and were it not for the private finance initiative there would unarguably be less money spent on the health service than in the previous couple of years.
    As I have said to Ministers before, the Government have never obtained parliamentary endorsement for the proposal that we should build 10, 20 or 50 per cent. of our hospitals with private money under the PFI. All the evidence suggests that the PFI is a dubious way forward and not yet a certain and secure one. I guess that the Treasury Committee will come into the next debate if the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) pursues new clauses 2 and 3. It has raised questions about public expenditure.
    We are entitled to ask the Minister what figure for incurred liability the Government believe should be authorised by central Government rather than by local, delegated trusts that meet in secret. If not £5 million, is it £10 million, £20 million, £50 million or £100 million? Is there a figure, or are the Government entirely happy with the present regime?
    Ms Harman: Is it £5 billion?
    Mr. Hughes: As the hon. Lady says, is it £5 billion? Is there a figure sufficiently large that it should be called in automatically? Big planning applications cases are called in by the Secretary of State for the Environment. Big national health service expenditure projects that involve borrowing should be called in and examined centrally.
    550
    It would be different if we could attend local hospital trust meetings, hear the debates, see the submissions and elect people to the trusts, but we cannot do any of that. The process is secret and we hear about it later. The Audit Commission or the National Audit Office reports two years later, when it is too late to stop a project that may have gone wrong.
    I hope that the Minister understands that there is significant public concern that the mechanisms for accountability, democracy and the assessment of importance are not being dealt with adequately. The Government say that everything is fine because it has worked in the past and no matter how big the liability, they believe that it can be incurred by the present trust structure meeting undemocratically in secret. Many people, and not only Opposition Members, are unhappy with the present regime. The Minister must give a better answer to persuade them than he has given us.
    Mr. Sam Galbraith: I thought that the Minister's response was both confusing and more worrying than I had expected. He sought to muddy the waters by introducing the question of payment for bandages. He somehow equated that with the building of a large district general hospital. Although it seems silly to equate the two, one of my problems with the private finance initiative concerns where the dividing line is drawn between when the buying of supplies involves PFI and when it involves normal contractual arrangements. That confusion pervades the Government, too. There is no clear definition of what the PFI is. It is a heterogeneous idea that can involve leasing, building, or running things. The parameters have not yet been clearly drawn. That is part of the problem in discussing it and part of the reasoning behind the new clause.
    There are two issues involved in the PFI, which I shall deal with when I come to new clause 2. The main one is about who carries the risk in long-term agreements. Currently, in Scotland, Stonehaven hospital is out for tender under the PFI. Three submissions have been made, one of them by the local trust, yet none has been made public. They are not going to be made public—not even that from the local trust, which is a public body. No one knows how much money is involved, how long the leases will be or anything else.
    What liability will the Scottish Office and the Treasury be taking on? What length of time will be involved? Are we to be lumbered with a hospital with a 100-year lease that could be obsolete, but for which we have to accept the residual liabilities and so keep it going against our wishes? How great are the liabilities? It is no good the Minister saying that that would require every contract to brought down here for scrutiny. That is impractical. That is one of the problems of the PFI, and the Government should have thought about that before they got into it.
    There must come a dividing line, beyond which value Parliament and the Treasury have to scrutinise a contract. That is the issue. The external financing limit is no good because it can be got round. We do not know whether the EFLs will be breached in the Stonehaven contract.
    There must come a point when the Treasury has to say, "We want to know what the liability is here. We want to consider it." Unless the Minister comes up with some answer on that, we are storing up trouble for future Governments.
    11.15 pm
    Mr. Robert Ainsworth: It is entirely understandable that the Minister does not want to accept interventions, given the manner with which he dealt with the only one that he accepted—that of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). He was attempting to suggest that the intervention was a waste of time, but it exposed the fact that the Minister's answer was not appropriate.
    The National Health Service (Residual Liabilities) Bill has nothing to do with bandages, or with over-centralisation or regulation. We are talking about the proper scrutiny of public money. The Minister is attempting to confuse those issues and, therefore, to participate in debate. If that is what he is going to do, he will provoke more hon. Members to intervene to a greater extent. He has a duty to answer properly the point being made in the new clause and in my hon. Friend's intervention.
    Mr. Spearing: I would not have sought to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but for the unfortunate discourtesy of the Minister in declining to give way to the second intervention of the debate. For reasons that you will know of, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think that we can put the origin of such discourtesy on the institute of higher education that the Minister happened to attend, so I must look for some other explanation. I suspect that it is the weakness of his case. With due courtesy, perhaps I can test that out.
    The Minister said that the new clause was unnecessary regulation and that there were proper scrutiny, audit procedures and this, that and the other. In other words, "Don't worry, it's all right, it's been dealt with." I shall put an actual case to the Minister and ask him, if he catches your eye to reply, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to confirm or deny the scenario.
    In the Newham Healthcare NHS trust area, an old hospital is about to close—St. Andrew's, Bromley-by-Bow. Its facilities—alas, lacking 24 beds—will be rebuilt or built into the existing Newham general hospital. It may cost about £20 million or £25 million and the trust has been told that the money will not be available from health service or Government sources, as it used to be, but will have to first be considered under the private finance initiative.
    I understand that that is a long procedure. One has to produce a scheme, put something out to tender, get banks, insurance organisations and perhaps even European institutions to say whether they will plan, build and take responsibility to some extent for running the newly built part of Newham general hospital. The anxious people of Newham and I have been told that it is going to be a lengthy process and, even at the end of it, there will be no guarantee that such PFI money is available.
    Let us suppose that it might be. I suggest to the Minister that the money that is available, might be at a cost premium compared with that from Treasury or other sources. Of course, we will not necessarily know that—or will we? The terms of the PFI may or may not be made public. So my first question is that of transparency.
    Let us suppose that the terms are made public and, at some stage, there is a public liability. Clearly, if the Newham Healthcare trust is changed—as it might well be if, alas, the present Administration continue and there is some change in the status of such trusts—some liability
    552
    may be placed on the Minister. Something might go wrong. The hospital might have to stay. There will be a liability in respect of the money that has been contracted.
    What will happen then? I assume that the amount of liability will not be known unless there is an audit in the Treasury or in the Department of Health; that it will not have been approved openly by the House; and, as the Minister mentioned, that every single contract of liability—such as that contained in the new clause—may not be practical.
    Surely liabilities for large construction—such as that at Newham—should be made open to the taxpayers of Newham, to the taxpayers of London and to the representatives of the taxpayers in the House. The Minister has not given any reasons why that should not be so. If he cannot openly and clearly show us why that should not be the case, his discourtesy lies with the weakness of his case rather than any defect of his education or his personality and character, which some of us have known for some years.
    Mr. Betts: My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) was correct: the Minister did not answer the questions about how public scrutiny can be exercised over non-elected people who are appointed to these boards in advance of long-term commitments. That is absolutely crucial. If any hon. Member tries to ask questions of any Government Department about the private finance initiative, as soon as they get to the issue of individual schemes and projects, they are told that it is commercial confidentiality and that it cannot release the information because it would breach confidentiality with the contractors with whom they are negotiating and with whom they are entering into contracts.
    We can see some of the difficulties over intellectual property rights in these schemes, particularly when contractors have been asked to come up with new ways of doing things. The new clause provides a way of having accountability to elected representatives so that non-elected people cannot commit public funds for the future without any public control. That is a simple point, and the Minister has not answered it.
    I understand that the Department of Health has instituted a registration scheme for PFI and other projects. This came out of the evidence given to the Treasury Select Committee by Treasury officials. They pointed out that work had been done to various Departments and the Department of Health had instituted a registration scheme whereby hospital trusts were invited to give details of projects that they had entered into. It was also revealed that the registration scheme was voluntary—that trusts are not compelled to give notice to the Department of the schemes that they are entering.
    If the Minister cannot accept that he and his colleagues should be approving schemes costing over £5 million, he should accept that the trusts should give him notice and that the schemes should be registered. In addition, the registration scheme should be made public so that everyone can see what future commitments are being entered into. The Minister must address that issue.
    The Minister was in danger of misleading the House on another issue. He mentioned external financing limits and said that they are mechanisms for control. Has the Minister thought to ask himself how many years ahead we have EFLs for? There are commitments in the Red

    553
    Book for a number of years ahead. How long are trusts committing public expenditure for by entering into PFI schemes? For far longer ahead than the Government have agreed EFLs for.
    There are no control mechanisms, there are no monitoring levels and there are no real controls of public expenditure against which trusts are committing future expenditure. The Minister says that they can do that without public control and scrutiny or democratic accountability. Perhaps the Minister would like to come back to the EFL point, because I think he was in danger of misleading the House.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not the case on this amendment—maybe the next one.
    Mr. Betts: I am sure that at some stage the Minister would want to address hon. Members on whether he has misled the House on that very important political point. Finally, I shall do a comparison with the way that the Government control local authority borrowing. We are talking about non-elected bodies committing public expenditure, and we are asking for some control by Ministers.
    Every pound that local authorities borrow is controlled by central Government by general approvals or, in many cases—increasingly—by specific credit approvals for individual projects. Even when local authorities spend their own capital receipts, they are controlled.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of local authorities is extensive, but I should be grateful if he would restrict it for the moment to future liabilities as they affect the health service.
    Mr. Betts: I was merely drawing attention to the fact that local authorities are democratically elected but are controlled, not merely in capital borrowing but in spending their receipts. We are discussing trusts that are completely unaccountable for the way in which they commit, not millions, but billions of pounds of public money. That is the comparison that we seek to draw.
    Opposition Members are fighting for democratic control and proper scrutiny; Ministers do not appear to care about either.
    Mr. Steinberg: I also had not intended to speak in the debate, but the Minister's discourtesy in not allowing several interventions forces us to make speeches to make our points. If he had been prepared to answer a simple question in the first place, we should not have had to stand up and speak.
    My local health trust, the Dryburn trust, is in the process of accepting a preferred PFI bid. Unlike the experience of some hon. Members with other trusts, I can honestly say that I have had a very good relationship with the trust. I have a good relationship with the chairman, who has kept me informed of what has happened all along the line and freely given me information about all aspects and about bids that have been made.
    Recently, I wrote the Minister a letter about the worrying revenue implications of the bid. The bid may possibly mean that the health commission, the purchaser,
    554
    will have to pay about 11.5 per cent. interest charges over about 30 years. That is a considerable amount of public liability, which the public purse will have to find from taxation, and it is likely that the health commission will be unable to find that money over that period.
    I want a response from the Minister. We have waited 15 years for a new district general hospital. Year after year, we were promised public funds with which to build it. In January 1994, the hospital was approved, and then it had to go out to a PFI bid and was delayed until October 1994. Now we are in a contract situation.
    Let us suppose that everyone is reasonably satisfied with the PFI bid and that the trust accepts it and goes along to the health commission with the public liability of two or three times the amount of revenue which has to be paid each year to pay for that PFI bid. What will happen to my district general hospital and the PFI bid if the health commission says that it cannot afford to take on that public liability for the next 30 years? What will happen to my hospital? Am I going to get a hospital out of the PFI?
    Will the Minister give the people of Durham and my constituents a guarantee that he will make Durham a special case and provide that money for the next 30 years? Or will he tell us, "You will not get the hospital that you have been promised for 15 years. Tough—you have had it"? Or will he say, "Right, I will now look at it in the public sector again and have a public bid"?
    I want to know tonight what will happen if Durham County health commission says that it cannot afford that public liability for the next 30 years, which is probably considerably more than would have been spent if the hospital had been built in the public sector.
    Mr. Bayley: I shall be brief.
    The House has a responsibility to scrutinise and approve Government expenditure. The PFI, put simply, is a hire purchase scheme for the purchase of goods and services. If I may draw a parallel: if I came to the House seeking a Bill in which the law of the land would underwrite the hire purchase agreements that I might enter into should I default on those payments—if the House were minded to enter into such legislation—it would want some control over how many hire purchase agreements I took out, and it would want to assure itself that I would be in a position to meet the payments on those hire purchase agreements.
    The amendment asks that the House has control over the expenditure consequences of liabilities incurred by the NHS under the private finance initiative. The Minister has not explained why the Government believe that the House should be denied the opportunity to exercise control over future liabilities that may be incurred if a health service trust enters into a hire purchase agreement that it cannot afford to meet.
    Mr. Horam: I shall deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley). He levelled the charge that the private finance initiative is a hire purchase agreement. That is not so, because a PFI project must demonstrate that it represents better value for money than a conventional publicly financed alternative. That is the test.

    555
    11.30 pm
    It must demonstrate value for money in several ways. First, the trust must examine the business case over time and decide whether it will put it to a health commission or health authority. The hon. Member for the City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) raised that point. The health authority then considers the case and decides whether it is affordable. As the hon. Gentleman is aware from his knowledge of the situation in Durham, every health authority receives a stream of revenue from the NHS Executive. Therefore, the authority must gauge the cost of the two alternatives—one publicly financed and the other privately financed—over the lifetime of the project. It will then reach a decision on that basis. We have not yet reached that point in Durham's case.
    Mr. Steinberg: What happens if the health commission says that it cannot afford it?
    Mr. Horam: I do not really want to respond to seated interventions. It would depend on which alternative it decides upon after comparing the items of expenditure—one financed publicly and the other privately. It must then decide what it can afford. I am not familiar with the details of the hon. Gentleman's example, but the health authority may decide that it cannot afford either scheme or it may opt for another scheme with fewer consequences for future revenue support. Neither scheme may pass the test.
    If the health authority chooses to build a new hospital, for example, it must then decide which of the two schemes put before it is more likely to yield value for money over the next 30 to 60 years. The schemes are not hire purchase agreements in any sense: they compare private finance with public finance and determine best value for money for the public purse.
    The second test is affordability—whether a health commission or health authority deems a scheme to be affordable. If it decides that it is not, the project will not proceed—whether it is financed publicly or privately. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that point.
    Mr. Steinberg: With due respect to the Minister, that is my point. If the health commission says that it cannot afford to fund the PFI bid, my constituents will not get their new hospital, for which they have been waiting for 15 years. I seek a guarantee from the Minister tonight. His predecessor, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), almost gave such a guarantee: he said that, if the PFI bid was unsuccessful, he would consider a public sector bid. If the health commission says that it cannot afford the PFI bid of 11.5 per cent. over 30 years, but it can afford 5 per cent. over 60 years, will the Minister provide a guarantee that the hospital will go ahead with public sector funds?
    Mr. Horam: If it could be demonstrated that the public sector project was better value for money than the private sector project, the publicly financed project would be more likely to go ahead. I do not know the particular circumstances of Durham, but the proposal is still under discussion, so I cannot comment. It may be that a satisfactory conclusion will be reached, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot give him a definite answer. However, I will look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman about his particular case. The
    556
    project is still in negotiation and open for discussion, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman now understands the way it will be decided.
    Mr. Betts: Is not the fundamental dilemma that, if a comparison is made between PFI and public sector funding and the PFI is more expensive, a scheme cannot be funded that way? At the same time, if public funding would be cheaper, there is no guarantee that it will be available, because public sector finance has been cut to allow PFI schemes to grow.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention had absolutely nothing to do with new clause 1.
    Mr. Horam: Anyway, whether or not it had anything to do with the new clause—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Not anyway—the Minister will not respond to that intervention. He should address the new clause.
    Mr. Horam: I am duly reprimanded, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Many Opposition Members questioned the procedure by which schemes will be checked. First, they will have to pass the test of being better value for money than a fully worked out scheme alternatively financed by the public sector. The second test is that, where a full business case is worked out, and if the capital value is more than £10 million, the scheme will be scrutinised by the NHS Executive and the Treasury.
    If the value is more than £50 million—the last two schemes were valued at £170 million in the case of Norwich and £70 million in the case of Swindon—the project must go to Ministers. That is the scheduling level with which a scheme must advance side by side. Those are the controls, and there will ultimately be a check by Parliament in the appropriation accounts and the normal Departmental—
    Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the figures be published?
    Mr. Horam: Of course they will be exposed. Normal parliamentary procedures will be available for checking.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: My hon. Friend referred to the new Norwich district general hospital, which we hope will be built as soon as possible. Can my hon. Friend say, while remaining in order, what would be the effect of Labour's proposal on the prospects for that hospital?
    Mr. Horam: They would cause further delay. When we launched that scheme, we pointed out in the press release that the scheme was being brought forward five years earlier than would have been the case if there had not been a PFI scheme.
    Ms Harman: That is not true.
    Mr. Horam: It is true.
    Mr. Barron: My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) has quoted the 1990 press release about the new hospital in Norwich that was put out by the present

    557
    Chancellor of the Exchequer when he was Secretary of State for Health. What does the Minister mean when he says that the scheme will start earlier? It has been delayed for the last six years.
    Mr. Horam: That is not true. If the Norwich scheme had to be in the queue for public financing, as the Opposition wish, it would not be progressing on the time scale that it has. The Opposition would delay schemes year after year. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) made the point well, when he read out a long list of conventionally financed schemes that were part of our NHS history, whichever party was in power. They were object lessons in delay, overspending, and so on. The Chelsea and Westminster hospital, and the national library, are examples of publicly financed schemes that got out of control.
    There is no magic way to keep publicly financed schemes under way, never mind privately financed schemes. Under any Government, the record of publicly financed schemes is not good. I am sure that the hon. Member for Rother Valley will recognise that fact, because he is honest about such matters.
    I contend—we discussed the point in Committee—that one of the points of the PFI is not only for a consortium to build a new project, such as a new hospital, but for it to have the responsibility for maintaining the building thereafter. That is why the PFI will bring us the possibility of greater—not less—control over the revenue consequences to public funds in the future. That is the reality.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: That may be the reality, but the Minister must concede that all the professional evidence given to the Treasury Select Committee and the evidence given by the Treasury last year is that the case is not yet proved. The theory is that the PFI will do that, but the danger is that it will take us one step further away from control over that consortium of builders, which is a profit-making organisation. The danger is that the consortium will put its prices up and will make even more profit at the expense of the taxpayer and the NHS.
    Mr. Horam: The organisation involved will not profit more, because no privately financed scheme will be agreed unless it is better value for money than a publicly financed scheme. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point: we cannot forecast the future—we are talking about a theoretical situation—but that is true of any scheme.
    Mr. Hughes indicated assent.
    Mr. Horam: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees. Proper checks are properly written into the legislation. The normal checks are there, including the strong check of monitoring by the NHS Executive. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
    Mr. Barron: We would be happier about the checks if people knew about them. There is no openness in the current situation. Through new clause 1, we seek to bring openness, accountability and scrutiny to the delivery of health care and expenditure by the Department of Health.
    558
    I do not intend to go into great detail, but perhaps the Minister will write to me and to other hon. Members to tell us which individual trust holds a contract for bandages worth more than £5 million, as I was intrigued by that comment.
    My only other comment on the Minister's speech is that we cannot accept the charge of causing bureaucracy in the national health service from a Government who have created so much bureaucracy in the health service in the past 10 years that most people, including clinicians and managers, would like to see the back of them tomorrow. We do not accept the charge. Our request for accountability, openness and the ability for all Members of Parliament to scrutinise decisions taken by the national health service would cause less than a tenth of the bureaucracy that the Government have forced on the health service.
    We cannot see eye to eye with the Government on the new clause. I withdrew it in Committee to give the Minister a chance to consider whether he was prepared to accept what we think is common sense. Given that he is not prepared to do so, I invite hon. Members to join us in the Lobby.
    Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
    The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 174.

    Division No. 109]

    [11.43 pm

    AYES

    Adams, Mrs Irene

    Harvey, Nick

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Henderson, Doug

    Allen, Graham

    Heppell, John

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Armstrong, Hilary

    Hoey, Kate

    Barnes, Harry

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Barron, Kevin

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Battle, John

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    Hutton, John

    Beggs, Roy

    Illsley, Eric

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Ingram, Adam

    Berry, Roger

    Jenkins, Brian (S. E. Staff)

    Betts, Clive

    Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

    Bradley, Keith

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

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

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Burden, Richard

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Byers, Stephen

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Callaghan, Jim

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

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Khabra, Piara S

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Clapham, Michael

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Loyden, Eddie

    Coffey, Ann

    Lynne, Ms Liz

    Corston, Jean

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Cousins, Jim

    McCartney, Ian

    Darling, Alistair

    McKelvey, William

    Davidson, Ian

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Dewar, Donald

    McLeish, Henry

    Dowd, Jim

    Madden, Max

    Eastham, Ken

    Mahon, Alice

    Fisher, Mark

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

    Flynn, Paul

    Martlew, Eric

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Maxton, John

    Foulkes, George

    Meale, Alan

    Galbraith, Sam

    Michael, Alun

    Gapes, Mike

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Milburn, Alan

    Hall, Mike

    Miller, Andrew

    Hanson, David

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Morgan, Rhodri

    559

    Morley, Elliot

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mudie, George

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

    Murphy, Paul

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    O'Brien, William (Normanton)

    Spearing, Nigel

    Pickthall, Colin

    Spellar, John

    Pike, Peter L

    Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

    Pope, Greg

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Stevenson, George

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Tipping, Paddy

    Purchase, Ken

    Touhig, Don

    Raynsford, Nick

    Turner, Dennis

    Reid, Dr John

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Rendel, David

    Wareing, Robert N

    Robertson, George (Hamilton)

    Watson, Mike

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Worthington, Tony

    Rowlands, Ted

    Young, David (Bolton SE)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Short, Clare

    Mr. Joe Benton and

    Simpson, Alan

    Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

    NOES

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Amess, David

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Forman, Nigel

    Ashby, David

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Forth, Eric

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Batiste, Spencer

    French, Douglas

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Fry, Sir Peter

    Booth, Hartley

    Gale, Roger

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Gallie, Phil

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Gill, Christopher

    Brazier, Julian

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Gorst, Sir John

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

    Burns, Simon

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Burt, Alistair

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

    Butcher, John

    Grylls, Sir Michael

    Butler, Peter

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Butterfill, John

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Carrington, Matthew

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Cash, William

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Harris, David

    Clappison, James

    Hawksley, Warren

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

    Heald, Oliver

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Hendry, Charles

    Coe, Sebastian

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Congdon, David

    Horam, John

    Conway, Derek

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Cran, James

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Day, Stephen

    Jack, Michael

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Jessel, Toby

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Dover, Den

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Duncan, Alan

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Knapman, Roger

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

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

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Evennett, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Faber, David

    Lang, Fit Hon Ian

    Fabricant, Michael

    Legg, Barry

    560

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Lidington, David

    Sims, Roger

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Lord, Michael

    Soames, Nicholas

    Luff, Peter

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Spink, Dr Robert

    MacKay, Andrew

    Spring, Richard

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Streeter, Gary

    Malone, Gerald

    Sweeney, Walter

    Marland, Paul

    Sykes, John

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Mates, Michael

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Merchant, Piers

    Tredinnick, David

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Walden, George

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Waller, Gary

    Norris, Steve

    Ward, John

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Waterson, Nigel

    Page, Richard

    Whittingdale, John

    Paice, James

    Widdecombe, Ann

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Wilkinson, John

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Wolfson, Mark

    Richards, Rod

    Wood, Timothy

    Riddick, Graham

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Robathan, Andrew

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Mr. Michael Bates and

    Sackville, Tom

    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Motion made, and question proposed, That further consideration be now adjourned.—[Mr. Streeter.]
    Question put:—
    The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 80

    Division No. 110]

    [11.55 pm

    AYES

    Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

    Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Amess, David

    Carrington, Matthew

    Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

    Cash, William

    Ashby, David

    Channon, Rt Hon Paul

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Clappison, James

    Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

    Baldry, Tony

    Coe, Sebastian

    Banks, Matthew (Southport)

    Congdon, David

    Bates, Michael

    Conway, Derek

    Batiste, Spencer

    Cran, James

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

    Booth, Hartley

    Day, Stephen

    Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

    Deva, Nirj Joseph

    Brandreth, Gyles

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Brazier, Julian

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

    Bright, Sir Graham

    Dover, Den

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Duncan, Alan

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

    Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)

    Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Burns, Simon

    Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

    Burt, Alistair

    Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

    Butcher, John

    Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

    Butler, Peter

    Evennett, David

    561

    Faber, David

    Marland, Paul

    Fabricant, Michael

    Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

    Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

    Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

    Fishburn, Dudley

    Mates, Michael

    Forman, Nigel

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

    Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

    Merchant, Piers

    Forth, Eric

    Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

    Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

    Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

    Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

    Neubert, Sir Michael

    French, Douglas

    Newton, Rt Hon Tony

    Gale, Roger

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Gallie, Phil

    Norris, Steve

    Gill, Christopher

    Oppenheim, Phillip

    Gillan, Cheryl

    Ottaway, Richard

    Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

    Page, Richard

    Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

    Paice, James

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Gorst, Sir John

    Porter, David (Waveney)

    Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

    Renton, Rt Hon Tim

    Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

    Richards, Rod

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Riddick, Graham

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

    Robathan, Andrew

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

    Hargreaves, Andrew

    Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

    Harris, David

    Shaw, David (Dover)

    Hawksley, Warren

    Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

    Heald, Oliver

    Sims, Roger

    Hendry, Charles

    Skeet, Sir Trevor

    Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Horam, John

    Soames, Nicholas

    Howard, Rt Hon Michael

    Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

    Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

    Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

    Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

    Spink, Dr Robert

    Hunter, Andrew

    Spring, Richard

    Jack, Michael

    Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Jessel, Toby

    Streeter, Gary

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Sweeney, Walter

    Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

    Sykes, John

    Kirkhope, Timothy

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

    Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

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

    Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

    Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

    Tredinnick, David

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Lang, Rt Hon Ian

    Vaughan, Sir Gerard

    Legg, Barry

    Walden, George

    Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

    Waller, Gary

    Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

    Ward, John

    Lidington, David

    Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

    Lord, Michael

    Waterson, Nigel

    Luff, Peter

    Whittingdale, John

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Widdecombe, Ann

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Wiggin, Sir Jerry

    MacKay, Andrew

    Wolfson, Mark

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Maitland, Lady Olga

    Mr. Timothy Wood and

    Malone, Gerald

    Mr. Roger Knapman.

    562

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

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

    Barnes, Harry

    Liddell, Mrs Helen

    Barron, Kevin

    Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

    Bayley, Hugh

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

    McCartney, Ian

    Beggs, Roy

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Bermingham, Gerald

    McLeish, Henry

    Betts, Clive

    Mahon, Alice

    Boateng, Paul

    Martlew, Eric

    Bradley, Keith

    Meale, Alan

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

    Michael, Alun

    Burden, Richard

    Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

    Byers, Stephen

    Milburn, Alan

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Clapham, Michael

    Morgan, Rhodri

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Morley, Elliot

    Clwyd, Mrs Ann

    Mudie, George

    Coffey, Ann

    Pike, Peter L

    Corston, Jean

    Pope, Greg

    Darling, Alistair

    Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

    Davidson, Ian

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Dewar, Donald

    Purchase, Ken

    Dowd, Jim

    Rendel, David

    Galbraith, Sam

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Hall, Mike

    Rowlands, Ted

    Hanson, David

    Salmond, Alex

    Harman, Ms Harriet

    Simpson, Alan

    Harvey, Nick

    Skinner, Dennis

    Henderson, Doug

    Spellar, John

    Heppell, John

    Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Turner, Dennis

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Wallace, James

    Hutton, John

    Watson, Mike

    Illsley, Eric

    Worthington, Tony

    Ingram, Adam

    Jenkins Brian (S.E. Staffs)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

    Mr. Joe Benton and

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

    Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Further consideration adjourned.
    Ms Harman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for the Government to explain why, when they apparently wanted to push Government business through the House, we have had the shambles of their abandoning it and seeking that further consideration be adjourned? Is the shambles of the Government and of the private finance initiative in the health service?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that I need to answer that.

Mr. Alan Veale (Birth Record)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]
2.6 am
Mr. Nick Hawkins: The debate that I have initiated on behalf of and at the request of my constituent, Mr. Alan Charles Veale, relates to a rather sad series of events. My sympathies for my constituent arise partly because I used to practise at the Bar, where, among many other matters, I dealt with family law. The debate concerns the family case that has never been properly resolved.
The facts briefly are that my constituent Mr. Veale was originally married to a lady whose maiden name was Caroline—or Carly—Mary Lacey in July 1981. A male child, Tarran James Veale, was born to the then Mrs. Veale on 27 April 1987, and the birth was registered by the mother, registering Mr. Alan Veale—now my constituent—as the father, on 13 May 1987. Mr. Veale believes, and has abundant evidence to prove, that he was erroneously registered as the father. The mother told him very shortly after the birth that the true father was another man with whom his wife had been having an affair.
Mr. Veale also knows that blood tests were subsequently made by a Dr. Grant, using samples taken from the mother, the child, Mr. Veale and the other man. Those tests prove that Mr. Veale was not the father. Mr. Veale is blood group O and the child is blood group A rhesus negative, which is known to the courts as an exclusion result. All that was established to the entire satisfaction of the courts seven years ago. Sadly, Mr. Veale cannot now establish those facts to officialdom's satisfaction, and his problems in trying to do so are the basis of this short debate.
Mr. Veale began to take steps to correct the formal registration of Tarran's birth in 1992. Before that, however, he had not expected problems, since in the year after the child's birth, not only had the blood test established Mr. Veale's non-paternity, but an affiliation order was made in the courts against the other man. As far back as 1988, on the mother's application, the other man was recorded by Weymouth county court as the father of the child.
It is part of my and my constituent's contention that such a finding by a properly constituted court, based on proper blood test evidence, should be sufficient to allow the correction of the erroneous registration of birth. At present, it appears that the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, now the Office of National Statistics—a somewhat Orwellian name—does not accept that the finding by the court is sufficient.
In 1992, after all the other proceedings arising from the marriage—the so-called ancillary relief proceedings—had finished, Mr. Veale began to seek to correct the erroneous birth registration. It is important to note that the court dealing with ancillary relief matters also accepted the clear evidence that the child was not what is known in law as a child of the marriage. Sadly, it was at this stage, in 1992, that Mr. Veale's real problems began.
Mr. Veale found that the procedures of what is now the Office for National Statistics stood in his way, as it was discovered that Dr. Grant, who had taken the blood tests,
564
had, sadly, died in 1992. Dr. Grant's records of the blood tests he had taken, after being kept for a time after his death, had been destroyed. I discovered that, on my constituent's behalf, late in 1994. Frustratingly, the records had been shredded as recently as the beginning of 1994, before anybody had requested that they be kept.
The problem with Office for National Statistics procedures is that, to correct an erroneous entry of a registration of birth, the office requires, by law, two statutory declarations from two different people with knowledge of the facts. Mr. Veale himself obviously provided one declaration. However, the ancillary relief proceedings arising from the divorce from his ex-wife had been very bitter, and she has consistently refused to provide another statutory declaration, even though she had initiated the affiliation order proceedings against the real father.
It is part of the burden of my submission to my hon. Friend the Minister that the rules of the Office for National Statistics—or, if necessary, primary legislation—should be changed so that, in a case like this one, the application to a court by the ex-wife naming another man as the father should be treated as if it were a statutory declaration and should be valid later, even if the ex-wife later, as in this case, refused to co-operate or, to put another case, the ex-wife died after making such an application for an affiliation order.
At present, my constituent finds himself caught in a tricky Catch-22 position. He can apparently do nothing while the ex-wife, who was at fault all the way through the proceedings, can frustrate the correction of her own erroneous registration of the birth. That has wider implications, especially for Child Support Agency cases, unless the Office for National Statistics and/or the law can be changed.
The superintendent registrar of Dorset county council, Mrs. Heather Downie at Weymouth, has been sympathetic to my constituent since first contacted in 1993, but her hands are tied by the procedures of the Office for National Statistics, and the office says that the statute law concerned is section 29(3) of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953. The deputy registrar-general, Mr. Ribbins, wrote to me in August 1994 to say that he was sympathetic, but that his hands were tied by statute.
Subsequent to that letter to me in August 1994, there were further unhelpful developments. The man who assisted with the late Dr. Grant's affairs was contacted by me about the medical records, and another consultant, Dr. Patrick Lincoln, was contacted by the OPCS, as it then was. Sadly, Dr. Lincoln said that he could not provide a statutory declaration, as he did not have Dr. Grant's original records to look at.
Mr. Veale has found himself blocked at every turn in his perfectly proper efforts to correct this erroneous registration, despite having a sworn affidavit from his former wife dated November 1991. I shall quote from that affidavit:
"I had an affair with a gentleman … the result of which was my becoming pregnant and giving birth to my son Tarran James Veale whose date of birth is the 27th April 1987. Affiliation proceedings were subsequently pursued and an order was made in respect of Tarran for maintenance."
That sworn affidavit to the court, dated 7 November 1991, is apparently not sufficient to correct the erroneous birth certificate.

565
The evidence has been accepted as fact by the courts for all the other important decisions in the divorce and the ancillary relief proceedings to be based upon it, but apparently, under the law as it stands, it is not sufficient for the Office for National Statistics.
On 28 April last year, my constituent and I tried another tack to secure a statutory declaration that the Office for National Statistics might regard as acceptable. We tried to get statutory declarations from the magistrate or the solicitor in front of whom the affiliation proceedings had taken place. That, too, was regarded as insufficient.
The Office for National Statistics subsequently made an offer, suggesting in a letter dated 22 May last year that it might be able to correct the birth registration if someone else could be found who was prepared to accept the findings of Dr. Grant and make a statutory declaration on that basis.
However, that offer is of no help to my constituent unless the office itself can find somebody who, without Dr. Grant's original records, is still prepared to make such a statutory declaration. My constituent has tried, but he has no means of finding such a person, and when the Office for National Statistics suggested Dr. Lincoln, he was unwilling to make such a declaration without the original records. The offer is therefore fruitless.
During the long saga of this case, it never occurred to me, or, I am sure, to my constituent, that it would end as a debate answered by a Treasury Minister. Such are the oddities thrown up when arms of Government responsibility are transferred from one Department to another. However, knowing of the sympathetic nature of my hon. Friend the Minister, I hope that she will be able to assist.
Now that the matter is within the purview of the Treasury, my fears about lack of parliamentary time are substantial. I do not suppose my hon. Friend can see any scope for making the required changes to statute law, if that is the only way forward, in a Finance Bill. However, I hope that she may be able to bring pressure to bear on officials, to break the vicious circle in which my constituent finds himself.
Perhaps she can ensure that the Office for National Statistics does more than express sympathy, as it has repeatedly done, and either finds a doctor who is prepared to consider the considerable legal evidence—based on medical evidence that everybody acknowledges once existed in the case—and who will swear the second statutory declaration that is said to be the only way out, or finds another way out for my constituent. Or perhaps she can find parliamentary time to change the law.
Clearly in this case, as Mr. Bumble said in "Oliver Twist",
"the law is a ass—a idiot."
If that is the best that the law can do, my hope for the law, like that of Mr. Bumble, is that its eyes may be opened by experience.
12.17 am
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Angela Knight): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) on obtaining a debate on this serious case. Just as he was surprised to
566
find that it was a Treasury Minister to whom his debate was addressed, I too, as that Treasury Minister, am surprised that the matter falls within my remit. As for the law, I could not possibly make any comment; as a barrister, no doubt my hon. Friend knows the law better than I do.
I am aware of the background to the case, and I have considerable sympathy with the difficult situation in which my hon. Friend's constituent, Mr. Veale, finds himself. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the assiduous way in which he has pursued the case.
The Registrar-General is responsible for administering the law relating to the registration of births, deaths and marriages in England and Wales, and I have consulted him about this matter. The Registrar-General's office forms part of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, which is now the Office for National Statistics. I am aware that there are particular complications with this most sensitive and unusual case.
The background legislation governing the handling of Mr. Veale's application is the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953, which requires the birth of every child born in England and Wales to be registered by the registrar of births and deaths for the registration sub-district in which the child was born. The information required to be registered in respect of each child is prescribed by regulations made by the Registrar-General. The information is given to the registrar by a qualified informant, who is usually a parent of the child.
If the parents are married, the child's birth may be registered on the sole information of the mother or the father. There is a presumption in common law that a child born to a married woman is a child of the mother and the husband. In those circumstances, the husband would be recorded in the birth register as the father of the child, unless, at the time of registration, it was made clear to the registrar that the husband could not possibly be the father.
A great deal of reliance is therefore placed on the information given to the registrar being accurate and for that reason, every registrar permanently displays a notice referring to the penalties of the Perjury Act 1911 for giving false information. That, of course, does not always deter. Indeed, it would be true to say that, while a birth certificate is certainly evidence of the fact of birth, the same cannot always be said of the person named as the father. That is the nub and heart of this case.
The difficulty arises when one tries to make a correction to an entry contained in a birth register. Such a correction can be made in accordance with the law only if it can be shown that an error was made when the birth was registered. The appropriate section of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 allows an error of fact or substance, which is what we have in this case, to be corrected. That may be done once satisfactory evidence of the facts has been obtained, and on production of a statutory declaration setting out the nature of the error and the true facts of the case made by two qualified informants of the birth.
The people who are qualified to act as informants are defined in legislation, and the mother and father of a child are the primary informants. The Registrar-General therefore looks first for statutory declarations from the people named as the child's parents when a correction is requested. The legislation goes on to state that, in default of a qualified informant, a credible person with

567
knowledge of the true facts may make the statutory declaration. That person must have personal knowledge of the facts.
My hon. Friend has outlined the circumstances of the birth and the divorce in this case. The birth was registered on information given by the mother as that of the child of herself and her then husband. Application for the father's details to be removed was made by Mr. Veale in February 1993.
Officials of what was then the OPCS were satisfied from the evidence provided that the entry could be corrected by means of statutory declarations by Mr. Veale and the child's mother. Evidence of an error in the entry included a copy of a blood test result to which my hon. Friend referred. It was carried out in 1988 and excluded Mr. Veale from paternity of the child. A copy of an affiliation order made in 1988 naming someone other than Mr. Veale as the father was also submitted, together with an affidavit made by the mother in 1991. However, the child's mother refused to co-operate in making the statutory declaration required by law for the purpose of correcting the birth entry.
In those circumstances, OPCS officials advised that the blood tester would be qualified as an alternative declarant in the capacity of a credible person with knowledge of the facts.
The mother was notified, but it transpired that the blood tester had died, and other doctors who were contacted felt that they were not able to make a declaration based on the tester's original records, as my hon. Friend said. Officials also wrote to the person who had been named as the father, inquiring whether he would be willing to make a statutory declaration. Unfortunately, he declined to be involved in the matter.
I hope that the House will agree that the ONS tried to find someone who could provide the relevant evidence. The declaration from the mother was not made, so one was left with the difficulties that have been described.
568
To date, Mr. Veale has been unable to find another person who is qualified by law to make the appropriate statutory declaration.
The provisions that govern the correction of errors in civil registration records are tightly drawn by law to prevent abuse. Neither the Registrar-General nor I have the power to exercise any discretion in this matter. The court records and blood tests provide good evidence of the facts, but the legislation still requires the statutory declaration to be made before a birth entry can be corrected.
As a consequence of this type of case, although not this one in particular, the provisions were reviewed in 1988 in a Green Paper. A White Paper was subsequently published, and the result has been a series of proposals that have not yet been brought into law because parliamentary time has not yet allowed it.
The proposals in that White Paper governing this sort of case would broaden the range of persons who could be qualified to make a statutory declaration. Such broadening could be a suitable candidate for the deregulation route. I hold out no promises to my hon. Friend, but I can assure him that we are examining that area, and I will keep in touch with him as far as progress and potential possibilities are concerned.
I can appreciate my hon. Friend's frustration, and particularly Mr. Veale's frustration, but without the co-operation of his former wife or a suitably qualified second person to declare that the blood tests taken were accurate, regrettably there is nothing further that I can offer him, other than considering the matter via the deregulation route to find out whether some of the White Paper's proposals can be brought into force.
I thank my hon. Friend again for bringing this matter forward for consideration, and I am sorry to have had to give him this answer, which is undoubtedly not as positive as he would have liked.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Twelve midnight.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney-General (1) how much was paid late to the private sector for goods and services by his Department in 1995–96;[26160]

  (2) what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995–96.[26111]

  The Attorney-General
  The Serious Fraud Office paid 92 per cent. of valid invoices on time—within 30 days, or specific contract provision if different—during 1995–96. The value of late payments made by the SFO to the private sector was £977,000. This represents about 6 per cent. of total expenditure and includes a number of substantial and complex invoices from large companies.

  On the basis of samples of bills settled during 1995–96, the percentage of valid invoices paid on time was 94.3 per cent. for the Crown Prosecution Service and 75 per cent. for the Treasury Solicitor's Department.1 Information is not held about the value of late payments made by these departments.

  1 Includes figures for Government property lawyers, the legal secretariat to the Law Officers and the lawyers management unit.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  "Hansard" Index
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee on which date the latest bound publication of a Hansard index was published and for which Session; what are the estimated dates of publication of all sessional indices not so far published; and what are the reasons for delays in publication after January of the preceding normal Session. [26010]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  The index for the long Session 1992–93 was published in November 1995. The proofs for Session 1993–94 will be returned to HMSO parliamentary press in early June 1996 and should be published two to three months thereafter. It is expected that the 1994–95 index will be sent to HMSO by the end of 1996 and published early in 1997. Editing the 1995–96 index will begin in January 1997, with a likely publication date later in 1997.

  The Library provides the copy for the fortnightly, volume and sessional indexes to Hansard, which are printed and published by HMSO. The entries for the sessional index are generated after the last volume index for the Session has been processed; the copy for the volume is usually received by the indexers two to three months after the proceedings reported. The objective is
  148
  that the index for a Session of normal length should be published late in the following Session. I understand that this objective should be met for the 1995–96 Session.

  The current backlog is a result of problems arising from major changes to the Library's computer system in the summer of 1995.

ENVIRONMENT

  Abbatoir Waste
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if fifth-quarter material derived from cattle can be spread on agricultural land outside the waste management licensing regime; and if he will make a statement; [25719]

  (2) for what reason fifth-quarter material derived from cattle is not classified as waste; and if duty of care waste transfer notes are required once this material changes hands. [25718]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Department's views on the application to animal by-products of(a) the definition of waste, (b) waste management licensing and (c) the duty of care, are set out in DOE circular 11/94, paragraphs 1.17(c), 2.33(d) (ii), 4.91-4.94 and 5.167.

  Wheelie Bins
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many rural district councils currently collect domestic refuse from the doorstep; and how many have transferred to the wheelie bin system. [26092]

  Mr. Clappison
  Mr. Department does not hold the information requested, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the publication by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy entitled "Waste Collection Statistics 1993–94 Actuals", which contains that organisation's most recently published statistics covering the information that the right hon. Gentleman requests.

  Seal Skins
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the(a) locations and (b) seal species from which the skins exported from the United Kingdom in 1994 and during the first nine months of 1885 came.[26446]

  Mr. Clappison
  Between 1 January 1994 and 30 September 1995 permits were issued for the re-export of skins of the Afro-Australian fur seal,Arctocephalus pusillus, originally imported from Namibia; and the South American fur seal, Arctocephalus australis, originally imported from Uruguay.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995–96.[26115]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This information is being collated by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be published by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade before the summer recess.
  149
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much was paid late to the private sector by his Department for goods and services in 1995–96. [26156]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department does not hold a central record of the amount owed to businesses not paid within the agreed period. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Heating Costs
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the percentage of extra fuel which is required to heat identical houses in(a) Nottingham and (b) Derby, taking Bristol as the base. [26602]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The percentage of extra fuel required to heat a typical semi-detached house with gas central heating is estimated to be as follows for each of the specified locations:

  (a) Nottingham +17 per cent. and

  (b) Derby +17 per cent.

  These figures have been calculated using the Building Research Establishment domestic energy model and taking Bristol as the base case.

  Tyne and Wear Development Corporation
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Enviornment if he will list those(a) new and (b) established companies in the Tyne and Wear development corporation area which have appointed staff members of the corporation as (i) directors and (ii) advisers to their boards, indicating (1) the period of appointment of individuals, (2) their remuneration, (3) if capital or revenue financial assistance, grants or loans from the corporation have been awarded to the companies and for what purpose and (4) other corporation assistance to the companies.[26557]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Six companies in the urban development area of the Tyne and Wear development corporation have members of the corporation's staff appointed as directors in pursuance of the corporation's statutory object of securing the regeneration of the urban development area.

  Of these, five companies are regarded as new, having been formed since the corporation was created in 1987. These five companies are The Customs House Trust Limited, Jarrow AD Limited, North Shields Fish Quay Development Company Limited, Sunderland Enterprise Park Management Company Limited and Tyneside Enterprise Factory.

  The sixth company, South Tyneside Groundwork Trust Limited, is regarded as an established company, being part of a national group undertaking similar work in different areas of England.

  No companies in the urban development area have appointed any members of the corporation's staff specifically as advisors.

  Each appointment of a member of the corporation's staff will terminate not later than 31 March 1998.
  150
  No remuneration is paid to any of the corporation's staff for the work that they undertake as directors of the companies.

  In addition, Ms S. Thomas, a former member of the corporation's staff, is also the current chairman of The Customs House Trust Limited. As in the case of each of the other directors of that company, she does not receive remuneration for that position.

  The further information requested in relation to each company is as follows:

  Customs House Trust Limited

  One member of staff appointed as a director from mid-1991 to mid 1993 and from mid 1994 as chair.

  One member of staff appointed as director from mid-1994 to 31 March 1998.

  Capital costs: design fees (£291.000), building (£2,392 million), legal fees £86,000) and car park and external works (£530, 000).

  Revenue funding: towards production costs and local arts development to 31 March 1996 is £198,000 including VAT.

  Other assistance: The corporation's member of staff provides general advice as part of the role of director.

  Jarrow 700 AD Limited

  One member of staff appointed as a director form January 1993 to 31 March 1998.

  Revenue funding: £40,000 towards education post plus £7,500 for survey of local needs.

  Other assistance: The corporation's member of staff provides general advice as part of the role as director.

  North Shields Fish Quay Development Company Limited

  One member of staff appointed as director from 1992 to 31 March 1998.

  Capital costs: £20,000 for setting up costs and £300,000 contribution to the partnership for refurbishment of operational premises at North Shields fish quay.

  Other assistance: The corporation's member of staff provides general advice as part of their role as director.

  South Tyneside Groundwork Trust Limited

  One member of staff as a director from April 1991 to 31 March 1998.

  Capital costs: £275,000 general sponsorship and specific project costs.

  Other assistance: The corporation's member of staff provides general advice as part of their role of director.

  Sunderland Enterprise Park Limited

  One member of staff appointed as a director from August 1995 to 31 March 1988.

  Capital costs: Assistance towards setting up costs including installation of a sixteen camera closed circuit television network security system £525,000 including VAT up to 1996–97. There is provision for up to a maximum of £400,000 to be received by the corporation before 31 March 1998.

  Other assistance: The corporation's member of staff provides general advice as part of the role of director.

  Tyneside Enterprise Factory

  One member of staff appointed as a director from June 1995 to 31 March 1998.

  One member of staff appointed as a director from December 1994 to 31 March 1998.

  Capital costs: £120,000 establishment costs.

  Other assistance: The corporation's member of staff provides general advice as part of their role as director.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995–96. [26118]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  This information is being collated by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be published by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade before the summer recess.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how much was paid late by his Department to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96.[26152]

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

TRANSPORT

  Rail Franchise Applicants
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what instructions he has issued to the franchising director on the eligibility to bid for rail franchises of companies that are under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office; and if he will make a statement. [25592]

  Mr. Watts
  The Railways Act 1993 requires that the franchising director should not invite any person to tender for franchises unless he is satisfied that they are financially robust, managerially competent and otherwise suitable to be a franchisee. In order to prequalify for franchise competitions, potential bidders are required to notify the franchising director of any factors which might affect his assessment of their suitability to be a franchisee. It is therefore unnecessary for my right hon. Friend to issue any instructions to the franchising director on this subject.

  Temporary Speed Restrictions (Rail Track)
  Ms Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the sections of rail track on the(a) west coast, (b) east coast, (c) Midland and (d) Great Western main lines currently subject to temporary speed restrictions due to the poor conditions of the track; and in each case, when it is estimated that these restrictions will be lifted. [25593]

  Mr. Watts
  The information required in not held centrally. I will write to the hon. Member when the information is available.

  Pedestrians and Cyclists
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what estimate he has made of the percentage of passenger kilometres that were(a) walked and (b) cycled in each year in Great Britain since 1979; [25402]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of miles (a) walked and (b) cycled in each year in Great Britain since 1979. [25401]
  152
  Mr. Norris
  Figures for cycling based on table 9.1 of the 1995 "Transport Statistics Great Britain" are as follows:

  Distance cycled (billion passenger miles)

  Percentage of all passenger miles exc. walking (per cent.)

  1979

  2.9

  1.0

  1980

  3.2

  1.0

  1981

  3.4

  1.1

  1982

  4.0

  1.3

  1983

  4.0

  1.3

  1984

  4.0

  1.2

  1985

  3.8

  1.1

  1986

  3.4

  1.0

  1987

  3.5

  0.9

  1988

  3.2

  0.8

  1989

  3.2

  0.8

  1990

  3.3

  0.8

  1991

  3.2

  0.8

  1992

  2.9

  0.7

  1993

  2.8

  0.7

  1994

  2.7

  0.6

  Figures for walking are less reliable and available only for particular years. They are as follows:

  Distance walked (billion passenger miles)

  Percentage of all passenger miles including walking (per cent.)

  1975–76

  14

  5

  1985–86

  13

  4

  1989–91

  13

  3

  1992–94

  11

  3

  Rail Privatisation
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money he estimates(a) has been paid to date and (b) will be paid in the current financial year by the Government or Railtrack for advice and other assistance in connection with the sale of Railtrack to (1) SBC Warburg, (2) Linklaters and Paines, (3) Ernst and Young, (4) Solid Solutions Associates, (5) Freshfields, (6) Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom, (7) N. M. Rothschild & Sons Ltd., (8) Merrill Lynch International, (9) Simmons and Simmons, (10) Sullivan and Cromwell, (11) Deloitte and Touche, (12) Dewe Rogerson Ltd, and (13) the Royal Bank of Scotland plc (i) separately and (ii) in total. [25869]

  Mr. Watts
  Information about the payments to individual advisers is commercially confidential. However, as usual for major Government share sales, I expect to make an announcement about the total costs of the Railtrack flotation shortly after this has been completed.

  Mr. Gorden Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what amendments were made to the draft prospectus for the privatisation of Railtrack following receipt of the views of the chairman of the British Railways Board. [26418]

  Mr. Watts
  At the time the chairman of the British Railways Board's views were received the Pathfinder prospectus was still being drafted. A number of changes have been made to the draft since the version on which
  153
  the chairman was expressing his views to take account of comments received from the British Railways Board and other interested parties.

  Nuclear Energy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many shipments abroad by(a) sea or (b) air of mixed oxide fuel have taken place from the British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. Sellafield MOX plant since it opened; what safety licences are required for such transports; and if these transports are covered by (a) European Union legislation and (b) International Atomic Energy Agency or International Maritime Organisation guidelines. [26241]

  Mr. Norris
  There have been five such shipments by air, and none by sea.

  All package designs for MOX fuel have to be approved to IAEA standards by the competent authority of the country of origin. Such approvals must be validated by the competent authorities of the countries through which the shipments pass.

  The shipments complied with all relevant international transport regulations.

  A406
  Mr. John Marshall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when work is due to be completed on the A406 east of Falloden way. [26315]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. John Marshall, dated 24 April 1996:
  As you know the Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the completion of the A406 London North Circular East of Falloden Way scheme.
  Our current best estimate is that these works will be completed at the end of this year.
  I shall let you know if that changes.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the DVLA takes to ensure delivery of drivers' licences to the correct addresses; and what use is made of recorded delivery. [26592]

  Mr. Norris
  Delivery of driving licences is the responsibility of the Royal Mail. Recorded delivery is not used because it would delay the delivery of licences and increase costs.

  Driving Licences (Fraudulent Use)
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many driving licences have been used fraudulently in each of the last five years. [26590]

  Mr. Norris
  Some 2, 000 fraudulent driving licence applications are identified each year, representing 0.1 per cent. of applications.

  London Transport
  Mr. Tracey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial objectives he has set for London Transport. [26918]

  Mr. Norris
  I have written to Peter Ford, chairman of LT, to set new medium-term financial objectives for LT to achieve in 1998–99. These replace the objectives which came to an end on 31 March 1996. The package of new objectives sets challenging but achievable targets for the continued improvement in LT's financial performance and efficiency. The objectives are as follows:

  All figures are at 1995–96 prices

  Objective

  Cost per train kilometer1

  Not more than £9.45

  LUL gross margin2

  At least £285 million

  Bus subsidy per kilometre3

  Not more than 6.0 pence

  LT Buses gross loss4

  Not more than £20 million

  Group services etc.5 gross loss

  Not more than £21.5 million

  Dial-a-Ride costs per trip

  Not more than £9.40

  Property rental income growth

  To be at least as good as the average shown by the IPD index (6) on three-year following basis

  1 Costs per operated train kilometre to exclude depreciation, renewals, restructuring and PFI costs.

  2 LUL gross margin before depreciation, renewals, restructuring and PFI costs.

  3 Net subsidy per operated bus kilometre before depreciation, renewals, restructuring and PFI costs.

  4 LT Buses gross loss before depreciation, renewal, restructuring, and PFI costs.

  5 LT Group Services, plus Victoria coach station, unit for disabled passengers, PASS and LT museum.

  6 IPD is the Investment Property Databank index.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995–96. [26124]

  Mr. Norris
  This information is being collated by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be published by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade before the summer recess.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much was paid late by his Department to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [26145]

  Mr. Norris
  The information is not available.

  Distress Calls
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) on what dates and at what stations in the last 12 months coastguard operational staff have initially missed distress calls over the emergency 2182 radio frequency; and if he will make a statement; [26643]

  (2) pursuant to the answer of 19 February to the hon. Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Ms Walley), Official Report, column 49, for what reasons there are no designated staff from his Department listening for distress calls over the emergency 2182 radio frequency; and if he will make a statement. [26705]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Coastguard Agency to write to the hon. Member.
  155
  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 24 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the 2182KHz Distress Watch.
  PQ 1846/95/96
  There is no evidence of any Distress and Urgency messages being missed.
  PQ1855/95/96
  The watchkeeping complement at each Rescue Centre fulfils the requirement to monitor Channel 16, 2182KHz and the reception of 999 calls. There is no requirement to have staff designated to 2182KHz.

  Road Building Schemes
  Mr. William Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the expected date of completion for each of the schemes for which the Highways Agency has responsibility, now under construction, and for each of those upon which construction is expected to start by 31 March 1997. [25812]

  Mr. Watts
  I have set out in the table details of all schemes currently under construction, including their expected completion dates, and the anticipated completion dates for those schemes upon which construction is expected to start by 31 March 1997. I have also set out in the final table those schemes which are including within tranches 1 and 1A of design, build, finance and operate projects or DBFOs. It is not possible to indicate completion dates for the schemes contained within those projects.

  Schemes currently under construction

  Scheme

  Expected completion date

  M1/M621

  Link Road, Leeds MB

  Late 1997

  M1

  J21-21A Widening Phase 1, Leicestershire

  Mid 1996

  M1

  J43-45 Lighting

  May 1996

  M4/M5

  Second Severn Crossing Approach Roads, Avon

  Mid 1996

  M4

  Second Severn Crossing, Avon

  Mid 1996

  M4

  Landscape Improvements

  Early 1996

  M5

  J18-19 Widening, Avon

  Mid 1998

  M6

  J20-21 A Widening, Lancashire

  Late 1996

  M25

  J7-8 Widening, Surrey

  Late 1996

  M25

  J8-10 Widening, Surrey

  Mid 1997

  M25

  Controlled Motorway M25 Pilot Scheme

  Mid 1996

  M65

  Blackburn Southern Bypass Contract 1, Lancashire

  Late 1996

  M65

  Blackburn Southern Bypass Contract 2, Lancashire

  Late 1997

  M66

  Denton-Middleton Contract 1. Tameside MB, Manchester MB, Oldham MB, Bury MB, Rochdale MB

  Early 1999

  M66

  Denton-Middleton Contract 2. Tameside MB, Oldham MB, Bury MB, Rochdale MB

  End 1996

  Al (M)

  Walshford-Disforth, North Yorkshire

  Mid 1997

  A4/A46

  Batheaston/Swainswick Bypass, Avon

  Mid 1996

  A5

  Beech Road

  May 1996

  156

  Schemes currently under construction

  Scheme

  Expected completion date

  A10

  Carterhatch Lane in AA406 Cycleway

  Early 1996

  A10

  Royston to Huntingford Traffic and Safety Imp.Herts

  May 1996

  A11

  Besthorpe-Wymondham, Norfolk

  Early 1996

  Al2

  Hackney Wick-M11 Link Contract 2, L. Bs Hackney, Redbridge, Waltham Forest, Newham

  Late 1997

  Al2

  Hackney Wick-M11 Link Contract 4, L. Bs Hackney, Redbridge, Waltham Forest, Newham

  Late 1997

  Al2

  CRSF Feering—Marks Tey, Essex

  June 1996

  Al3

  Thames Avenue- Wenningron, LB Barking and Dagenham

  Mid 1997

  A13

  Blackwell Tunnel/Cotton Street Junction Imp, LB Tower Hamlets

  Mid 1996

  A27

  Drainage Imp, Lancing W.Sussex

  April 1996

  A30

  Minizies Down—Imp. of westbound carriageway, Cornwall

  June 1996

  A36

  Improvement, Wick Farm, Somerset

  May 1996

  A41

  Parking Imp. North of Dame Roundabout, Herts

  April 1996

  A45

  Windmill Hill

  May/June 1996

  A46

  Stragglesthorpe Crossroads

  June 1996

  A47

  Walpole Highway/Tilney High End Bypass, Nolfolk

  Late 1996

  A50

  Blythe Bridge-Queensway Phase 1, Straffordshire

  Late 1996

  A50

  Blythe Bridge-Queensway Phase 2, Straffordshire

  Early 1998

  A102

  Blackwall Tunnel Northbound Escape Ramp

  Early 1997

  A205

  Kew Bridge Relighting

  Early 1997

  A249

  M2-wade Imp, Kent

  Mid 1996

  A282/M25

  VMS for Bridge Maintenance, Dartford Crossing

  May 1996

  A406

  Dysons Road-Hall Lane, LB Enfield

  Late 1996

  A406

  Silver Street-Fore Street Imp. LB Enfield

  Late 1996

  A406

  East of Falladen Way- Finchley High Road, L.B Barnet

  Late 1996

  A417

  Birdlip Single Lane Dualling

  May 1996

  A428

  Bedford Southern Bypass, Bedfordshire

  Late 1996

  A501

  Euston Road—Traffic and Pedestrian Improvement

  Mid 1996

  A564

  Derby Southern Bypass and Derby Spur Contract A. Derbyshire

  Mid 1997

  A568

  Widnes Eastern Bypass (South), Cheshire

  Mid 1997

  A570

  Bushey Lane Roundabout

  Sept 1996

  A585

  Mains Lane, Singleton, drainage

  June 1996

  157

  Schemes currently under construction

  Scheme

  Expected completion date

  A4123

  Environmental Enhancement

  Sept 1996

  A6119

  Brownhill Improvement

  June 1996

  Kent Variable Message Signs

  Late 1996

  Trunk Road Cabling and Communications, London

  Late 1996

  Birmingham-Notts DLS

  Late 1997

  Kent VMS

  Late 1996

  Urban Traffic Control System, London

  Early 1997

  MOVA Signal Control, London

  Early 1997

  Cable Modifications, London

  Early 1997

  Installation of VMS, London

  Early 1997

  CCTV Upgrade, London

  Spring 1997

  Blackwall Tunnel Overhight Detector

  Late 1996

  Enforcement CCTV Pilot, London

  Early 1997

  Enforcement Cameras, London

  Early 1997

  Schemes upon which construction is expected to start by 31 March 1997

  Scheme

  Expected completion Date

  A12

  Hackney Wick-Mill LinkContract 1. LB Hackney, Redbridge, Walth

  February 1999

  A12

  Hackney Wick-Mill Link contract 3. LB Hackney, Redbridge, Walth

  August 1999

  A13

  Wennington-Mar Dyke, Essex

  June 1998

  A13

  West of Heathway- Thames Avenue Imp. LB Barking and Dagenham

  February 1999

  A34

  Newbury Bypass, Berkshire

  August 1998

  A40

  Gypsy Corner Imp. LB Hounslow

  August 1999

  A40

  Western Circus Junction Imp. LB Ealing

  August 1999

  London Primary Route Signing Project

  Summer 1999

  DBFO Projects showing schemes which are included within each project

  Project

  Schemes included

  Project start date

  A69: Carlile- Newcastle

  A69 Haltwhistle Bypass

  Awarded 1995–96

  A1(M): Alconbury- Peterborough

  A1 (M): Alconbury— Peterborough

  Awarded 1995–96

  A419/A417: Swindon - Gloucester

  A419/A417 Cirencester and Stratton Bypass

  A417 North of Stratton—Nettleton Imp

  A419 Luton BypassAwarded 1995–96

  M1-A1 Link Road: Lofthouse- Bramham

  M1-A1 Link Road: Lofthouse—Bramham

  Awarded 1995–96

  158

  Project

  Schemes included

  Project start date or expected start date

  M40: J1 to 15

  M40: J1A. 3 widening

  Spring/summer 1996

  A19: Dishforth-Tyne Tunnel

  A19 Norton-Parkway Interchange Imp

  Spring/summer 1996

  A30/A34: M5 J29-Bere Regis

  A30 H. oniton-Exeter Imp A35 Talpuddle-Puddletown Bypass

  Spring/summer 1996

  A50/A564: Stoke-Derby Link

  A564 Doveridge Bypass

  Spring/summer 1996

  Vehicles (Illegal Operators)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish the final report on the roadside checks of illegal operators undertaken by the Vehicle Inspectorate in October 1995. [26767]

  Mr. Norris
  The report has been published today. It shows that 1.8 per cent. of miles travelled on roads in Great Britain by goods vehicles are travelled by vehicles that are being operated without an operator's licence. The survey also indicates that vehicles that are being operated illegally are more likely than other vehicles to have roadworthiness defects. I have placed copies of the report in the Library.

TREASURY

  Customs and Excise (Redundancies)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlay the statement by management of Customs and Excise in the recent expenditure review that further redundancies in the number of front line anti-smuggling officers including those specialising in drug offences, would be implemented in accordance with the level of drug seizures. [26523]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The fundamental expenditure review of anti-smuggling recommended that reductions in staffing should take place in two phases and that the effects of the first tranche of reductions should be comprehensively reviewed before any further savings are contemplated. Some 292 posts were withdrawn in the first phase during 1995–96 and the review is taking place throughout this year.

  In addition to monitoring drug seizures, the review will evaluate Customs' success in dismantling smuggling organisations, seizing illicit assets and detecting other prohibitions. The drugs risk faced by the United Kingdom, the effectiveness of intelligence in informing targeting, and the effects of changes in tactical deployment are also being closely monitored.

  Tax Reliefs
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of tax relief for(a) enterprise investment schemes, (b) venture capital trusts and (c) enterprise zone trusts in the financial years (i) 1994–95 and (ii) 1995–96. [23975]
  159
  Mr. Jack
  The available information is in the table.

  £ million

  Cost of tax reliefs1

  1994–95

  1995–962

  Enterprise

  10

  15

  Investment Schemes Venture Capital Trusts

  —

  50

  1 Estimated cost of income tax relief and capital gains tax costs of re-investment relief and exempting gains from tax.

  2 Provisional.

  The cost of tax relief for enterprise zone trusts is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  I am delighted that the venture capital industry and investors have responded to the challenge and opportunity offered to them by Parliament to invest in small and developing companies through venture capital trusts. The first 12 VCTs have between them raised over £150 million in the first few months of the scheme. This is excellent news for the financing and development of the companies, which are a crucial part of our growing economy. We should also congratulate the British venture capital industry on the energy they have put into raising this new form of capital for their growing business.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the percentage change in unemployment since 1992 for each county and former metropolitan county area in England in rank order from the greatest increase to the greatest decrease. [26482]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested is available from the Nomis database accessed by the House of Commons Library.

  Season Tickets (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to introduce tax relief on season tickets. [24727]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: Under current law, the cost of a season ticket for home-to-work travel is not tax deductible. There are no plans to change that.

  Self-assessment (Investment Income)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the yield in 1997–98 from higher rate income tax charged by direct assessment on investment income received net of lower rate income tax will be higher under the new system of self-assessment; and what estimate he has made of the extent of the difference. [26190]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: Self-assessment rationalises the payment dates for income tax, replacing the current plethora of dates and allowing a taxpayer's affairs to be brought together in one place and on one bill. Under self-assessment, payments on account will be required from certain taxpayers on 31 January within the tax year and on the following 31
  160
  July—broadly following the existing payment dates for the self-employed. Any balance will then be required at the following 31 January. For those taxpayers not required to make payments on account, the whole amount will be due on the following 31 January.

  The transition from the old to the new pattern of payment dates will result in some one-off changes in Exchequer yields in 1997–98. Receipts of higher rate tax on investment income taxed at source will increase by £500 million because in-year payments on account of this tax will be required from some taxpayers from 1997–98, in contrast to the present arrangements whereby most such tax is collected in the following year. There will also be an offsetting reduction of £500 million in 1997–98 receipts of tax on rent and investment income not taxed at source because the bulk of 1997–98 tax will not be collected until the following year, whereas most of this tax is currently collected in-year—and this will also be true for 1996–97 tax. The £50 million shown in table 5.2 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97" as the net yield in 1997–98 from self-assessment reflects both these effects.

  The figures in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" assume that no payments on account would be required in January and July 1998 from those whose tax due in 1996–97 was less than £500 or who paid 80 per cent. or more of their 1996–97 tax liability through pay-as-you-earn or other reduction at source arrangements. These limits will be confirmed when Treasury regulations are laid later this year. Under self-assessment, higher rate taxpayers who do not need to make payments on account will generally pay higher rate tax on their investment income taxed at source later than they do at present.

PRIME MINISTER

  Louise Jensen (Killing)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Prime Minister for what reasons a letter of condolence was not sent by a Minister to the family of the Danish tour guide for whose manslaughter three British service men have been convicted. [26301]

  The Prime Minister
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has written a private letter to Louise Jensen's parents.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Prime Minister what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995–96. [26120]

  The Prime Minister
  This information is being collated by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be published by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade before the summer recess.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Prime Minister how much was paid late by his Department to the private sector for goods and services in 1995–96. [26149]

  The Prime Minster
  The information is not held in the form requested.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Turkey
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to support moves by the UN Commission on Human Rights to prevent the continuing human rights violations in Turkey.[26441]

  Mr. David Davis
  We contributed to the Presidency statement at the UN Commission on Human Rights which conveyed to the Turkish Government the depth of our continuing concern about a number of human rights issues in Turkey. We will continue to raise these concerns directly with the Turkish authorities at every opportunity.

  China
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the subject of the human rights situation in China at the forthcoming United Nations Commission on Human Rights. [26424]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We are tabling a resolution on human rights in China at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, together with our European partners. We are working for maximum support for it among members of the Commission. The statement to the Commission by the European Union also expressed in detail our specific concerns about human rights in China.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of bills were paid late by(a) the diplomatic wing and (b) the Overseas Development Administration in 1995–96. [26108]

  Mr. Hanley
  This information is being collated by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be published by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade before the summer recess.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much was paid late to the private sector for goods and services by(a) the diplomatic wing and (b) the Overseas Development Administration in 1995–96. [26155]

  Mr. Hanley
  We do not distinguish between payments to the public and private sectors and to analyse invoices paid in 1995–96 on this basis would involve disproportionate cost.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many appointments to the public bodies listed in "Public Bodies" for his Department were made during 1994–95 from names supplied by the public appointments unit; and if he will list them.[25950]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: During 1994–95, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office made five appointments from names supplied by the public appointments unit to public bodies listed in the FCO 1996 departmental report.
  162
  They are as follows:

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  Dr. Robert Stevens

  Commonwealth Development Corporation

  Ms Caroline Hayman

  Commonwealth Institute

  Lord Armstrong

  Dr. Ann Robinson

  Mr. Algie Cluff

DEFENCE

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of funding to be made available to his Department through the private finance initiative in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26175]

  Mr. Soames
  Capital expenditure by the private sector on private finance initiative projects within my department is estimated as follows:

  1995–96: up to £5 million

  1996–97: £30 million

  1997–98: £80 million

  Peacekeeping Forces (Weapons)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what limitations are placed on Her Majesty's armed forces by the United Nations on the types of weapons that may be used in peacekeeping operations. [26264]

  Mr. Soames
  The type of weapons that may be used in peacekeeping operations is a matter for discussion between the United Nations and individual troop-contributing nations in the particular circumstances of each operation.

  Israel-Lebanon Conflict
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his recent speeches regarding the present Israeli-Lebanese conflict represent a change in Government policy in respect of territorial integrity between Lebanon and Israel as outlined in Security Council resolution No. 425. [26139]

  Mr. Soames
  No.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995–96; [26113]

  (2) how much was paid late to the private sector for goods and services by his Department in 1995–96. [26162]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Bills Agency, the Met Office and the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executives to write to the hon. Member.
  163
  Information across Government on what percentage of bills were paid late by Departments in 1995–96 is being collated by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be published by my tight hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade before the summer recess.

  Letter from T. R. Thurgate to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 24 April 1996:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence, what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995/96, and how much was paid late to the private sector for goods and services by his Department in 1995/96. As this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Bills Agency I have been asked to reply.
  We monitor our prompt payment performances closely. Of the 3.1m bills paid by the Defence Bills Agency in 1995/96, less than 0.1% were not paid within thirty days of receipt at Liverpool.
  The payment performance statistics which are readily available are held by volume of bills, not value, and are not split between private and public sector, therefore the amount of money paid late to the private sector for goods and services in 1995/96 could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 24 April 1996:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about late payment of bills by the Meteorological Office as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive.
  On 1 April 1995 the Office took over responsibility for paying most of its bills. Since that date we have paid 100% of our bills within the target of settlement no later than 30 days after the invoice has been validated and passed for payment.
  Our payment procedures make no distinction between the public and private sectors.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mrs. Barbara Roche, dated 24 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation & Research Agency to reply to your questions about the percentage of bills that were paid late by this Agency in 1995/96 and what percentage of these were paid late to the private sector.
  As I said in my letter to you of 1 November 1995, we define late payment as not paying bills within 30 days of receipt of a validated invoice at our bill paying section. On this basis, virtually all DERA's 285, 642 bills paid in 1995/96 were paid within the 30 day period. We keep a lot of data on bill paying, as an aid to improving our performance, but I am afraid we do not keep statistics on those very few bills that fell outside of this target.
  Nor do we keep our statistics in a way which allows us to differentiate readily between bills paid to the private sector and those paid to other areas. I regret, therefore, that the information to answer your second question is not available without incurring disproportionate costs.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many appointments to the public bodies listed in "Public Bodies" for his Department were made during 1994–95 from names supplied by the public appointments unit; and if he will list them. [25954]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: There were no appointments made to my Department's public
  164
  bodies using names supplied by the public appointments unit during 1994–95.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of funding to be made available to his Department through the private finance initiative in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26180]

  Mr. Willetts
  The Cabinet Office—including the Office of Public Service—Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Central Office of Information have not yet approved any projects under the PFI. The Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency hopes to involve private finance in the provision of the Metropolitan Telecommunications Service. This could involve capital expenditure of some £750, 000 in 1996–97 and £1.5 million in 1997–98. Final offers are due at the end of May 1996, and the contract is likely to be awarded in June 1996.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was paid late to the private sector by his Department for goods and services in 1995–96. [26158]

  Mr. Willetts
  The information is not held in the form requested.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995–96. [26114]

  Mr. Willetts
  This information is being collated by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be published by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade before the summer recess.

  Small Firms
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many regulations relating to firms with fewer than(a) 100 employees, (b) 50 employees, (c) 20 employees and (d) 10 employees were in force in each of the last 20 years. [26107]

  Mr. Freeman
  This information is not held in the form requested. To collect such information would involve disproportionate cost.

  Civil Service College
  Mr. Sykes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what are the Government's proposals for the future of the Civil Service college. [26900]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Civil Service college has a continuing role in the provision of training and development courses self evidently linked to the civil service. I am also pleased to announce that the college is now developing a number of partnerships with the private sector which will enhance its status in the provision of courses for those in the public and private sectors.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Holloway Prison
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the occasions on which Home Office Ministers have visited Holloway prison in the past two years indicating the Minister who carried out the visit. [25620]

  Miss Widdecombe
  I have visited Holloway prison twice in the past two years, on 27 July 1995 and on 14 March 1996.

  I am the only Home Office Minister to have visited Holloway over that period.

  Hillsborough Fund
  Miss Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the status and future of the Hillsborough fund. [25734]

  Mr. Sackville
  The disaster appeal had two trusts, the Hillsborough Disaster Appeal Trust, a non-charitable discretionary trust, and the Hillsborough Disaster Charitable Trust, which was registered as a charity with the Charity Commission in April 1989. The appeal trust was closed in June 1992 and its remaining assets transferred to the charitable trust. The charitable trust was removed from the register in November 1995 because the trustees thought that the trust had served its purpose and wound it up after distributing all the funds.

  Prisons (Mandatory Drug Testing)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the prisons in England and Wales which conduct mandatory drug testing; [26138]

  (2) how many prisons in England and Wales pursue a policy of random urine drug testing; and if he will make a statement. [26094]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 24 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions concerning the number of prisons which conduct mandatory drug testing and the number which pursue a policy of random urine drug testing.
  All establishments in England and Wales conduct a mandatory drug testing programme and all perform random tests as a part of that programme.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the local authorities which have been granted financial help with the provision of city centre closed circuit television. [26272]

  Mr. Maclean
  The 106 winners of the first Home Office closed circuit television challenge competition are 166
  listed. Additionally, phase 1 of the Home Office safer cities initiative funded some CCTV schemes. These areas are also listed. In both cases, the areas covered are not necessarily town or city centres, and payments were made to local partnerships, not to local authorities.

  CCTV CHALLENGE COMPETITION 1994–95

  Successful bids:

  Addlestone, Surrey-town centre

  Ashford, Kent-town centre

  Banbury, Oxfordshire-railway station, arts and sports centres

  Basingstoke, Hampshire-town centre

  Bishop Auckland, Co. Durham-town centre

  Blackpool, Lancashire-town centre

  Bodmin, Cornwall-town centre

  Boroughbridge, North Yorkshire-town centre

  Boscombe (Bournemouth), Dorset-town centre

  Boston, Lincolnshire-town centre

  Brigg, Humberside-town centre

  Bristol, Avon-Berkeley Square car park and shopping centre

  Brodsworth, Doncaster, South Yorkshire-Scawsby community centre

  Bury, Lancashire-town centre

  Carlisle, Cumbria-city centre

  Chelmsford, Essex-town centre

  Chesham, Buckinghamshire-town centre

  Chester, Cheshire-city centre

  Chester le street, Co. Durham-town centre

  Cirencester, Gloucestershire-town centre

  Clithoroe, Lancashire-town centre

  Colwyn Bay, Clwyd-town centre

  Cwmbran, Gwent-town centre

  Dartford, Kent-town centre

  Denton (Tameside), Greater Manchester-business development centre

  Doncaster, South Yorkshire-Balby street school

  Donington, Lincolnshire-town centre

  Dover and Deal, Kent-town centre

  Driffield, Humberside-town centre

  Eastbourne, Sussex-town centre

  Egham, Surrey-town centre

  Ely, Cambridgeshire-town centre

  Erith, Kent-town centre

  Falmouth, Cornwall-town centre

  Folkestone, Kent-town centre

  Gainsborough, Lincolnshire-industrial estates

  Gateshead, Tyne and Wear-Team Valley industrial estate

  Gateshead, Tyne and Wear-town centre

  Gloucester, Gloucestershire-city centre

  Hadleigh and Sudbury, Suffolk-town centres

  Harlow, Essex-town centre

  Harrogate, North Yorkshire-town centre

  Harrow, London borough-town centre

  Havant, Hampshire-town centre

  Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire, Dyfed-town centre

  Hereford, Herefordshire-city centre

  High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire-town centre

  Hillingdon, London borough-mobile CCTV system

  167

  Hitchin and Letchworth, Hertfordshire-town centre and business park

  Hounslow, London borough-town centre

  Hull, Humberside-Sutton Fields industrial estate

  Hyde, Greater Manchester-town centre

  Ilkeston, Derbyshire-town centre

  Islington, London borough-Archway mall

  Keighley, West Yorkshire-town centre

  Kettering, Northamptonshire-town centre

  Kirkby, Merseyside-railway station

  Kirton, nr. Boston, Lincolnshire-town centre

  Lancaster, Lancashire-city centre

  Ledbury, Worcestershire-High street

  Lichfield, Staffordshire-town centre

  Loughborough, Leicestershire-town centre

  Maidstone, Kent-town centre

  Mansfield, Nottinghamshire-town centre

  Market Harborough, Leicestershire-town centre

  Moira, North West Leicestershire-village centre

  Morecambe, Lancashire-seafront

  Nailsea, Bristol, Avon-Crown Glass Centre

  Neston, Cheshire-town centre

  Newhaven, Sussex-town centre

  Newquay, Cornwall-town centre

  North Walthamstow, London borough-Webbs industrial estate,

  Higham Lodge business centre and Blackhorse mews

  Penrith, Cumbria-town centre

  Peterborough, Cambridgeshire-town centre

  Portsmouth, Hampshire-Fawcett road shopping area

  Rhondda, Mid Glamorgan-Fawr road, Ystrad neighbourhood scheme

  Richmond, London borough-town centre

  Rochdale, Lancashire-town centre

  Rochester, Kent-Business Estate

  Rugby, Staffordshire-town centre

  Salisbury, Wiltshire-town centre

  Sandwich, Kent-town centre

  Scarborough, North Yorkshire-town centre

  Sheffield, South Yorkshire-Lower Don Valley industrial area

  Shrewsbury, Shropshire-town centre

  Solihull, West Midlands-town centre

  South Bank, Cleveland-Skippers Lane Indsutrial Estate

  Spelthorne, London borough-Sunbury Cross Shopping Centre

  Stevenage, Hertfordshire-town centre

  Stockton, Cleveland-Mill Lane Primary School

  Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire-town centre

  Tamworth Staffordshire-town centre

  Thetford, Norfolk-town centre

  Tiverton, Devon-town centre

  Tiverton, Devon-business park

  Tonbridge and West Malling, Kent-town centres

  Torquay, Devon-town centre

  Truro, Cornwall-town centre

  Wakefield, West Yorkshire-Outwood Grange school

  West Glamorgan-mobile CCTV system

  West Wiltshire-mobile CCTV system

  Whitley Bay, Tyne and Wear-town centre

  Wigan, Lancashire-town centre

  168

  Wokingham, Berkshire-town centre

  Worcester, Worcestershire-city centre

  York, North Yorkshire-city centre

  SAFER CITIES PHASE 1

  Areas in which CCTV schemes were funded:

  Birmingham, West Midlands-city centre

  Bradford, West Yorkshire-sports centre

  Coventry, West Midlands-city centre, car parks and community centres

  Derby, Derbyshire-city centre and school

  Hammersmith, London borough-Shepherds Bush green and market area

  Hartlepool, Cleveland-industrial estate, car park and college

  Hull, Humberside-car park and bus station

  Leicester, Leicstershire-city centre

  Middlesbrough, Cleveland-town centre

  Nottingham, Nottinghamshire-portable system

  Rhyl, Clwyd-White Rose centre

  Sunderland, Tyne and Wear-port, residential area, portable system, wildlife area

  Wandsworth, London borough-shopping centre, high street, park and railway station

  Wolverhampton, West Midlands-hospital, residential area and pub

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the amount of money the Government are providing for closed circuit television in town centres in the last year for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [26267]

  Mr. Maclean
  In 1995, £5 million was paid to 106 winners in the first closed circuit television challenge competition. Over the next three years, my Department intends to distribute a further £45 million to help establish CCTV schemes in England and Wales.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the maximum amount his Department is able to grant an individual local authority for city centre closed circuit television; and if he will make a statement. [26271]

  Mr. Maclean
  The bidding guidance for the current closed circuit television challenge competition specifies that no scheme will receive more than £250,000.

  Inspectorate of Constabulary (Budget)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the budget allocated to Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary in(a) 1992, (b) 1994, (c) 1995 and (d) 1996; and if he will make a statement. [26003]

  Mr. Maclean
  Budgets allocated were:

  1992–93: 3,723

  1993–94: 4,364

  1994–95: 4,707

  1995–96: 5,154

  1996–97: 5,017

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has existed since 1856 and is the means by which my right hon. and learned Friend monitors the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces. The budget for 1996–97 will, as have previous budgets, enable Her Majesty's inspectorate to

  169
  inspect police forces, monitor key police initiatives, advise on policing policy and promote good policing practices.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers were(a) prosecuted and (b) disciplined in each of the last five years arising from cases where awards of damages or out-of-court settlements had been made; and in cases where offices were disciplined, what form the discipline took. [26009]

  Mr. Maclean
  This information is not held centrally.

  Prisoners (Foreign Nationals)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what records are kept by his Department of foreign nationals serving sentences in prisons in England and Wales; and how often these are updated. [26091]

  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. Tom Cox, dated 24 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what records are kept on foreign nationals in prisons in England and Wales.
  The information available centrally on individual prisoners is held on the Central System Database. Nationality information is included on that database and foreign nationals can be separately identified. The Central System Database is updated daily from information provided electronically by the individual prisons. Computer extracts are then taken once a month from the Central System Database for analytical purposes. Each prison will hold both manual and computer records for individual prisoners.

  Chief Inspector of Prisons (Visits)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unannounced prison visits have been made by the chief inspector of prisons since 1 January; and to which prisons in England and Wales. [26090]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tom Cox, dated 24 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking how many unannounced prison visits have been made by the Chief Inspector of Prisons since 1 January; and to which prisons in England and Wales.
  Since 1 January HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, or members of HM Inspectorate, have made four announced inspections of Prison Service establishments. The establishments inspected were Sudbury, Preston and Dartmoor prisons and Aylesbury young offender institution.

  Boot Camps
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to set up boards of visitors 170
  groups for military establishments being used as boot camps for young offenders; and if he will make a statement. [26303]

  Miss Widdecombe
  On 17 April, I announced our proposal to pilot a demanding new regime for young offenders at a young offender institution which is to be established at the military corrective training centre at Colchester. Her Majesty's young offender institution Colchester will be run under the young offender institution rules and will have a board of visitors appointed by the Home Secretary. There are currently no plans to pilot similar regimes at other military establishments.

  Lowdham Grange
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current and future use of the former borstal establishment and grounds at Lowdham Grange near Nottingham. [26416]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this mater 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. David Hinchliffe, dated 24 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the current and future use of the former Borstal establishment and grounds at Lowdham Grange near Nottingham.
  Lowdham Grange has been mothballed since 1989. It is the Prison Service's intention to use the site for a 500 place closed training prison. The new prison will be built, financed and managed using the Private Finance Initiative (PFI). Contract signature is expected in the Autumn of 1996, with the view to opening the prison in December 1997.

  Firearms Licences
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many licences for firearms and shotguns were(a) granted, (b) refused, (c) renewed and (d) varied for the last five years in Greater Manchester. [26466]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is published annually in Home Office statistical bulletins "Firearm Certificate Statistics, England and Wales" (tables 2 and 4), copies of which can be found in the Library. The bulletin references are 23/91, 19/92, 23/93, 22/94 and 11/95. Statistics for 1995 are not yet available.

  Private Sector Contracts
  Mr. Straw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library a summary of the main contracts with the private sector for the provision of prison buildings and services, including information on the duration of contracts, and the terms of any break or review clauses, for each Prison Service establishment. [26038]

  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.
  171
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Jack Straw, dated 24 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about placing a summary of the main contracts with the private sector for the provision of custodial services in the Library of the House of Commons.
  The contracts for the supply of custodial services at the Wolds, Blakenhurst, Doncaster and Buckley Hall prisons have been placed in the Library.
  On 3 April, the contracts for the first two design, construct, manage and finance contracts for the provision of prisoner places at Bridgend and Fazakerley under the Government's Private Finance Initiative were also placed in the Library.
  The only details not included in those copies is a relatively small amount of commercially sensitive information and, in the case of Bridgend and Fazakerley, an extensive design schedule which is sensitive for security reasons.
  The parts dealing with duration and break clauses have been placed in the Library in full.

  Firearms Amnesty
  Mr. Trend
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can give further details of the forthcoming firearms amnesty. [26959]

  Mr. Howard
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I have today announced that a national firearms amnesty will start on 3 June and will run for the rest of that month. It will apply to England and Wales and to Scotland and will enable people to hand in to a police station illegally held weapons without fear of prosecution. It will not, however, give immunity against any offences committed using those weapons. The amnesty will also provide an opportunity for people to hand in unwanted but legally held weapons.

  Guidance has been issued to the police to ensure that all appropriate arrangements are made to facilitate the surrender of weapons during the period of the amnesty.

  Publicity material will be made available locally to provide people with information as to how they can hand in weapons.

  Buckley Hall Prison
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the prisoner demonstration that occurred at Buckley Hall prison on 16 April;how many prisoners took part in a rooftop demonstration; how many were subsequently moved to another prison; and what investigations will be carried out by the Prison Service. [26024]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 23 April 1996]: 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 Ms Liz Lynne, dated 24 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking if he will make a statement on the prisoner demonstration that occurred at Buckley hall prison on the 16 April; how many prisoners took part in a rooftop demonstration; how many
  172
  were subsequently moved to another prison; and what investigations will be carried out by the Prison Service.
  On 16 April a minor passive demonstration was made by a group of prisoners who wished to express grievances about tighter control on release on temporary licence. This was resolved by discussion and no disciplinary charges were laid. There was no roof top demonstration. The incident lasted approximately two hours.
  Later in the day one prisoner was transferred to another establishment. Normal debriefing arrangements are now in hand with regard to the incident.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions have been given to the local police in dealing with media inquiries in relation to Buckley Hall prison; and in what circumstances they are instructed by his Department to refer media inquiries about Buckley Hall prison to Group 4. [26025]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 23 April 1996]: 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 Ms Liz Lynne, dated 24 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking what instructions have been given to the local police in dealing with media inquiries in relation to Buckley Hall prison; and in what circumstances they are instructed by his department to refer media inquiries about Buckley Hall prison to Group 4.
  There are no instructions given to the local police when dealing with media inquiries in relation to Buckley Hall prison. Media incident inquiries within the Prison Service are normally referred to the Prison Service Press Office.
  In addition Buckley Hall also refers inquiries to the Group 4 Press Office.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, column 291, on a full inspection of Buckley Hall prison, on what date, and by whom, the decision was taken that all new prisons should be operational for two years before being fully inspected and what are the implications of this for short, unannounced visits by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. [25760]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 23 April 1996]: The decision that new Prison Service establishments should not be inspected until they have been operational for at least two years was taken in 1993 by the then chief inspector. The policy applies to inspections which are included in Her Majesty's inspectorate's annual programme of inspections. In addition, Her Majesty's chief inspector may inspect prisons unannounced, or direct a member of Her Majesty's inspectorate to do so, at any time.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, column 293, on security fencing at Buckley Hall prison, how the design of the initial fencing at the prison differed from other similar category C prisons; and for what reasons the cost of additional fencing and external cameras is being incurred by Group 4. [25761]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 23 April 1996]: 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.
  173
  Letter from Richard Tilt to Ms Liz Lynne, dated 24 April 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the design of the fencing and the cost of additional fencing and external cameras at Buckley Hall prison.
  The prison fence at Buckley Hall is a standard category C prison perimeter and was designed by the Prison Service.
  Following the escape, on 19 February, of a prisoner who was serving a sentence of two and a half years for burglary a Prison Service investigation concluded that a number of factors had contributed to the escape.
  Although Group 4's record for security at Buckley Hall is similar to that of comparable category C prisons, they were warned that the Prison Service took the view that there had been security failures and intended to impose a remedy. In the event Group 4, having reassessed physical security at Buckley Hall is investing in the provision of additional security measures including fencing and security cameras.

  Entry Visas
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of entry visas for business people from Commonwealth countries who need to make urgent visits to this country. [26306]

  Mr. Hanley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Almost all entry clearance sections process straightforward visit or business visa applications worldwide within 24 hours. Frequent visitors to the UK may apply for multiple entry visas which are valid for periods between six months and five years.

HEALTH

  International Peto Institute
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the agreement between the United Kingdom and Hungarian Governments on the funding for the International Peto Institute; and what will happen to the money donated by Her Majesty's Government at the expiry of the agreement; [25873]

  (2) what progress has been made in the proposal to create an International Peto Institute; [25872]

  (3) what is the value at current prices of the donation by Her Majesty's Government towards the appeal fund to create an International Peto Institute in Hungary; when the donation was made; and where the money is now; [25870]

  (4) what is the total value of international donations for the International Peto Institute. [25871]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government made a contribution in 1991 towards the cost of building a new International Peto Institute in Budapest. These funds are held in trust in a bank account in Budapest and their current value is around £2 million. The Peto Institute has received donations from Hungarian and foreign donors, both private and public. Under the terms of our agreement with the Hungarian Government, the new institute had to be operational by February 1996. As the Hungarians have not brought the new institute into operation, the agreement has expired. Discussions are taking place with the 174
  Hungarian Government about the financial implications, including the disposal of money lodged in Hungary and how best to secure benefits for British children, parents and students.

  Mental Health
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 79, in what ways the crisis accommodation he proposes for mentally ill people will differ from that treatment and care provided in acute wards of psychiatric hospitals; and what guidance is being given to health authorities on the purchase of such accommodation and the provision of 24-hour nursing care in them. [26212]

  Mr. Bowis
  Acute treatment units provide a protective environment for people who pose a significant risk to themselves or others. They should be used to treat and care for patients who require intensive medical and nursing support for a brief period of time but usually longer than overnight. The needs of patients who do not require such a high level of support, but nevertheless are in a crisis situation, can better be served by providing them with crisis accommodation in a variety of settings and with varying levels of support.

  Guidance was issued on 19 February to health and local authorities in health service guidelines LASSL(96)16/HSG(96)6. The guidance and accompanying documents are available in the Library.

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the United Kingdom representatives on the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products notified his Department that it had discussed the referral made by the United Kingdom on 11 October 1995 in the context of article 12 of directive 75/319/EEC on 27 October; and if he will make a statement. [26165]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 8 February at columns 343–44.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to his answer of 25 March,Official Report, column 428, if licensing action has started with respect to oral contraceptives containing desogestrel and gestodene; [26250]

  (2) what plans the Medicines Control Agency has to vary the product licences of third generation oral contraceptives. [26574]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 19 December 1995 at column 1149.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 752, if at the meeting on 3 October 1995 he and the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines discussed issues relating to the safety of desogestrel and gestodene. [26255]

  Mr. Malone
  No.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column

  175
  184, if the Jick manuscript faxed to the Medicines Control Agency after dispatch of papers to the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 11 October was made available to the committee on 13 October. [26251]

  Mr. Malone
  No. A near final version of the manuscript from the Jick study was included with the papers despatched to committee members prior to the meeting. There was no substantive change to the analysis in the final version.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he took prior to authorising the issuing of the "Dear Doctor" letter of 18 October 1995 to establish that the Committee on Safety of Medicines had based its advice on all available relevant evidence; and if he will make a statement. [26292]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 19 December 1995 at column 1152.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 February,Official Report, columns 344–45, which pharmaceutical companies were contacted by the Medicines Control Agency prior to the meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines of 13 October 1995 with a view to establishing continuity of supply of combined oral contraceptives. [26253]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 2 April at column 185.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Medicines Control Agency received unpublished data from the study of oral contraceptives by Professor Richard Farmer and colleagues prior to the meeting of the Committee of Safety of Medicines on 13 October 1995. [26252]

  Mr. Malone
  No.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the safety of third generation oral contraceptives following the recent announcement from the committee for proprietary medicinal products. [26601]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House on 23 October 1995,Official Report, columns 701-2. Since that time further evidence has become available which strengthens the basis for the Committee on Safety of Medicine's advice. The justification for that advice is not altered in the light of the recent position statement issued by the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to alter the procedures for dealing with future marketing authorisation applications for third generation oral contraceptives. [26573]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Future applications for marketing authorisations for third generation oral contraceptives will be assessed according to existing procedures.

  Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what mechanisms are in place for the communication of fatal adverse drug reactions from the 176
  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys to the Medicines Control Agency and the Committee on Safety of Medicines. [26290]

  Mr. Malone
  Statistical analyses and death certificate reports are available to the Medicines Control Agency from the Office for National Statistics—the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys became part of the office for National Statistics on 1 April 1996—for use in drug safety monitoring.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the outside experts who attended the meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines on 13 October 1995 were appointed members for the day; and on what basis they were present at the meeting. [26246]

  Mr. Malone
  Yes, and I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave him on 11 December 1995 at column 522 and on 7 March at column 322.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 December,Official Report, column 522, on what basis members may be appointed members for the day to the Committee on Safety of Medicines; and if those members are legally liable for the advice emanating from the Committee on Safety of Medicines on that day. [26254]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies that I gave him on 11 December at col 522 and on 7 March at col 322, which also apply to members appointed to the Committee on Safety of Medicines for the day.

  All members of the committee, including those appointed for the day, may be liable in law if incorrect advice is given.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health from what date Professor Klim McPherson was appointed as a member of the pharmacovigilance sub-committee of the Committee on Safety of Medicines. [26249]

  Mr. Malone
  From 1 January 1996.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 March,Official Report, column 322, if the experts on the Committee on Safety of Medicines who assessed the tables provided by Professor Spitzer on 9 October 1995 recognised arithmetical errors in those tables; and if they asked Professor Spitzer for clarification of the results of the transnational study. [26572]

  Mr. Malone
  The proceedings of meetings of the Committee are confidential.

  Clinical Waste
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are in place covering the disposal of clinical waste. [25939]

  Mr. Horam
  There is much guidance on waste management and waste disposal produced by many organisations. Main general sources of published advice from Government bodies on best practice in waste management and disposal of clinical waste in particular are as follows:
  177

  (i) The Safe Disposal of Clinical Waste (Health and Safety Executive 1992);

  (ii) Waste Management Paper No. 25 (Department of the Environment 1983; Revised in preparation);

  (iii) Strategic Guide for Waste Management (Department of Health 1991);

  (iv) A Strategic Guide to Clinical Waste Management (Department of Health 1994);

  (v) Waste Management—The Duty of Care: A Code of Practice (Department of the Environment 1991).

  Copies of the guidance will be placed in the Library shortly.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what quantity of clinical waste has been disposed of in each of the past five years. [25937]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if hospital trusts have a statutory duty to ensure the appropriate disposal of clinical waste. [25938]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 21 March at columns 319–20.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the safeguards in place to prevent the dumping of clinical waste classified for incineration. [25940]

  Mr. Horam
  The Environmental Protection Act 1990 includes a duty to prevent the unlawful depositing, handling and disposal of clinical waste, and is enforced by county council waste regulation units. Any body which produces controlled waste, including clinical waste, is responsible for any pollution caused to the environment or any harm to health from clinical waste while in their control and has a duty to transfer it only to an authorised person. Authorised persons must hold a waste management licence or be carriers registered with the Environment Agency. Breach of the duty of care is an offence, where conviction on indictment can lead to unlimited fines. In estates policy letter (95)33, issued in December 1995 by the National Health Service Estates Agency, trusts were reminded of their legal obligations in respect of the safe disposal of clinical waste and were asked to review their current arrangements to ensure that the necessary safeguards were in place.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on how many occasions NHS estates has issued memoranda concerning the trusts' responsibilities regarding the disposal of clinical waste. [25942]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) on 14 March at columns 753–54, which listed all letters and guidance issued by National Health Service Estates to NHS hospital trusts about medical waste management. Copies of the guidance are available in the Library.

  Hospital Incinerators
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital incinerators were in operation in each year since 1989; and what agency is responsible for the inspection of hospital incinerators. [25935]
  178
  Mr. Horam
  The number of hospital incinerators in operation in each year since 1989 is not available centrally.

  The inspection of hospital incinerators with a capacity of more than 1 tonne per hour is the responsibility of the Environment Agency—previously Her Majesty's inspectors of pollution. The inspection of incineration plant with a capacity of less than 1 tonne per hour is the responsibility of the local authority's environmental department.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital trusts have built incinerators in the past five years. [25936]

  Mr. Horam
  Six hospital trusts have built incinerators in the last five years. An additional thirteen incinerators have been built on hospital sites as the result of joint ventures between the national health service and private companies.

  Supplies Authority
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on (i) the savings per annum and (ii) the severance costs of the staffing review of the NHS supplies authority. [26319]

  Mr. Horam
  The review is still in progress, so it is not yet possible to estimate the total annual savings to be achieved, nor the aggregate costs of severance payments. The changes are designed to improve the service to customers and to give better value for money by simplifying the structure and removing unnecessary duplication of effort.

  Medical Devices Agency
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the key business targets for the Medical Devices Agency for 1996–97. [26746]

  Mr. Horam
  I have today placed in the Library a copy of the 1996–97 key business targets for the Medical Devices Agency.

  Care of the Elderly
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to publish his consultative document on care of the elderly; and if he will make a statement. [25308]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave him on 23 April.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995–96. [26116]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is being collected by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be published by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade before the summer recess.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was paid late to the private sector by his Department for goods and services in 1995–96. [26154]
  179
  Mr. Horam
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Paracetamol and Methionine
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the licensed preparations which contain paracetamol and, for each preparation, whether the preparation is prescription-only medicine, pharmacy or general sale list, the year when the product was first marketed and if the product contains methionine or similar compounds. [26248]

  Mr. Malone
  A list of the 378 currently licensed preparations, which includes whether each is prescription-only medicine, pharmacy or general sale list, will be placed in the Library. It will state the year when the licence was granted, but not when each was first marketed as this is a matter for the licence holder, not the licensing authority. There are two licensed preparations containing methionine: Pameton caplets and Paradote, both of which are pharmacy products.

  Cortico-steroid Drugs
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on research evaluated by his Department relating to the harmful side effects of cortico-steroid drugs; [26595]

  (2) if he will institute a national programme to monitor the prescription of cortico-steroid drugs in the United Kingdom and the extent and nature of side effects on patients; [26597]

  (3) what is the most recent research evaluated by his Department on the suitability of prescribed cortico-steroid drugs; and what plans he has to promote further research; [26596]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the provision of compensation for patients who have suffered long-term damage as a result of prescribed cortico-steroid drugs in cases where no warning had been given of such risks. [26598]

  Mr. Malone
  Corticosteroids are effective in the treatment of many serious and life-threatening disorders and have been used for many years. All medicines have side- effects. Those for corticosteroids are well documented in the product information which is produced by the manufacturer and authorised by the licensing authority and in the British National Formulary which the Department sends free of charge to all doctors.

  A national programme for monitoring the side-effects of medicines already exists. The Medicines Control Agency continuously monitors and assesses the safety of all licensed human medicinal products including corticosteroids. This includes evaluating research obtained from various sources. In 1994, the Committee on Safety of Medicines evaluated the association of corticosteroids and severe chickenpox, as a result of which the product information of corticosteroids was revised.

  I have no plans to monitor the prescribing of corticosteroids. It is for the prescribing doctor to decide on the suitability of treating a patient with corticosteroids using their clinical judgement and knowledge of the patient involved. Nor are there plans to commission research in this area at present.
  180
  The Government believe that any claims for compensation as a result of suspected reactions in association with prescribed medicines is a matter for individuals to pursue with the person or company involved, if necessary through the courts.

WALES

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many representations he has had concerning the nursery voucher scheme; and if he will make a statement. [25588]

  Mr. Richards
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) on 15 January 1996,Official Report, column 379. Some 3, 000 separate representations have now been received, the vast majority continuing to consist of petitions, printed pro forma letters and postcards, many organised by primary schools.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of funding to be made available to his Department through the private finance initiative in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26181]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Estimated capital expenditure by the private sector on Welsh Office private finance initiative projects in 1996–97 is £60 million and for 1997–98, £150 million. No capital expenditure was recorded for 1995–96.

  Beef and Suckler Cow Premiums
  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to announce payment of beef and suckler cow premiums. [26183]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I announced on 4 April that the vast majority of claimants should receive their payments by the end of April. We are on target to achieve that objective.

  Paramedics
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many qualified paramedics there are per head of population in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [26000]

  Mr. Richards
  These figures are not routinely collected. An informal survey showed that there were 434 paramedics in Wales at 31 March 1995—1.49 per 10,000 population.

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the bodies and organisations which he has been informed(a) are and (b) are not preparing language schemes in accordance with the Welsh Language Act 1993, indicating for (a) where possible the dates on which those schemes will be received by the Welsh Language Board; and if he will make a statement. [25764]
  181
  Mr. Richards
  This is an operational matter for the Welsh Language Board. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member and I will arrange for a copy of the letter to be placed in the Library of the House.

  School Admissions
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of 16 April,Official Report, column 426, in respect of which schools he has received information on their approved admissions number. [26289]

  Mr. Richards
  Details of approved admission numbers are contained in the formal proposals for grant-maintained status that schools have to publish following a successful ballot and on which my decision as to whether they become grant-maintained is based. These details were provided in my reply of 16 April to the hon. Member.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995–96. [26126]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is being collated by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be published by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade before the summer recess.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the public bodies to which he appoints members ranked in order of their current level of spending and indicating (i) in total and (ii) for each body(a) the number of members and the percentage appointed by him and (b) the budget for the last available two years expressed in constant 1996 prices, and with the annual percentage change. [26030]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  As the answer to the hon. Members question is detailed, I have made arrangements to place a copy of the reply in the Library of the House.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much was paid late to the private sector by his Department for goods and services in 1995–96. [26143]

  Mr. Hague
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Fluorescent Lighting
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the average amount of mercury in a fluorescent lighting tube. [25748]

  Mr. Page
  Fluorescent lighting tubes currently produced are estimated to contain on average 10mg of mercury.

  Beaufort's Dyke
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what reports he has evaluated of explosions in 182
  the immediate vicinity of Beaufort's dyke which were related to pipelaying activities undertaken by British Transco. [25721]

  Mr. Eggar
  The Department of Trade and Industry did not receive any reports directly but, during our regular contacts with The Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department we were informed of the British Geological Survey's findings. The DTI liaised with Premier Transco Ltd. in its contacts with BGS where information on explosions used during construction of the pipeline, particularly on the landfall sections, were made available, and efforts made to reconcile the data. It was concluded that the hitherto unexplained explosions, highlighted in the BGS survey, were the result of either military activity or preparatory work relating to the construction of the Scotland to Northern Ireland pipeline.

  Employment Costs
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what non-wage employment costs are faced by businesses in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) France and (c) Germany. [25108]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  In the UK, for every £100 paid in wages, employers on average have to find an additional £18 in non-wage labour costs. In France, they must find another £41; and in Germany, £32.

  Wages
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received about levels of wages in industries formerly covered by the wages councils. [25113]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Between April 1994 and April 1995, average earnings of full-time workers covered by the main wages councils prior to their abolition in August 1993 rose at a comparable rate to that of workers employed in all industries. I have received few representations on this matter in recent months.

  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many firms in city challenge and inner city task force areas received loan guarantees under the small firms loan guarantee scheme in 1995–96; what was the total amount guaranteed to these firms; and what was the total amount guaranteed to these firms because they were in these geographical areas. [26039]

  Mr. Page
  The estimated number of loans guaranteed to firms in city challenge or inner city task force areas in 1995–96 is around 160 at a value of £3.98 million. Final statistical details are not yet available.

  Around 30 of the loans, at a value of around £80,000, would have fully benefited from trading from an address within the specific inner-city areas; around 125, at a value of £3.6 million, would have received partial benefits. The remainder did not benefit from their location.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many firms which received loan guarantees under the loan guarantee scheme in the last year will be ineligible to apply for loans because of new exclusions coming into force on 1 September. [26041]
  183
  Mr. Page
  The estimated number of loans guaranteed under the scheme in 1995–96, for business activities that will be excluded from 1 September, is around 700. Final statistical details are not yet available.

  Business Links
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade which business links are charging for services; what is the charging structure for each such business link; and what date will mark the end of the three-year pump-priming period for each business link. [26034]

  Mr. Page
  All business links are charging for at least some of their services. Business links are private sector companies, not Government bodies, and each has its own charging structure. A list of the dates when three-year pump-priming will end, or has ended for all business links with an offer, is given in the table. The final payment of DTI grant will be made up to four months after the dates shown.

  Area

  Date when DTI pump-priming offer funding ended or is due to end

  Birmingham

  31 March 1996

  Manchester

  31 March 1996

  South-east Cheshire

  31 March 1996

  North Cheshire

  31 March 1996

  Tyneside

  31 March 1996

  Leicestershire

  26 September 1996

  Hereford and Worcester

  9 March 1997

  CEWTEC (Ellesmere Port)

  27 March 1997

  Gloucestershire

  30 March 1997

  Thames Valley

  31 March 1997

  Dorset

  31 March 1997

  Barnsley/Doncaster

  31 March 1997

  Wigan

  31 March 1997

  Shropshire

  5 April 1997

  Walsall

  11 July 1997

  Southern Derbyshire

  26 July 1997

  Lincolnshire

  29 July 1997

  Dudley

  31 July 1997

  Wearside

  31 July 1997

  Cumbria

  30 September 1997

  Mers

  30 September 1997

  County Durham

  23 March 1998

  Isle of Wight

  31 March 1998

  Milton Keynes

  31 March 1998

  WESSTTEC (Avon)

  31 March 1998

  Central England

  31 March 1998

  Coventry/Warwickshire

  31 March 1998

  Staffordshire

  31 March 1998

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  31 March 1998

  Rotherham

  31 March 1998

  Northumberland

  31 March 1998

  Teeside

  31 March 1998

  Devon and Cornwall

  31 March 1998

  Sandwell

  9 April 1998

  Bedfordshire

  30 April 1998

  Rochdale

  30 April 1998

  St. Helens

  30 April 1998

  Oldham

  21 May 1998

  Sheffield

  29 June 1998

  Somerset

  30 June 1998

  Bolton/Bury

  31 July 1998

  North Derbyshire

  10 August 1998

  Leeds

  17 August 1998

  Greater Nottingham

  22 August 1998

  Hertfordshire

  31 August 1998

  Humberside

  17 September 1998

  Kent

  30 September 1998

  184

  Area

  Date when DTI pump-priming offer funding ended or is due to end

  City Partners (London)

  30 October 1998

  Wakefield

  9 October 1998

  Wiltshire

  13 October 1998

  East London

  22 October 1998

  Central London

  23 October 1998

  South-west

  24 October 1998

  West London

  24 October 1998

  SOLOTEC (South London)

  26 October 1998

  Northamptonshire

  6 November 1998

  Essex

  18 December 1998

  Sussex

  31 December 1998

  North Nottinghamshire

  17 January 1999

  North-west London

  31 January 1999

  Norfolk and Waveney

  31 January 1999

  Bradford and district

  5 February 1999

  North London

  19 February 1999

  Surrey

  25 February 1999

  Heart of England

  28 February 1999

  Greater Peterborough

  28 February 1999

  Wolverhampton

  12 March 1999

  Central and South Cambridgeshire

  31 March 1999

  Suffolk

  31 March 1999

  North Yorkshire

  31 March 1999

  Hampshire

  31 May 1999

  Working Week
  Ms Quin
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what recent representations he has received regarding the maximum length of the working week. [25081]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  During the past 12 months, 26 letters have been received by the Department of Trade and Industry and the former Employment Department about the length of the working week. They expressed views both in support of the imposition of restrictions on the number of hours which can be worked in a week, and opposing such restrictions.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  "The Nemesis File"
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) on 14 December,Official Report, column 801, if he will make a statement on the progress of the Royal Ulster Constabulary investigation into the claims made in the book, "The Nemesis File". [25578]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The position remains the same as in my written reply of 14 December 1995 to the hon. Member for Torbay. The RUC investigations into the allegations contained in this book continue.

  St. Patrick's Training School
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many residents at the Rathgael centre in Bangor in 1995 were brought there because St. Patrick's training school was unable to provide a place; if these inmates had higher levels of absconding; and if he will make a statement. [25755]
  185
  Sir John Wheeler
  During 1995 a total of 14 boys were referred to Rathgael because they could not be accommodated at St. Patrick's training school. Of these boys, 11 or 79 per cent. were responsible for absconding on a total of 17 occasions—an average of 1.2 abscondings per pupil. Of the remaining throughput of 271 during 1995, 133 or 49 per cent. absconded on a total of 764 occasions—an average of 2.8 times per pupil.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much was paid late to the private sector for goods and services by his Department in 1995–96. [26150]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is not readily available in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995–96. [26119]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Information available relates to calendar years rather than financial years. In 1995 the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments paid 96.6 per cent. of their bills in accordance with agreed contractual conditions or, where no such contractual conditions existed, within 30 days of receipt of goods and services or the presentation of a valid invoice.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of funding to be made available to his Department through the private finance initiative in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26172]

  Sir John Wheeler
  It is estimated that the following amounts, rounded to the nearest £10 million, will be levered in through the private finance initiative:

  1995–96: £60 million

  1996–97: £50 million

  1997–98: £80 million.

  The information for 1996–97 onwards is also published in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1996–97.

  Disabled People (Benefits and Allowances)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people in each Northern Ireland constituency are currently in receipt of(a) disability living allowance, (b) incapacity benefit, (c) attendance allowance, (d) invalid care allowance and (e) severe disablement allowance. [25758]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available at present for either attendance allowance or invalid care allowance. The information for disability living allowance, incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance is given in the following table:186

  Parliamentary constituencies

  Disability living allowance 30 November 19951

  Incapacity benefit2 30 November 19951

  Severe disablement allowance2 30 November 19951

  Belfast East

  3,909

  3,844

  540

  Belfast North

  6,938

  5,985

  713

  Belfast South

  3,494

  3,417

  482

  Belfast West

  9,622

  6,412

  838

  East Antrim

  4,345

  4,918

  646

  East

  Londonderry

  4,554

  5,591

  946

  Fernanagh and South Tyrone

  4,718

  4,599

  885

  Foyle

  9,449

  8,220

  1,209

  Lagan Valley

  5,581

  4,864

  692

  Mid Ulster

  6,536

  7,057

  1,066

  Newry and Armagh

  6,046

  6,474

  1,110

  North Antrim

  3,726

  4,881

  793

  North Down

  3,422

  3,852

  632

  Strangford

  3,739

  4,496

  658

  South Antrim

  4,705

  4,685

  1,040

  South Down

  5,486

  6,342

  1,033

  Upper Bann

  6,779

  6,930

  791

  Missing

  Postcodes3

  3,744

  3,416

  684

  Total

  96,793

  95,983

  14,758

  1 This is the most recent date for which information is available for all three benefits.

  2 Figures do not include clerical cases which are not held on the system. The number of clerical cases is, at present, unknown, but is estimated to form only a small proportion of the total cases.

  3 A number of cases cannot be allocated to constituencies as their postcodes have not been provided. These cases may not be evenly distributed across constituencies.

  Paramedics
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many qualified paramedics there are per head of population in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [26002]

  Mr. Moss
  In Northern Ireland there are 1.26 qualified paramedics per 10,000 population.

  Farmers' Incomes
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the average incomes of farmers in Northern Ireland in each year since 1979. [26198]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: Total income from farming divided by the total number of active farms in Northern Ireland is as follows:

  Total income from farming per farm 1979–1995

  Year

  Income per farm £

  1979

  1,374

  1980

  1,014

  1981

  2,277

  1982

  2,874

  1983

  3,250

  1984

  4,364

  1985

  2,971

  1986

  2,136

  1987

  3,996

  1988

  4,842

  1989

  5,604

  1990

  3,996

  187

  Total income from farming per farm 1979–1995

  Year

  Income per farm £

  1991

  5,403

  1992

  6,917

  1993

  8,309

  1994

  11,021

  19951

  12,105

  1 Provisional

  Intensive Farming
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what provisions are in place in the Department of Agriculture to(a) control and (b) restrict over-intensive farming in Northern Ireland with particular reference to the use of fertilisers and pesticides. [26197]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: The control of pesticides and fertilisers is subject to statutory provisions which apply uniformly throughout the UK.

  Provisions exists under five environmentally sensitive areas schemes and the habitat improvement scheme to restrict over-intensive use of fertilisers and pesticides. These schemes form part of the Northern Ireland agri-environment programme.

  Department of Economic Development (Energy Efficiency Unit)
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give a breakdown of expenditure in the energy efficiency, mineral, gas and electric unit in the Department of Economic Development in each of the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96. [26204]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: The information requested is as follows:

  Amount

  Budget

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Energy Efficiency

  Energy Enterprise Scheme

  482,808

  680,823

  571,900

  Energy Conservation/Energy Efficiency Survey Scheme

  11,000

  Energy Management Assistance Scheme

  65,317

  105,105

  82,783

  Home Insulation Scheme

  107,890

  220,144

  2135,066

  Domestic Energy Efficiency Scheme

  338,651

  2,676, 000

  Minerals

  Standby Generators

  7,647

  7,947

  9,080

  Minerals Exploration

  97,300

  239,864

  211,633

  DED Oil Adviser

  3,207

  3,322

  3,412

  Payments related to subsidence (Abandoned Mines)

  151,618

  58,728

  68,424

  Payments to National Environment Research Council for Geological Survey of Northern Ireland

  370,426

  387,879

  425,681

  Gas

  Wind up of Towns Gas Industry

  4,275, 645

  1,521,811

  247,040

  Development of new Natural Gas Industry

  260

  230,847

  404,317

  188

  Amount

  Budget

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Electricity

  Consultancy Studies on Energy Matters

  102,326

  200,109

  99,355

  Privatisation of the Electricity Supply Industry in NI Expenses

  14,281,024

  1 Residual payments: scheme replaced by energy management assistance scheme.

  2 Residual payments: scheme replaced by domestic energy efficiency scheme.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many appointments to the public bodies listed in "Public Bodies" for his Department were made during 1994–95 from names supplied by the public appointments unit; and if he will list them. [25959]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: None of the individuals appointed to public bodies in Northern Ireland during 1994–95 were from names supplied by the public appointments unit.

  Unfair Dismissal (Women)
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of unfair dismissal of women have been recorded in Northern Ireland during the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [25212]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 23 April 1996]: The number of unfair dismissal cases brought by women and registered by the industrial tribunals for 1993, 1994 and 1995 are as follows:

  Cases of unfair dismissal brought by women in Northern Ireland

  Year

  Total registered

  1993

  592

  1994

  354

  1995

  340

SCOTLAND

  Algrade Trust
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the progress of the investigation of the affairs of the Algrade Trust by the Scottish Charities Office; and if evidence has been requested from the BBC. [25711]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The further inquiries referred to in my written answer of 27 February 1996,Official Report, column 530, are continuing and are not likely to be concluded before the end of June. The BBC programme has been viewed by the investigators and the matter is being pursued with the corporation.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress of investigations by the police and the procurator fiscal into the former Algrade Trust house at Humbie. [25712]
  189
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The police investigation is continuing. A man by name of Robert Herriot appeared on petition on 22 January 1996 at Haddington sheriff court charged with crimes involving indecent conduct. The case is being precognosced by the procurator fiscal and will be reported to Crown counsel for instructions on criminal proceedings.

  Marine Laboratory, Aberdeen
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when that new survey by the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department marine laboratory in Aberdeen will commence; how long it is expected to last; which commercial companies are also involved; what arrangements are being made for representatives of the press and hon. Members to observe the survey; and if he will make a statement. [25772]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The further survey work will be undertaken between the dates of 26 April-17 May and 19-29 July inclusive following some recently completed preparatory work. Underwater Engineering Ltd., Aberdeen is providing support equipment for the side-scan sonar studies and Oceanscan Ltd., Aberdeen is providing the pulse induction equipment. A further contract for the provision of equipment for the July survey is under consideration. Because of the tight survey schedule, no provision has been made for press or hon. Members' involvement. The results of this further survey will be published.

  Private Prisons
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many representations he has received concerning the proposed private prison at Bishopbriggs; and how many were(a) for and (b) against the proposal; [25911]

  (2) when he expects to make an announcement concerning the siting of the new private prison. [25913]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Three petitions and 56 individual letters have been received objecting to the proposal. One letter has been received which supports the proposal. An announcement about the location for the new prison is expected before the end of June this year.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of funding to be made available to his Department through the private finance initiative in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26179]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  For the three years in question, the estimated capital expenditure under the private finance initiative on programmes within my responsibility is(a) £22 million, (b) £139 million and (c) £362 million.

  Further Education
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect of employing less experienced staff on the student unit of measurement in further education colleges. [25981]
  190
  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  None. There is no evidence that colleges are employing less experienced staff.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will explain the formula used for the student unit of measurement in further education. [25982]

  Mr. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend has placed the document "Funding Methodology for Scottish Further Education Colleges" in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of whether those areas of Scotland with a historically good record of financial support for further education are relatively disadvantaged under the new system of funding. [25998]

  Mr. Robertson
  The purpose of the new system of funding for colleges is to create a more equitable and transparent system of funding for colleges throughout Scotland. In changes to the level of grant allocated to colleges in 1996–97 there is no discernible geographical pattern.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what restrictions there are on Scottish further education colleges taking extra higher national certificate and higher national diploma students; and for what reasons there are such restrictions. [25984]

  Mr. Robertson
  When grant allocations to colleges for 1996–97 were made, it was a condition of grant that they held the number of new entrants to full-time higher education courses at their 1994–95 academic year levels. This was due as part of the Government's policy of consolidating the number of students following higher education courses, on the grounds of affordability and following a period of rapid expansion.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland for what reasons he has withdrawn the premium in grant given to further education colleges for advanced courses that allowed them to achieve equity with such courses in higher education colleges. [25983]

  Mr. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend is not aware of any premium in grant given to further education colleges for advanced courses.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what way financial allowance is made for courses that are more expensive to run in his calculation of a college's entitlement to funding. [25985]

  Mr. Robertson
  To reflect the costs of different subjects a set of weightings is applied to the funding of student activity at colleges.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect of the current year's system of funding further education colleges on the likelihood of courses being run for the construction industry; and what is the basis for this assessment. [25986]

  Mr. Robertson
  The approach to funding for further education colleges is designed to encourage colleges to provide courses and training to meet local and national labour market needs. My right hon. Friend has no evidence to suggest there is a shortage of courses relevant to the construction industry.
  191
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if funding for advanced courses in further education contains funding for five units of support studies; [25987]

  (2) if funding for non-advanced studies in further education colleges contains funding for five units of support studies. [25988]

  Mr. Robertson
  No. Neither the academic content of courses nor the form of learning activity undertaken by students is specified by my right hon. Friend.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if expenditure on senior management affects the calculation of student units of measurement for further education colleges; and how. [26031]

  Mr. Robertson
  A fixed element is allocated to each college by applying an additional weighting to the first 5,500 student units of measurement. This element acknowledges that certain fixed costs are incurred irrespective of the size of the college. These costs include the principalship, administration—including computer equipment—and student support.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with representatives of further education in Scotland about the future of the sector; and if he will make a statement about projected expenditure. [26033]

  Mr. Robertson
  My right hon. Friend met the current chairman of the Association of Scottish Colleges last year to discuss further education issues.

  Details of projected expenditure figures for further education colleges in Scotland are contained in "Serving Scotland's Needs—The Government Expenditure Plans 1996/97–1998/99", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what effect he plans his funding policy for further education colleges to have on the number of high-level courses offered by colleges. [25989]

  Mr. Robertson
  The funding methodology for further education colleges is neutral in terms of level of course or mode of attendance. However, when grant allocation to colleges for 1996–97 were made, it was a condition of grant that they held the number of new entrants to full-time higher education courses at their 1994–95 academic year levels.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which specific areas of skill shortage in Scotland he is seeking to remedy through his funding policy for further education colleges. [25990]

  Mr. Robertson
  The approach to funding for further education colleges is designed to encourage colleges to provide courses and training to meet local and national labour market needs.
  192
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much finance would have been needed, in constant price terms, to provide the same level of service in 1996–97 by further education colleges as in 1995–96; and how much has been provided by him. [25991]

  Mr. Robertson
  The amount of recurrent grant allocated to further education colleges in 1995–96 was £229.631 million. Assuming efficiency gains of 4 per cent. and inflation at 2.75 per cent. the amount of recurrent grant required to maintain the same level of service in 1996–97 would have been £226.508 million. The actual amount of recurrent grant allocated for 1996–97 is £231.160 million.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what grounds the grants for(a) Glasgow college of food technology, (b) Glasgow school of nautical studies and (c) Glasgow college of building and printing were reduced in the current year. [25992]

  Mr. Robertson
  Grant levels of these colleges were reduced as a result of the implementation of a new funding formula which rewards colleges which have been most successful in reducing unit costs and attracting and retaining students. These three colleges continue to have unit costs higher than the national average.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what basis he intends to allocate funds for bursaries for further education colleges. [25993]

  Mr. Robertson
  Funds for bursaries have been allocated to each further education college in line with the historical bursary levels provided by the former regional councils.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland pursuant to his answer of 3 April,Official Report, column 273, if he will make a statement on the numbers of staff and job designations now employed at senior management level in Scottish further education colleges. [26032]

  Mr. Robertson
  The information requested is not held centrally. It is for individual college boards of management to determine the numbers and job designations of staff at senior management level.

  Bursaries
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has reserved sufficient resources to fund this year's bursaries at the same level as those funded by the former regional councils. [25997]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Yes. Sufficient bursary funds have been allocated to further education colleges for 1996–97 to reflect historical bursary expenditure incurred by the former regional councils.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if money for bursaries for further education colleges will take into account levels of poverty in an area. [25994]

  Mr. Robertson
  Yes. The money for bursaries allocated to further education colleges reflects historical bursary expenditure patterns at each college and the bursary scheme has regard to each student's financial status.
  193
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if students already receiving bursaries for courses this year will automatically receive bursaries at the same level in the next academic year. [25995]

  Mr. Robertson
  Very few bursary eligible courses cover two academic years. However, it will be for individual boards of management of further education colleges to determine precise bursary levels and qualifying criteria within a national bursary policy.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take into account existing levels of bursaries in allocating funds to further education colleges. [25996]

  Mr. Robertson
  Yes. Existing levels of bursary provision have been taken into account in allocating funds to each further education college.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much was paid late to the private sector for goods and services by his Department in 1995–96. [26148]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information on the percentage of bills paid late is currently in the process of being collected and collated for publication by the Department of Trade and Industry. The form in which statistical information is collected within The Scottish Office for this purpose does not allow an accurate assessment of the annual value of late payment, and such a figure could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995–96. [26121]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is being collated by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be published by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade before the summer recess.

  Monofilament Nets
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what information he has evaluated on the incidence of bycatch of harbour porpoises in large mesh monofilament gill nets in reaching his decision on the use of such nets. [26485]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The likely impacts of various types of synthetic net were evaluated in reaching a decision on this matter.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many harbour porpoises have been killed in large mesh monofilament gill net fisheries(a) in the North sea and (b) in the Celtic sea in each of the last five years. [26486]

  Mr. Robertson
  Information is not available on which to estimate these numbers.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has received from(a) the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and (b) Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the risk to harbour porpoises from large mesh bottom set monofilament gill nets. [26487]
  194
  Mr. Robertson
  The JNCC expressed concern that the change might lead to an increase in the incidental capture of harbour porpoises. MAFF did not raise this matter.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of his decision on the use of large mesh monofilament gill nets on the achievement the United Kingdom Government's commitment under the agreement on the conservation of small cetaceans of the Baltic and North seas to reduce the number of harbour porpoises caught in fishing nets. [26488]

  Mr. Robertson
  These nets should not pose any greater threat to cetaceans than other synthetic nets. This measure should not affect our obligations under that agreement.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on 6 March,Official Report, column 267, what are the arrangements for monitoring bycatches of marine mammals; and what assessment he has made of their effectiveness at (a) assessing the level of bycatches and (b) reducing bycatches where necessary. [26489]

  Mr. Robertson
  There are national arrangements for monitoring any bycatches involving fishermen reporting incidents on a voluntary basis. The effectiveness of the scheme is kept under review and additional scientific research has been commissioned to aid that process.

  Beef (Safety)
  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment his Department's medical advisers have made on the safety of British beef; if he will give guidance to local authorities on the suitability of British beef for catering in schools and other institutions; and if he will make a statement. [26286]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: The Chief Medical Officer at the Scottish Office accepts the advice of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee that, with the effective enforcement of current controls and the new measures now being introduced, any BSE-related risk from eating beef is likely to be extremely small, and that children are at no greater risk than adults. In a letter to doctors on 20 March, the Chief Medical Officer made clear his view that there is no reason why people should not continue to eat beef. The Scottish Office Education and Industry Department also wrote on 27 March to chief executives of local authorities, to directors of education and to other interested parties, including independent schools, conveying the advisory committee's advice and stressing the Government's view that there was no reason to advise that beef should be withdrawn from school meal menus.

  Ambulanc Service
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make it his policy that the Scottish ambulance service shall continue to be run as an integrated and comprehensive service providing all patient services to all NHS trusts in Scotland. [26019]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: The Scottish Ambulance Service NHS Trust will continue to provide accident and emergency

  195
  ambulance services under contract to Health Boards in Scotland. Where an NHS trust decides to invite competitive tenders for the provision of non-emergency patient transport services, the Scottish Ambulance Service NHS Trust shall continue to run that service if it can demonstrate through the tendering process that it can deliver the standard demanded and offer the best value for money.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the secretary of state for social Security what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995–96. [26122]

  Mr. Burt
  This information is being collated by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be published by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade before the summer recess.
  196
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much was paid late to the private sector for goods and services by his Department in 1995–96. [26147]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not held in the format requested.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, (1) what percentage of bills were paid late by the Church Commissioners in 1995–96; [26112]

  (2) how much was paid late to the private sector by the Church Commissioners for goods and services in 1995–96. [26159]

  Mr. Alison
  It is the commissioners' policy to pay their suppliers within the agreed credit terms.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Testing
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received about the programme of testing in schools. [25093]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  There has been an extremely high response to the Government's recent consultation paper on the future of national curriculum assessment and testing with over 2,000 responses received from schools and other organisations. We are currently analysing the replies before considering the next steps.

  School Discipline
  Sir Fergus Montgomery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what measures she is taking to help schools enforce firm discipline. [25094]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  We are taking forward the package of measures which my right hon. Friend announced last September, through a programme of developmental projects, worth about £18 million over three years, to identify and promote best practice in managing pupil behaviour and through consideration of legislation to help bolster schools' authority.

  Research Assessment Exercises
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the effects of the most recent research assessment exercise. [25095]

  Mr. Forth
  An independent study for the higher education funding bodies is assessing the effect of recent research assessment exercises and will inform the process in future. We believe that competition for research funds and their selective allocation remains the best way of ensuring the most effective use of public money.

  Student Finance
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent discussions she has had with the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals regarding student finance. [25096]

  Mr. Forth
  My right hon. Friend met representatives of the CVCP on 6 February to discuss a number of issues, including student finance.

  School Standards
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she last met representatives of the Office for Standards in Education to discuss standards in schools. [25097]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  Ministers and officials meet regularly with Her Majesty's Chief Inspector and Ofsted officials to discuss issues related to education standards in schools.

  Female Employment
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps she is taking with regard to the employment of women. [25098]
  198
  Mrs. Gillan
  Our policies encourage economic growth, create jobs and provide opportunities for all in the labour market; there is a full range of measures to enhance the quality and quantity of women's participation in the work force.

  Expelled Pupils
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children were expelled from maintained schools in 1995. [25099]

  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children at present she estimates are excluded from maintained schools. [25104]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is not available centrally. The Department is collecting figures on permanent exclusion in the school year 1994–95, through the annual census returns sent to all schools in January. Data should be available by the early autumn.

  University Funding
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement about the level of funding for universities. [25100]

  Mr. Forth
  Total public expenditure on higher education in the UK is over £7 billion, some 20 per cent. of total education expenditure. The November 1995 Budget settlement confirmed the 1994 plans for higher education recurrent expenditure. Planned capital expenditure was reduced in line with capital provision in most other public expenditure programmes, reflecting the policy that capital should, wherever possible, be financed through private finance schemes.

  Economic Activity
  Mr. Hain
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has for increasing economic activity rates among males of working age. [25101]

  Mr. Forth
  We will continue with the policies which have seen the economy grow for over three years, the number of men in jobs rise by over 100,000 over the last year and unemployment among men fall by over 600,000 since recovery began.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the education budget is spent on pupils with special needs; and if she will make a statement. [25102]

  Mrs. Gillan
  It is not possible to disaggregate expenditure on all pupils with special needs. Expenditure on pupils with statements of special educational need by local education authorities in England was 6.5 per cent. of their total net recurrent expenditure on education, excluding mandatory awards, in 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of the training budget is notionally allocated for special needs training. [25110]
  199
  Mrs. Gillan
  The 1996–97 training for work budget for England includes funding for residential training centres and pre-vocational pilots, both of which are for special needs training. These elements represent, respectively, 4 per cent. and 5 per cent. of the total training for work budget. In addition, the funding arrangements of both youth training and training for work are designed to ensure that special needs are supported through the mainstream programmes.

  Rural Training and Job Opportunities
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent evaluation her Department has made of the training and job opportunities available for young people in rural areas; and if she will make a statement. [25103]

  Mr. Paice
  Our training and job opportunities are evaluated as a matter of course. Unemployed young people in rural areas, as elsewhere, have available to them the full range of the Department's training and job opportunities.

  Employment Creation
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment in which member states of the European Union more jobs have been created than in the United Kingdom since 1990. [25105]

  Mr. Forth
  There has been a widespread fall in the number of jobs in European Union countries since 1990. Only Belgium, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Austria have seen net increases over that period. In the UK, employment fell in the early 1990s but has since recovered quickly, and over the last three years more jobs have been created in the UK than in all other major European countries put together.

  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of policies in creating jobs in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other EU countries. [25112]

  Mr. Forth
  The UK, which has the most flexible and deregulated labour market in Europe, also has a higher proportion of the adult population in work, and a lower unemployment rate, than any other major EU country. Between 1983 and 1992, the UK created over 2 million jobs, more than France and Italy combined.

  State Education
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what further action she intends to take to improve the quality and standard of state education. [25106]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Government's plans further to improve the quality and standard of state education include publishing primary school tables based on the national curriculum assessment results of 11-year-olds; funding 13 literacy and 12 numeracy centres in local education authorities, starting in September 1996; and working closely with the Teacher Training Agency, in co-operation with the Office for Standards in Education, to review the current arrangements for teacher appraisal.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received on unemployment in Maryport in the last month. [25107]

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Educationa and Employment what recent representations she has received on the level of unemployment in the Nottingham, East constituency. [25114]

  Mr. Forth
  None.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he next expects to meet chairmen of training and enterprise councils and local enterprise companies to discuss training in the construction industry. [25109]

  Mr. Paice
  My right hon. Friend and I regularly meet training and enterprise council representatives to discuss a wide range of topics, including training across different sectors.

  International Labour Standards
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when she next plans to meet her European counterparts to discuss international labour standards. [25111]

  Mr. Forth
  International labour standards formed part of discussions at the recent Group of Seven jobs conference at Lille on 1 and 2 April 1996. My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans for further discussions on this issue.

  Youth Training
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proposals she has to extend training opportunities for unemployed 18 to 25-year-olds. [25115]

  Mr. Paice
  The Department will continue to offer and support a wide range of opportunities for unemployed 18 to 25-year-olds.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many trainees left the youth training scheme for employment in the last year for which figures are available. [25076]

  Mr. Paice
  In 1994–95, the latest year for which figures are available, 72 per cent. of those completing youth training were in employment six months later.

  Access to Work Scheme
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if self-employed people will be required to make a personal contribution toward the funding of personal support they receive through the access to work programme. [25779]

  Mr. Paice
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in her announcement on 26 March,Official Report, columns 489–91, we are considering this issue further.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish a comprehensive report on the nursery voucher trials in the four areas concerned. [26421]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department will make available its evaluation of the operational arrangements for the first phase of the nursery education voucher scheme, in time to make any necessary changes before the implementation of phase 2 in April 1997, and is considering plans for further evaluation of the first phase. Inspections of private and voluntary sector providers are expected to begin in the autumn, leading to an accumulating body of published inspection evidence.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the cost of funding nursery vouchers in the trial areas of Wandsworth, Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea; and how many places have been offered in those local education authorities for(a) three-and-a-half-year-old and (b) four-year-old children. [26443]

  Mr. Squire
  The estimated cost of providing a nursery education voucher worth £1,100 for every four-year-old in the London local education authorities participating in phase 1 of the scheme is £7.5 million.

  In January 1995 an estimated 4, 500 four-year-olds were being educated in the maintained sector in those LEAs. Information on the number of places offered to three-and-a-half-year-olds is not held centrally.

  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the impact of the nursery voucher scheme on the calculation of the standard spending assessment for Solihull council. [26420]

  Mr. Squire
  The nursery education voucher scheme has no impact on the calculation of Solihull's standard spending assessments in 1996–97. In calculating SSAs for 1997–98 it is proposed to reduce each LEA's SSA by the product of the voucher value and the number of four-year-olds in maintained provision in 1995–96, allowing for termly variations in attendance. This implies that each LEA, taking into account both SSA and grant paid under the voucher scheme, will have the same funding as they would have received had the scheme not been introduced, provided the schools they maintain continue to recruit four-year-olds at present levels. The views of local government as a whole on the funding methodology for 1997–98 will be taken into account in the usual way.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the impact of the nursery voucher scheme on the nursery places provided by local authorities in the pilot areas; and if she will make a statement. [25309]

  Mr. Squire
  The impact of the nursery education voucher scheme on the provision of places will become clear once the vouchers returned from providers have been analysed.

  I have every confidence that, over time, expansion will take place across all sectors.
  202
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if, for each of the education authority areas operating the scheme for vouchers for pre-school education, she will state,(a) the number of pupils eligible for vouchers (i) in nursery classes in primary schools and (ii) all others, (b) the number of voucher holders issued with vouchers and (c) the total number of places available and those in (1) nursery classes in primary schools, (2) nursery schools maintained by local education authorities, (3) provision by voluntary organisations and (4) private fee-paying provision. [25518]

  Mr. Squire
  Estimates of the four-year-old population and the number of four-year-olds in maintained provision in January 1995 in the four local education authorities participating in phase 1 of the nursery education voucher scheme are given in the following table. These estimates are, however, less reliable when broken down by both year group and local education authority area. The table also shows the number of vouchers issued in each area accounting, overall, for over 80 per cent. of the estimated population.

  Estimates are not held centrally for four-year-old pupils by type of maintained provision, nor for places in the private and voluntary sectors.

  LEA

  Total four-year-olds in January 1995

  Four-year-olds in maintained provision at January 1995

  Number of vouchers issued

  Kensington and Chelsea

  1,650

  800

  938

  Wandsworth

  3,300

  2,600

  2,831

  Westminster

  1,900

  1,110

  1,170

  Norfolk

  9,300

  6,300

  8,507

  School Maintenance
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many school inspection reports since 1993 have drawn attention to inadequate maintenance. [26310]

  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.

  Education and Training
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the value of(a) education for life and (b) training for employment. [25351]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  General education and job-related skills are valuable both to individuals and to our international competitiveness. They are both essential if individuals are to take full advantage of their opportunities in life, and not least to be able to earn a living. Research has shown that educational qualifications reduce the likelihood of unemployment and are associated with increased earnings.

  Opportunity 2000
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list those companies and Government Departments that are members of Opportunity 2000. [26467]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Opportunity 2000 is an independent, employer-led body. The following Government Departments and agencies are members: the Benefits Agency, Cabinet Office, Charity Commission, Civil Service College, Contributions Agency, Crown Prosecution Service, Department for Education and Employment, Department for National Savings, Department of the Environment, Department of Health, Department of Social Security, Department of Trade and Industry, Department of Transport, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, HM Customs and Excise, HM Prison Service, HM Treasury, Home Office, Inland Revenue, Lord Chancellor's Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Ministry of Defence,

  Investors in People commitments and recognitions

  Number of employees

  <100

  <50

  <20

  <10

  Total

  December 1991

  Commitments

  91

  63

  41

  19

  199

  Recognitions

  6

  4

  2

  2

  25

  December 1992

  Commitments

  432

  302

  176

  79

  898

  Recognitions

  48

  34

  16

  12

  129

  December 1993

  Commitments

  2,323

  1,707

  792

  332

  4,000

  Recognitions

  303

  214

  121

  61

  576

  December 1994

  Commitments

  6,912

  5,199

  2,765

  1,288

  10,626

  Recognitions

  934

  665

  378

  187

  1,569

  December 1995

  Commitments

  12,056

  9,116

  4,769

  2,172

  17,774

  Recognitions

  1,978

  1,422

  779

  365

  3,194

  1. The 'total' figure relates to employers of all sizes.

  2. All figures are cumulative.

  Careers Service Companies and TECs
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if (i) careers service companies and (ii) training and enterprise councils are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (f) provisions under the citizens charter. [25971]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: Careers service companies and training and enterprise councils are private companies and are not subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner.

  Careers service companies and TECs are not subject to scrutiny by the Audit Commission. This function is carried out by the National Audit Office, which has access to careers service companies and TECs for the purpose of any examination of the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which Government Departments have used resources.
  204
  Northern Ireland civil service, Overseas Development Administration, Patent Office, Scottish Office, Serious Fraud Office and Welsh Office. A full list of members can be obtained from Opportunity 2000, 44 Baker street, London W1M 1DH.

  Investors in People
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many firms with fewer than(a) 100 employees, (b) 50 employees, (c) 20 employees, and (d) 10 employees and (e) in total (i) achieved and (ii) participated in Investors in People in each year since the scheme began. [26106]

  Mr. Paice
  At 29 February 1996, a total of 18,191 employers in the UK were committed to achieving the Investors in People standard and 3,305 are recognised as having achieved the standard.

  A statistical breakdown is provided in the following table:

  Government contracts with careers service companies and TECs require them to comply with the Government's code of practice on open government. The Department publishes a series of indicators annually for each TEC, the inter-TEC comparison tables, covering performance in the main programme activities under contract with TECs. Performance indicators also form part of the criteria for TECs achieving a three-year licence. It is our intention to publish performance indicators for careers service companies in autumn 1997.

  Government's contracts with careers service companies and TECs, and the TEC National Council's framework for local accountability set out principles for openness, integrity and accountability which are features of the citizens charter. TECs and careers service companies can apply for the charter mark award if they wish.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) minutes of meetings, (d) agendas

  205
  of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests are published by training and enterprise councils; and if in each case this is under statutory requirement. [25967]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: Training and enterprise councils are private companies and are required by the Companies Act to produce annual accounts which are lodged with Companies House. The Government contract with TECs requires that they publish an annual report and audited statement of accounts. The contract also requires TECs to pay due regard to the TEC National Council's framework of local accountability, which expects TECs to make their register of interests available for public inspection,. The publication of board papers is a matter for each company.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of bills were paid late by her Department in 1995–96. [26128]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  This information is being collated by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be published by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade before the summer recess.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was paid late to the private sector by her Department for goods and services in 1995–96. [26157]

  Mr. Squire
  The information required could be provided only at disproportionate cost to the Department. The Department does not maintain this information in the form requested.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many appointments to the public bodies listed in "Public Bodies" for her

  Figures at 1995–96

  £ million

  1990–91 Outturn

  1991–92 Outturn

  1992–93 Outturn

  1993–94 Outturn

  1994–95 Outturn

  1995–96 estimated Outturn

  1996–97 Outturn

  1997–98 Plans

  Grant-maintained schools

  12

  25

  54

  149

  229

  212

  233

  244

  City technology colleges

  69

  53

  54

  52

  52

  52

  53

  55

  Further education1,2

  1,963

  1,989

  2,026

  2,826

  2,918

  3,024

  2,958

  2,895

  Higher education3

  3,499

  3,114

  3,063

  2,923

  3,513

  3,614

  3,348

  3,216

  Career service4

  143

  142

  149

  144

  156

  193

  196

  203

  Training and enterprise councils5

  1,366

  1,264

  1,275

  1,257

  1,188

  1,262

  1,251

  1 Figures for 1990–91 to 1992–93 cover spend by local education authorities at FE colleges and in adult education centres. Figures for 1993–94 onwards cover funding for the Further Education Funding Council. The figures exclude student support expenditure.

  2 Provision for 1992–93 included grants by the council to institutions in connection with their preparation for independent status.

  3 Figures for 1993–94 onwards are for funding for the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Figures for 1990–91 to 1992–93 are for funding of the universities and the polytechnics and colleges funding councils: these figures include Scottish and Welsh universities, but exclude the Open university, Cranfield institution of technology and Royal College of Art which became the responsibility of the HEFCE from 1993–94. Figures exclude income from tuition fees and student support.

  4 From 1994–95 figures show direct expenditure by the Department. Until 1994, the careers service was funded by local authorities.

  5 The TEC network was established nationally in 1991–92. The figures cover the Department's programmes which TECs deliver currently and include the TEC management fee. TECs also deliver Department of Trade and Industry and Department of the Environment initiatives. Expenditure figures exclude programmes transferred to the DTI, e.g. the small firms budgets, and to the DOE, e.g. the single regeneration budget. They also exclude further education funds transferred from TECs to FEFC. Figures exclude payments not channelled through TECs, e.g. allowances for trainees on training for work.

  206
  Department were made during 1994–95 from names supplied by the public appointments unit; and if she will list them. [25955]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: There were 70 such appointments or reappointments. However, no central record was maintained of the sources of names of appointees. In some cases they may have been nominated from more than one source, including the public appointments unit.

  Science and Mathematics Graduates
  Mr. Gunnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students graduating in physics, chemistry and mathematics have applied for courses leading to a teaching qualification during 1996–97; and what were the equivalent figures in(a) 1994–95 and (b) 1995–96. [25077]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  The total number of applications received for post-graduate certificate of education courses in mathematics, physics, chemistry and combined science starting in 1995 was around 4,600; about 5,000 applications were received for courses starting in 1994. Applications are still being received for courses starting in 1996, with around 2,400 applications received up to 3 April.

  Educational Bodies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) was the gross public spending for each year since 1990–91, in 1995–96 prices and (b) is the projected expenditure for each year to 1997–98, in 1995–96 prices, of (i) grant-maintained schools, (ii) city training colleges, (iii) further education corporations, (iv) higher education corporations, (v) careers service companies and (vi) training and enterprise councils. [25978]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: The figures requested are set out in the following table:
  207
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what(a) annual reports, (b) annual accounts, (c) minutes of meetings, (d) agendas of meetings and (e) registers of members' interests are published by (i) city technology colleges, (ii) further

  Annual reports1

  Annual accounts2

  Minutes of meetings3

  Agendas of meetings4

  Registers of members' interests5

  Grant-maintained schools

  1Yes

  1Yes

  1Yes

  1Yes

  2Yes

  City technology colleges

  3Yes

  3Yes

  No

  No

  4No

  Further education corporations

  7No

  5Yes

  6Yes

  6Yes

  7No

  Higher education corporations

  8Yes

  9Yes

  8Yes

  8Yes

  8Yes

  1 Statutory requirements under the instrument and articles of government.

  2 Requirement of funding agency via the rainbow pack—condition of grant.

  3 All are required to prepare an annual report and accounts. Fourteen of the 15 are limited companies, and lodge their report and accounts at Companies House.

  4 Many are in the process of preparing registers.

  5 A condition of funding that they are publicly available.

  6 Required by statutory instrument.

  7 Often produced and made available on a voluntary basis.

  8 Per committee of University Chairmen best practice guide.

  9 Per financial memorandum.

  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if (i) grant-maintained schools, (ii) city technology colleges, (iii) further education corporations and (iv) higher education corporations are subject to(a) investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner, (b) scrutiny by the Audit

  Investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner (a)

  Scrutiny by the Audit Commission (b)

  Scrutiny by the National Audit Office (c)

  Statutory provision for open government (d)

  Performance indicators (e)

  Provisions under the Citizen's Charter (f)

  Grant-maintained schools

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  City technology colleges

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  No

  Further education corporations

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  Yes

  1No

  Higher education corporations

  No

  No

  Yes

  No

  No

  No

  1 As a condition of grant, colleges must have their own equivalent charters.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the slaughterhouse support measures announced on 16 April,Official Report, columns 513-29, include assistance for cutting, boning, defatting and packing operations; and if he will make a statement. [25724]

  Mrs. Browning
  Wholesale businesses involved in cutting, boning, defatting and packing meat are licensed as cutting premises under the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995 as amended. Under the emergency aid scheme for the slaughtering industry announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 16 April,Official Report, columns 513-29, the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce will purchase stocks of
  208
  education corporations, (iii) higher education corporations and (iv) grant-maintained schools; and in each case if it is a statutory requirement. [25965]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Commission, (c) scrutiny by the National Audit Office, (d) statutory provisions for open government, (e) performance indicators and (9) provisions under the citizen's charter. [25972]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: the information requested is shown in the following table:

  unsaleable beef from licensed cuttings premises at 65 per cent. of their pre-crisis market price, and will arrange for their secure disposal.

  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the objectives of the Coopers and Lybrand phase 2 study into beef production, processing and distribution; if that study will address whether assistance should be made available for the processing and distribution industries and for those who hold processed frozen-down beef stocks; and if he will make a statement. [25723]

  Mrs. Browning
  Coopers and Lybrand has been commissioned to report to the Agriculture Departments on how much unsaleable beef from UK herds slaughtered in the UK—over and above that identified in the slaughtering and cutting plant stock survey of 9 April 1996—is still in the supply chain. It is asked to:
  209

  identify the volume and location of such beef;

  identify any financial, operational, legal and tax issues which may cause complications in the removal of unsaleable beef from the supply chain;

  in consultation with Government Departments, and taking account of measures already announced, develop a scheme for the removal and disposal of such unsaleable stock.

  In his statement of 16 April my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food noted that the support announced for the slaughtering sector was based on the particular circumstances and role of that sector. The Government therefore did not consider that equivalent assistance should be paid to other sectors.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the operators of abattoirs and meat processing plants, hauliers and others associated with the beef trade will be granted compensation in proportion to lost income resulting from recent developments in relation to BSE. [25606]

  Mrs. Browning
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 16 April,Official Report, columns 513-29, in which he outlined a comprehensive system of support for the essential links in the beef supply chain, in particular the rendering and slaughtering sectors. The purpose of the temporary financial aid for these sectors is to provide a breathing space during which companies can adjust to the changed market circumstances, not to provide compensation for loss of income.

  Mr. Hanson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cases of BSE have been recorded in the Dexter breed. [25943]

  Mrs. Browning
  None.

  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to extend the 30 months age limit for entry into the food chain to 36 months in respect of extensively produced beef. [26136]

  Mrs. Browning
  Officials are working on a scheme under which animals which can safely be identified as low risk my be sold for human consumption. Such a scheme could operate irrespective of the age of the animal. We will consult the industry on a scheme shortly.

  Miss Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what financial assistance will be made available to those in the animal feed industry for local authority charges incurred in the disposal of meat and bone meal products. [26135]

  Mrs. Browning
  Residual feedingstuffs may be disposed of either by incineration or by landfill at a suitable site. Only limited resources are available to deal with the very wide ranging consequences of the measures that have been introduced to prevent the continued transmission of BSE. I do not, therefore, propose offering financial assistance for local authority charges incurred by those in the animal feed industry in disposing of meat and bone meal products.
  210
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce a ban on the importing of beef and veal from(a) EU and (b) other countries in which there has been a reported case of BSE; and if he will make a statement. [26589]

  Mrs. Browning
  The prohibition on meat from animals aged over 30 months of age applies equally to imports as well as domestic consumption. The only exception to this is meat from a named list of third countries which have never had a case of BSE. Third countries which have had cases of BSE and all member states are covered by the 30-month rule.

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research is being funded by his Department into a live test for BSE based on DNA within cattle; and if he will make a statement. [23370]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: No such research is under way, as BSE is not a genetically inherited disease, nor are changes to the DNA structure and sequence known to be associated with the development of the disease.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department carried out into Professor Harash Narang's test for BSE in live cattle; and what were the results. [23228]

  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what conclusion was reached by his Department on the efficacy of the live test for BSE in cattle developed by Harash Narang; when the test was evaluated; and if he will make a statement. [23354]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answers 28 and 29 March 1996]: MAFF is aware of reports in the media that Dr. Narang is working to develop a test to detect BSE in live cattle. No details of such a test have been published in an independent, peer reviewed scientific journal, the usual way for validating such claims. The Department has also asked Dr. Narang for details of his test so that its efficacy and usefulness can be evaluated; he has so far refused to provide any details.

  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what changes took place, and when, to enable cattle feed containing animal offal to be fed to cattle; when the manufacturers were allowed to lower the temperature at which cattle feed was processed; when Ministers banned beef offal from(a) animal feed and (b) the human food chain, and what were the reasons for the difference in time between (a) and (b); and which Ministers were responsible for decisions relating to these changes. [23434]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 1 April 1996]: The processing of offals, and the subsequent use of one by product, meat and bone meal has evolved over a period of many years. It had been a standard practice within the industry to feed bovine animals with feed supplements containing meat and bonemeal derived from ruminants. The contamination of ruminant feed in the early 1980s which led to the BSE epidemic was not the result of any regulatory changes introduced by the Government. A number of changes to the rendering process were introduced for commercial reasons. These changes included a reduction in the time/temperature combination of rendering and also the elimination of an organic

  211
  extraction step. This last measure was removed primarily for health and safety reasons. There were no changes to the regulations governing these aspects of rendering at that time.

  The feeding of ruminant protein to ruminants was prohibited on 18 July 1988.

  The Bovine Offals (Prohibition) Regulations, which forbade the use of certain specified bovine offals or anything prepared from them in human food, came into force in November 1989. In September 1990, following the experimental transmission of BSE by intracerebral injection to pigs, the prohibition was widened to prevent the use of SBOs, or protein derived from them, in food for any animal.

  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland were responsible for the implementation and subsequent amendment of the controls on specified bovine offals.

  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the dates of birth, by month and year, of the 10 youngest cattle to have been confirmed as BSE sufferers. [26333]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer on 23 April 1996]: The dates of birth of the 10 youngest cattle, including estimated ages, to have been confirmed as BSE sufferers are as follows:

  Autumn 1986

  January 1987

  November 1987

  Autumn 1987 (3 cases)

  May 1988

  November 1988

  June 1989

  October 1990.

  Horticultural Research
  Mrs. Golding
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department has spent on research in horticulture in each year since 1986. [26211]

  Mr. Boswell
  The Department's expenditure on research in horticulture for each financial year from 1987–88 is:

  1987–88: £17.2 million

  1988–89: £17.9 million

  1989–90: £17.5 million

  1990–91: £13.3 million

  1991–92: £10.51 million

  1992–93: £11.11 million

  1993–94: £11.41 million

  1994–95: £13.4 million

  1995–96: £13.6 million.

  1 Excludes some work on pesticides for horticultural crops.

  A figure for 1986–87 is not available.

  Food Additives
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the mutagenic and carcinogenic qualities of (i) E233 Thiabendazol, (ii) E231, (iii) E904 and (iv) E914. [26164]

  Mrs. Browning
  My Department has not funded any research on mutagenicity and carcinogenicity in relation to these substances.

  However, each of them has been evaluated by the Department of Health Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, and the EU Scientific Committee for Food and classified as safe for use in food.

  Small Farmers (Financial Assistance)
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions are being held with the Department of Social Security to provide assistance for small farmers whose sole source of income is from sales of cattle at local markets and who are ineligible for family credit, unemployment benefit and income support. [26130]

  Mrs. Browning
  No formal discussions have taken place between MAFF and DSS on the payment of benefits to small farmers whose income is dependent on the sale of cattle. A range of in work benefits is available to people, including small farmers, on low incomes. Eligibility will be dependent on the individual's specific circumstances. Farmers who think they might qualify should make inquiries at their local Benefits Agency office and apply in the usual way.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of funding to be made available to his Department through the private finance initiative in(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26178]

  Mr. Boswell
  The estimate of funding to be made available through the private finance initiative is currently:

  1995–96: nil

  1996–97: £10 million

  1997–98: £20 million.

  Meat and Livestock Imports
  Miss Emma Nicholson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what import restrictions he plans to(a) introduce and (b) maintain on (i) live imports and (ii) meat products entering the United Kingdom to ensure that they are subject to the same regulations as United Kingdom animals. [26132]

  Mrs. Browning
  The importation of live animals into the United Kingdom is subject to rules laid down in existing statutory instruments. Additional control measures are added periodically to the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations 1995 and the Animals and Animal Products (Import and Export) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 to
  213
  implement new harmonised EC legislation. There are no plans for the United Kingdom to introduce any unilateral import restrictions.

  As regards meat products, the Beef (Emergency Control) Order 1996, as amended, which came into force on 29 March, prohibits the sale of all bovine meat derived from bovines which, at the time of slaughter, showed more than one pair of permanent incisors unless it can be shown by reference to a national administrative document—in effect, a cattle identification document—that the animal was no more than 30 months old. This new measure, applies to all bovines slaughtered after the commencement of the order, other than those slaughtered in third countries listed in the schedule to the No. 2 amendment order where the Government are satisfied that we can import beef without risk.

  These controls are being kept under review in the light of further progress with the package of measures currently under discussion by the Council of Agriculture Ministers.

  Protection of Animals at Slaughter
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when Her Majesty's Government plans to ratify the European convention for the protection of animals at slaughter; and if he will make a statement. [26240]

  Mrs. Browning
  Council directive 93/119/EC on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing takes account of the European convention for the protection of animals at slaughter. The Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) Regulations 1995, which apply in Great Britain, implement that Community directive.

  Parallel legislation is being prepared in Northern Ireland and should be implemented during this year. When this legislation is in place, it is the Government's intention to ratify the European convention on behalf of the United Kingdom.

  Late Payments
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of bills were paid late by his Department in 1995–96. [26109]

  Mr. Boswell
  This information is being collated by the Department of Trade and Industry and will be published by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade before the summer recess.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was paid late to the private sector by his Department for goods and services in 1995–96. [26161]

  Mr. Boswell
  The information requested is not readily available and could not be produced without disproportionate cost. MAFF aims to pay all invoices within 30 days of the receipt or in accordance with terms agreed with suppliers.

  Cats and Dogs
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the special provisions for the United Kingdom and Ireland in the Balai directive 214
  regarding the import of traded cats and dogs were based on the recommendations of the Scientific Veterinary Committee in paper V1/1533/92-EN-REI-1.; and if he will make a statement. [26337]

  Mrs. Browning
  The rabies provisions of the Balai directive—EC directive 92/65—including those provisions for the movement of traded dogs and cats into the UK and Ireland from other member states, we agreed taking into account the Scientific Veterinary Committee report VI/1533/92-EN-Rev.1. Although not identical to the recommendations in this report, these provisions represent the safeguards the Council of Ministers agreed were necessary to reduce the risks that it identified.

  Mink Farms
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many licensed mink farms there are currently in the United Kingdom. [26468]

  Mrs. Browning
  At 31 March 1996 there were 12 licensed mink farms in England. This Department is not responsible for mink farm licensing in the other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Chocolate Directive
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress the Commission has made in formulating proposals to amend the 1973 chocolate directive; and if he will make a statement. [27010]

  Mrs. Browning
  I understand the Commission has agreed proposals to amend the 1973 chocolate directive. These would allow all countries to authorise the addition of small amounts of vegetable fat, should they wish to do so, require the use of such fats to be separately labelled, allow the continued manufacture of a high milk formulation of milk chocolate in the UK and Ireland, but require designation of such chocolate as "household milk chocolate" when marketed in other member states.

  The Government welcomes the emphasis given in these proposals to subsidiarity and coherence of the single market but are disappointed by the proposals for double labelling of vegetable fats and the continued pejorative description of some types of high quality milk chocolate. We shall seek changes in those parts of the proposal which seek to discriminate against British products, stifle innovation, limit consumer choice or impose undue regulatory burdens on industry.

  EU Fisheries Council
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on Monday 22 April; and if he will make a statement. [26748]

  Mr. Baldry
  I represented the United Kingdom at the meeting of the Fisheries Council in Brussels on 22 April, together with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson).
  215
  I emphasised the importance of securing a satisfactory solution to the problem of quota hoppers. In many cases, these vessels have very little economic link with the UK and other countries where they are found. I explained that this is a problem which must be solved as a priority.

  I explained the United Kingdom's ideas for the creation of regional consultative committees. These would increase the regional input into the common fisheries policy by bringing together fisherman and officials from member states active in particular fisheries. They would provide a forum to discuss any issue of regional relevance—for example, technical conservation measures or the state of the stocks. In response, the Commissioner emphasised her concern to secure greater regional inputs from the fishing industry. She undertook to build on these and to establish a pilot committee to test the idea.

  I drew attention to the magnitude of the industrial fisheries in the North sea urging a cautious approach to their management. In particular, I called for the introduction of a precautionary total allowable catch for sand eels and for a greater collaborative research effort on the multi-species interactions connected with industrial fisheries to increase our understanding of their impact on other species.

  The Council unanimously agreed new measures to introduce greater flexibility in quota management and more systematic penalties for quota overshoots. The flexibility provisions have been limited to take account of concerns expressed both by fishermen and environmental organisations. They are optional at member state level. The Council and Commission agreed a UK suggestion that data on landings must be collected and presented on a consistent basis throughout the Community before the new penalties for overfishing apply.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority, with Belgium, France and Ireland voting against, a compromise on the opening of certain autonomous tariff quotas for the import of fish and fishery products balancing the interests of processors with those of the catching sector.

  The Council unanimously agreed a 1996 total allowable catch of 150,000 tonnes for the expanding Atlanto-Scandian herring stock in waters north of Shetland. This provides a welcome additional fishing opportunity for the UK fleet.

  The Commission gave a progress report on its preparatory work for the next series of multi-annual guidance programmes. Scientific advice demonstrated a clear case for further measures to reduce overfishing, but an extensive consultation exercise with fishing interests throughout the Community confirmed the underlying economic difficulties which the sector continued to face. The Council will take up these issues in more detail at its next meeting in June.

  I welcomed a report by the Commission on enforcement activity by member states and called for early action to achieve more consistent standards of enforcement.
  216
  My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary reported to the Council on the outcome of bilateral discussions with Norway about the continued weakness in the European farmed salmon market and stressed the need for the Commission to keep the position under close review.

  Poultry
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) how many broiler chickens slaughtered in the United Kingdom were rejected in the last six months of 1995 and to date in 1996 as being unfit for human consumption; what were the public health considerations leading to such rejections; and if he will make a statement; [26102]

  (2) how many chickens were dead on arrival at United Kingdom poultry slaughterhouses in the first six months of 1995 and to date in 1996; and if he will make a statement; [26103]

  (3) when the national Meat Hygiene Service commissioned a welfare audit in 1995; what were the results of that audit; and if he will make a statement. [26104]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 23 April 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Meat Hygiene Service to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Elliot Morley, dated 24 April 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) your questions concerning the number of broiler chickens rejected at slaughter, the number of chickens dead on arrival at slaughterhouses and the results of the MHS's welfare audit have been passed for me for reply [26102, 26103 & 26104].
  The Meat Hygiene Service was launched on 1 April 1995 as an Executive Agency of MAFF. It took over from some 300 local authorities responsibility for enforcement of the hygiene and welfare at slaughter legislation in licensed meat premises in England, Scotland and Wales.
  According to MHS data, 5,855,611 broiler chickens slaughtered in Great Britain in the last six months of 1995 and to date in 1996 were rejected as being unfit of human consumption. Considering a total throughput of broiler chickens of around 483 million for the same period, this represents 1.2% thereof. Poultry meat may not be sold for human consumption unless it meets the conditions laid down in the Poultry Meat, Farmed Game Bird Meat and Rabbit Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995. These Regulations require, notably, fresh poultry meat to have been obtained from a licensed premise, been subject to pre-slaughter and post-mortem health inspections and show no sign of disease.
  The number of chickens (broilers and hens) which were dead on arrival at slaughterhouses in Great Britain in the last six months of 1995 and to date in 1996 is 1,227,284.
  The report of the animal welfare audit carried out by the MHS has now been finalised. A copy has been placed in the Library today.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in what circumstances ensiled poultry litter can be fed to(a) poultry and (b) other farm animals; and if he will make a statement. [26105]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 23 April 1996]: It is illegal under regulation 15(11) of the Feedingstuffs Regulations 1995 to sell or use as a compound feed any material which contains faeces or urine, irrespective of any form of treatment or admixture.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.
The Earl of Clancarty The Earl of Clancarty—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his uncle and made the solemn Affirmation.

NATO: Enlargement
Lord Belhaven and Stenton Lord Belhaven and Stenton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to expedite the admission of Poland and her central European neighbours (the Czech Republic, Hungary and Slovakia) to NATO in the light of Her Majesty the Queen's expressed support for Poland's wish to join the alliance in her address to the Polish Parliament on 26th March.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, we remain committed to NATO's enlargement, and are contributing actively to the Alliance's work to prepare for the admission of new members.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. However, would my noble friend care to comment on a recent report which states that President Yeltsin said that an agreement could be worked out to include the provision that no country may be accepted into NATO without Russia's agreement? Further, does my noble friend appreciate the fact that there is a sense of urgency so far as concerns those countries? Their rapid economic development and security could be endangered by continued delay and uncertainty in the matter.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I should tell my noble friend that we are aware of the Russians' concerns, but they are really misplaced. Neither NATO nor its enlargement pose any threat to Russia. On the contrary, we are convinced that, if properly handled, enlargement will contribute to efforts to enhance stability and security in Europe as a whole. We have told President Yeltsin that we take full account of Russian concerns. However, I do not believe that it would be right to allow Russia to exercise a veto over other sovereign nations' wish to join a defensive alliance which has provided the cornerstone of all our security for so long. Indeed, we have made that clear.
I should also tell my noble friend that, so far as concerns the economic development of such countries, we are very firmly behind them. All our work through the know-how fund, and in other ways, will help. But, obviously, as long as there is doubt about Russia's actions in the future, it will have an effect on the
1130
stability and the growth of those countries. That is why we should put the issue to rest as soon as we possibly can.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister sure that Russia does not consider the acceptance of former Warsaw Pact countries into NATO any threat to Russia?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I believe that Russia is making a grave mistake if she thinks that NATO is a threat to Russia. All along we have sought to convince them—and, to a large extent, this has been accepted by President Yeltsin—that Russia has an important contribution to make to European security. Indeed, in our discussions the Russians have been made well aware of the benefits of developing a strong NATO-Russian relationship in parallel with enlargement. That debate continues, but it is one that has broadly been accepted. One has to understand that they are going through a pre-election period in Russia.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, while we all accept and know that NATO is no threat to Russia, is it not a fact that the introduction of NATO near to the Russian border could be an encouragement to some ultra politicians on one side or the other which could cause long-term damage to the West?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is right in one sense. However, we have made it absolutely clear that, in working with Russia for that greater stability of which I spoke just now, NATO is likely to do nothing provocative. We have also made it quite clear that the Partnership for Peace, which is of great importance, gives a good opportunity for really close co-operation with NATO. Even though there are some nationalist forces which would pursue the line suggested by my noble friend, I believe that the majority of people know that that will not be so. Certainly NATO will not act provocatively.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister is aware of the importance of the attitude of NATO and the need to try to co-ordinate the eastern European countries into the NATO alliance. However, is the Minister also aware that the opposition to Mr. Yeltsin is very strong—indeed, I believe that it will continue—and that there is the likelihood of a change of government which might mean that there will be stronger opposition still?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I have always thought it extremely dangerous—as the noble Lord will know—to predict what is to happen in an election, certainly even three months away from it, let alone further ahead. In the next three months a number of things may change. It is quite evident from the substance of the discussion in Moscow over the weekend that Mr. Yeltsin's prospects are a good deal stronger now than they were a few weeks ago. I urge the noble Lord not to write him off. Although only three names are being bandied about in our press, there are other Russians who see the virtue of working much

1131
more closely with western Europe; who see the virtue of Partnership for Peace; and who are determined to work out the new relationship in a positive manner.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Polish Government have made any commitments on the financial costs involved? Does she agree that this must be resolved before final steps can be taken to admit Poland to NATO given the pressure on the defence budgets of NATO members?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, at present I do not believe that Poland has made any commitment on costs. We are, of course, aware of the problems. That is why there needs to be a steady and continuing effort to resolve the problems that exist. The problems that Poland would experience if she were not to have the opportunity to join NATO would be far greater than even the financial problems that we know of already.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that to many Russians the stretch of country from the Oder-Neisse line east and the Baltic states are as significant to them strategically as the Low Countries are to Britain?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. They are strategically important but we view this not just in terms of what lies on one side or the other of the Oder-Neisse line but as regards the whole of the community in Europe. Given the choice that has been made by Poland and all the other nations in the area, including the new Länder in Germany, it is quite clear that people want to work out a peaceful way of living and working side by side. We who have the strength and experience of having done this in western Europe should be doing all we possibly can to assist this to happen for the sake of Poland and the other countries, and for peace in Europe as a whole.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of any opposition on the part of other members of the European Union to this application?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: No, my Lords, I am not. I shall make inquiries but I cannot help my noble friend at this moment.

Civil Service College
2.45 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of present uncertainty, what are their proposals for the future of the Civil Service College.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognise that the Civil Service College has a continuing role in the provision of training and development courses self-evidently linked to the Civil Service. I am pleased to announce to my noble friend that the college is now developing a number of
1132
partnerships with the private sector which will enhance its status in the provision of courses for those in the public and private sectors.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, first, I am much obliged to my noble friend for her courtesy in this matter. I hope I may ask her whether she will deliver a message to her right honourable friends to the effect that, while a few windows open in such an institution can only do good, nevertheless it would seem more than a little eccentric to put the control of a college, the purpose of which is to train civil servants, in the hands of those who have no knowledge whatever of the running of that service.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I do not imagine that my noble friend would expect me to start delivering messages when the right honourable gentleman whom he might wish to receive the message can no doubt read Hansard himself. However, it is right to say that, as with other government agencies, we have considered a number of options. As I said before, we have made no proposals to change the position of the Civil Service College.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, when we on this side hear such phrases as "partnerships with the private sector" in relation to the Civil Service College, we become extraordinarily suspicious having regard to the experience we have of the way in which the Government have handled the creeping privatisation of the public services in recent years? The noble Baroness said that the Government have considered various options in relation to the Civil Service College. Can she give us an assurance that the option of privatisation has been ruled out?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord should get too excited about what he has heard in the past: The noble Lord would not expect me to comment on any plan that the Government might have in the future. I repeat that we have made no proposals to make any change to the position of the Civil Service College in the public sector. However, I thought that the party of the noble Lord opposite was now quite interested in privatisation.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am sorry to come back to this matter but it is important and it is the noble Baroness who has the official brief. Is privatisation of the Civil Service College ruled out or is it not?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I do not think it is appropriate to assume that I shall commit this Government or any successive government indefinitely in the future. I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, would not expect me to do that. He may shake his head but I am absolutely certain that he would not expect me to do that. I heard one of his noble friends suggesting that the party opposite would win the election, which of course it will not. How do we know what the party opposite will do in future?
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, the Civil Service College has never quite fulfilled the high expectations we

1133
held out for it on the Fulton Committee but it performs a valuable service. I heard with interest the assurances, limited though they are, which the noble Baroness has just given.
Can the noble Baroness give us one further assurance? Has the question of converting the college into a trading fund—to use the modern jargon—been completely ruled out? It is a fate which overtook a comparable education institution, the Fire Service College, with not very happy consequences to date.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, all I can say is that a number of options are being considered which will involve joint approaches with private sector organisations. Those discussions are at a sensitive stage; and I do not wish to risk prejudicing progress by being more specific.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, at the height of the influence and fame of the Civil Service, there was no Civil Service College? Civil servants were thought to be adequately prepared by following proper courses at real universities. Would we not perhaps do better to go back to that arrangement?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Beloff is a great expert on this subject and no doubt his views will also be considered.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, when the final decision is taken, will the House be informed? Shall we be given an opportunity to debate the issue?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as noble Lords know, these matters are for the usual channels. The usual channels will have an opportunity to consider the matter if the noble Lord wishes to put it to them.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that, in determining a balance between public and private sector use of the Civil Service College, the needs of the Civil Service rather than financial revenue to the college will be paramount? Does the Minister also agree that the Government's commitment to the European Year of Lifelong Learning involves lifelong training? Initial training for civil servants at universities is excellent, but there is a need for updated training during the professional life of civil servants.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I can give that commitment. The college provides a wide range of courses. It does its very best to look after the civil servants who attend for the courses, and others too. Noble Lords should know that civil servants do not use the Civil Service College alone, as my noble friend Lord Beloff said. Something like 35 per cent. of senior management attend there for the courses. But, overall, only 5 per cent. of the Civil Service do so. The remainder of civil servants are trained in their own departments by other civil servants.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, while the last thing I would wish to do is to load my noble friend with unfriendly messages to her colleagues: nevertheless,
1134
perhaps I may ask her to give them some very friendly advice. Words such as "a number of options are being considered" are a very good way of stirring up suspicions which may not be necessary.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, my right honourable friends in the other place are, as I am, always delighted to receive advice from the noble Lord.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, will the Minister dispel the theory that only those with a university education are suitable for entry to the Civil Service? Is the noble Baroness aware that, of the private secretaries that I had during my time as a government Minister, two had left school at 15 years of age and both were, and still are, outstanding civil servants?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, that indicates the excellence of ordinary education; and I am delighted to hear that.

Government House, Hong Kong
2.54 p.m.
The Earl of Kinnoull The Earl of Kinnoull asked Her Majesty's Government:
What thought has been given to the use of Government House, Hong Kong, after 30th June 1997, and whether it would be suitable for use as a British cultural centre.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, Government House is the property of the Hong Kong Government and as such will belong to the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region after the transfer of sovereignty. It will be for the Government of the Special Administrative Region to decide upon the future use of the building.
The Earl of Kinnoull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. While it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to purchase or to lease this historic and recently listed building after June 1997, if the Special Administration has no appropriate use for it—for instance, as the chief executive headquarters—should not the concept of a British cultural centre, or some other use, be developed not only to mark the dynamic achievements of the recent past of the Hong Kong peoples but to add further to their confidence of continued British influence and interest in their future?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, what my noble friend says is interesting. We do not own the building. Like all land in Hong Kong, it is owned by the Hong Kong Government. It is quite sensible that we should have a proper functional building for the future British Consulate-General and the British Council which we are planning and working on at present.
The future use of the building lies, as with all Government-owned property, entirely within the autonomy of the Hong Kong Government. I think that there will be many uses to which this wonderful

1135
building could be put. My noble friend may be interested to know that Government House has recently been declared a monument by the Antiquities and Monuments Office in Hong Kong with the firm intention that the building and the grounds be maintained, irrespective of the future use to which they may be put. The future use, therefore, is yet to be decided; but I am sure that it will be a good one.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, as a past inhabitant of that historic building, perhaps the Minister will forgive me if I do not comment further on it. In terms of a cultural centre, does the noble Baroness agree that the British Council does a tremendous job in Hong Kong and deserves adequate funding in the future so that it can be one of the main platforms for a continuing association at cultural level between the United Kingdom and Hong Kong after next year?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that that will be the case. The British Council will have proper funding.
I am also assured that that building will be properly used. It is a great tribute to the history of Hong Kong and it should be preserved as such. The British Council may well be housed in a more modern building more suitable for teaching, and for the exhibitions which the British Council puts on. However, Government House will be protected.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Baroness give the House a direct undertaking that the building concerned will not meet the same fate as County Hall?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think it highly unlikely that that building will meet what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, calls the same fate as County Hall for the simple reason that the Hong Kong Government have run that beautiful house in a way in which we only wish that the late Greater London Council had run County Hall.

Dyslexia
2.58 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether dyslexia is classed as a disability within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and, if so, what definition of dyslexia is used in this context.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Disability Discrimination Act defines disability as a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Anyone with dyslexia meeting this definition will be protected by the
1136
provisions of the legislation. Effects which are severe or serious would clearly satisfy the requirement that effects should be at least substantial.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I must declare an interest. I am dyslexic. Indeed, perhaps it may be said that I am one of the most "out" dyslexics in the country. Under the draft guidance inability to fill out a long and complicated form and inability to read well under pressure are not regarded as a disability. Does the Minister agree that this definition would exclude dyslexics? Dyslexics have problems with written symbols, especially under pressure and at speed. Would such an exclusion not mean that dyslexics by definition would be excluded from the benefits of the Act?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: No, my Lords, I do not believe that it would, by definition, mean that dyslexics would be excluded from the benefits of the Act. The Disability Discrimination Act gives a list of the ways in which an impairment should be taken to have an effect on normal day-to-day activities. One of those categories is memory or ability to concentrate, learn or understand. That is most likely to be the one in respect of which people with dyslexia can be brought within the definitions of the Act.
I assure the noble Lord that we shall examine the draft of the guidance which we intend to produce to ascertain whether extra guidance is needed on whether lesser degrees of dyslexia are covered. We will also look at the employment code of practice to see whether it should include examples relating to people with dyslexia.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is room for interpretation in the definitions of the Act which he has just given to the House? It would be quite wrong to have a rigid demarcation of what is and what is not a disability, because it is not the label that counts so much as the consequence of the condition. Does the Minister agree that the best way of dealing with it would be to include all conditions which have a disabling effect? The strict terms of the Act would prevent any abuse of that kind of provision.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, those who took an interest in the debate on the Bill will realise that it is a difficult issue. The kind of definition which the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has just enunciated would probably encompass every one of us. It certainly encompasses me in its wider aspects. Sometimes I feel discriminated against, especially when the Opposition have a go at me.
Noble Lords: Never!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we must be sure that the definitions we make of disability and the people who are encompassed by the Act are clearly seen by the public to be disabled. Otherwise, the provisions will not have the helpful effect that we all hope for for disabled people.
Lord Renwick: My Lords, I am somewhat reassured by my noble friend's second answer. I declare an

1137
interest as a former chairman and current vice-president of the British Dyslexia Association. Does the Minister agree that we ought to show consistency with the Education Act 1993? Ministers in another place stated clearly then that a special educational need, whatever the cause, should have available a special educational provision. I hope that my noble friend's second answer will be followed through.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that we are taking the whole subject of the guidance and the employment code seriously. We understand the reliance which will be placed on them. However, with a disability of any kind there is a problem with the continuum of seriousness. Someone who is only mildly disabled, perhaps mildly deaf, is in a different position from someone who is seriously deaf. As I said in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, we must define those who are seriously disabled and whose disablement, in the words of the Act, causes them
"substantial and long-term adverse effect".
We must be careful that we clearly define them and do not encompass people who are not disabled in the true meaning of the word.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, the problem is that discrimination against dyslexics applies in education as well. Will the Minister agree that dyslexic teaching is a highly specialised part of special needs teaching? When a local authority school, an opted out school or any other school declares that it provides special needs teaching, does it mean that it has properly trained teachers for dealing with children who suffer from dyslexia?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, one must differentiate between the various degrees of dyslexia. There will be children with mild dyslexia who will have little or no problem with learning in the same way, in the same class and with the same teacher as all other children. But when it comes to serious aspects of dyslexia and children who are adversely affected, special educational needs are there. The teachers who are trained to do special teaching are trained to do it across a wide range of the special difficulties which come to them. It would be totally impractical to have specialised teachers for each form of disability. Teachers trained in those specialties are trained across the broad spectrum.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the problem of the definition' of dyslexia is deep-seated? At one time the courts held that it could not be related to learning difficulty and constitute a special educational need application. Then the courts changed their view and now it can be. The definition that the Minister proposes seems eminently sound and sensible, with a substantial element attached. There is clearly a need for a code of guidance and further direction.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his comments. We are considering whether the guidance should contain some examples which would indicate borderline cases where a person
1138
may fall on one side of the line as opposed to the other. They will be difficult issues, but I assure the House that they will be treated with considerable sympathy.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first, we thank the Minister for clarifying the position today. It is helpful and takes us forward on the issue of dyslexia. We are delighted that the Government intend that severe dyslexia should be included in the definition of disability. May I assure the Minister that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was absolutely right that the draft guidance and code of practice do not do what the Minister would like? They must therefore be changed. As they stand, they would exclude the cases which the Minister agrees should be helped.
Secondly, what other representations have been made to the Minister about the code and the guidance? What other areas and forms of disability are inappropriately covered by the Act? In what ways is the Minister minded to change the code and the guidance?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not entirely sure what the noble Baroness picked up from my answer. The definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act is broadly based in order to cover a whole range of disabilities. We believe that it will cover people with dyslexia if there is a substantial and long-term adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
In regard to the consultation exercise, over 13,000 packs on the employment code of practice and the guidance on the definitions were sent out and over 700 responses received. I cannot give any detail on the over 700 responses. However, we and the Department for Education and Employment are treating all the responses seriously, including the one from the British Dyslexia Association.

Northern Ireland (Entry to Negotiations, etc) Bill
3.8 p.m.
Brought from the Commons earlier this day and printed pursuant to the Standing Order 48; read a first time.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I should also like to say a word about today's debates standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and Lord Willoughby de Broke. In the debate of my noble friend Lord Montagu, other than the mover, the Front Bench spokesmen and the Minister replying, speakers will be limited to nine minutes. In the debate of my noble friend Lord Willoughby, other than the mover and the Minister replying, speakers will be limited to 11 minutes. I should remind all noble Lords speaking in these

1139
debates that if any noble Lord were to speak at greater length, it would be met, I am sure, by the strongest disapproval of subsequent speakers in those debates.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Montagu of Beaulieu set down for this day shall be limited to three and a half hours, and that in the name of Lord Willoughby de Broke set down for this day to two and a half hours.—(Lord Strathclyde.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Tourism
3.10 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu rose to call attention to the contribution of tourism to the economy and employment and to the need for Her Majesty's Government to establish and co-ordinate long-term policies to ensure its continuing success; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Motion, I welcome the fact that it will be debated concurrently with the one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, whose Motion deals specifically with the report published last February by the Select Committee on European Affairs entitled Tourism in the European Community, the findings of which I freely endorse, as, I understand, do the Government.
Tourism has been debated in this House several times in recent years, reflecting the importance with which the subject is viewed by the House. Inevitably, this debate has attracted many expert speakers, including the two maiden speakers, my noble friend Lord Broughshane and the noble Lord, Lord Feldman, both of whom have special experience in the contribution that the arts make to tourism and whose views I am sure the House is anxious to hear.
First, I must declare my interests. It is over 40 years since I first became involved in tourism, when I first opened Beaulieu to the public and created the National Motor Museum. Since then, it has received over 20 million visitors. I have been president of the Southern Tourist Board since its inception, and am currently president of the Tourism Society. I have been involved with the British Tourist Authority since 1952, and was a founder member of the BTA Heritage Committee and the first president of the Historic Houses Association which it spawned. On my frequent overseas promotional trips on behalf of British tourism, I have been made well aware of the importance of the heritage to tourism—a fact borne out by all BTA research. Equally, it is necessary to state that tourism is also very important to Britain's heritage which, without the income it derives from tourism, would be in a very parlous condition today.
Throughout the past 30 years, when so many of our traditional industries have suffered decline, tourism, by contrast, has grown consistently in economic importance and the number of jobs it sustains in businesses—large and small—in cities, towns and the countryside throughout Britain. It seems a long time since anyone
1140
dared to describe employment in tourism and other service sector industries as "Mickey Mouse" jobs or even asserted that tourism was not an industry at all. Let me give the House a few facts, in the hope that it will excuse subsequent speakers from the need to repeat them too often.
Last year, British tourism earned some £37 billion, including foreign exchange earnings of £13 billion. Tourism now accounts for one-third of all our services sector and is our fifth largest export overall. It employs 1.7 million people—more than the construction industry and five times as many as the car industry. Tourism growth is a global phenomenon and has undoubtedly been one of the country's post-war success stories. Thirty years ago, our earnings from overseas visitors amounted to only £190 million, compared with today's £11.7 billion. Over the same period, with the growth of leisure time and affordable air travel, the number of overseas visitors has increased from just over 3 million to 23.6 million last year. Britain is currently fifth in the world in terms of tourism earnings.
In 1969, the growing importance of the industry was recognised in the Development of Tourism Act which created four statutory tourist boards: the British Tourist Authority, responsible for promoting Britain overseas, and the national boards of England, Scotland and Wales. There is, of course, in addition the Northern-Ireland Tourist Board, set up under separate legislation and ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rathcavan. Unfortunately, he is unable to be with us today, but would have reported that one of the happy results of the recent more peaceful time in Northern Ireland is the substantial growth in tourism in that part of the United Kingdom.
The statutory tourist boards, together with the 13 regional tourist boards in England, the area tourist boards in Scotland and the tourism companies in Wales, have all played a crucial role in helping to co-ordinate and improve the performance of the industry, composed mainly as it is of very small businesses.
Tourism.is set to be the world's biggest industry by the year 2000, and is becoming increasingly competitive. This afternoon, I should like to look to the future rather than dwell on the past, and to discuss some of the developments I think are needed to ensure that tourism in this country reaches its full potential and continues to make such a large contribution to our economy.
I have been most encouraged that this Government have continued to recognised the importance of tourism, not least by maintaining funding for the tourist boards in the latest public spending round, but also by finding extra funds for the promotion of London. I must pay a sincere tribute to the present Secretary of State for National Heritage for the keen interest she has taken in the future fortunes of the industry. I know that she shares my awareness of the essential role that tourism plays in supporting the heritage, our museums, and the arts and culture which are vital areas of our national life.
I have just quoted some encouraging figures about the tourism industry. However, some figures are less impressive, and should give us all pause for thought.

1141
Between 1980 and 1990, international tourism to the UK grew at an annual rate of 5.7 per cent. That sounds good, until you compare it with the highest growth areas—East Asia and the Pacific—where the average annual growth was an amazing 15 per cent. The House will see the scale of competition we are up against and the relative success of our performance to date.
Important as international tourism is to the UK, which is what so many people think of when tourism is mentioned, domestic tourism is even more vital to this country and is many times bigger in terms of earnings and visitor nights than overseas business. Very few tourist operations can survive on income from overseas visitors alone, and we ignore the importance of domestic tourism at our peril. Over the past 10 years, the balance of spending by British residents on overseas and home holidays has completely reversed. In 1983, less than half the money spent by the British on holidays went on holidays abroad. By 1993, well over half the money flowed overseas, stimulated by the well-organised and more cheaply priced package holiday business. The situation has worsened further since then, and we are currently running a deficit averaging over £4 billion per year on the tourism trade account.
No longer can we rest on our laurels and assume that people will automatically wish to take their holidays here. Domestic and overseas visitors have to be better informed about Britain and persuaded that this country offers what they want in a holiday, at a price they can afford and which they think offers good value for money. The Government, the tourist boards and the tourism industry all have a part to play.
The Government will continue to have a crucial role in ensuring tourism's continuing success, both directly and through funding the tourist boards. Apart from setting the right economic climate for growth, I should like to see the Department of National Heritage acting as an active champion of tourism in Whitehall, making sure that tourism's needs are taken into account when other policy areas, such as transport and planning, are being discussed. So often the needs of tourism appear not to be adequately considered. I recall that the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, when he had ministerial responsibility for tourism, set up an interdepartmental committee to ensure that tourism's interests were not neglected—but that seems to have fallen by the wayside in recent years. I should like to see it revived.
I shall also refer briefly to the work of the tourist boards. Overall, they do a good job, but there are some areas which need addressing. The British Tourist Authority, as usual, continues to do excellent work overseas, as I know from my visits abroad and experience of its work and reputation in all our major markets. Each year it picks up more accolades for its work—the BTA has been voted by the trade as the "top tourist office" in countries as far apart as Australia, the US and Ireland; and most recently it won the prestigious Best Tourist Office in Europe award at the International Travel trade fair in Berlin. The BTA produces excellent value for money for taxpayers. Independent research has shown that £757 million of our tourism earnings from overseas was a direct result of BTA activities; or, put another way, the return to the
1142
economy is £23 for every £1 of BTA's grant-in-aid from government. Without the BTA, the 200,000 or so small operators in the British tourism industry would find it almost impossible to promote what are, in effect, critical "export" markets, particularly in Japan and other fast-growing Near and Far East markets.
In the new markets, in the face of intense international competition, it is vital that our promotional efforts are co-ordinated under a British banner, as happens currently through the BTA. I should be very concerned if the Labour Party's proposals for Scottish and Welsh devolution resulted in further fragmentation of that effort and a consequent weakening of the British image overseas. It would be detrimental not only for Britain as a whole, but particularly for Scotland and Wales.
The current statutory tourist board structure is no longer ideal. While it works well in most activities most of the time, that is not always so, particularly as there is no means of achieving agreement on all vital matters.
Moreover, Britain's tourism actually has no undisputed leader. Despite the much welcomed commitment to tourism of the Secretary of State for National Heritage, and also my noble friend Lord Inglewood, she is only too well aware that no individual can speak for tourism for Britain as a whole, as the administration and budgets of tourism in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are administered by their respective Secretaries of State.
The independence of the national boards can cause unnecessary differences in essential aspects of the industry, such as research and quality standards, when, to serve best the needs of British industry, greater co-ordination is essential.
I do not know how many noble Lords present are familiar with the fact that the grant-in-aid to the English Tourist Board, which also has to fund essential services carried out by English regional boards, has been cut quite savagely over recent-years from over £23 million in 1988–1989 to only £10 million in the last and current years. Perversely, the Scottish and Welsh Tourist Boards over the same period of time have had their budgets increased. It is difficult to see the logic of treating parts of Great Britain so differently. The problems of attracting visitors, stimulating investment and reducing seasonality are no different in, say, Cornwall or Northern England than they are in West Wales or rural Scotland.
The reduction in the ETB's grant-in-aid has inevitably resulted in cuts in its work; for example, the reduction in support for the Tourist Information Centre. Funding for the English regional tourist boards has also suffered. I am convinced that tourism can produce such great returns that the relatively small amounts of additional funding necessary to restore the cuts would pay handsome dividends in jobs and economic benefits.
However, I am concerned also that the structure of the English regional boards is no longer working as well as it used to. I am aware that the ETB and regional boards have been looking at the structure and remit of the regions and the division of responsibilities between regions and the centre. But they have not yet, as far as I know, come to any conclusions. Since the regional

1143
boards were established, local authority tourism activity has increased markedly. Most councils now have their own designated tourism officer. In the private sector there are many locally based marketing consortia. But they do not relate easily to the regional boards or their membership structure. We need a new system which will harness the strength of all those involved in tourism. Any changes must ensure more efficient and better co-ordinated central services. Although some favour a system of fewer larger boards—for instance, four boards covering the North, the Midlands, the South, and London—it is unlikely that such large areas would encourage the active participation of small independent businesses. It is unlikely that Brighton, Bournemouth, and Torquay, which are naturally in competition, would fit comfortably in such a large area. I should like to hear the Minister's views on that subject.
I must mention also the important role that local authorities play in tourism. They are responsible for planning, roads, signposting, and, in most cases, the funding and operation of tourist information centres—that excellent network upon which the visitor relies so heavily. I know it is of great concern to the tourist industry that local authority spending constraints have threatened TICs, either through shorter opening hours or sometimes closing down altogether. Such front-line services must be maintained at all costs. One of the keys to our continued success is the achievement of high standards in everything we offer—accommodation, service, attractions, the heritage and the environment. I should like briefly to mention four: accommodation, service, attractions, and heritage.
Accommodation classification and grading schemes are one example where, to date, it has not been possible to achieve a fully effective result in the board's efforts to raise standards. Sadly, there are too many establishments that do not measure up to the requirements of today's tourist. Some are in London, where in 1994 nearly half the overseas visitors considered that hotel accommodation represented bad value for money. Other substandard accommodation is to be found in seaside resorts, where the recent problems with DSS claimants in hotels is symptomatic of that problem. Some accommodation is undoubtedly surplus and unsuitable for economic refurbishment, but the Government, together with the tourist boards, should give attention to how those establishments can be eased out of the tourist market, and perhaps also their residents. However, before those desirable changes can be achieved, we need a co-ordinated approach from the national boards to their crown classification schemes and harmonisation with the motoring organisations' well-recognised stars rating system. In a recent survey for the Tourism Society, a majority of recipients favoured a statutory approach to the registration of accommodation—as already happens in Northern Ireland—coupled with a voluntary grading in order to help both improve standards and make it easier for the consumer to select the most appropriate accommodation. Will the Minister comment on the Tourism Society's proposals and let us know what he thinks?
Following the improvements of recent years, there are many establishments of all kinds—and I count Beaulieu as one of these—where the standards of service offered match those anywhere in the world. Much first-rate work has been done on training in the tourist industry—by individual companies, by hotel and training companies, by tourist boards through their Welcome Host initiative, and through the development of national vocational qualifications. Unfortunately, that is not enough. Regrettably, there are still too many people operating tourism businesses in Britain who appear not to consider training valuable and worth spending time and money on.
I do not have all the answers on training but I am sure that it is an area we should all—Government, educational establishments, everybody—take very seriously. Our industry will not flourish if our service standards fall below those of our competitors.
Heritage is one aspect of tourism in which our visitors have high expectations. It is known to be the principal feature that draws our overseas visitors. For many years now the BTA Heritage Committee has valiantly tried to co-ordinate the separate interests of historic buildings and so on. The time has come for that committee to be given a larger and independent role and recognition by government that it speaks for our heritage. It would make a major contribution to focusing heritage policy by evidencing problems and co-ordinating all our efforts. I seem to have run out of time, so I hope that the future speakers will cover all the points. I am sure the Government and I will look with great interest at what is said. I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, my first duty and pleasure is to thank the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for allowing us to add our Motion to his. I hope he will be rewarded by the breadth and variety of views that the speakers in the debate will furnish today.
I should also thank our specialist adviser, Mr. Graham Wason, and our clerk, Mr. Andrew Mylne, who both contributed very largely to the production of this report. Finally, like my noble friend Lord Montagu, I welcome our two maiden speakers to this debate and wish them well in their speeches. We look forward with keen interest to their views.
It may be helpful to the House if I said a few words about the background to our report. The Maastricht Treaty, in an addendum, ordered the Commission to produce a report on tourism, among other things, with a view to considering whether a special extra treaty should be added to the Maastricht Treaty. They were told to produce it by 1996, and they have done that with perhaps a year to spare. It will be a subject for debate at the Intergovernmental Conference, and for this reason, my committee decided it was a matter of some importance at this time.
The Commission's report, the Green Paper, ended up with four options which it left to associations and governments to make a choice from in their decision-making process. Those four options, which I shall outline only very briefly, were as follows. Option

1145
I was the status quo minus, with little or nothing done to add to the Tourism Unit's responsibility; Option 2 was the status quo plus, with a modest further action plan; Option 3 envisaged some addition to the Tourism Unit's responsibility and greater involvement with other units in the directorates; and Option 4 implied a good deal of intervention on the part of the Commission in the organisation of tourism within the Union. Option 4 implied, though it did not say specifically, that a new addition to the treaty would be the most adequate way to see the matter through.
So much for the background. Let me say a few words about tourism in Europe. The first thing to say about it is the size of the parameters. Tourism includes everything from the humblest bed-and-breakfast accommodation to large airlines, large hotel chains and travel agents. It also has many other facets. That makes it extremely difficult to get a grasp on tourism, even though every particular branch of the industry is represented by its own association. So statistics about tourism must be treated with a certain degree of caution.
The overwhelming feature of the tourism industry, as my noble friend Lord Montagu pointed out, is its buoyancy. For instance, tourism is a bigger earner in this country than the petroleum industry. It must be treated with a great deal of respect and interest. Tourism is also a notable employer of people, in an age in which unemployment is a key issue. Seven per cent. of the workforce in the United Kingdom is involved in tourism compared with six per cent. in Europe. That is a very substantial number of people. What is more, it is a benign employer. If people have energy, drive and initiative but perhaps rather mediocre academic qualifications, in the tourist industry they can enjoy a flourishing career. In the same way, there are certain areas in Europe—mostly rural areas—where little or no employment is possible. But where there is a monument or site of national or international interest, there is quite a substantial amount of employment around such a site, with guides, accommodation, transport facilities and so forth.
I pass on fairly rapidly to the main thrust of our report; namely, an investigation of the powers and responsibilities of the Tourism Unit in the Commission. It comprises something in the order of 20 people, including secretaries, and is notably under-powered for the work that it has to do. I suppose that it has two main responsibilities. One is a routine responsibility. to arrange seminars, collate statistics and disseminate information. It probably does that quite adequately. But by far its most important role is liaison with the other directorates. There, we felt, was a notable gap. Other directorates dispose of very substantial funds, such as structural funds and other types of money. That makes them very powerful spenders either in their own right or indirectly through governments. It is on that expenditure that tourism and the Tourism Unit should have a very marked impact; but at the moment it does not have one at all. So the unit needs to be bolstered in numbers, possibly increased modestly in budget and given a much greater standing in the European Community.
1146
We felt that the obvious way to do that would be to raise the status of the Tourism Unit to that of a directorate. In itself that would involve no increase in manpower but would make it much easier for the unit to deal on more or less equal terms with other directorates.
There are one or two other points which, because of time constraints, I can only mention briefly. One is the sustainability of tourism. The committee was considerably involved with that and perplexed. The problem with sustainability is that large coachloads of tourists slowly destroy almost any site that they visit over a period of years—maybe centuries. Nonetheless, it is very difficult to say to any potential tourist, "You must not go there." It is very difficult to control access in a way that is felt to be just and proper, but it is very necessary. It can only be done on an ad hoc basis, site by site. But the responsibility of national governments and national tourist boards is very great in that respect.
Our conclusion was that we could support the Government's view on most of the Green Paper; but we recommend boosting the powers and authority of the Tourism Unit to make it much more effective and to enable it to do the tasks that we feel should be undertaken.
3.36 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, in the course of giving evidence to the Select Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, Mr Lyndon Harrison, a Member of the European Parliament, said that because tourism is associated with leisure, it is not normally considered a serious industry. He thought that that was a huge psychological problem, and I agree with him.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, is to be congratulated on initiating the debate and drawing attention to the major contribution that tourism in this country makes to our economy as a whole and indeed to employment. He has given the figures and, since he warned me and other speakers, I shall not—gladly I do not—repeat them. Tourism is. a serious industry and, as the noble Lord indicated, an industry which is very important in regard to small and medium-sized enterprises. We all know that that sector of employment across the economy as a whole is perhaps the major potential for new jobs in this country. That certainly applies to tourism.
Clearly, tourism is much more important in some regions of the country than in others. By way of example, I shall refer to Devon and Cornwall. In recent years that region has suffered considerable structural decline in many of its traditional industries, such as fishing and agriculture, as well as defence and tourism. Of all those industries, tourism offers genuine potential for revitalisation and regeneration for the future.
Unfortunately, although Devon and Cornwall have been designated Assistance Areas, which is an implicit recognition of their economic problems, Regional Selective Assistance for tourism is not made available. I am not sure what the point is of being designated an Assistance Area, if the very industry that is so likely to contribute to employment prospects in the future is ruled out for assistance purposes.

1147
I am a member of my party's Regional Policy Commission. In evidence to us, the West Country Development Corporation pointed out that in Cornwall tourism represents 24 per cent. of GDP and in Devonshire it is 14 per cent. That compares with the relatively modest 6 per cent. for Wales. Yet the Welsh Tourist Board generously contributes grants and loans. Devon and Cornwall receive nothing for tourism. That does not seem to me to make a lot of economic sense, nor is it equitable. Let me cite the all-party Trade and Industry Select Committee in another place, which last year said:
"If this is an appropriate use of public funds in Wales, we can see no reason why the same should not apply in England".
The West Country Development Corporation is concerned that the recommendation which the House of Commons Select Committee made last year calling for equity of treatment throughout the United Kingdom has been rejected by Her Majesty's Government in their official response to the Select Committee report. It is not alone in this concern. My commission has had evidence from East Sussex County Council, which told us that the case for assistance to combat long-term structural decline in the tourism industry in the coastal towns of Sussex is surely just as compelling as for other areas seeking assistance to cope with the decline in mining, shipbuilding or manufacturing industries. The fact that some industries produce visible outputs and others invisibles is surely not a sensible basis for discrimination.
So why did the Government reject the recommendation of the House of Commons Select Committee that the same grants and loans should be available for tourism projects in England and Scotland as in Wales? The Government's response was in two sentences. Sentence number one:
"The Government does not agree with the Committee's recommendation".
Sentence number two:
"Circumstances vary to such an extent throughout Great Britain that the Government does not accept the case for a uniform set of grants".
I do not read the House of Commons Select Committee recommendation as asking for uniformity; neither the word nor the notion appears in it. It was seeking more equity, more rationality, compared with the current disparate treatment of different regions of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, quoted the Development of Tourism Act 1969 as being a key Act in the development of tourism. Each of the national tourist boards has the legal power to improve tourist amenities and facilities under that legislation, but only the Welsh Tourist Board appears to have implemented this. All credit to the Welsh Tourist Board. But I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government, and the Minister today perhaps, would indicate whether there are plans to ensure a more rational, more equitable, less capricious dispensation of assistance to tourism and the tourism industry in our country, for the benefit, as is mentioned in the Motion, of the economy of the United Kingdom and the creation of jobs in our country.
1148
The Motion refers to the need for Her Majesty's Government to establish and co-ordinate long-term policies to ensure continuing success of tourism in this country. The Government must invest in and support the industry's own estimate of creating an extra 130,000 jobs by 1999 and up to 300,000 new jobs in the next 10 years.
Visitors to this country—the customers of the United Kingdom tourist industry—whether they come from abroad or not, will demand increasingly high standards. If those high standards are to be delivered, then the men and women who work in the industry will need to reach the highest standards of training. Government help to that end will surely have the pay-off of even better contributions to our UK economy than the tourist industry presently provides.
Investment, therefore, must include investment in people. As the Director-General of the CBI, Mr. Adair Turner, said recently:
"Improving economic performance will only be sustained by improving the quality of the workforce".
3.45 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I speak without the eminence in or experience of tourism displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. However, I do so using my full geographical title of Lord McNally, of Blackpool.
Blackpool, my home town, gave me experience of what I call the sharp end of tourism. I once cooked 23 hundredweight of chips in a single afternoon; I spent a season serving coffee at the top of Blackpool Tower, an effort which gave me an article in the local paper headlined "Tower Top Tommy"; I appeared at the Tower Circus with Charlie Cairoli and in the Tower Ballroom with Reginald Dixon. I should say that I was selling ice cream while Charlie was throwing custard pies and Reginald was playing the organ. Nevertheless, it meant that I was brought up from childhood with the clear understanding that tourism was a real industry that provided jobs and created opportunity. I shall not, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, warned us, repeat all the statistics, but I do endorse them.
In general, the opinion abroad is that tourism is the poor relation of Whitehall—under-prioritised and undervalued, and a responsibility often given to a Minister because of the beauty of his name (Strathclyde, Ullswater, Inglewood) rather than for other reasons. We shall certainly be looking for signs that the Government will give tourism a high priority when the Minister replies.
Let me make five points. As I come from the north west, one point might seem slightly strange. I endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, said about support for tourism in London. London is our national flagship for tourism. It is by far the greatest magnet for overseas visitors, and it is essential that visitors to London come to a place that is safe, clean, has good transport and gives good value for money. Value for money is the same whether it be at the Ritz or a small hotel: it is whether you feel you have been well served and are happy and contented. I commend the work that London First has done in this respect.

1149
As to the natural environment—another of our great national assets referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elibank—beware of the NIMBY factor in attacking tourism. There is a very good case to be made that it is the spur and impetus of tourism which in many cases has helped to improve the natural environment and to protect it because there has been a motive so to do.
There are three personal experiences of the tourist industry I would refer to. From each of those experiences I would draw lessons. My home town of Blackpool is one of our Victorian resorts. We underestimate the attraction and potential attraction of the traditional British seaside resort because, even with all the changes of recent years, Blackpool remains one of Europe's most successful resorts. It remains so by adapting to change and taste and by continuing to innovate. The town's motto is "Progress", and it is living up to that motto today by building the biggest big-dipper in Europe, just as our Victorian forefathers lived up to it by having the imagination to build a copy of the Eiffel Tower.
But those Victorian seaside resorts do need help, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, indicated. Many of them have big problems with seasonal unemployment and some of them have a more than average share of social problems which need to be resolved. Part of any strategy for tourism should he a recognition of the assets that we have in our seaside resorts.
Another experience I had was working on Merseyside and finding the real potential for tourism in the big cities. Liverpool is often a target for criticism, but I urge noble Lords to go out and look at the tourist opportunity in Liverpool. It combines architecture, the cultural assets of the city, the restoration of Albert Dock and the Maritime Museum and the reclamation of canals and waterways around the city. It is extremely interesting and valuable. What Liverpool has done with great success has been mirrored in many other cities. I was watching a television programme last night which pointed out that Sheffield now has more tourist visitors than Cambridge. Birmingham and Manchester and others are finding the value of tourism as a source of economic activity.
The town I now live in, St. Albans, is a small town with a great historical Roman and medieval heritage. Its local authority is taking the initiative in small but effective ways. It is improving the signage around the town; operating an anti-litter campaign; providing good contacts between the railway station and areas of visitor focus and ensuring that more publicity is given to it in London and other major centres of tourism.
It is clear that there is no single tourist industry. The efforts that a town like Blackpool has to make in refurbishing the tramways or improving the piers, or a St. Albans in ensuring that its history is understood and well visited, or a Liverpool in exploiting its industrial past and its architecture, are all different. Lord help us at the thought of some European directive being produced concerning those matters. As one who believes both in Europe and in subsidiarity, I also believe that tourism is very much a local initiative. However, it needs a framework
1150
within which to operate. It needs a partnership between government and the private sector. Again, one of the lessons I learnt in the areas I visited was how successfully the private sector has been able to respond when supported by the local authority or regional initiatives.
Tourism also needs cohesion—another word that is in the report and should be in the Minister's mind—of government policy. The Government should keep tourism in mind when looking at transport or environment policy and also in looking at taxation policy. Tourism also needs adequate promotion to make sure that people are aware of the great asset that we have in our tourist industry. If we discovered in the North Sea an asset similar to the one that we already have in tourism, the Government would be rushing to respond.
Finally, I fully endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Borne, said regarding commitment to training and quality. The heart of tourism is satisfied customers, and satisfied customers depend on quality. If we have cohesion in policy and the broad framework of government support, we have in Britain a tourist industry, both large and small, that is able to respond vigorously and give us both the jobs and the prosperity that flow from successful tourism.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Broughshane: My Lords, in venturing to address your Lordships for the first time I felt that I must wait until I could find something in which I had some personal interest and experience. As a new boy—if one can use that word for an octogenarian—I must crave the indulgence of the House for anything which is not strictly in accordance with its rules. However, I do not think your Lordships will find me guilty of lack of brevity.
Until I retired recently, I had the pleasure of working for almost 30 years at the-Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, which I feel your Lordships will agree can inevitably be classified as a major tourist attraction. In the course of my duties I was in a position to observe the large number of visitors from abroad who attended our performances. In talking to many of them, I became convinced that a main reason for their deciding to visit these islands was to go to our theatres, attend our operas, see our ballets and listen to our concerts, for all of which we are rightly internationally famous, despite the somewhat meagre financial assistance provided by the state, regardless of the colour of the government in power.
While I am unable to offer precise statistics, it is generally accepted that other countries—I have in mind France, Germany and Holland particularly—place the arts rather higher on the agenda of financial assistance than we do ourselves. They thus ensure substantial employment for their artists, musicians, singers and dancers and, what is more relevant to today's debate, make it possible for tickets for performances to he sold at prices more attractive to foreigners.
Anything that can be done to draw attention to the vital part played by the arts is infinitely worth while, not merely on the grounds of entertainment, which seems to

1151
have an unfortunate flavour in the minds of some people who think it is not quite right to be entertained—with which I totally disagree—and general education, but also in increasing revenue through the employment of the artists themselves (thus making it less likely that they will make a claim on the state) and for all those associated with them, their work in museums, theatres and concert halls, and also in attracting tourists, which is the main purpose of my speaking. I therefore heartily welcome and endorse the Motion proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is my great privilege and pleasure to be the first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, on his maiden speech. He comes to your Lordships' House with a most distinguished record from the Second World War, where he was in the RAF volunteer reserves and was awarded both the DSO and DFC. There are few these days who are privileged to wear both those decorations.
As the noble Lord said, he is a founder member of the Friends of Covent Garden. It was valuable to hear his point regarding the vital role of the arts in the whole of the tourist industry defined in its widest sense. I am sure that I speak for all of us in saying that we look forward to hearing him on many occasions in the future. Perhaps I may say also that we look forward to hearing the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Feldman.
I thank too my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu for introducing this important debate this afternoon. As he rightly said, travel and tourism will be the world's largest industry by the turn of the century. It is therefore of great value that we should debate this issue today, for it is extremely important that the United Kingdom should share in its growth. I shall not repeat all the statistics which have been given, but they were very welcome.
I listened not only to my noble friend but to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about the importance of the tourist industry. It often appears as a most disparate collection of small businesses and enterprises, interspersed with some very large and very important enterprises. Therefore, it is not coherent as most industries are. As a consequence, I believe that it has often not been thought of as an industry at all, but it is and it has a major role to play in our lives today. I believe that this debate is a major contribution to the recognition of its importance.
Perhaps I may also say how much we value the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elibank. I read his report with great interest. I believe that everyone will agree with the points which have been made and I shall return to those in a moment.
I should perhaps myself declare an interest—not that I have any financial interest at all in the tourist industry—but I have a relative in the tourist business.
There are three points that I would like to make. The first has already been referred to, and it concerns the importance of the tourist industry in the creation of jobs. We are all concerned about unemployment today, but
1152
here is a growth industry. It supports about 1.5 million jobs, which is 6 per cent. of the labour force, and about 187,000 people who are self-employed. It is a growth industry. I found it quite sad reading some articles and seeing a television programme which suggested that many young people still do not think of service industry work as offering proper jobs at all. They are seen as non-jobs in a candyfloss society. That could not be further from the truth. It is important that all of us tell young people that here are tremendous opportunities. After all, they may have the opportunity to visit Disneyland in Florida and enjoy it or go down to the local pub or to the local theatre.
Everybody involved in these organisations has in one way or another an interesting and worthwhile job and has a contribution to make. If one wants to go into the service industry the sky is the limit. One can get to the top. It is a worthwhile career. It is very dispiriting to find that attitude when industries are crying out for workers. I live in Oxford and we had the famous advertisement only a couple of weeks ago about 30 bus drivers who came from Australia. It is incredible that people here do not take the jobs that are on offer. That is the most important point to make.
Secondly, I would like to say something else about Oxford which illustrates one of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, made in his important report. Tourism is a vital part of the economy of central southern England. Over 12 million visitors stayed in the region in 1994 and spent around £1.6 billion. In Oxford itself the city attracted 1.5 million visitors, of whom about 40 per cent. were from overseas. Their expenditure of £60 million to £80 million is vital to the local economy and it supports employment for over 3,500 people. But—and this is the point which the tourism report makes—where there is successful tourism it can in a sense be almost counter-productive. So many people come to see something that the very thing they have come to see becomes spoilt. It therefore creates a problem that needs to be dealt with, because it is no use any of us complaining. We want to go to see tourist attractions in other places, so why should not tourists come to see our attractions?
The question is what can be done. One solution has been the very useful co-operation between the Southern Tourist Board and the city council to focus more on tourism and increase its economic benefits, while at the same time reducing its physical impact. The appointment of a new tourism manager employed by the Southern Tourist Board through a contract with the city council has been very helpful. It has encouraged visitors to stay longer and to spend more money in the city, as well as reducing the problems that they cause. A survey has shown that 40 per cent. of visitors spend less than three hours in Oxford before moving on. If they can be persuaded to stay over a longer period of time, it will make the situation much more satisfactory for everybody. The whole experience will be better because one will be better able to deal with the problems of too many cars, litter, environmental damage, overcrowding and so on. The management of all this is very important indeed. This project illustrates the vital role of the

1153
regional tourist boards in bringing together local authorities and the private sector to make matters better for everyone.
Thirdly, I wish briefly to say what the Government can and should do. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Montagu that it is somewhat bizarre that the money for the English Tourist Board has been cut, while that for Wales and Scotland has been increased. It is worth saying that on the day after St. George's Day. With the number of tourists that we have, I do not understand the reasons. I share the view in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, of the importance of co-operation between government departments. The Department of National Heritage and the DTI were mentioned, as were other departments. A very unhappy decision was the cancellation of CrossRail. It is valuable to have a railway link from Heathrow to Paddington. As someone who uses Paddington Station often, I can assure your Lordships that travelling on the Circle Line, or indeed by bus, is not one of the most pleasant experiences. When on top of that there are many young tourists carrying large backpacks, one sees that we need to have a properly co-ordinated transport policy so that we can see these things through.
I conclude by underlining some of the important points where government or regional tourist intervention can make this industry more effective. As has been said, it is important that accommodation should be properly classified and brought up to a reasonable standard. There should be proper co-ordination in the servicing of a network of tourist information centres. It is very important indeed that the standards of service, through training, should be improved. Nothing makes a greater impression on people than pleasant service; the converse is equally true. These are matters in which the Government can help. The case for the regional boards is a strong one and for their co-ordination with local authorities to help to make this vital industry more effective.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Gibson: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, for an admirable maiden speech. I have known him for more than 60 years. We worked together for part of that time at the Opera House. In the area of the arts, as in much else, he has already made a significant contribution. I hope that we shall hear him often in the future.
I wish to speak briefly and only about one relatively narrow point as regards tourism; namely, the need to protect our historic assets from over-use and from too great a pressure from tourism today so that they will be there for tourists of the future to enjoy. The noble Lord, Lord Elibank, has already made that point with great clarity and force. I would like to develop it a little further since it is an area in which I have had some experience before.
Before I do so, I heed the gentle warning of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, that we should not give facts and figures that he has already given. He has made that unnecessary. One figure astonishes me. It was given to
1154
the ICOMOS conference in Bath last autumn. I was not there, but I read about it. In another 10 years tourism will account for 10 per cent.—I am not sure whether it was not 11 per cent.—of the world's GDP, providing over 300 million jobs. Those are impressive figures. They were not contradicted and, if they are anything like accurate, tourism is becoming the single most important generator of wealth and employment. It is very important, therefore, that we in Britain capture or retain a healthy share of this huge trade. In the battle to do so we start off with some wonderful assets, both natural and man-made—that goes without saying. Of course, we do not have everything. Much of the world's tourism consists of people lying around on beaches, and not many people come here to do that.
Our prime assets are our wonderfully gentle, civilised landscape and the buildings in our villages, our castles, our manor houses, our public houses and, above all, our churches. We have over 9,000 pre-Reformation churches. It is not always that easy to get into them, but you can get in if you try. They are the legacy of the relatively peaceful continuity of life on this island, which is unmatched anywhere else in the world. Even the weather, if not in itself an attraction, is only the price we pay for having the most beautiful gardens in the world to show our visitors from abroad. It is, therefore, with uniquely valuable assets that we face this ever-expanding tourist industry.
The problem is that those assets are extremely vulnerable, or many of them are, as are the ones with which I propose to concern myself for a moment or two. They are liable to be diminished by the pressure of the tourists themselves "loving them to death", as the phrase goes. If this pressure continues to grow at its present rate, there will be little for the tourists of tomorrow, and the prosperity and employment which we derive from tourism will be short-lived. We have to do more than we have yet done to develop what the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, referred to as "sustainable tourism".
Any business, whether in the tourist industry or not, must develop a means of preserving or renewing the assets on which its wealth depends. In most businesses assets can be replaced, but the most important tourist assets are not replaceable. That is the main reason why, for example, the National Trust and other owners of historic property often close their more fragile interiors in winter. Of course, there are also economic reasons for closing in winter, but furniture, pictures and other things need relief from pressure. In many a great house some of the contents are nowadays subject to more visitor pressure in one year than they may have previously had to endure in the past hundred years.
I remember years ago, when I was chairman of the National Trust, I was invited to dinner with the English Tourist Board and I was pressed to agree that our houses should be open all winter to accommodate the increasing number of winter tourists. When I explained the need to rest and conserve such things as furniture, tapestry, curtains and so on, one very formidable member of the tourist board at that time, who had better be nameless, lent forward and said: "But my dear Lord Gibson, if only you would be a little more enterprising, you would earn more money and you would be able to buy new

1155
curtains". I tried to explain that that was not what the National Trust was primarily about. Of course, no member of the ETB today would say such a thing. That was nearly 20 years ago.
The need for conservation and the broader need for sustainability in general is now much more widely accepted. The ETB has developed various excellent ideas to that end. But the whole idea of sustainability cannot be emphasised strongly enough and needs to be more widely accepted than it is at present. We are not there yet.
The point is, as the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, said—or it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Montagu—this is an industry of very small businesses and it is difficult to expect small operators to resist the temptation to maximise short-term profit and let the future take care of itself. It is only within the context of a strong lead from the Government in relation to the tourist boards that this can happen. It probably has to be done by regulation to a considerable extent but also, where appropriate, by giving incentives or imposing penalties in the form of charges to ensure that the long-term erosion of our assets is avoided.
To give an example, historic buildings need constant sympathetic repair. However, the effect of the present VAT system is that repair is subject to VAT and replacement is not. This has been said many times before, but it cannot be too strongly emphasised what a crazy absurdity this is. I do not know the answer to it. We all know the answers that are given and how difficult it is, but there must be some way of ceasing to encourage people to replace historic assets rather than to repair them. One cannot have a better example of the way in which we can expect a lead from the authorities to this end.
If there were no other arguments except the economic one supporting the expenditure of taxpayers' money on our historic assets—and not only our historic assets but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, mentioned, our operas, our theatres and our concerts, in the form of public assistance and subsidy—it would be enough. Of course, the fact that there is a purely cultural argument ought to be enough by itself, but one is conscious that politicians—I am sure not in your Lordships' House, of course—do not always value culture as highly as economics. For instance, does it make sense, even in the light of its economic value, to allow such a huge backlog of repairs as has been allowed to develop at the Victoria and Albert Museum over the years?
To conclude, one is reluctant to underline the purely economic aspects of what should be accepted as a cultural case, but I believe that it is right in a debate on tourism to emphasise the economic values and to remind ourselves that safeguarding the future of our tourist assets is good business.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Feldman: My Lords, it would have taken me longer to summon up the courage to make my maiden speech in your Lordships' House, but I could not resist the clarion call of this debate and the opportunity to
1156
support the British tourist industry. It is for me a particular pleasure to speak in a debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Montagu who once again showed why he is so highly regarded in British and international tourism.
I, too, congratulate my fellow maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, on the work that he has done at the Royal Opera House, where I have spent many happy hours over many years and hope to continue to do so in the future.
I should declare an interest, in that I am a long-serving and happy member of the English Tourist Board and I am also the chairman of both the tourist-related London Arts Season and the Festival of Arts and Culture, launched under the auspices of the ETB, the British Tourist Authority and the London Tourist Board.
Tourism is a "many-splendoured thing". It draws upon a constellation of many of the things which I treasure in life, and I am sure that I am not alone in that in this House. Travel, scenic beauty, heritage, architecture, the arts, sports, music, food and wine—who can doubt the value of an industry based on such attractions? Nor are those pleasures the province of the few. They are now the opportunity of the many.
As has been said already, tourism has too often in the past been treated as a "candyfloss" industry, a pleasant confection, not a serious industry—a sort of Cinderella among the industries. I suggest that this particular Cinderella has had no fairy godmother to take her to the ball. Tourism has got there by dint of the value it offers and the pleasure it brings.
As suggested by my noble friend Lord Montagu, I have slaughtered the mass of statistics that I was going to give, save for one, which I think is important: four out of every 10 of the new jobs created in the past 12 months have come from tourism.
Leisure may be the product, but leisurely is not the pace of competition in the industry. Winning the tourist dollar, yen or mark requires an ever-stronger product as the competition expands. In this country, we cannot rely alone on the sun and our weather to bring tourists here, but we can rely on our cultural, artistic and historic heritage which is second to none.
However, it has to be marketed and presented. The London Arts Season was one such enterprise and is an interesting case study. At the ETB, we set out initially to increase visitors for the arts to London and from there to the regions. It took several years to achieve it, but it was worth it. How did we do it? We brought the directors of museums, galleries, opera houses, concert halls, theatres (large and fringe) together, over lunch or dinner. Interestingly, in many cases they had not even met one another before, so we all sat down and ate for victory.
We planned an arts season, putting together all of London's productions along with many new events which we promoted to the world. We enabled overseas tourists to book their travel, hotel and theatre with one telephone call, without having to rely on the artistic ability of the hotel porter. Significantly, we chose February and March, times when arts venues, hotels and

1157
'planes were in low season. In doing that, we showed the arts the benefits of tourism, and tourism the benefits of working with the arts. We gathered 60 major names as arts "ambassadors", and some of them travelled around the world promoting the season and the festival.
We launched the first season in 1994. Now, after three London Arts Seasons, we have brought £75 million to the economy of London. That led to a massive campaign by the British Tourist Authority, promoting all of Britain's arts to the world. The year-long British Festival of Arts and Culture in 1995 brought in an extra £150 million. I am pleased to see in his place the chief executive of the British Tourist Authority and a director of the London Arts Season. New relationships have been forged, and they grow stronger.
The arts have always been an important part of the UK tourism product, but there had never been a coherent overall tourism and arts strategy. Yet 50 per cent. of overseas visitors are drawn here by our arts and heritage. Our West End theatres sell 12 million tickets annually, one-third of which are sold to overseas visitors. More than 40 million overseas visitors go to our museums, galleries and historic properties every year. The tourism spend on the arts is approaching £3 billion per year.
Now arts and tourism have found one another, they stand to prosper together. One way in which they can prosper is through the establishment of a tourism and arts bureau in London to promote them both at home and abroad every month of the year.
When Mark Twain visited Bayreuth, he was asked on his return what he thought of it. He answered:
"Bayreuth is beautiful, and Wagner's music is not as bad as it sounds".
We need not fear a backhanded compliment for our arts, but visitors to Britain must be served equally well in other respects. The work of the Government and tourism bodies is rightly concerned with raising standards, especially in accommodation. That is essential if we are to compete in the tourism market. The Secretary of State has shown great interest in, and leadership for, tourism. In the Department of National Heritage, tourism is one of the areas to receive increased funding because of its enormous potential as a generator of wealth and jobs. However, perhaps I may say gently in Oliver Twist mode, "Please sir, can we have some more?"
So, where do we go in the future? The best way to predict the future is to create it. I should like us to create a British map of major and acceptable tourism opportunities. Government cannot do it alone, yet together with the private sector we can find, research, back and sell the big ideas and projects. In many other countries we see local and national government taking such a midwife role. In this country the Government will work for inward investment or a domestic project when it is a car plant or an electronics factory. It must be equally valuable for the Department of National Heritage to see the tourist industry through the necessary departmental hurdles of environment, transport, employment and funding to promote a big idea, a major project. I suggest that that is the way that we shall develop the map of opportunities for Britain.
1158
I think back to 1896 when Grandpa Thompson put up a few rides on Blackpool beach. Today, Blackpool Pleasure Beach, with its new roller-coaster, is the UK's leading visitor attraction with 7.5 million visitors per year. I also think back to 1841 when Thomas Cook showed great enterprise in chartering a train to take 570 people from Leicester to Loughborough for the day. Since then, tourism has been an industry marked out by enterprise and people of vision, whether small-scale or large. It is up to the industry, the statutory bodies and the Government to recognise that vision and to give it backing. Tourism has an immense amount to offer and we as a country have everything to gain if we work together to achieve it.
4.26 p.m.
The Earl of Glasgow: My Lords, it is my considerable privilege to be the one chosen to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Feldman, on his excellent and perceptive maiden speech. I think I speak for the whole House when I say that I hope that we shall hear very much more from him, not only on tourism, but on the many other issues in which he is an expert. Perhaps I may add that I share practically all of the noble Lord's recreational interests, and I hope that we might have a game of tennis one day.
I should like to say something about tourism in Scotland. Most of us in the tourist industry are encouraged by the support for tourism that this Government, and particularly the Secretary of State for Scotland, have shown. At a time when other government agencies have had their budgets cut, the Scottish Tourist Board has received an extra £3 million. As the Government clearly understand, tourism is very important to the Scottish economy, particularly for those more remote places where there is no other industry to provide jobs. Last year the revenue from tourism increased in real terms in Scotland by 7 per cent., and at last it seems that more English people are taking their holidays in Scotland. Ironically, it was the Scottish market that fell last year. Attempts to reverse that trend are being headed by a new marketing campaign with the slogan,
"It's your country—try it".
It cannot be over-emphasised how important it is to all of us in the tourist industry that the Scottish Tourist Board and the BTA succeed in persuading more people to come to Scotland in the first place. To achieve that, they need money.
Another encouraging thing for Scotland is the Secretary of State's decision to make £3 million available to support the Scottish film industry. This is the first time for many years that any government have taken the Scottish film industry seriously. It has also helped to promote tourism in Scotland, as the successes of "Braveheart" and "Rob Roy" have already shown. The number of visitors to Stirling and Loch Lomond increased by a huge percentage last year as a direct result of those two films.
However, I must warn your Lordships that the Scottish film industry is not really "Braveheart" or "Rob Roy"; those are Hollywood films, shot in Scotland or in

1159
some cases, rather shamingly, shot partly in Ireland. No, the Scottish film industry is "Trainspotting" and "Small Faces", films now showing in several cinemas in London. Their subjects are drug addiction among down-and-outs, and gang warfare in Glasgow. However, I hope that your Lordships will not be put off by that because both films are outstanding, imaginative and entertaining. They are very good examples of the exceptional talent that already exists in the Scottish film industry.
My main concern for tourism in Scotland is one that I have expressed in the past. It stems from the way in which area tourist boards are formed in Scotland. It appears that for administrative purposes it is still deemed easier to create tourist boards around existing local authority boundaries, all of whom jealously try to promote their particular areas, if necessary at the expense of their neighbours. Tourists are not interested in boundaries. Therefore, tourist boards should not be concerned with boundaries. Tourists are attracted by specific holiday destinations which have established some kind of brand image for themselves: for instance, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Loch Lomond, the Cairngorms, the western Highlands and Burns country.
I find it frustrating that still it has not been possible to create a tourist board for the Firth of Clyde, now recognised as being the best sailing waters in Britain, because it falls within the boundaries of three different competing tourist board areas. At the beginning of this month, Scotland's 34 tourist boards were reduced to 14. Clearly, a small number of tourist boards makes sense. However, once again the territory of each has been dictated by the boundaries of the new unitary authorities. In most cases, old tourist boards have been grafted on to others to create new ones. Some of these boards seem somewhat cumbersome, at least in name. How about Argyll and the Isles, Loch Lomond, Stirling and the Trossachs Tourist Board?
There are already signs that the new unitary authorities will have difficulty in providing the necessary funds to enable the new tourist boards to promote themselves effectively. There is already talk about the need to close many existing tourist information centres all over Scotland, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, has also mentioned. TICs—also mentioned by the noble Lord—are the crucial link between the tourist industry and the visiting public. They are vital if tourism is to succeed in all parts. of Britain. However, the new tourist boards in Scotland have only just been formed and they must be given a chance. Most of us are hopeful for the future of tourism in Scotland. We hope that we shall continue to get the necessary government support.
4.32 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I begin by adding my thanks to my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu for initiating this debate, thus providing the opportunity to discuss a subject that is very close to my heart. I believe that tourism is one of our most important
1160
industries. It is often undervalued and not given true recognition for the contribution that it makes to the wealth of this country.
My first contact with the tourist industry was when I joined the Heart of England Tourist Board in 1977 as a representative of West Midlands County Council. Two years later, I was appointed chairman of the marketing sub-committee. It was in that capacity that my sub-committee and I developed enthusiastically compelling reasons why visitors from home and abroad should come to our region. This was at a time when the perception of the word "tourist" was beginning to change. Previously, tourists were thought to be, almost without exception, visitors from overseas and, in addition, maybe some schoolchildren.
My sub-committee and I had a real desire to open up and publicise the glorious villages and sites of interest in the region. Too often the tourist route was from London to Stratford-on-Avon and return via Broadway. Little thought appeared to be given to detours to other centres which lay only a few miles from the main route. At about that time the concept of two-holiday families emerged. The family would have a week or so in the sun and, later in the year, spend a few days getting to know our wonderful country a little better. Weekend breaks came on the scene and special offers abounded. One also saw the development of bed and breakfast accommodation at all levels, from the very lavish, which catered for the top end of the market, to more modest facilities, which were ideal for families. The situation was particularly attractive to women, who responded to the demand. They created employment for themselves by working at home, often looking after children at the same time. I endorse the words of my noble friend Lady Young. I found it all extremely exciting and stimulating. I have followed the developments and initiatives that have taken place since then. I believe that the regional board have done an excellent job. They have a wealth of expertise in many different fields.
I should like to refer to two very mundane issues of which sight must never be lost. I refer first to signposting. I understand that since the beginning of the year county councils have been responsible for signposting. We do not wish to scar the countryside with huge signs. However, I should like to see discreet and sensitively placed signs which indicate directions in a clear way. Sadly, I was born without an inbuilt compass and have no sense of direction. Unless the sun is shining, I have no idea whether I am facing north, south, east or west. In the majority of cases, signposting is first-class and very effective. However, I have found myself in a situation where, in looking for a particular venue at a T-junction, I have no idea which way to go. It is extremely irritating and time-consuming. I should like to see the tourist industry give special guidance to new entrants. I understand that people who come through the Channel Tunnel and wish to make for central London find the situation quite difficult. I hope that special efforts will be made in that respect.
My second point concerns litter. I realise that there have been countless campaigns but with limited success. However, I draw attention to the huge success of Regional Britain in Bloom. There have been record

1161
entries. Each year the absence of litter is a major element in coming to a decision as to the winner. I hate to say it, but we are a dirty nation. I am sure that we can all recount stories about the car driver in front who, while waiting at traffic lights, decides to rid his car of rubbish. He opens the window and tips out cigarette packets, sweet papers and so on. The occupants seem to be unaware of the anti-social action of the driver and its distasteful effect on others. The other day I walked past a probation office. The garden surrounding the building had been attractively laid out with shrubs, but it looked dreadful. Empty cans, bottles, crisp packets and so on lay where thoughtless persons had thrown them. This may not be the right time or place to say it, but I cannot believe that young people on community service cannot clear it up. They will be doing a real service to the community while at the same time learning how anti-social is the dumping of rubbish. There are those who say that it is degrading for offenders to do this kind of work. I do not accept that. I find it degrading that we as a society do not act to clear rubbish. We have a magical countryside, and for it to be scarred in this way is a tragedy.
I understand that the BTA has calculated that for every pound invested in tourism, there is a return of £23. Regional boards have great expertise in pump-priming; but there must be co-ordination by the public and private sectors with a partnership between local authority and commercial members. Tourism is a growing industry. It must be planned and managed with sensitivity and care for the environment. It must not be offensive to local residents who, it is hoped, appreciate that visitors bring extra finance to local communities. I believe that we all have a part to play. We are privileged to be surrounded by beautiful and fascinating places. But I believe that it is the responsibility of this generation to ensure that the legacy to our children is the continuance of a green and pleasant land.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Methuen: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for introducing today's debate on tourism and for the opportunity that it gives us to debate the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Tourism and the Community. It was a great pleasure to be a member of the sub-committee which produced the report under the able chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Elibank. I should also declare an interest indirectly in so far as my family has owned a stately home in North Wiltshire. However, I no longer have any pecuniary interest in it, although the home has been open to the public for about 150 years.
The statistics on tourism have been ably stated by several pervious speakers, so I shall not repeat them. However, in Europe, though the absolute numbers of tourists are increasing, the industry has a declining share of the total world-wide tourism market. That can be seen in the increasing number of people going to North America, the Caribbean and Asian destinations due to the decrease in real terms of travel costs and the active promotion of those destinations by such organisations as the Pacific and Asia Tourism Association (PATA).
1162
Within Europe, one should be careful of tourist statistics because they are confused by the fact that they do not differentiate between business and true holiday visitors.
The wide diversity of the tourist industry has already been mentioned in the debate, so I shall not go through it. But, of course, the small and medium-sized enterprises incorporating bed-and-breakfast establishments cover many thousands of such enterprises in the United Kingdom. In many cases it is the sole employment available in the area. It is seasonal and offers only part-time employment with low wages. One of my noble friends has aptly described such low paid employment as the "working poor".
I live in the Peak National Park and am very well aware of the environmental problems caused by uncontrolled tourism, particularly to the fragile eco-systems of the high moors, and the traffic jams in our small communities; we are also beset by that other national park problem of extensive quarrying operations. These are problems common to many of our national parks, but the latter often offer the only significant alternative employment available in those areas and must be subject to sensitive planning control. We should encourage the increased use of public transport in those areas, particularly by means of park-and-ride schemes, where a single fee covers both parking and transport.
One of the considerations during the preparation of the report on tourism was the question of the promulgation of the whole of Europe as a tourist destination, rather than the individual countries. In my opinion, that has only limited application in specific target areas of the Far East and perhaps the United States. The United Kingdom is better served by having its own tourist offices overseas as at present. The Northern European countries are always likely to see an exodus to warmer climes during the summer, and hence Britain must exploit her unique scenic and cultural heritage to attract visitors, while protecting those assets from over-exploitation. We must also encourage the foreign visitor to see more than just London, Stratford-upon-Avon and Oxford and Cambridge.
As the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, said, we also considered the involvement of the European Union Directorate General XXIII which is responsible for tourism. The Tourism Unit undoubtedly needs strengthening so that it can play a more effective role in co-ordinating with those other Directorates General whose activities affect tourism in the areas of the environment, transport and likewise. I believe that Directorate General XXIII has a role to play in the setting of standards in such areas as fire safety, and other environmental roles, and in a European-wide standard for hotel classification.
My wife is Austrian and she often emphasises to me that we very much need to pay more regard to the expectations of overseas visitors with regard to accommodation standards and cleanliness. While we ourselves may be prepared to put up with such deficiencies, foreign visitors are unfavourably impressed by those shortcomings. Further, in all areas, local authorities should be encouraged to pay more attention to clearing roadside litter; indeed, that matter has

1163
already been raised elsewhere. It is a real problem and one that is not due primarily to tourists. I believe that lorry drivers are also to blame, especially on the route that I have in mind. We should also persuade farmers to remove disused and rusting farm machinery which is another eye-sore to be found in the Peak District.
One should remember that every contented visitor will help to sell to his friends the places that he has visited. It has been found that visitors will pay for good service and for facilities such as local tourist maps, well-maintained and marked footpaths and roads, guided walks and cycle hire. The availability of passports giving entrance to multiple tourist attractions in the area is also beneficial, although I do not know to what extent that occurs. Local authorities might also be permitted to raise a modest local tourist tax from those staying in accommodation in the area, the amount being dependent on the class of accommodation and locality, and used for the provision of local tourist facilities, information centres and promotion of the area. Such taxes are seen overseas and might amount to only £1.50 or £2 per person per night.
I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, will be pleased to hear that I am visiting Scotland this year and will be riding across it from one side to the other, thus supporting his area.
4.46 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I should like to start by declaring an interest in that I have been involved in the hotel business for over 10 years, apart from a break in government, and I am also a director of a company which is launching a major new tourist attraction in central London this summer. I should like, first, to look at the industry in this country. It is a fascinating industry. It is an industry that is diverse (one of its strengths) and it is one that is fragmented (one of its weaknesses). It has a multitude of organisations, all of which claim to represent it and all of which seem to have slightly different views.
The crucial question is what should the role of government be. I believe that the industry is successful not because of government policies but largely in spite of government policies. It is successful due to the hard work and investment by all those involved in the industry. The most important thing that government can do is to create the right economic climate that encourages the industry to invest in its product so that it can remain competitive and offer the product that the consumer wants. One of the most interesting lines in the report is to be found on page 28 where Mr. Robert Moreland, when discussing the success in America, said:
"While successes were largely attributable to business initiative rather than governmental action, government had a role in providing a friendly environment for business to operate in, with legislation that was permissive rather than prescriptive".
I believe that that sums up very well what the role of government should be.
This Government have delivered. We now have in this country real economic growth without inflation, a competitive exchange rate and economic policies that
1164
encourage investment. Although I believe that government spending can have an impact, I profoundly disagree with those who just call for more and more money to be spent. That is not the answer. The Government must fund the BTA and other agencies. I believe that the authority does a very good job marketing overseas. One of the main reasons is that it raises money from the industry and then helps the industry to market its product through the BTA offices around the world.
Marketing campaigns must be industry led. We must not be afraid to add government money to those who are prepared to spend it. There is a terrible tendency in government to be afraid of backing success. But I believe that those are the people whom we should be backing. Of course the BTA could do with more money; indeed, we could all do with more money. However, the BTA is well funded by government. It will receive £35 million this year. What we must look at is how that compares with what others spend.
Of course, the biggest spender is the industry itself which is estimated to spend over £250 million a year. That figure may be a serious underestimate. Out of money spent abroad one of the biggest spenders are the airlines, which is why I have to say that in the incredibly competitive world of airline fares the introduction of the departure tax was, I am afraid, so particularly damaging to the tourism industry.
The next biggest spenders are local authorities, which probably spend about £70 million a year in promotion. Some spend well and some spend badly. I believe that the BTA and the ETB have an important role to play here in improving the quality of the spend. They must also work with other government agencies—the DTI being the most important other government department. They must work with the British Council, which has a budget four times as large as that of the BTA and which often, I am afraid, in the past has seemed to shy away from collaborating.
I know that there have always been complaints in the past that the Government are constantly reviewing their tourism policy. I believe that is a good thing because it is a constantly evolving industry. What matters is that the reviews are outward looking and not inward looking. I hope that there will be time in the next legislative programme to merge the BTA and the ETB. It would save money and make sense. It would not be necessary if Scotland had not marketed itself abroad on its own, but now it has done so and it has that power, it shows no signs of wanting to give it up.
The role of the ETB has narrowed in recent years. I think that is right. The local tourist boards are closest to their industry. They are commercially operated and must be helped. There is scope for them to co-ordinate better between themselves and they obviously must recruit more members. I believe the single most important thing the ETB can do is to make the crown classification scheme work. There is a major goal here if we can merge this scheme with the AA and RAC schemes and produce a nationwide scheme which is understandable and affordable. I do not believe it should

1165
be a statutory scheme. I think that it should be voluntary and run by the local tourist boards, which, after all, are non-statutory bodies.
Consumers are confused. I do not think, as has been suggested, that we should try to have an all-EC scheme. There are too many in Europe and they are all different. We could spend years trying to negotiate an EC-wide scheme. We must concentrate on what we need here. Can my noble friend say what progress has been made in that regard? Progress has also been made in London, which for many years, rather strangely, had one of the weaker tourist boards. However, under the leadership of Sir John Egan, it has rapidly improved. The Government have offered more money to be matched by the industry. Can my noble friend say how much of that has been spent so far?
I was the first to welcome the Government's deregulation initiative when it was announced. There are far too many unnecessary regulations and they multiply every day. That is strangling the industry, particularly the smaller operator. I hope that the Government will redouble their efforts, as I am afraid that progress is painfully slow in this area.
I shall speak briefly about what the Commission has to offer, and I shall also speak briefly on the report which is before your Lordships. As is the case with most matters which concern the EC, there are some good aspects and some bad aspects. I am a natural sceptic and start from the view that EC competence usually means incompetence. I am afraid that I judge it guilty until proven innocent. One has only to consider some of the suggestions that have arisen, for example as regards European advertising. I shudder to imagine EC-funded European slogans. I hope that marketing will be left to the industry and that the EC will work with the industry and support it but not impose itself on the industry.
On the plus side, elevating the tourism unit to the status of a directorate is a good idea. It could promote the cause of tourism and have more influence, especially if we are to deal with matters such as the distance selling directive, or whatever new wheeze is thought up in the future. But please let there be no provisions on capital spending; that must be a matter for the industry. However, that does not mean not helping with infrastructure. If any of your Lordships need convincing, they should look at the awful monstrosities built at the time of a socialist government in Greece. They are ghastly and also a commercial disaster.
While on the subject of socialists, I must inform noble Lords opposite that acceptance of the social chapter would seriously damage the tourism industry in this country. If noble Lords opposite do not believe me, they should talk to a French hotelier, over half of whose wages bill goes in taxes to the state.
Some of those in the tourism industry in our country often contend that compared with our European neighbours we have the highest rate of VAT. I know the Government have been studying this matter and I wonder whether my noble friend can say whether they have reached any conclusions on how we compare with our neighbours. This is a useful debate which adds to our understanding of the industry. I am sure that the
1166
Government will take careful note of it so they can formulate their policies to continue to support this important industry.
4.55 p.m.
Lord Bancroft: My Lords, I speak narrowly to the report of the European Communities Committee and pay more than the usual obeisance or tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, who chaired the committee, and to the many helpful witnesses including, notably, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, the Minister. I follow hot on the heels of a fellow member of the committee, the noble Lord, Lord Methuen, and, like King Wenceslas' page, I must mark his footsteps well.
I confine myself even more narrowly to a sexless aspect of tourism; namely, organisation. Other noble Lords—notably the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu—have spoken eloquently of the quite staggering statistics. That makes it the more essential that the Government on the one hand and the Commission on the other organise themselves efficiently. First, I shall discuss the Government. I take it as read that the prosperity of the industry rests primarily with the thousands of corporations and individuals who comprise it. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, implied, with a happy combination of cruelty and truth, the Government's role should be confined to that of facilitator.
The Department of National Heritage is the chosen instrument—what we are allowed, by a further happy spin of history's wheel, to call once again a sponsoring department. There is a respectable case for arguing that that role could be better performed by the Department of Trade and Industry. It is there indeed that sponsorship used to lie. We discussed this in the committee. The arguments are finely balanced. However, experience compels me to the view that unless the perceived benefits of change are massively greater than the penalties, it is better to put one's hands in one's pockets and mooch away.
Governments over the years—as we all know—have bickered incessantly over the machinery of central government, the machinery of local government, the machinery of taxation and the organisation of industry. The results have either been dismally visible and short lasting or mercifully imperceptible. I have long carried with me the biting quotation by Abbot Bower on the legislative enthusiasm of King James I of Scotland in the Parliament of 1426,
"to enact new laws with facility, and to change the old with facility, is marvellous damaging to good order".
He was quoting Aristotle. We are heirs to a long inheritance. I am therefore content to accept that so long as we have a DNH the responsibility for the tourism industry should continue to rest there.
As to the machinery in the Commission for sponsoring the industry, I of course support the committee's view that there should be no new treaty title for tourism, and no setting up of a separate tourism agency. I also strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, that the existing tourism unit should he given the status of a directorate within DG XXIII, with a judiciously small increase in staff.

1167
In her otherwise surprisingly helpful response, the Secretary of State disagrees. She says flatly that,
"it would not affect the unit's ability to do the job effectively".
How does she know? What evidence does she have to support her view in the face of the evidence the other way? Her reply is headed, "London SW1". We were not privileged to see the envelope in which it came, but it must have been postmarked "Delphi".
As the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, reminded us, we are dealing with an industry which accounts for about 5.5 per cent. of Community gross domestic product and 6 per cent. of Community jobs. The tourism unit's role is to provide a degree of horizontal co-ordination within a Commission which is organised on vertical functional lines in the classic tradition of Lord Haldane. The unit has half a dozen permanent staff and a handful of supporters.
I do not share the delusion that enhancement of status or rank is ever of itself a solution to problems. That seems to me as moonstruck an approach as that of an adolescent rhinoceros in love. However, there are occasions in any organisation, private or public, national or international, when status can assist in a co-ordinating role. I was glad to have the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, on this point. One may innocently inquire why else does one have a First Secretary of State, and a Deputy Prime Minister? I submit that we have a further example here. I take the liberty of hoping that in his usual courteous and helpful way the Minister will invite the Secretary of State to re-read our report and the relevant evidence at her leisure.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Shuttleworth: My Lords, I should like to join with others in thanking my noble friend Lord Montagu for initiating this debate about tourism's contribution to the economy and employment.
I want to talk about tourism in the countryside; and I must, therefore, declare my interest as chairman of the Rural Development Commission, the government agency responsible for the economic and social well-being of the people who live and work in rural England.
I and others have long argued that the best way of ensuring that the countryside is properly looked after is to ensure that there is a prosperous and broadly based rural economy. Despite the economic buoyancy of most rural areas in recent years, we are all too often reminded, as we have been over the past five weeks, of the fragility of some sectors in that economy.
How important has been the growth in rural tourism, my Lords. At the risk of incurring the wrath of my noble friend Lord Montagu, I give two statistics. Rural tourism involves visitor expenditure in excess of £8 billion; it supports more than 300,000 jobs in rural England. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, reminded us, the tourism industry believes that across the UK in the next 10 years a further 300,000 new jobs will be created, hopefully with a pro rata share for the countryside.
1168
The general growth in rural tourism masks some continuing problems, as several noble Lords have said. There is a need to think carefully about the future of some of our coastal holiday towns—perhaps I should exclude Blackpool—following the decline in traditional seaside holidays. There is also a need to relieve the pressure placed on particularly popular areas such as the Lake District, the Peak Park and the Cotswolds. We must accept that, without proper planning and management, tourism will bring traffic congestion, parking problems, litter and environmental problems. Rural tourism, while benefiting the economy, must also respect the environment upon which much of it relies.
In the very short time available to me, I want to make three points, all confirmed by recent research and reports produced by the Rural Development Commission. First, the benefits of rural tourism are much more widely distributed through all sections of a rural community than might be apparent at first sight. Benefits do not just flow to tourist businesses but beyond, to support for a range of rural services much needed in the countryside. In many cases, and throughout rural England, essential services like village shops, bus services and post offices which form a lifeline for rural communities stay in business with the help of the additional trade brought by tourism. We published some research demonstrating that only two months ago. This particular benefit from tourism is often overlooked—not least by the beneficiaries.
Secondly, the tourism industry itself can do much to contribute to the environment in which it operates. With the Department of National Heritage, the Countryside Commission and the ETB, the Rural Development Commission produced an advisory report, Sustainable Rural Tourism—Opportunities for Local Action, which my noble friend the Minister who is to reply to the debate launched last autumn. It provides .examples of good practice and looks in some detail at a range of techniques that are available to seek the right balance between visitor, place and host community in the countryside.
The Minister will recall that at that launch we heard from a South Devon hotelier about the pilot of a green tourism audit kit in which over 200 local tourism businesses took part. That showed that businesses, from small-scale bed and breakfast through to large hotels and tourism attractions, can adopt policies which positively benefit their business, their visitors and their environment.
Last week I visited Exmoor National Park and saw the way in which the park authority and the tourism industry work together in encouraging tourism that respects the environment yet enables tourism businesses to thrive. Together they produce the local accommodation guide; and together through the Rural Development Commission's brokerage they have created an Exmoor Producers' Association.
The products made by 60 local businesses enable hoteliers and restaurateurs to source food and other products locally thereby adding value to their menus and accommodation. The association provides tourists with a wide selection of souvenirs and gifts made locally,

1169
including household products from chairs to charcoal made from the woodlands of Exmoor. This reinforces the conservation and public enjoyment messages of the national park to visitors to Exmoor.
The final point to which I wish to turn today is the hope that I expressed earlier that rural England will play its full part in the future growth of the industry. A successful rural economy is an evolving economy where businesses and earnings are reflective of changing markets. Tourism is a particularly strong example of an industry which faces constant change in customers' needs and demands. But change in the countryside is often very difficult to achieve, in particular when it involves development. I have used the words "sustainable tourism" sparingly today. Too often—I cast no aspersion on noble Lords who may have used the phrase in the debate today—it is a phrase prayed in aid by those who oppose suitable tourism development in rural areas. Proper concerns about tourism must be addressed and, if possible, relieved rather than concealed behind the more vociferous NIMBY element, for the industry, with the economic and environmental benefits it brings to the countryside, needs to adapt and change if it is to remain successful.
I hope that no one—and I assure the House least of all me—wants to despoil the countryside. But in that context we should not automatically assume that no large-scale tourism projects can have a place in rural areas. I use as an example holiday villages, which have demonstrated that they can be well planned, well managed and sited in locations which gain environmentally as well as economically from their presence, as I have seen for myself. Our research found an average of £10 million expenditure in the local area during construction of each village and over 450 permanent jobs came from each development, with demonstrable economic and environmental benefit.
That persuades me that unless there are very strong environmental concerns associated with the site or the access to it, there is a conclusive argument for supporting the commercial activities of some of the UK's leading tourism companies that have created this innovative and popular tourism product.
So tourism is one of the industries which can offer the economic diversity and breadth so necessary for a strong, resilient rural economy. It has been successful in recent years in contributing positively to the countryside. Pressures and problems exist and must be addressed so that rural England can continue to benefit from tourism.
5.11 p.m.
The Marquess of Hertford: My Lords, like many other Members of your Lordships' House, I declare an interest in that my home is supported largely, though I am sorry to say not entirely, by the proceeds of tourism. I was for 18 years president of what was then the West Midland Tourist Board. It was called that until some idiot went and created an entirely new county somewhere near Birmingham and called it West Midlands. We now have what I find a slightly embarrassing title of the Heart of England Tourist Board. It sounds slightly bogus to me.
1170
Some years ago the British Tourist Authority sent me on a three-week tour of North America to sell a ticket priced at about 10 dollars, which gave access to about 100 historic houses. I cannot imagine that many people would want to spend an entire holiday visiting 100 different historic houses. It was an interesting and enlightening experience, I only spent about one night in each place, so I visited a large number of cities in Canada and America. The two English people whom I met wherever I went were the British Tourist Authority representative and the local British consul. I am not in any way running down the consular service, but my impression was that the British Tourist Authority representatives made a far better job of promoting British interests than the consular service. That impression was confirmed by an American journalist in New York who remarked to me that if America had any organisation remotely as efficient as the BTA, no Americans would leave America because they have so much there. Luckily, they do not know it.
However, one must not become over-confident about the efforts of the British Tourist Authority because I believe that almost 90 per cent. of Americans do not possess a passport. That therefore gives considerable scope for greater promotion. For that reason, I wish to give warm support to the recommendation that the Government should give more help to the British Tourist Authority. I know that that means more money, but the money would be well spent. It would also obviously be desirable in a perfect world that the local tourist boards should receive a little more support than they do. I must emphasise the fact that the British Tourist Authority, in all its offices around the world, does a wonderful job of promoting British tourism. It needs more support.
5.14 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I too wish to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, on giving us the opportunity to debate the importance of tourism to the economy. I also wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, and the members of his committee on the excellent work they did in producing their report.
I believe that the cobbler should stick to his last, and therefore, as a hotelier, I shall stick to giving a particularly partisan view of tourism as seen by a hotelier. At the same time, I shall declare my interests as a director of a number of hotel companies and sitting on the board of a number of industry bodies.
Different organisations produce different statistics as to the value of tourism. However, it is clear that there is common consent that tourism is a great revenue generator and job producer, hence an industry of national importance. I believe that the definition used by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, is a rather narrow one, but it is the one that the Government used in the 1996 heritage report. Whatever definition one uses, the industry is of sufficient size and importance that it is now vital for the Government to establish and co-ordinate long-term policies for its continuing success.
In order to achieve that, there is an urgent need, in my view, for the Government to conduct a full and comprehensive review of the industry so that proper

1171
policies might be pursued. In the Department of National Heritage's 1996 report, page 23, there is an indication of a study. Perhaps the Government and the Minister would consider the possibility of widening the study to a full review. I wish to suggest a number of points which might be taken into account.
First, it is important to understand the difference between leisure visitors and economic visitors. Currently, the existing figures do not differentiate between the two sources of visitors. I think that the figures include both. I find it both fascinating and revealing that there is no reference to economic tourists, if I may call them that, in the department's annual report, in the Select Committee report or in the excellent debate in your Lordships' House last year initiated by the noble, Lord Bradford. Yet in London, most three, four and five-star hoteliers depend on the corporate sector for anything up to 80 per cent. of their business.
At the Hotel General Managers' Conference which I chaired, Mr. Alan Hopper of Pannell Kerr Forster showed a graph comparing London hotel occupancy over the past 10 years to GDP. His clear conclusion was that hotel occupancy followed the general health of the economy, underlining the prime importance of business visitors.
Not only is this important to understand in relation to foreign visitors but it is a huge influence in the domestic market. Any hotel which is situated in an area of reasonable economic activity can compete for corporate accounts which are often the mainstay of those businesses. That kind of economic tourism is in many ways of even more value than leisure tourism, since it is far more dependable and less seasonal. It is therefore vital that we have a proper and correct understanding of its importance and size.
Secondly, we must establish a clear understanding of what we expect all tourism to achieve before we can establish how to achieve it. It may be a statement of the obvious, but I believe it bears repeating that tourism is an economic activity designed to produce profits for its participants and for the economy as a whole. I would therefore define the objective of tourism as being to create the maximum economic benefit with the minimum disruption to the local population and at the minimum cost to the local exchequer.
Tourism, as with any industry—as a number of noble Lords have pointed out—has its undesirable by-products. Those of us who work in the industry must be conscious of them. Without a real economic benefit, the disruption, cost and damage which tourism can bring is unacceptable. UK Tourism plc must therefore have a clear corporate vision to enable the maximum yield from the minimum costs and disruption.
Thirdly, we need to develop new methods for measuring the industry, based on yield and not volume. The industry has traditionally been measured by visitor numbers with little or no thought given to spend or cost per visitor. If we can measure tourism in terms of yield—that is to say spend less cost—we will have a far clearer picture of what is actually profitable. In addition, it would be valuable to apply that criterion to the
1172
creation of jobs. While it is important to create jobs, it is perhaps more important to create jobs that are sustainable and offer a reasonable wage. As a hotelier, I do not want to be accused of adding to the "working poor"; I want to offer reasonable terms of employment and pay, and good career prospects. It should be part of our long-term policy for tourism that the jobs we create are sustainable, with good prospects, and not simply part-time or casual.
Fourthly, we must address the issue of quality in the provision of tourism services. The government paper, Competing with the Best, is certainly a great help, and the Government should be congratulated on its production. However, it ducks one of the main issues. In an industry as fragmented as ours, voluntary classification systems simply do not work, and never will. The crown system is a confusing failure, regarded by most hoteliers as irrelevant. We need a compulsory system, whether it is statutory, as in France, or through self-regulation by an industry body such as the BHA. We shall make no progress until the classification system is universal, simple and has teeth.
For these and other reasons I urge the Government to conduct a full and complete review, in consultation with the industry, which will enable the development and prosecution of a long-term policy for the industry.
For many years the Government's attitude towards the tourism industry and the hotel industry in particular has been regarded as one of such indifference that most hoteliers have given up on government bodies. Indeed, the industry's view was that the Government's attitude was rather like that of Wellington at Waterloo. Commenting on the French, he said: "They came on in the same old way and we defeated them in the same old way". However, that attitude has now changed. I congratulate both the Secretary of State and her predecessor on the initiatives they have undertaken for consultation with the industry. In particular, the appointment of a secondee from the industry to the Department of National Heritage, Mr. Roy Tutty, has proved inspirational. I was delighted to learn recently that his secondment has been extended, since he has built a very strong bridge, previously lacking, between the industry and government.
For the first time for a very long time, the industry is beginning to feel that its voice might be being heard in government. I therefore urge the Government to capitalise on that good will by undertaking a full review so that we may establish long-term policies for the continuing success of the industry.
I have a final word on funding. Here I shall disagree rather violently with my former boss, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, who was somewhat more generous with funding at Cliveden. On 29th March 1994, the DTI issued a press release announcing a grant of £9.4 million for Jaguar Cars which it said would sustain (its word) 900 jobs. That values each existing job at being worth £11,000. Last year, the Department of National Heritage spent £44 million on tourism. Using its figure of 1.5 million jobs, that works out at £29 per job.

1173
We do not ask for much. We merely ask to be regarded on the same level as other industries. I very much hope that if the Government can undertake the review to which I referred, it will give them the ammunition to talk to other departments, and, it is to be hoped, make them realise the value of tourism to our economy.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I declare an interest. I also declare my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Montagu for giving us this opportunity for debate. I also congratulate the Select Committee on its excellent report which covers the issues very well and makes recommendations that are broadly acceptable both to the industry and, I hope, to Her Majesty's Government. This latter is particularly important; the IGC White Paper suggests that tourism will probably be an item on the agenda at the forthcoming conference. I am aware of the existence of a tourism chapter in draft. When the conference comes to consider the subject, I hope that it will decide that the draft tourism chapter may long be left to gather dust.
My noble friend Lord Elibank detailed the committee's conclusions. I shall comment on some of them. I welcome the recommendation that the way ahead is through existing treaty provision and not through a new tourism title. I should oppose a new title and enhanced central powers: first, because I believe there would be too many political masters for a workable policy to emerge; secondly, because there would be too much bureaucracy—like political masters, bureaucracy is a brake on the fast-moving activity that tourism requires—and, thirdly, because I believe that tourism is a matter for subsidiarity. Individual countries must be left in command of their own detailed tourism policy as well as its execution.
There is also a concern, which some noble Lords may share, about the possibility of fraud. In his evidence to your Lordships' committee, Mr. Edward McMillan-Scott, the MEP, made much of that. Subsequently some noble Lords may have noticed a press report that two members of the staff of DG XXIII had been arrested and remanded in custody, no less, on fraud allegations.
I turn now to the committee's recommendation that the Commission should do some marketing to complement individual or joint efforts of the national tourist offices of individual countries. I am not sure that I should say that all marketing funds are welcome, but I believe that any Commission activity should be through the European Tourism Commission or through the national tourist offices rather than being complementary to their work.
I believe that the national tourist offices have the skills—some more than others. Certainly, I do not believe that the Commission has them. I was somewhat surprised that, in evidence, the BTA was criticised by Mr. Brackenbury for not working with the private sector, when that is far from the truth.
When in earlier days I controlled a marketing budget with a spend of some £6 million, it was funded one-quarter grant-in-aid and three-quarters funding from
1174
the industry. That that was the way ahead was confirmed by all the awards that the British Tourist Authority has won over the years in different market-places for being the most competent and the best national tourist office. My noble friend Lord Montagu mentioned some of the awards in passing. I have a list of over a dozen. The easiest thing one can say about them is that the BTA's trophy cabinet is rather fuller than that of any English football team.
I turn now to speed of action, which I believe is absolutely paramount, whether it is to build a brand or to react to circumstances, positive or negative. I cannot see the Commission showing the requisite pace, given the political and bureaucratic constraints that I detailed earlier. Rather, we must look for the vigorous response referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, or, as my noble friend Lord Feldman put it in his excellent speech, "Leisurely is not the pace".
From the purely British point of view, our strengths are already established—be that a legacy from the days of the colonies, such as a common language and common heritage; be it in the well-established icons that we have; be it as a result of the work that the British Tourist Authority has already done. We have an extremely well established product. I believe that our own success would be diluted were we to get into pan-European promotions. One witness implied that, in the American market, we were still in the days of, "Today it's Thursday, so it must be Belgium". The truth is that the American market has come much further than that. Americans now know exactly what they want, and we must remind them constantly that we have it.
Two carrier facts might serve to illustrate our strengths. North America-to-Europe is the most competitive long-haul aviation ground in the world. We have 37 per cent. of it. Imagine that figure being diluted to the advantage of France, Germany, Switzerland or anybody else! Similarly, many years ago British Rail took the view—rightly, as it turned out—that rather than join the pan-European promotion for the Eurail pass, it would make very much more money by simply selling BritRail passes. That has always proved to be the case.
The best role for the Commission is as a mirror of what my noble friend Lord Montagu described as the role of the Department of National Heritage, which is actively to champion the role of tourism to other directorates. It might well seek to enhance standards. It might well seek to ensure commonality of statistics. But its principal remit must be to keep tourism's profile high. The Commission as a whole must ensure that DG 23 has the resources to keep the importance of our industry in front of the other directorates. Not least, as was mentioned by several previous speakers, it must ensure that other directorates are aware—I know that DNH does this to other departments over here—of the impact which proposed policies have on tourism growth. And growth is what we need—growth primed and led by the British Tourist Authority and the national tourist boards.
While I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister, and to my noble friend Lord Astor for their success in fighting the budget corner, I do recall the Written

1175
Answer which was given last autumn to my noble friend Lord Bradford, which illustrated that grant-in-aid to the five main boards had risen in cash terms by perhaps only £100,000 between 1979 and 1995. Given the ravages of inflation and exchange rates, that is not a figure of which to be very proud. We must back success, as several noble Lords have said, and, as my noble friend Lord Feldman did in his excellent maiden speech, like Oliver Twist I cry out for more.
5.30 p.m.
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, first, I must declare my close interest in tourism and its effective promotion as owner of Porters Restaurant, Covent Garden, president of the Master Chefs of Great Britain, a committee member of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain, chairman of Weston Park Enterprises and president of the Wrekin Tourism Association. I should also apologise to your Lordships for the fact that I have not been able to attend for all of the debate on this important subject.
I am delighted that the Select Committee report has highlighted the need to allocate more resources to the British Tourist Authority. Unfortunately Her Majesty's Government, and in particular the Treasury, have simply not realised that money spent on tourism promotion is an investment that pays dividends directly and quickly.
As just been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Mountevans, the grant for tourism promotion has remained the same in real terms for the past 15 years, which, in fact, equates to a reduction, as many of the British Tourist Authority's costs are in foreign currencies. Therefore the decline in the value of the pound has had a major effect. Against a basket of European currencies, it has gone down by 23 per cent. since 1990, though Europe now provides nearly 60 per cent. of all the inbound tourism spend to Britain.
Since 1979 our performance has slipped gently backwards in comparison with almost every other country in Europe. Our share of world tourism, for instance, has declined from six per cent. in 1987 to only 4.3 per cent. six years later, while we are third from bottom in the European league table of tourism growth between 1980 and 1992.
The crazy thing is that money spent on tourism promotion produces very real and tangible returns. It yields a direct financial profit to the Treasury. It is estimated that every extra pound spent on tourism promotion produces over £4 in additional tax revenue—a money-making scheme if there ever was one, with no catches, definitely not a Barlow Clowes. More than that, it affects the balance of payments, where a surplus of £500 million in 1985 has been turned into a deficit of £4.5 billion in 1995. Equally important, it creates jobs—one new job for every £28,500 of increased tourism spend. That missing £5 billion in the balance of payments would have provided for 175,000 new jobs.
All those facts were highlighted in your Lordships' House in the debate of 25th October last year. It was followed shortly after by the announcement of the government grant for 1996—a pitiful increase of
1176
£1 million and in real terms a decrease. That will certainly not turn the tide in our favour, however carefully the money is managed.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, drew our attention to the quality of tourism. It should be appreciated that unfortunately the quality of the tourists visiting these shores has tended to decline—not, I hasten to add, in their appearance or background, but in terms of the amount of money they spend here. Too many coaches of daytrippers clog up the streets and squares of London. Those tourists are obviously included in the overall figures, despite the fact that they spend very little here.
We need to attract the well-heeled, high-spending tourist, particularly the business tourist, thereby putting less of a strain on our country's infrastructure which already often creaks under the increased burden.
Great strides have been made by the British Tourist Authority under the chairmanship of Adele Biss. Many in the tourism industry find it strange and sad that her contract has not been renewed for a further period, and also regret the manner in which it has been handled. Her quiet but effective stewardship of the British Tourist Authority won her many friends in what is a notoriously critical industry. Her professionalism and commitment to quality achieved much in raising the overall number of visitors and the profile of Britain as a destination, despite the lack of sufficient government grant. Her appointment of Anthony Sell as chief executive has proved to be an excellent and inspired choice, and, as a result, I am sure that her work will not have been in vain. We all hope that her replacement will be of equivalently high calibre, but she will be a very hard act to follow. On behalf of all those in the industry, I should like to wish her well in the future.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I do apologise, most sincerely, for speaking in the gap, but I would just like to seek reassurance from the Minister on one particular Scottish point of which I have already given him notice. I must declare an interest as Chairman of the Historic Houses Association for Scotland. The Scottish Tourist Board has recently introduced a grading and quality assurance scheme for visitor attractions, and at the moment this scheme is voluntary. There are rumours that, say, next year this scheme will be compulsory at a charge of £90 per visitor attraction. Many of my members feel they do not want their homes—and here I emphasise their homes—visited, inspected and graded. Can the Minister just assure me that if my members do not join this scheme, they will not be asked to withdraw their membership from their local tourist board? Once again I do apologise for intervening.
5.37 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I join with everyone who has spoken in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for initiating this debate, and for doing so with that very special degree of authority he has in all aspects of the tourist industry. I do not think there have been many debates which have enjoyed

1177
two such expert maiden speeches as we have had this evening from the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, and the noble Lord, Lord Feldman.
Like everyone else who has spoken, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, perhaps, I declare an interest—I am bound to say, as a member of the Nolan Committee, that I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan, would be proud of the ringing declarations of interest that have come from all quarters during this debate—as chairman of the trustees of the charitable foundation that is responsible for maintaining Leeds Castle in Kent and making it available for the enjoyment of visitors from all over the world. As a plebeian Scot, I never thought I might in my declining years become a nominal laird of an English castle, all the more so since the most distinguished inhabitant it ever had—and I use the adjective advisedly—was King Edward I, the Hammer of the Scots, the villain of "Braveheart", referred to by my noble friend Lord Glasgow.
Therefore I want to start on a parochial note, simply using my experience at Leeds Castle as a typical case study of a small to medium-sized tourist business—that is what the Leeds Castle Foundation is these days—and how it can contribute to the national economy. I concentrate on what, if I were an economist, I would probably call the micro-aspects of the economic side of tourism and not the macro-aspects which, if I may say so, I thought were analysed splendidly by my noble friend Lord Thurso. I learnt some of the jargon and I was glad that my noble friend drew attention to the fact that counting heads is not wholly satisfactory for determining success of the tourist business and its contribution to our economy. I have learnt that one needs to pay attention to the per capita spend. It is very important to keep looking at that matter.
Leeds Castle is in a rural area where there has been considerable unemployment from other sources over recent years. Traditional agricultural employment has declined but we have been able to provide altogether 300 full-time and part-time jobs. Many of them are flexible jobs, attractive to both married and single women (which is very important these days) and we try particularly, being conscious of ageism in employment matters, to offer opportunities in part-time posts to people of 50 or 60 years of age.
We take training very seriously. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, emphasised the importance of training. We do our best to train people. In my years on the Continent, I was often struck by the fact that waiters, chefs and those behind hotel desks were part of a proud profession, with a pride that I did not always find in this country in those days. That may be built up—I think it is—and the sooner it is, the better for all of us.
The local services around such places as Leeds Castle—the pubs, the restaurants, shops, garages, local small theatres and even the local churches—all benefit from the tourists who are attracted to the area. At Leeds Castle, like many other historic houses which have been mentioned during the debate, there is an interesting mix of visitors. Out of about half a million visitors, 50 per cent. come from overseas. So we make our own
1178
modest contribution to the nation's foreign currency earnings. Like other historic houses, we provide an important means of preserving the more skilled and, in some ways, more traditional crafts in the building industry. In all those ways the tourism industry, which, as has been said, is primarily an industry of small businesses, does a great deal to support the economy of the country.
I turn from that rather parochial analysis of one small tourist business to the issues raised by the report on the European dimension of tourism in the report of the Select Committee. I join with other speakers in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, and his colleagues for another interesting report from your Lordships' Select Committee. In some ways, the few sentences on the opening page of the committee's Opinion about the British tourist industry fairly well summarise the issues that should concern the Government. It says that:
"The significance of the tourism industry … is not sufficiently appreciated".
That has come out again and again from the speeches this evening. It says that:
"tourism is not regarded as an industrial 'heavyweight', despite the fact that it stands out as one of the few substantial sectors with real potential for growth".
It mentions figures recently given about the relative costs of providing jobs in the motor industry, and tourism is a vivid example of that. Finally, the committee said to the Government, through the report:
"While the industry itself must bear the main responsibility … the Government could and should do more to promote the United Kingdom as a tourist destination. A priority should be to give more resources to the British Tourist Authority … British tourism could be better promoted at all levels of government, and particularly overseas".
The committee makes the very useful and practical suggestion that:
"Tourism officials should be more involved in the planning of overseas visits by Ministers and in other diplomatic activities".
It calls on the Department of National Heritage to work closely with other departments.
I believe that there would be great advantage for all those associated with the tourism industry if there were more continuity in the Department of National Heritage on the tourist side of its activity and if senior civil servants stayed longer in post. Also it would help if the Minister of Tourism in the Department of National Heritage was a more high profile figure and ready to promote the interests of the industry.
I strongly support the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, about making the crown classification system work a great deal better. I was very interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who made the case for a more rational and equitable regional policy in relation to government help towards tourism. I was in some embarrassment about it because, speaking as a Scot, I am happy to learn from my noble friend Lord Glasgow that the Scottish allocation of tourist funds has increased quite significantly while the English Tourist Board has suffered in real terms. Perhaps I may

1179
say to the Minister that there is a simple answer, which is to ensure that the poor old English do as well as the Scots in terms of government support in these matters.
Let me say a word about the European dimension. Noble Lords will know that I am a Euro-enthusiast. However, I felt that the report gave a well balanced verdict, with which I agree wholeheartedly. Certainly, I should not like to see a tourist Title added to the Treaty of Maastricht. Tourism is primarily a subject for subsidiarity. That does not mean to say that there is not a role for the Commission in a modest way to complement the activities of national tourist authorities.
I was amused and fascinated by the careful language in ministerial letters from the Secretary of State which the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, always studies. The Minister, who is not in any way a Euro-sceptic, said:
"We could accept the principle of promoting Europe".
I warn her that those are very dangerous words for a member of the Government in the present sensitive circumstances. However, she went on very quickly indeed to say that:
"the European Commission's involvement does not seem to me to be necessary".
I hope that the Government will reconsider that rather mild recommendation from the Select Committee and at least allow tourism to enjoy the status of a director, even with no additional staff and no additional money, within DGXXIII.
5.48 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, let me begin with a triple "thank-you": first, to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for a splendid start, and secondly and thirdly to the two maiden speakers. Both the noble Lords, Lord Broughshane and Lord Feldman, showed us what this House most appreciates; namely, that noble Lords know what they are talking about. Their speeches were much appreciated and we hope to hear often from them in the future.
Tourism is far from being the most political or partisan of industries or departments. It will remain so during this debate. Yet it has been demonstrated during this excellent debate that, if the politics are muted, the strength or weakness of political will looms large. That perhaps marks a difference. "It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it" seems to me to be an apt theme song for our debate here today. It has been ably argued by many noble Lords today that the dimension of Europe looms large over tourism, as indeed it does over much of the financial, commercial, industrial, agricultural, artistic, environmental and sporting life, in general, in countries which make up the European Community.
The report presented as part of this debate is timely and welcome, and Lord Elibank and his committee have my gratitude for such a splendid, solid piece of work. There are many in the industry both inside and outside the House, who will value the contribution that has been made.
1180
My abiding impression from reading the report is that the committee has grasped a fundamental truth which has eluded the policy makers within the Government, and that is that the stature of tourism is all too often these days seen by the way it is perceived in the pecking order of government thinking. No matter how the tourism industry in its manifest form strives—and survives—and can be seen to prosper, when it is placed in one department of state or another and given a low profile, the signal that goes out to the world is that Britain does not take tourism seriously. That is a point that has been made by more than one speaker and lastly by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson.
That is why the committee had two things to say on this. First, in paragraph 100, it said:
"We do not believe that tourism is adequately represented within the Commission by the existing tourism unit. We therefore believe that the Commission should elevate the tourism unit to the status of a directorate within DGXXIII with an increase in staff and resources".
That was a cry for up-rating tourism within the Community. Then, nearer home, in paragraph 95—something which is spot on and which has been echoed throughout the debate—it said:
"While the industry itself must bear the main responsibility, we believe that the Government could and should do more to promote the United Kingdom as a tourist destination. A priority should be to give more resources to the British tourist industry. We believe that the current division of resources between the BTA and the national tourist boards is inefficient and contributes to the United Kingdom's lack of visibility in overseas markets".
Then, in paragraph 96, the report from the noble Lord, Lord Elibank, goes on to say:
"British tourism could be better promoted at all levels of government—and particularly overseas".
That is not an astringent criticism but the unanimous voice that has been expressed here and in many other places outside the House.
If the Government are listening to a committee of this House, what will be the response to this reasonable plea? Can we expect the Minister to respond to what are sensible and cogent criticisms?
I would remind the Minister that it was a Labour Government in 1969 which introduced the Development of Tourism Act which created the tourist boards. We remain convinced about the importance of their activities in promoting the tourist industry. With the areas of transport, energy, environment, consumer affairs and the economy all impinging on tourism, it is clear that more consideration needs to be given to this important area which, at the moment, is treated by the Government with little coherence—another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, quite rightly pointed out the inconsistencies which pockmark what passes for policy or strategy in funding tourism. A disaggregated industry like tourism needs government support and direction if it is to achieve its full potential. Recent cutbacks in British Tourist Authority and English Tourist Board funding—and I applaud their work—expose a short-sightedness from the Government. They have forgotten about or choose to ignore the importance of tourism.

1181
We have been told that Britain's tourism industry is worth over £36 billion a year. It provides 1.5 million jobs; 7 per cent. of all employment; and it is worth 5 per cent. of GDP. Britain must take greater advantage of the economic potential in the tourist industry. It will be the world's largest industry by the year 2000; yet Britain, by current predictions, will slip from fifth to eighth place in the world tourism league by the year 2000. If Britain had simply retained its share of the world tourism market over the past 10 years, over 200,000 more jobs would have been created.
Britain has a £4.5 billion deficit on its tourism balance of payments. That is why the recent cuts to the British Tourist Authority—and especially the English Tourist Board—seem so senseless. This short-term, budget-cutting measure will cost much more in the long term.
Our aim should be the creation of a clear, coherent government strategy. There are key issues which the Government should have on their agenda. First, coherence of policy-making across the many departments of government should be a primary objective. Secondly, a review of the existing policy framework and the methods for delivering it is needed—a review inclusive of the various opinions within industry.
Last week I attended a conference opened by the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Blair—an indication that Labour takes the future of tourism seriously. It was well-attended by many in the tourist industry. They did not moan—they will survive—but many voices called for stronger leadership from the Government. Despite survival, those voices also called for a radical review of structures; but mostly there was a cry for the Government to involve the industry much more in shaping those structures.
The charge they made is that the Government do not take seriously enough both the potential as well as the contribution that the industry makes. Why not? We should be determined that Government and industry work together, to market more effectively UK plc and to enhance our chances of improving our share of the continuing growth in global tourism. These are challenging, fundamental issues, and we should be focusing on them now.
At that same conference organised by the Labour Party, a representative from Touche Ross alluded to a study that in 1993 it had carried out on tourism policy in EU member states called Success Factors in European Tourism Policy. They identified a number of features which the most successful countries—Ireland, Portugal and France—had in common. I commend and recommend those features to the Minister and the Government.
First, those countries all had a clear, coherent government strategy for developing tourism. This Government do not. Secondly, they had a coherent central co-ordination of all policies affecting tourism, such as transport, cultural development and regional policy. This Government do not. In all three countries the government led private sector activity and acted as a catalyst for it rather than seeking merely to co-ordinate
1182
private sector initiatives. Thirdly, and most importantly, all three governments offered fiscal incentives to the private sector in the form of reduced VAT rates for small hotels and accelerated capital allowances. The revival of Ireland's tourism—in which overseas visitor expenditure grew at 10.8 per cent. per annum between 1980 and 1992, compared to the UK growth of 5.7 per cent.—coincided with the Irish Government's decision to cut VAT on hotels from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent. in 1983–84.
The British tourist industry is resilient, vibrant and successful; but it is capable of even greater things given a proper lead, which can only come from a Government with vision as well as a penchant for making a fast buck.
5.59 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Montagu for tabling today's debate and thus giving me for the second time in just seven months an opportunity to discuss tourism, which is a very important subject. If it is of help to the noble Lord, Lord Bancroft, I come not from SW1 nor from Delphi but, hotfoot, straight from the European Council in Bologna.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Elibank for moving that this House take note of the Report of the European Community Select Committee on Tourism and the Community to which I shall return later.
I am sure that I speak for the whole House in welcoming my noble friend Lord Feldman and the noble Lord, Lord Broughshane, and congratulating them on their maiden speeches. Each pointed to the cross linkages between the arts, tourism and the heritage. They made a memorable contribution to our debate this afternoon and we look forward to hearing more from them in the months and years ahead.
Overall we have had a wideranging discussion which speaks a lot for those who moved the debate. Inevitably I cannot answer all the points that were raised. Instead I shall try to focus on some of the main themes which ran through what we heard this afternoon.
The terms of the question of my noble friend are very relevant to Britain today—
"To call attention to the contribution of tourism to the economy and employment".
Tourism makes a huge contribution, and it should not be necessary to call attention to its importance; it should be self-evident and generally understood. Indeed, I suspect from listening to the debate this evening that that is becoming the case. But it cannot be denied that until now the industry's contribution has been too easily overlooked and undervalued.
As was recognised by all speakers, the economic importance of tourism is now at last being properly recognised and, without making a party point, we politicians are recognising it also. The CBI has moved tourism up near the top of its agenda and last November tourism was debated for the first time ever at a CBI national conference. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage—one of the industry's most fervent champions—gave a well received speech. Having heard the remarks of the noble

1183
Lord, Lord Graham, I might suggest that Tony Meher look at the Secretary of State as a suitable role model for an aspirant for her job and not as a predecessor whose record should be downgraded.
Much of the greater recognition that tourism is now receiving stems from the creation of the Department of National Heritage. Since 1992 the industry has had a more focused advocate in Whitehall than every before—a Cabinet Minister nearly all of whose responsibilities (the built heritage, the arts, museums and galleries, sports and recreation) have mutually beneficial linkages with tourism. That was a point made by the two maiden speakers, and, as my noble friend Lord Shuttleworth pointed out, has a wider significance, not least in the countryside in general, which was well illustrated by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth.
This is the second tourism debate in your Lordships' House in seven months, and there have been four tourism debates in another place during the current Parliament where there were none at all during the previous Parliament. That shows the success of the DNH in bringing tourism to the forefront of consideration by the Government and the wider world.
In his opening remarks my noble friend Lord Montagu suggested that we should not repeat the statistics. I gladly follow his advice in that respect. That is not to say that those statistics are not important; they are at the heart of what we are all discussing this afternoon. However, I do not want to be repetitious.
My noble friend's question goes on to refer to the,
"need for Her Majesty's Government to establish and co-ordinate long-term policies to ensure its continuing success".
The Government fully recognise that need and are responding actively. We are determined to do all we can to enable the industry to improve its competitive position to win a growing share of the world market, and, let us be clear, it must achieve that at the same time as ensuring that we add value. More numbers should not be an end in themselves. I was interested that that seemed to be a view widely held across the Chamber.
We must maximise the contribution that the industry can make to our economy. As my noble friend Lady Seccombe pointed out, that must involve responding to changing fashions and demand in the market. But we in government cannot ensure success; we cannot deliver the tourism product; only the industry can do that. However, we shall continue in our efforts to create the right conditions for that success. There is a whole range of policies that contribute to creating the right conditions, which is a point emphasised by my noble friend and predecessor Lord Astor; for example, our commitment to a low inflation and a low tax economy makes the right climate for growth and investment; our resistance to inappropriate and unnecessary labour market regulations such as the European Union's Social Chapter and the statutory minimum wage which models social policy, labour relations policy and economic policy to the detriment of each. Those ensure that the best job creation record of the major European economies is ours.
1184
We introduced a new initiative to assist small firms, of which this industry is largely composed, as a number of speakers mentioned. A network of business links has been set up. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister recently announced a package of measures, including the streamlining of the tax and national insurance systems and the simplification of government business support schemes.
Further progress on deregulation is under way, which will bring new benefits to tourism businesses, adding to those flowing from the reform of food hygiene legislation and the relaxation of liquor licensing and Sunday trading laws. The National Lottery is helping to fund magnificent new projects which, among other things, will strengthen our appeal as a tourism destination. I am referring to the new Tate Gallery at Bankside and the Earth Centre in Doncaster.
Within Whitehall, my department's role is to represent the interests of tourism and to ensure that other departments take those interests into account when framing their policies which impinge on the industry. That is what my noble friend Lord Montagu asked for; we are doing that. The European Select Committee referred to that in its report on the involvement of the Community in tourism. The committee calls on the Government to ensure that the Department of National Heritage works closely with other departments, and, in particular, the Department of Trade and Industry. We are doing that.
Let me give some examples of the effectiveness of our active sponsorship. Responding to calls from smaller operators, we worked closely with the Department of Transport in drawing up the new regulations and guidance on white-on-brown tourist road signs, which remove arbitrary qualifying criteria. Our intervention contributed to the liberalisation of air services between the United States and this country's regional airports. We have effectively opposed harmful proposals in the European. Community's draft distance selling directive. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, sponsor tourist boards and the National Heritage Department works closely with their departments.
We seek to champion tourism's interests more effectively within Whitehall by improving communications with industry's representatives and our colleagues in government. But, to state the obvious, government is about balancing different interests and priorities. While tourism's growing economic importance gives it even greater weight in policy discussions, it is inevitable that many changes that the industry would like to see may not come about because other matters, we conclude on balance, take precedence. But let nobody be in any doubt: we will put the view of tourism as forcefully as we can.
As well as working within Whitehall, we seek to provide a strategic overview to help the industry plan its future, and we fund limited intervention to help the market work better. In carrying out that role we work with and through the statutory tourist boards which play a vital role in assisting the development of the tourism product and promoting it both at home and overseas.

1185
That is why we were so determined to maintain the planned budget for the English Tourist Board and increase the budget to the BTA, even in the difficult public expenditure round last autumn. I hope that that goes at least some way to answering the point made by my noble friend Lord Hertford.
Increasing funding for the BTA was something which the European Select Committee recommended. The ETB and BTA will together receive £45.5 million in 1996–97, which is an increase of £1 million over that for 1995–96, and that at a time when most other Department of National Heritage bodies are facing reduced resources.
My noble friend Lord Bradford mentioned the name of Adele Biss. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the chairman of the English Tourist Board and British Tourist Authority, Ms. Biss, whose three-year term of office will expire at the end of May. She has made a valuable contribution towards strengthening the effectiveness of the statutory tourist boards during her time as chairman. Her strategic and analytical thinking set in place a sound framework for the future. She has overseen a major restructuring of the BTA, which has meant that its managers throughout the world are able to respond more quickly to market demands. She has also concentrated the energies of the ETB on improving the product and working more effectively with the non-statutory regional tourist boards. Her successor will have those very solid achievements to build on.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, if the record is so good, can the noble Lord tell us why she was not reappointed?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the chairman brought very particular and very valuable skills, which were very well employed, to the term of office that she held at the two tourist boards. We feel that different qualities may be those which will most effectively carry forward the industry in the future. It is those which we are looking to.
My department worked with the BTA and the ETB on a strategic overview of tourism which, as your Lordships will know, led to the publication last March of Tourism: Competing with the Best. Competing with the Best set out an initial programme of work, in partnership with the industry, to make British tourism more competitive. We are delighted with the very positive response which Competing with the Best has had and we are continuing to work with the tourist boards and the industry to follow it up. One of the key tasks identified was the need for better targeted overseas marketing as a means of increasing suppliers' access to markets with growth potential, including more emphasis on the promotion of London. Other priorities include strengthening the crown classification scheme, and a benchmarking project aimed at assisting accommodation providers to establish best practice. Good progress is being made.
My noble friend Lord Montagu and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised the question of London. Of course, Britain's greatest asset in attracting overseas
1186
visitors is our capital city. Over half of all trips to Britain include a stay in, or visit to, London and around 40 per cent. of overseas visitor nights are spent there. We must remember that London is in competition with all the major cities in the world. That is why we have provided additional money for the development of new promotional initiatives for London in overseas markets. In January this year, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, launched the new marque that will raise awareness of London as a modem "world" city with a great diversity of attractions.
London is the key to our continuing success in the world market. The new money we have provided will be matched by private sector funds to produce a new promotional push linked by the new marque. This will increase interest in London abroad and, as the main gateway to Britain, to the rest of the country. We want to encourage those who have already been to London to return and explore further afield, and to attract first-time visitors who will want to come back and see more of what our country has to offer. To do that we have to keep the image of London attractive and in the minds of potential visitors for if we do not, it will be a disaster for the capital and the rest of the nation.
London is the gateway, but, of course, Britain has so much more to offer. The British Tourist Authority is working with the regional tourist boards and others, to improve its already substantial overseas promotion of the whole of Britain, which, quite rightly, as has been mentioned this afternoon, has received many deserved accolades. What we need to do is to develop recognisable themes which will bring home to potential visitors what each region has to offer.
That is exactly what the BTA is doing in setting up regional consortia to provide a co-ordinated marketing effort which will maximise resources and create an identifiable theme specific to each part of the country. In that way, every part of Britain will he able to benefit from strategic and targeted marketing aimed specifically at the visitors who are most likely to act on information and make a visit. Developing a stronger image for the regions and reinforcing the message with specific marketing will also make it easier to encourage those visiting London to take a trip elsewhere in Britain.
The European Communities Committee's report suggested that all the promotion of the United Kingdom overseas would be more efficient if funding were concentrated in the BTA rather than having any separate provision for that work with the boards in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I was reassured in this context by the remarks from the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, about the success of tourism in Scotland. In the Government's response my right honourable friend the National Heritage Secretary has noted that the boards do in fact work very closely together, and have developed complementary branding for their marketing in much the same way as I was describing the brands which the English regions are developing. We are content that so long as the boards continue to work closely and constructively together those arrangements work satisfactorily for all parties concerned.

1187
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, raised the matter of differential spending on tourism across the country. As the noble Lord knows, the home countries' Secretaries of State have discretion to spend public money in their areas of responsibility. That is not capriciousness, but a proper way of matching public expenditure—that is to say, everyone else's money—with the varying and different problems which face different parts of the country.
The noble Lord also raised the subject of regional selective assistance. Tourism projects are eligible for regional selective assistance grants. However, applicants for that assistance must not only meet the terms of the rules, in particular they must meet fairly stringent additionality criteria. They must not simply use subsidy to displace economic activity from elsewhere.
A second set of measures arising from Competing with the Best has to do with the quality and value for money of accommodation. Accommodation is the largest element of tourists' expenditure, and so a crucial factor in deciding what destination to visit. It is worrying, therefore, that research has shown that not enough of our overseas visitors are satisfied with the quality and value for money that they receive. Although the ETB's crown accommodation classification and grading scheme has gone some way towards raising standards, it has not yet reached its full potential.
Last year, my department asked the ETB to review the scheme to make it the guarantor of quality accommodation. The problem is that, viewed objectively, the operation of the existing classification schemes seems as likely to confuse as to assist visitors. That cannot possibly be in the country's best interests, as my noble friend Lord Astor pointed out. We must ensure the classification scheme arrangements convey clear messages to visitors. The English Tourist Board will shortly be presenting its proposals for a revised and strengthened crown scheme. We intend to consult the industry on those proposals before any decisions are made.
We are now adding further work to that which has already flowed from Competing with the Best. As has already been mentioned by a number of speakers, tourism is an industry which is very much dependent on people. We wish to study the role and the part played by people in the industry to see how they are employed, how they see and plan for their future, and how they see the industry itself developing. It is for that reason that the next initiative in the Competing with the Best scheme is going to be an examination of this part of the industry because we agree with my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on the importance of training. It is interesting to note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, about the need for the status of those in the industry to be recognised as being real, wealth-creating jobs. I wish also to underscore the point made by my noble friend Lady Young, that this is an industry with very considerable potential for those in it, and it is one which is not dominated by qualifications.
1188
I have already touched on the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lord Elibank on several points. I now wish to say a little more about the inquiry and the report from the Communities Select Committee, I congratulate the committee on its work, and I welcome the report, with which I am very pleased that in so many respects we can concur.
The Commission's Green Paper on tourism which provoked the inquiry had as its main object consideration of the future involvement in tourism the Community might have. Much of the Community's work affects tourism. The Green Paper looked at four possible options for future involvement, and we believe what lay behind all that was the desire in some quarters for a full competence in tourism. This House's Select Committee did not believe that a new title for tourism was necessary, and the Government agree. That view was most interestingly endorsed by that well-known European enthusiast—but I would not like to take it too far—the noble Lord, Lord Thomson. I am sure that is very important evidence.
We believe that there would be real dangers to the tourism industry in greater regulation. Given that there was little indication in the Green Paper of what such a competence would be used for, we are not prepared to take such a risk. We do not, anyway, see the need for it. What we would like to see—and this is borne out by the committee—is a better sponsorship of the tourism industry within the Commission along the lines of our own department's activities here in Whitehall. Tourism has not received the status and recognition it deserves within the European institutions. That does not mean to say that I want to see more intervention in tourism. The Government agree with the committee in believing that what is necessary is for all parts of the Commission to be better informed about the consequences for tourism of policies and actions across the range of the Community's activities. That is the role which we see for the tourism unit in the Commission.
We do not go so far as the committee in believing that the tourism unit necessarily needs a higher status or more resources to achieve that. We should like to see the unit focus its attention on that sponsorship role, with less, if any, need to administer small-scale projects in which it has been involved in the past, and which in our impression have made very little impact.
In tabling today's debate, my noble friend Lord Montagu called upon Her Majesty's Government to,
"establish and co-ordinate long-term policies to ensure (tourism's) long-term success".
The report which my noble friend Lord Elibank's Motion invites your Lordships' House to note makes a similar plea both from the point of view of domestic policies and at the European level.
The measures enshrined in the Government's tourism strategy are designed to help the industry in the immediate future and to bring long-term benefits to tourism, heritage, environment and the arts, whose futures are all so closely interlocked. We shall continue to pursue those policies vigorously. We shall continue to support the tourist boards. We shall seek to enhance our Whitehall lobbying role, working with other

1189
departments to foster a constructive approach to the industry across the whole gamut of policy-making. Similarly, we shall work in Europe to encourage the tourism unit to focus its attention on ensuring that, within the European Commission, the impact of policies and actions on the industry is taken fully into account. All that will help to fulfil this Government's ultimate aim of sharpening up the competitive edge of the British tourism industry and seeing that it enters the new millennium in excellent shape and able to fulfil the major part which it should be able to give to the economic well being of society as a whole.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, my first duty is to thank all the speakers who have supported this debate this afternoon and particularly to add my congratulations to the maiden speakers. I thank the Minister for his reply. Many points have been raised and it is unreasonable to expect the Minister to answer them all in a short 20-minute speech. Perhaps he might like to write to some of the speakers about some of the points that they raised.
It has been a constructive debate and, generally speaking, free of party rancour. A lot has been said about our heritage and tourism, and I should like to flag up one final word of warning on that. Too often we take our historic heritage for granted, assuming that because the heritage has been there for centuries it will survive forever. However, increasingly, its survival depends on tourist income. Few heritage sites are actually profitable, and most cling precariously to viability.
There has been a tremendous growth in the number and range of new competitive attractions over the past 20 years. In fact, more than 60 per cent. of them first opened to the public during that period. Many of them are entirely commercial, such as the new theme parks that are designed for family fun. Family days out are no longer so readily taken at historic houses and museums as they once were. The competition for visitors comes not only from other attractions, but also from Sunday shopping and Sunday sport, while some available "disposable income" is channelled into the lottery. I recognise and welcome the lottery as a great source of support for some parts of the heritage, but I am anxious to see more of that investment going to the tourist potential of our existing historic assets rather than into new millennium dreams, often with pseudo-historic themes, that will attract visitors away from our genuine existing sites.
Let us not forget that the maintenance of our heritage sites must continue and, if they are not viable, one way or another the cost will come back to the public purse. In heritage circles it is still a matter of great concern that the majority of our most valuable and vulnerable historic sites are not eligible for lottery assistance because they are in private ownership, although they are of course still eligible for English Heritage grants.
I welcome the recent statement by the Secretary of State with regard to preservation trusts, but some properties cannot go down that road owing to existing
1190
family trust arrangements. I trust that the Secretary of State will continue to strive to find a solution to this problem.
Without doubt, however, we must expect Britain to be increasingly challenged as the world's favourite heritage destination for overseas visitors; consider the rich and as yet unvisited heritage of Eastern Europe, which is a slumbering giant about to awake and compete keenly for visitors.
Tourism, although it is a fragmented industry, has great potential to he even more successful than it has been up to now, providing wealth for our country and jobs for our people. However, we shall not remain successful in this ever more competitive world unless we invest our energies and the minimum but adequate public funding to make this happen. It needs long-term commitment and co-ordinated action.
I trust that the Government will continue their commitment to the industry. Of course we must have reviews, but in recent years we have had reviews of reviews of reviews. I say, "Give us the tools and let us get on with the job". I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Tourism and the Community: ECC Report
6.24 p.m.
Lord Elibank: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
In view of the excellent debate we have already had, I shall not detain your Lordships. I too would like to thank all speakers in the debate, particularly those who made kindly reference to our report; and I congratulate the two maiden speakers on very interesting speeches.
Moved, That this House take note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on Tourism and the Community (Sixth Report, HL Paper 39).—(Lord Elibank.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Hong Kong
6.25 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke rose to call attention to the situation in Hong Kong;and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, very nearly two years have gone by since we last debated Hong Kong in this House and, if my shaky arithmetic is correct, there now remain only 432 days until Hong Kong reverts to China. During those two years much has been achieved. The Court of Final Appeal has been established. Airport financing arrangements have been agreed with China, which has at least agreed to the building of the container terminal 9, so vital to maintain Hong Kong's position as the number one container port in the world.
Last autumn Hong Kong chose its first wholly elected Legislative Council and more recently the Preparatory Committee was established. During the visit of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to Hong Kong in March of this year, he announced that Britain will give visa-free access to this country to all Hong Kong SAR passport holders after 1997. This decision was warmly welcomed in Hong Kong, and it was made during a remarkable speech to which I shall refer later.
Much progress has been made, but there have been and remain differences between our position and that of China. To some extent this has been the case since the Joint Declaration was first signed and, more particularly, since the desperate events in Tiananmen Square, which so grievously changed the Britain/China/Hong Kong negotiating climate. These difficulties and differences have caused Hong Kong to be written off on several occasions since 1984. I remember headlines such as: "The bell is tolling for Hong Kong" and "Hong Kong: will the last person to leave please switch out the lights?"—repeated predictions of a flight of people, of companies and of capital.
I will not weary your Lordships with a litany of statistics, but it is worth looking at what has happened as against what everyone said was going to happen. Hong Kong is now the world's eighth largest trading economy. Hong Kong produces 25 per cent. of the gross domestic product of the whole of China—this from an area about the size of the Isle of Wight. Hong Kong now has a higher output per head than Britain. Hong Kong has 52 billion US dollars of foreign exchange reserves, and if you look for a public sector borrowing requirement you will look in vain because there ain't no such animal in Hong Kong. In 1984 that sometimes erratic barometer of Hong Kong confidence, the Hang Seng Index, stood around 1,000. Today it stands at around 11,000. No lights are going out in Hong Kong—and if you are touched for the price of lunch by a down-at-heel gentleman with frayed suit and soup stains on his tie, it is probably because he was unwise enough to bet against Hong Kong.
So what are the ingredients that have made Hong Kong so special? The unique blend of know-how, energy and commercial acumen of the people who work there, harnessed to our contribution to Hong Kong's success story; the rule of law and an impartial judiciary, a dedicated and able civil service and a top-notch police force. To these add a free economy, a free press, freedom of worship and freedom of assembly. These, I suggest, are the strands which make up Hong Kong's astonishing success story. I suggest that they are indivisible; you cannot pick and choose the bits you want and the bits you do not want. I make that point because there are worrying signs that China does not really understand what makes Hong Kong tick. Am I alone in finding it mildly surprising that none of the top Chinese leaders has ever visited Hong Kong?
On the business front, Chinese officials seem to want to interfere in what are purely economic and commercial matters. Examples are the current row over mobile telephone licensing, the damaging delay caused to the progress of container terminal 9 by allowing the political
1192
agenda to blur what should be a commercial decision and the astonishing demand that China be involved in framing Hong Kong's 1997 budget.
SAR stands for special autonomous region—and Hong Kong will have to defend vigorously that autonomy which it has been promised by Britain and China. That means that Hong Kong businessmen who have done so very well out of that territory will have to speak up for its rights, which in the end are their rights. In support of that, I quote from a recent article in the Financial Times, written by one of Hong Kong's most respected business leaders. It states:
"We owe this to the community that has allowed us to prosper over the years, and we owe it to ourselves and our shareholders. If these issues go wrong the business opportunities in Hong Kong and the region will be far fewer than we hope now".
Those words should be stuck on the shaving mirror of every chairman and chief executive in Hong Kong.
China is going through a bad patch. Its attempted intimidation of Taiwan backfired badly—and simply put more votes into the freedom and democracy ballot boxes. Heavy-handed interference in Hong Kong's administrative and political process is bound to be equally counter-productive, which brings me to the declared intention of the Chinese Government to abolish the present Legislative Council and replace it with something called the "Provisional Council". This Legislative Council, the first to be wholly elected in Hong Kong, was elected in open and fair elections in which nearly 1 million people turned out to vote. It is fully consistent with both the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. The Legislative Council was properly elected, properly constituted and must be allowed to run its agreed term through to 1999.
I have looked carefully at both the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law and I can find no reference anywhere to any such thing as a "Provisional" Legislative Council. It is clearly unconstitutional. How provisional is "provisional"? One month? Six months? One year? Two years? And what functions will it perform? What possible legitimacy can that body have to enact laws that will affect Hong Kong's freedoms? Its proposed electoral process is a sham. The present LegCo was elected by nearly 1 million voters in open and fair elections. The provisional LegCo is, it is proposed, to be elected in a smoke-filled room by a handpicked 400, who themselves will be chosen by Chinese nominated members of the Preparatory Committee. Significantly, not a single democrat or independent who won a popular mandate in the election has been invited to sit on the Preparatory Committee. If that is "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong", I will eat my Peer's robes.
China had also announced that it intended to install that sham LegCo even before the handover and was to require Hong Kong's civil servants to co-operate with it or risk losing their jobs when China takes over. I understand that recent discussions between my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and his Chinese opposite number have established clearly that the Hong Kong Civil Service is to remain politically impartial and will serve the Hong Kong Government up to 1st July 1997 and the SAR Government thereafter. That is of course most welcome, but China should be aware that

1193
that episode has caused needless worry to civil servants in Hong Kong who will have a difficult enough task in any case in the run-up to 1997 and the years beyond.
When my noble friend replies, I hope that he will be able to underline the Government's commitment to pursue those matters with the Chinese Government and to remind them of the commitments that they made in the Joint Declaration. Can he confirm that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister will also be voicing our concerns on this matter during his forthcoming trade mission to China?
One other matter which needs to be resolved is the question of human rights in Hong Kong after 1997. There is provision in the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic Cultural and Social Rights to apply after the transfer of sovereignty. However, China is not a signatory to either of those covenants. Can my noble friend clarify the position and tell the House what progress has been made on enabling Hong Kong to report on the implementation of those covenants, as required by the United Nations Human Rights Committee? Would not the simplest method be for China to accede to those covenants?
The matters to which I have referred are naturally having an effect on confidence in Hong Kong and by the same token are affecting China's own considerable interests in the most successful city state since Venice.
Chinese wisdom is often encapsulated in parables. I should like to add my own contribution to that canon. When I was a small boy, about five or six years-old, I used to go to stay with my grandmother. I greatly enjoyed it since she used to spoil me horribly. On one of those visits I was confined to bed with some deeply unattractive childhood illness. In my bedroom on the mantlepiece was a very nice carriage clock, with a satisfactory tick and an even more satisfactory chime. Bored one day—and not knowing my limitations as well as I know them now—I decided to investigate the clock to see what made it tick and what made it chime. I soon had screws, springs and cogs all over the floor. My curiosity satisfied, I thought I had better put it back together again before my grandmother came upstairs to visit me. All was well after I had reassembled it, so I thought, but it was then that I noticed a number of cogs, springs and wheels all over the floor, grinning up at me. I had then with my grandmother what the Foreign Office calls "full and frank discussions". The clock Was never quite the same.
I shall not labour the point, but it is crucial to Hong Kong's future and to the future of all who have invested so much in it that the undertakings in the Joint Declaration be properly observed: "one country two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". For those reasons alone, although there are others, the speech made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in Hong Kong on 4th March, to which I have already referred, was an extremely important statement of Britain's position on Hong Kong. I should like to quote two key sentences from it:
1194
"We in Britain will have continuing responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong; not just a moral responsibility as the former colonial power and as a staunch friend of Hong Kong, but a specific responsibility as a signatory to the Joint Declaration. We shall watch over the implementation of the Treaty …we shall ensure that others are watching too—Hong Kong will never have to walk alone".
How I welcome that clear and unmistakable statement of our position. It should be the bedrock of our policy on Hong Kong, and I very much hope that other noble Lords who are to speak in this debate will support that unambiguous backing for Hong Kong from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
There are two other points in that speech on which I should like to touch briefly. I refer first to the decision to grant a very small number of Hong Kong war widows full British citizenship. That is something that has concerned Members of this House and another place for some time and I know that that decision has been warmly welcomed in Hong Kong. I understand that the mechanics of getting a Private Member's Bill through Parliament are being discussed, and the intention is that that will happen during this Session of Parliament. Can my noble friend please confirm that that is indeed the case? Perhaps he can tell us the exact state of play.
The other passport matter referred to in that speech related to the non-Chinese ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. Again, the subject is familiar to your Lordships. In July 1993 the Motion of the late Lord Bonham-Carter to give those 4,000 or so people full British citizenship was supported by all noble Lords who spoke in that debate, including several noble Lords who are here tonight, and was carried when the matter was put to a vote.
In his speech my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made a concession to their case by strengthening the form of words which the Government see as their protection, from,
"Her Majesty's Government will look with particular and considerable sympathy at their case should they come under pressure to leave Hong Kong",
to,
"Her Majesty's Government will guarantee admission and settlement should they come under pressure to leave Hong Kong".
With the greatest possible respect, that is just moving the furniture around and it really is not good enough. Who is going to define "pressure"? That will be a subjective judgment, depending on whether you define it in Hong Kong or from a ministerial office in Whitehall. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has implicitly admitted in his speech that the ethnic minorities have a problem—and that problem is not answered by what is essentially an asylum solution. The ethnic minorities will have a right of abode in Hong Kong, but no nationality; a travel document (the BNO passport), but no citizenship. I hope that the Government will rethink their position and restore British citizenship to those people, many of whom had it removed from them during amendments to the Immigration Act. If that happens, I will happily give the Prime Minister's speech alpha plus instead of alpha straight.
As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated so clearly, we have a legal and moral obligation to Hong Kong, not only in the run-up to July 1997 but

1195
during the next 50 years. I have spoken about our duty to Hong Kong. Let us also remember that Britain has huge interests in Hong Kong's future as the investment and enterprise centre of South-East Asia. Thousands of British companies do billions of pounds' worth of business in Hong Kong, and from Hong Kong into the markets of the whole Pacific Rim. We must not behave as though this is just another colonial mopping-up exercise in which the main objective is a dignified withdrawal. Hong Kong's and Britain's interests are the same and are best served by a strong defence of the way Hong Kong works.
The Governor, Chris Patten, has strongly defended Hong Kong's rights. For his pains, he has been subjected to a shameful campaign of personal abuse and calculated discourtesy from the Chinese Government for going too far. He has been attacked by democrats in Hong Kong for not going far enough, and he has been subjected to flanking fire from big business both in Hong Kong and in this country. Yet he and his policies still enjoy over 70 per cent. approval rating in Hong Kong, so he must be doing something right. What he has done—which I believe history will recognise—is make people in Hong Kong aware that they have a say in their destiny. He has helped to make them aware of what is important and what is worth fighting for. Above all, he has made it much more difficult for the candles of freedom to be extinguished. I believe that those lights of enterprise and freedom will continue to burn. I will not be betting against Hong Kong. I beg to move for Papers.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, upon securing this debate. I am in agreement with many of the comments that he made. I am also conscious that many noble Lords who will speak later in the debate have far more knowledge and experience of Hong Kong than I have, but I have the privilege of taking part in the discussion today. This may well be the last debate in this House before 1st July 1997.
Last October I had the opportunity to visit Hong Kong. I have been to Hong Kong a number of times. I am always confirmed in my belief when I speak to Americans that Hong Kong is the one place in the world which makes Manhattan seem slow. Everybody I have met in Hong Kong has been consistently helpful and anxious to ensure that I have access to what I wish, to see and know. I also thank the Hong Kong Government Office in London for its continuing helpfulness to Members of this House and another place. I thank the office of the Hong Kong Legislative Council in London, too, for its unfailing helpfulness.
With the wisdom of hindsight, I suppose one would say that democracy should have been in place before negotiations with China took place at all. That is a sad comment, but I am sure that everybody is in agreement with it. However, it is now history. I am impressed by Chris Patten in his role as Governor of Hong Kong. I regret that he is under attack from so many quarters, including at least one ex-Foreign Office official. The
1196
more Chris Patten is undermined by people here who should not undermine him, the weaker his position will be in speaking up for the rights of people in Hong Kong in the next year or so before Hong Kong passes to China.
I spent some time travelling on Hong Kong's excellent public transport system. I stopped people to ask them what they thought of Chris Patten. Without fail, people in the markets said that they liked him. I would have thought that his approval rating in Hong Kong was higher than that of most politicians in countries all over the world. The key point is that China must realise that the world is watching what it does in Hong Kong. China's attitude to human rights will be viewed very much in relation to what China is doing and will do in Hong Kong.
There are positive aspects. I refer to China's enormous investment in Hong Kong itself and the autonomous zone on the mainland opposite, to its decision in relation to the Court of Appeal, on which the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, has commented, to its agreement on the financing of the airport and to the fact that China has climbed down on its demand for loyalty tests for Hong Kong civil servants. The fact is that the economy of Hong Kong is extremely successful. Some years ago, a British Government Minister said to me that it was a pity that we could not run our economy as successfully as Hong Kong ran theirs.
One word characterises anxieties about Hong Kong: confidence. Confidence is crucial both for the people of Hong Kong and for those outside who will want to continue to trade with Hong Kong after 1st July next year. Without confidence, I suggest that Hong Kong will stop functioning in the way it now does. On a previous visit to Hong Kong I spoke to a Hong Kong businessman who was engaged in a good deal of activity in Canton and the surrounding area. He had spoken to Chinese businessmen from Canton who had told him that they and Hong Kong could do business together provided there was not undue interference from people in Beijing who did not understand how they functioned. The danger is that, if confidence evaporates, Hong Kong will turn out to amount to little more than Shanghai.
I refer to a number of issues that damage confidence both in Hong Kong and here as we look to Hong Kong. I refer first to the decision to set up a provisional LegCo. The proper LegCo now in place in Hong Kong is the first fully democratically elected body. It was elected in September 1995. We have an obligation to support those elected people at a difficult time. They are being undermined by suggestions that a provisional body should be set up. What will the British Government do about it? John Major has said:
"If there were to be any suggestion of a breach of the Joint Declaration we would have a duty to pursue every legal and other avenue available to us".
It is beyond doubt that they are breaching the Joint Declaration by trying to set up a provisional LegCo. Therefore, I regret that, in referring to a possible breach of the Joint Declaration, the Foreign Secretary said in a letter to Christine Loh—one of the many eminent members of LegCo:

1197
"I see no benefit in speculating now on precisely what we would do in such circumstances".
But those circumstances have arrived as of this moment. The suggestion that a provisional LegCo should be established in competition with the proper LegCo is already a breach of the Joint Declaration. It is up to the Government and the country to act on the commitment that the Prime Minister gave. He said that we would use every legal and other avenue available to us. I ask the Government to start to do that now.
The next matter of concern is the possibility of corruption. It is a tribute to the effectiveness of the administration that there is very little corruption in Hong Kong. There is a danger that, unless China treats this as a specific issue, corruption will creep into Hong Kong from the mainland. That would be disastrous for confidence in Hong Kong and for the wellbeing and efficient functioning of Hong Kong.
When the Prime Minister visited Hong Kong in March of this year, he gave a number of undertakings, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, has already mentioned. He gave an undertaking about visa-free access to Hong Kong's Special Administrative Region passport holders, which was a very good thing. He also gave a commitment to ethnic minorities, but it was qualified (as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, has said) by "if they were to come under pressure to leave". That has left very unhappy the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong—some 4,000 or 5,000 people—without guaranteed citizenship rights of China from July of next year. I urge the Government to look again at this matter to see whether they can do a bit more for those people.
I turn to war widows. It is good that the Prime Minister has made a commitment in this respect. However, what kind of commitment is it when the Prime Minister suggests that a Private Member's Bill will do it? The Prime Minister is in charge of the Government. For heaven's sake, why do we do not have a government Bill to deal with the matter of 20 or 30 war widows which has been an anomaly and a disgrace to us as a country? We want a government Bill, not a Private Member's Bill.
I turn to the question of human rights. At present, Hong Kong has a reporting right under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. I am certain that there will be overwhelming support in this House for the idea that reporting should continue. It is urgent that the Government should exercise the maximum pressure and influence on the Government of China to ensure that, after Hong Kong goes over to China, such reporting will continue. Of course, the Chinese Government does not report as regards its own position.
I turn now to the situation of the Vietnamese boat people, which is worthy of a debate in itself. It is a pity that, every time the Vietnamese boat people who are in Hong Kong are persuaded to start volunteering to return to Vietnam under the scheme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there is an occasional American politician who puts forward arguments which suggest to people that, because they might end up in the United States, or wherever, they should not volunteer
1198
to go back. It is very irresponsible of some American politicians to do that at intervals—and I shall not repeat their names—when they do not have the ability to say to those people, "We will take you into the United States", and when they are simply causing further agony and torment to people who left Vietnam in the belief that they would reach a Western country. When they realise that they cannot do so and they volunteer to go back, we have the semblance of a solution to a very difficult problem in human terms which has made the Vietnamese boat people its victims. American politicians should not play dirty politics with the future of those people.
There is one single step, apart from abolishing the idea of the provisional LegCo, which China could take to give Hong Kong proper confidence; that is, that when considering appointing the person to be Chief Executive in Hong Kong those concerned should appoint the present one, Anson Chan. She has done an outstandingly good job by all accounts and she is a first-class administrator. If she were to be appointed, at one stroke of the pen confidence in Hong Kong would rise enormously. Indeed, Hong Kong is lucky to have such a capable woman as its Chief Executive, along with the many other outstandingly capable women members of LegCo, whose position is, of course, endangered by the provisional LegCo suggestion.
I very much hope that the hand-over ceremony will not become a messy business and that there will be a proper agreement between China and our Government to have a ceremony which is worthy of Hong Kong, its people and its future. One country, two systems must mean more than economic policy: it must also mean justice, politics and administration as being two systems under one country. I contend that in the remaining months before the Union Jack is hauled down for the last time Britain still has an enormous responsibility to do the right thing by the people of Hong Kong. We must do our best to give Hong Kong a successful, prosperous and democratic future.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, I, too, very much welcome the opportunity to debate Hong Kong, even briefly. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for providing us with the chance to do so. It is a remarkable fact, as the noble Lord just pointed out, that more time has elapsed since we last debated the issue than now remains before the transfer of sovereignty next year. Yet, Hong Kong remains one of the key economic factors in the world and one of our most important overseas responsibilities. From every point of view—and, most notably, from the point of view of the people of Hong Kong—it is of the utmost importance that we should handle the remaining period with the greatest care and skill.
Perhaps the reason that we debate the issue relatively seldom is that it is a complex one. The detail matters. The history of how we got to where we are today matters. History itself matters, from the 19th century onwards. The detail of the negotiations for the Joint Declaration and in the Joint Declaration itself matters. Indeed, all these things matter. They are realities which

1199
cannot be compressed into a sound bite, a headline or even into one of those short news stories whether they be about turning out the lights or anything else.
Given the fact that our time is limited, I should like to concentrate on just a few points. First, Hong Kong remains a success story; indeed, remarkably so, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, pointed out. I, too, had a chance to see that for myself briefly in January. One sees the new airport literally rising out of the sea. It was very good to hear that the Prime Minister was rolling out some of the first tarmac for the runway on his recent visit. Who would have imagined that 12 years ago, when we were in the final tense stages of negotiating the Joint Declaration?
Moreover, to add to the noble Lord's statistics, GDP growth has been at an average of over 5 per cent. per year in real terms for five years and per capita GDP is now higher than in Britain and in many other countries in the European Union. If one puts together Hong Kong's general reserves as well as the Exchange Fund, that reveals the remarkable figure of some 75 billion US dollars. One can then add to that, in July of next year, the Land Fund, which will go to the SAR Government, and which will then be something like 18 billion US dollars. Above all, one gets in Hong Kong this sense of buzz and of dynamism which has made it so successful. Who would have imagined all of that 12 years ago?
Much of what has been achieved is attributable to the skill and the dedication of the Hong Kong Civil Service. Of course businessmen, both foreign and local, have played a crucial role; but the framework and the continuity are provided by Hong Kong's Civil Service—and a very good bunch of people they are. For example, it is very good to see local civil servants like Anson Chan, as Chief Secretary, or Donald Tsung, as Financial Secretary, taking up their posts with such skill, dedication and determination.
I believe we would all agree that it is essential that such a very effective Civil Service should go on serving the people of Hong Kong, after July 1997 as well as in the period up until that time; and that it should be impartial in doing so. It was encouraging to see the Chinese Foreign Minister Mr. Qian Qichen, in his recent discussions with the Foreign Secretary, confirming his hope that all civil servants, as in the Joint Declaration, would stay on after July 1997.
However, the issue goes deeper than just staying on. The Civil Service must be impartial, and it must know that it is not under threat. Its members must not be put in a position by the Chinese, or by ourselves, where they appear to be being forced to take sides in matters which are diplomatic disputes between Britain and China. They should be in an atmosphere where they know that they are being encouraged to go on serving after July 1997.
One area of potential and unenviable difficulty for civil servants will be in relation to a Provisional Legislative Council. Much has been said on the subject—indeed, both noble Lords have already referred to it—and much no doubt will be said in the months to come. I believe that we need to face reality. The reality is that, for better or for worse, the Legislative Council,
1200
as it now exists, will cease to exist at the beginning of July 1997. That is not a new revelation. It has been apparent since the arrangements for the present Legislative Council were first put in place without our being able to reach agreement with China. It was also apparent, and the point was made, when we debated the subject two years ago.
If there is a Provisional Legislative Council, then two things will follow. First, the sooner that a new elected Council under the Basic Law is established the better. It would be advantageous if that were to happen before the end of 1997 rather than within a period of a year, which is what is now being said. Secondly, that Council needs to be efficient, effective, and in keeping with Hong Kong's legal and policy traditions from day one. Surely both of those things mean that, before they have any authority at all, members of that Council need advice from those who have experience—and that is likely to include people in the Civil Service. As a matter of policy we may have set our faces against the existence of a Provisional Legislative Council. However, as a matter of pragmatism, we need to deal with the reality that it is going to exist.
The relationship with China is never an easy one. We come to so many issues from different points of view. Our traditions and our histories' are different. Sometimes, looking back on history, it seems as though neither the Chinese nor ourselves have learnt from the mistakes of the past. But now we have a common goal, and that is the continued success of Hong Kong and its people after the transfer of sovereignty in 1997. Building that sense of a common objective will require restraint and sensitivity from both sides. Putting our points quietly and, if necessary forcefully in private tends to produce better results than shouting from the rooftops.
The Chinese on their side need to understand the diversity of Hong Kong, which is its strength, and deal with those diverse elements rather than shunning them, however uncomfortable they may sometimes find the process to be. What matters is that we have a Joint Declaration. We need to do everything possible in the coming months to build up that sense of "joint". We have an historical obligation to do so. We have a treaty commitment to do it; and, above all, we have a responsibility to the people of Hong Kong to do it.
7.1 p.m.
Baroness Thatcher: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend for initiating this debate and I am happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, who as governor, and like his successor, showed great leadership qualities in Hong Kong over a difficult period.
When I look back over the 12 years since Mr Deng Xiaoping and I agreed the Joint Declaration on Hong Kong's future, I am enormously encouraged by how well Hong Kong has done. The doomsayers who predicted decline, or even disaster, as 1997 drew closer underestimated the resilience and irrepressible energy of Hong Kong's people. Hong Kong today is a city in its prime, a thriving centre of enterprise, perhaps the most entrepreneurial community in the world. Its people have

1201
built their economy into one of the world's leading centres of trade and financial services, and at the same time steadily made their way of life and governance more open and democratic.
When I was last in Hong Kong in January, I visited the remarkable new Tsing Ma Bridge, which will be the world's largest single-span suspension bridge, leading to the spectacular new airport. These are not new projects devised and carried out by people who are depressed and frightened about what lies ahead. Rather, they exude optimism about the future and confidence that the talents and initiative of Hong Kong's people will continue to have full rein after 1997.
That confidence is visibly shared by the world's business community which continues to invest in Hong Kong, to establish offices and regional headquarters there and to plan for the further expansion of its business. I understand that in the past 12 months alone the number of British people living and working in Hong Kong has actually risen by 11,000.
So looking forward, there are good grounds to expect that Hong Kong will flourish after 1997, as we envisaged when we negotiated and signed the Joint Declaration. I certainly believe that it will. China has the greatest interest of all in seeing Hong Kong prosper. After all, why else did China agree in the Joint Declaration that Hong Kong's way of life and free market system based on a rule of law should continue unchanged for 50 years after 1997, if it was not because it wants Hong Kong to continue to do well?
Of course the years since 1984 have provided their share of difficulties and problems. These things never go without a hitch. China obviously had problems in coming to terms with the practical implications of one country, two systems, especially as Hong Kong's way of life and degree of personal and political freedom are very different from China's own. These differences—and they are profound—have led China to misjudge the effect of some of its actions both on opinion in Hong Kong and on international opinion generally. That is particularly true of China's unfortunate, and I believe unjustifiable intention, to dismantle Hong. Kong's elected Legislative Council. All speakers have raised that point. That would not be consistent with the Joint Declaration. To turn back the clock on democracy in Hong Kong—modest as that democracy is—gives Hong Kong and the world precisely the wrong signal about China's future intentions.
The best possible start for China in 1997 would 'be to keep the present members of the elected legislature unchanged until the due time of the next elections. Magnanimity is not seldom the truest wisdom, and I think it is better than pragmatism.
Some of China's statements have also destabilised Hong Kong's outstanding Civil Service, whose continued willingness to serve the new sovereign power as loyally and effectively as it has served the British sovereign power is absolutely crucial to Hong Kong's future success. I am glad to see that the Chinese Foreign Minister reassured our own Foreign Secretary on this point when they met at the weekend.
1202
I hope too that our Chinese friends will consult not only those in Hong Kong who share their views but also those who think differently. Hong Kong is not a monochrome city where everyone holds the same opinions: it would never have been so successful if it were. In its own interest China should hear the widest possible range of views before reaching its decisions. The world will view the manner in which China resumes sovereignty over Hong Kong as a crucial test of how she intends to behave internationally. It is thus an opportunity for her, and I urge China to act in a way that shows that the fears which exist about her actions and intentions are misplaced.
I believe that the Government, with the Opposition's support, have carried out honourably their duty to work for a smooth transition. Moreover, as the Prime Minister has said, Britain's obligations to Hong Kong and its people do not end on 1st July 1997, bearing in mind that the Joint Liaison Group continues its existence until the year 2000. We must therefore continue to take a close and sympathetic interest in Hong Kong's future and in everything which happens to it after 1997. We should also maximise our trade and commerce with both Hong Kong and China. I believe that the unique spirit of Hong Kong's people, the skills of its Civil Service, the acumen of its businessmen and the wisdom and self-interest of China will ensure that the passage from British sovereignty back to China will be a safe one.
7.8 p.m.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness. I seem to recollect that when she was leader of the Opposition I had the pleasure of being her host in Hong Kong. I explained to her what the future held and when that shoe was likely to pinch, which would be in the early '80s. With typical lack of discretion I said that as she might well be Prime Minister at the time I hoped she would take great interest in Hong Kong's affairs, and so she did.
I am glad that in introducing this debate the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and all subsequent speakers, paid tribute to the economic well-being of Hong Kong. It is doing extraordinarily well, but since China is apt to be cast as the villain of the piece it is as well to point out that much of Hong Kong's prosperity results from the prosperity that has transformed much of China since the sweeping reforms courageously introduced and persevered with by Deng Xiaoping. It is against that background that the private sector in Hong Kong was able to seize the opportunity to invest and work with businesses in the rest of China to their great mutual benefit and to the benefit of all people in Hong Kong.
I, for one, believe that the change of sovereignty should not greatly affect that situation, and that this mutual prosperity is likely to continue since there is no problem about Hong Kong/China relations in the private sector economic and financial fields.
It is good news, I believe, that officials have just agreed on the principles and procedures on which the budget for 1997–98 should be conducted. That has been done in close collaboration with their Chinese vis-à-vis.

1203
I do not know whether there is a difference in the information that I have and that of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke. However, if I am right, it is a good augury for the future because such an issue could have been the subject of endless fruitless argument. Perhaps when the Minister winds up he will cover that point.
An excellent economic and financial situation is a great asset for the people of Hong Kong when approaching the problems of transition. However, a different but, to my mind, an even more important asset is one to which other speakers have referred. It is significant that all have done so. I refer to the excellence of the public services. I found them equal to any public service in any of the seven countries in which I have served. They are non-political and committed to the service of the Hong Kong people and the Government of Hong Kong. The public service is composed of men and women of the highest calibre. Their professionalism and skill, and freedom from corruption, have been crucial to the huge improvements in the economic and social life of the people over the past 20 or 30 years. I believe that they will be equally crucial for the success that we all wish for the SAR.
I have, therefore, been deeply concerned that, in the heat of new political developments and the noisy political exchanges about them, nothing should be done or said that will confuse or discourage the public services. As we know, something of that sort happened recently. It was good news, therefore, that in the Secretary of State's recent meeting with his Chinese colleague, there appears to have been mutual understanding about the importance of the service to Hong Kong, its non-political character, and the need not to confront or confuse it with choices of conflicting loyalty. In winding up, it would be useful if the Minister will confirm that that optimistic note is correct.
The most obvious potential problem of conflict of loyalty for the public service lay in the prospect of a plurality of councils all making claims on the public service while the public service was still trying to run Hong Kong. Hong Kong would have the sitting Legislative Council, the Preparatory Committee and the expected Provisional Legislative Council. It may be that progress is being made in some respects if reports are correct that the Executive Council has agreed to most Chinese requests at least for collaboration with the Preparatory Committee. I hope, again, that the Minister will confirm that because it is an important development.
That leaves the question of how the provisional council is to be dealt with since the Government totally object to it—and I can understand why. However, here, too, in practice things may not be as bad as they appear in principle. Provided that the co-existence of the sitting and provisional councils is fairly short, ingenuity, informality and a modicum of common sense should surmount the problem. Much in this, as in so much else, will depend on the personality of the new chief executive, to be designated. There is a report in today's Hong Kong Standard that the provisional council is scheduled to be in place, "early next year"; and if that
1204
is right it would appear to result in only a few months of duality. Perhaps the Minister will agree that the shorter the Chinese Government contrive to make this period of duality, the better it will be for the people of Hong Kong.
I apologise for asking the Minister to respond to so many questions. However, I hope that he will confirm my impression that the political relationship with China has improved slightly, and that members of the Hong Kong public service are now being freed to play a larger part, together with their Chinese vis-à-vis, in tackling the work necessary if the transition is to go tolerably smoothly. With the end of the concept of a through train for the Legislative Council, a heavy responsibility falls on members of the public service to keep things going. That is why I have taken up so much of your Lordships' time in talking about them. It has been their city all their working lives, and it is they who, I believe, will play the major part in maintaining Hong Kong's prosperity and international reputation in the future, based on a sound working relationship with the new chief executive.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the debate. It has already been graced by several remarkable contributions. Noble Lords have talked about a crisis of confidence in Hong Kong. To my mind, that crisis of confidence arises directly from the credibility gap between what China promised and what many people in Hong Kong now expect.
In the Joint Declaration of 1984 China undertook to preserve Hong Kong's "lifestyle" and "rights and freedoms" for 50 years. The Basic Law set out in some detail the governmental structure designed to underpin those "rights and freedoms", including a legislative council elected by universal suffrage, exercising wide law-making powers, as well as the right to impeach the chief executive if he or she broke the law. Its independence from the Executive and its democratic legitimacy as established in free elections, together with the Bill of Rights, thus lie at the heart of the guarantees of Hong Kong's freedoms.
Let me add a further point. It is only from strong local institutions that a strong political leadership can emerge. I know that it is Communist doctrine that there cannot be any conflicts of interest in a Communist society. But in any real world there always are, and Hong Kong's interests are bound at times to conflict with those of Beijing. Hong Kong needs a strong leadership to defend its interests within China much more than it needed one to defend its interests outside China. That is what politicians are for. It cannot all be done by businessmen, as businessmen sometimes believe.
This constitutional infrastructure has had to be created by the British Government before the handover. Indeed, it has only been built since 1992, when Chris Patten became Governor. The reason is that Hong Kong was a colony whose freedoms were protected by the British Parliament. After 1997, that protection is withdrawn; hence the urgent need for new local institutions. A Court

1205
of Final Appeal has been established; a Bill of Rights is in place; and last year a Legislative Council was set up, elected on a wide franchise in multi-party elections.
Each step in the move from general promises to concrete institutional guarantees has been resisted by China, despite all efforts to secure its co-operation. Now China has said that it will restore the "colonial" clauses in the Bill of Rights and abolish the recently elected LegCo, replacing it with a hand-picked provisional legislature, itself chosen by a hand-picked Preparatory Commission, from which Hong Kong's largest party, the Democratic Party, has been excluded. When Frederick Fung voted on the Preparatory Commission against the abolition of the existing LegCo, he was told in no uncertain terms that his political life in Hong Kong would be terminated. Further, no members of the Democratic Party are to be allowed a share in choosing the chief executive.
The message from all this is clear. The Chinese Government do not want any local institutions which might weaken their own control over the political life of Hong Kong. To put it bluntly, they will not tolerate democracy in any shape or form. China's vision of "one country, two systems" is confined to economics. In politics, it is "one country, one system"—the system which produced Tiananmen Square.
China's spokesmen argue that Britain is trying to impose limits on China's sovereignty which it never accepted for itself when it was Hong Kong's sovereign. To this charge there seems to be a clear answer. The new constitution was not imposed on Hong Kong by the British Government. Our Government responded—in many people's opinion inadequately and belatedly—to the demand of the people of Hong Kong themselves. Their demand for institutionally embedded guarantees was a measure of their mistrust of their new sovereign. China's opposition to those institutions is the main cause of the existing crisis of confidence.
Nor can we say any longer, as some noble Lords did when we debated these questions in the past, that democracy is unsuited to the Asian character. Democracy has arrived in East Asia. The only countries which now resist it in principle are the few remaining communist states. Whatever may have been true before, by today's standards the abolition of democracy would be a profoundly retrograde step. I do not see how we could hand over our responsibilities with a good conscience if we thought that would be likely to happen. As the Governor said in his broadcast three days ago, the survival of a "cleanly elected legislature" is the,
"litmus test of what else will survive".
The way the Hong Kong Government have sought to entrench the freedoms associated with the Joint Declaration is not some personal folly of Chris Patten, as some people have argued. It is the policy of our Government. It has just been endorsed by the Foreign Secretary, who said that the abolition of LegCo was "neither acceptable nor necessary". As has been pointed out in the debate, the Prime Minister recently reminded China that Britain had a 50-year responsibility towards Hong Kong as joint signatory of the 1984 Declaration. "Hong Kong", John Major said, "will never walk alone".
1206
The question is: what can we do to ensure the outcome that we all want? First, we have to probe China's intentions. If China insists on abolishing the present LegCo, how long will the provisional legislature last? One year is being suggested; that is surely too long. By what system will the new legislature be elected? We have only the vaguest ideas about that. Will the Democratic Party be granted an unencumbered right to participate in any election? We do not know. Article 70 of the Basic Law states that if the chief executive dissolves the Legislative Council, it must be reconstituted within three months. In 1994 the National People's Congress only talked about "dissolution", not about "abolition". This may offer a way forward, provided that the new LegCo is not inferior in powers, functions or democratic legitimacy to the existing one. That, I believe, must be our sticking point.
We should make every effort to draw China into discussions leading to a reasonable outcome. But suppose it refuses to play? Then I believe we and our allies should be prepared to make clear to China that there will be a price to pay: a political, diplomatic and economic price.
If we act in concert—and I hope that that situation will never arise—we are not without resources. Noble Lords have talked about trade, and it is my earnest wish that trade with China will expand and will lead, as expanding trade should, to a cumulative increase in prosperity. But let us be realistic, as the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, said. China stands to lose far more than we do from any interruption of trade and investment flows. Both the European Union and Japan import more from China than they export to it. The United States runs a balance of trade surplus with China, it is true, but even so its exports to China are only 2 per cent. of its total exports.
Inward investment to China from the EU, USA and Japan came to 6 billion dollars in 1995. To put the point dramatically, China depends much more on trade with us and investment from us for its continued growth than we depend on trade with China or returns on our investment in China. I am talking of the aggregate. If China had no economic relations with us at all, our economic circumstances would be little affected and our unemployment might be somewhat lower—a point which is well understood in Europe and the United States.
China has all kinds of claims on the world community. It wants membership of the World Trade Organisation; it wants a renewal of its Most Favoured Nation status with the United States. It needs international acquiescence for the reunification with Taiwan; it wants to host an Olympic Games; it wants to be at every top table in economic and security matters.
These are all reasonable claims, but they need to be put in the context of an emerging single world which is not precisely a western world but is heavily influenced by western norms of behaviour—a world in which there are membership conditions. Those are not very onerous and they do not in any way diminish China's dignity or interests. Indeed, it is only if China meets those conditions that it can hope to secure the peaceful

1207
reunification with Taiwan. And that is particularly true of Hong Kong. China should understand that to try to rule Hong Kong without the consent of its people will produce social and economic turmoil and complicate every aspect of its relations with the rest of the world.
In 1997, China will not be liberating a victim of colonialism but taking over a complex, sophisticated society in which economic prosperity and stability are intimately interwoven with the rule of law, uncorrupt administration, personal liberty, freedom of assembly and speech and local institutions set up to underpin those things. For Hong Kong, prosperity and freedom are indivisible. So I beg those who want prosperity not to give up on freedom.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Dunn: My Lords, the initiative of my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke in tabling this Motion gives Members of this House the chance to take stock of how Hong Kong is doing in the final run-up to the historic transfer of sovereignty in 1997. The continuing concern for the well-being of Hong Kong on the part of both Houses of Parliament is always deeply appreciated in Hong Kong.
It is 12 years since the Sino-British Joint Declaration settled the question of Hong Kong's future. In that time Hong Kong continued to prosper, to invest its capital and skills in China's economic growth, to develop its political institutions and to localise its Civil Service.
As I have said before in this House, the transition was never going to be easy. It is perhaps inevitable that the incoming and outgoing sovereigns will differ on some aspects connected with the long and complex process of transfer. At the same time, it is to be expected that the spotlight of the international media on Hong Kong as 1997 draws near will inevitably encourage agitation from pressure groups and individuals with their own agendas.
I have no doubt whatsoever that China's leadership remains committed to maintaining Hong Kong as a separate, Special Administrative Region with its own autonomous social, economic and legal systems. It is in China's own interest to do so.
I also have no doubt that the Hong Kong people are determined to make the Sino-British Joint Declaration a success. They have a proven track record of resilience, enterprise and pragmatism. They are driven on ,by confidence in themselves and in their own government—in Hong Kong's systems, which give everyone who is willing to work hard a fair chance to improve his lot. But confidence is a delicate flower, and it needs to be nurtured.
I have been concerned about the cumulative effect on confidence in Hong Kong of the continued political wrangling between Britain and China. There is no point in apportioning blame. However, with little more than a year to go before sovereignty transfers, the overriding objective of both governments must surely be to achieve a smooth transition for Hong Kong from a British colony to a Special Administrative Region of China.
1208
Hong Kong people have the right to expect the closest possible co-operation between Britain and China to achieve that aim. Instead, they are subjected every day to unsettling political debate—over the provisional legislature, the role of the Civil Service in relation to the incoming regime and even over the protocol of the historic handover.
I am particularly concerned about the impact of all this upon the morale of Hong Kong's outstanding civil servants, whom previous speakers have already mentioned. They have a special role to play in ensuring continuity beyond 1997, in assisting a smooth transition and in maintaining stability. Their task as part of the Executive over recent years in handling the new relationship with Hong Kong's elected, more assertive legislature has been difficult enough, and we all pay tribute to the way in which they have managed it. But they cannot be made the political football whenever British and Chinese diplomats clash.
Hong Kong's Civil Service, like those in most administrations, has always been non-political. That is a great strength and a stabilising factor in a changing society like Hong Kong. These able and devoted men and women with life-long career commitments cannot be expected to be at the beck and call of two political masters in these last months. Britain and China need to be particularly sensitive to the unique anxieties of civil servants. And, above all, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: they must not place civil servants in the invidious position of having publicly to take sides.
I am also concerned about the impact of recent events on the confidence of investors. I have said time and again that the ultimate safeguard for Hong Kong is its economic contribution to China which its buoyant economy guarantees. We all know only too well that nowadays capital can move around the world at the speed of a telephone call or the push of a computer button. A serious disagreement between China and Britain could so easily trigger a flight of capital. And so could fear of disagreement.
There are already warning signs. A report by Merrill Lynch to its clients this month concludes with these words:
"It is not necessary to be starry-eyed about China to see the force of the arguments for optimism about Hong Kong's long-term future as part of China. But the negative factors relating to the mechanics of transition seem set to cause some significant jolts to confidence in the weeks and months ahead…We are revising our strategic view of the Hong Kong market to a neutral position on a three month outlook".
In addition, there are increasing concerns among investors that Chinese bureaucrats might be tempted to interfere with Hong Kong's commercial life and to influence commercial decisions which lie strictly within Hong Kong's promised autonomy. One of Hong Kong's main attractions to investors is its reputation as a free, fair and clean place to do business. That hard-earned status must not be put at risk.
The basis of Hong Kong's future is "one country, two systems", with a high degree of autonomy, a far-sighted concept put forward by Deng Xiaoping. For that concept to work, the people of Hong Kong must be trusted with

1209
that autonomy. In these remaining months it is right and necessary that people at all levels be encouraged to have contacts with China without their loyalty being called into question.
By the same token, although Hong Kong people have lived under British rule and have learnt from the British and prospered under the British, that does not mean that they have become British or agents for the British. They have retained the distinct culture, manners and outlook of Chinese people wherever in the world they go. They are proud of their heritage and the values that have come down to them through 5,000 years of history.
When the Sino-British Joint Declaration was signed in 1984, Hong Kong's GDP per capita was over 6,000 US dollars; today it is over 23,000 US dollars. Its legislature was then wholly appointed. Today it is wholly elected. Its senior Civil Service was largely expatriate. Today it is nearly all Chinese. Its contacts then with China were largely family visits. Today in South China alone there are some 25,000 Hong Kong owned factories employing more than 3 million people. It is to the credit of the Hong Kong people that such mammoth progress in only the past decade has been achieved with dignity and responsibility and without any upheaval. There is every reason to believe that they will work as fervently and robustly for Hong Kong after 1997 as part of China.
Like my noble friend Lady Thatcher, I remain today, as on previous occasions when this House has heard me, an optimist, convinced that Hong Kong will continue to be a success story. But I would end with this obvious point: the calmer the seas, the safer will be the passage.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, when my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke put down this question for debate, there was some consideration whether it was helpful to have this debate at all, particularly in the context of what the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, described as the atmosphere of unsettling political debate during the past few months. However, the speeches we have had so far in this debate from people who have enormous knowledge and understanding of all matters connected with Hong Kong, not only reflect great credit on your Lordships' House and its tradition whereby people do not speak unless they have something worth saying, but also could be of great help in resolving some of the problems. In the light of the people who have spoken before, it is with great diffidence that I venture to contribute. In doing so, I should declare an interest as an adviser to John Swire and Sons.
I should like to focus on one or two of the misapprehensions which have led to some of the embryonic problems—misapprehensions which can, by being better understood, perhaps lead to some solution and some amelioration of the effect.
First of all, I agree with Baroness Dunn that the leadership of China is wholly sincere in their intention to fulfill the main objective of the 1984 agreement for one country and two systems. In so far as there are
1210
problems coming from the behaviour of Chinese officials, it is a great deal lower down than the Chinese leadership.
I recognise that of course China is cross with Mr. Patten. I would echo what my noble friend Lord Skidelsky said, which is to highlight the sincerity of Mr. Patten in what he sought to do. In its simplest form, it was, as my noble friend said, to meet the new condition in which Hong Kong will no longer have Westminster to ensure that the people are not ill-treated, either by the local Hong Kong government or with the connivance of the government from Whitehall. I believe that the real objective of introducing an independent legislature was to strengthen the people of Hong Kong in their ability to draw attention to the need for proper treatment. I recognise that the way in which Mr. Patten set about it has greatly irritated China. Perhaps they are not accustomed to the enormous political charm and talent with which Mr. Patten goes about his business. Indeed some people in this country found it hard to get used to. But that said, I hope that in spite of the irritation which China feels with Mr. Patten, and which I can understand, that China will not feel it necessary to take this out on Hong Kong. Hong Kong is much too important to China for them to do that. I hope that they will look much more objectively.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, that it was regrettable that a decision has apparently been taken to scrap the elected legislative council and put in its place a provisional council nominated by the Preparatory Committee. I would suggest that when the time comes to make those nominations, the situation could be ameliorated by including on the provisional council a number of people who are on the present elected legislative council.
There are certain things I believe that Hong Kong is not really about. I do not think Hong Kong is really about loyalty to governments, let alone foreign governments. To people in Hong Kong, government is a back drop, it is a necessary back drop. It is something which does not interfere in their lives. They expect good government but they do not feel a personal loyalty to some foreign power. By raising this loyalty issue, damage is being done and unnecessary problems are being created particularly for the civil service. I agree, with respect, with the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose of Beoch when he talks of the impressive quality through the years of the Hong Kong civil service. But their loyalty has been to the people of Hong Kong. It has not been to some foreign power as such so it is not helpful for China to start raising the question, "Are you loyal to us or are you loyal to Britain?" That is not a real factor.
Secondly there has been reference to human rights, and I respect those who have referred to this. But so far as concerns Hong Kong, human rights inside China are not a direct factor. Human rights are of course a very crucial factor for Hong Kong. So far as foreign business is concerned, for business to feel happy in Hong Kong it has to feel happy about certain factors. Human rights are very much one of those factors. Indeed, there has been concern. I heard a senior foreign businessman express the other day considerable worry that some employees of his company in China had started to

1211
disappear. China must recognise that there will be business worries about infringements of human rights but I do not think it is helpful for us in the context of Hong Kong to start talking about human rights in China itself.
Some of China's particular problems—and they are considerable—are to the advantage of Hong Kong. First of all the uneven economic development in China which is causing a very real problem: the rapid development of eastern seaboard and the much slower development of the inner provinces and the disparities which are now seen through television etc. in the inner areas of China. I have recently visited Shanghai. In my opinion, as a centre for international businessmen, Shanghai is still not under starter's orders as a competitor to Hong Kong. The second consequence of this unevenness of economic development is the uncontrolled and now uncontrollable movement of population to the eastern seaboard. This is profoundly destabilising and a very difficult problem for China. You only have to go to a railway station in one of the big cities of China to see huge numbers of people who have arrived in the hope of finding jobs. It is very difficult to deal with. What that certainly means is that China will be extremely firm in ensuring that there is not a similar movement of people into Hong Kong.
A third problem—and a very real one—which China recognises is the problem of corruption. Hong Kong is remarkably free from corruption at the government level. This has been done through conscious effort. It is most important, with the arrival of 1997, that there is not the corruption introduced through lower apparachiks from China. That is one of the main reasons why I believe we do need an independent legislature in Hong Kong.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, referred to the fragility of Hong Kong. It has been traditional to say how important it is for China to treat Hong Kong properly if China is to have a hope of getting back Taiwan. Recently there has been an example of the reverse situation, in which some of China's political posturing about Taiwan has been unsettling for Hong Kong.
China must take account of that delicacy and fragility. That means that the leaders at the top in China must control those cadres further down. The through-train was a splendid concept. That it has been partially derailed is a danger. Frankly, it is difficult to conceive of partial derailment. When one carriage is derailed, there is a risk of derailing the whole train. I do not believe that China can pick and choose between the economic side of Hong Kong and the whole character of Hong Kong.
There is one final point to make. In 150 years—and particularly in the past 50 years—of British colonial rule in Hong Kong, Hong Kong has done staggeringly well, much to the advantage of China, and of course with China's help. We hear a lot about the importance of face in China. I do not believe that face is any more important to Chinese people than it is to anyone else. But face is traditionally more talked about there. It is not only because Hong Kong is of such importance
1212
economically to China that China has to do its best to make sure that Hong Kong prospers. It is also because after the past 50 years of prosperity and flourishing, just imagine the impressions if within two or three years of Chinese rule Hong Kong started to wither. I am sure that China will not therefore allow that to happen.
7.52 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, there is both a distinct advantage and a disadvantage in being the last speaker before those who wind up. The advantage comes from having been able to listen to the wisdom of so many eminent speakers and gain from their vast experience and expertise. The disadvantage arises because, by the time one comes to speak, most of what one wanted to say has already been said by other speakers. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for introducing this timely debate. It is timely indeed because, as the noble Lord mentioned, it has been two years since this House last had a full debate on Hong Kong. I was a little apprehensive about putting down my name, having seen the list of speakers for today's debate, as I lack experience and expertise. My experience comes from the year I spent living in Hong Kong and China before the Joint Declaration was signed and after studying Chinese law at London University, where in fact my thesis was titled "The Hong Kong Lease through the Eyes of Beijing".
With less than 500 days to go to the handover, there are a number of real or what I might even call tactical issues that will affect Hong Kong's return to Chinese sovereignty. Clearly, there are many factors leading to optimism. But some recent developments suggest that for the short term the outlook appears a little rocky. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and several other noble Lords mentioned, I firmly believe that China is fully committed to wanting Hong Kong to succeed but does not always convey that message well. As the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and others have already outlined, there are strong incentives for China to do what is needful to ensure the success of Hong Kong after 1997.
I perceive a major stumbling block to a smooth transitional process and stronger Sino-British co-operation to be the lack of clear leadership in China as well as the damaging effects of China's past hostility to the British legacy. With Deng Xiaoping's ill health and the jockeying for power in China to succeed him, I believe that many senior officials in China are scared to be seen as going soft on Hong Kong.
There have been a number of common denominators in the speeches we have heard this evening. I picked out five words in particular: confidence, trust, co-operation, continuity and, of course, the buzzword "safeguards" for the people of Hong Kong. To achieve those ends, there needs to be an effective public relations exercise from China. Clearly, one of the major problems in the short term is the lack of morale and, in the words of many, the crisis of confidence not just in China but for many inward investors into China. Recent events, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, mentioned, and events such as the snub by senior Chinese officials to Frederick Fung—

1213
who until recently was perceived as one of the accepted Hong Kong political elite after 1997 for his recent voting against the proposed provisional legislature—have been seen by many as a hard-line campaign by China to ignore its promise of "one country, two systems".
I believe that there are a number of important lessons that have been learned from what has happened in the transitional period. Much of the media coverage has focused on the ups and downs of Sino-British relations over Hong Kong. But, in my opinion, commentators have underestimated Hong Kong's ability to manage its own relationship with China. In many cases, Hong Kong has proved its ability to deal with China, even on sensitive issues.
However, having said that, it in no way implies that Her Majesty's Government and Governor Chris Patten have not played a significant role in endeavouring to achieve a successful and effective handover of Hong Kong to China. Despite the many criticisms levied against him, I have always been an ardent admirer of the Governor in his commitment to ensuring safeguards and a degree of democracy in Hong Kong. As my noble friend Lady Dunn—I am delighted she has been able to join us here today—stressed, it is important to appreciate that, in their preparations for negotiations with Britain, Chinese leaders took the basic policy decision that Hong Kong would be more useful to them as a separate economic and social entity than if it were forcibly reintegrated into China.
The propaganda campaign directed by China at Governor Chris Patten in the run-up to last year's LegCo elections led many commentators to doubt China's commitment to the high degree of autonomy promised in the Joint Declaration. It is apparent that China's anxieties and suspicions about Britain's intentions on Hong Kong have led to its aggressive approach. However, there are encouraging signs. In the past year there have been significant breakthroughs in Sino-British co-operation over Hong Kong. That has led to the resolution of several important agreements, such as the Court of Final Appeal, and, as several noble Lords mentioned, the airport financing agreements.
I firmly believe that a major issue in the whole debate in the run-up to the handover of Hong Kong to China and the prospects for the future there is the question of "face". That has not been mentioned by many noble Lords so far. China certainly does not want anyone to be able to say that Hong Kong was one of the great success stories while it was under British rule but then went "down the tubes" as soon as China took over. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, took up that point in his closing remarks. Hong Kong has undergone a remarkable political transformation in the past 12 years since the Joint Declaration. I think that few people would have believed it possible at the time the Joint Declaration was signed.
There is another significant point. It is also apparent that, in the past two years, China has moved from virulent public opposition to the whole idea of direct elections in Hong Kong to accepting the idea now. This sea-change in China's position has been brought about
1214
by the pressure of public opinion in Hong Kong and the fact that Chinese officials responsible for the transitional process could no longer use mistrust of Britain as a reason for avoiding this issue. Even pro-Chinese figures in Hong Kong have recognised the importance of a local mandate.
But there are a number of thorny issues that several of your noble Lords have raised today, some of which I shall mention briefly. A lingering problem in Hong Kong has been the Vietnamese migrants—I understand they number in excess of 20,000—who are required to be repatriated to Vietnam before the change of sovereignty. This should not he seen as a problem belonging purely to Hong Kong. Hong Kong has provided temporary abode for over 100,000 migrants over the years and has made a significant advance to the UNHCR for financing and maintenance of the migrants.
It is encouraging that the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Jeremy Hanley, made most useful progress during his visit to Vietnam earlier this month. Can the Government give a further full reassurance that they will remain fully committed to helping to resolve the problem of the Vietnamese migrants before July 1997?
Furthermore, can the Minister give any insight as to what progress, if any, has been made with China to ensure that the United Nations Human Rights Committee continues to receive human rights reports from Hong Kong after 1997, and say whether they have achieved any progress in their negotiations with China on their plans to amend the Bill of Rights Ordnance?
Following the debate two years ago initiated by the late Lord Bonham-Carter, in which I and several other noble Lords took part, I was delighted by the Prime Minister's recent announcement that the British Government is prepared to guarantee admission and settlement to ethnic minorities if, after 3rd July 1997, they were to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, mentioned, it was couched in rather general terms. Would the Minister be more specific as to the kind of circumstances that will give rise to this concession?
My joint messages,to Her Majesty's Government and the Chinese authorities from this debate today emphasise, first, the value of and the need for effective communication and co-operation—in the words of my noble friend Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, constraint and sensitivity based on trust and goodwill—and, secondly, the necessity of not rocking the boat.
As for the people of Hong Kong who are watching, listening or will be reading the contents of this debate later, I hope they will be assured, as the Prime Minister recently said, that Britain will continue to have a strong commitment to Hong Kong well beyond 1997.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, has just said, this is a timely debate. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for initiating it, but we are also conscious that it is a debate at a very sensitive time. It is just over a year now to the transfer of sovereignty,

1215
which will be this country's last major act of decolonisation. It is a unique transfer of sovereignty, for obvious reasons that we all know. I am sure that noble Lords will all share my wish that we do not say anything in this final year to make things more difficult for a brave and democratic governor in Hong Kong and, equally importantly, for the people in Hong Kong.
I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, put the matter in the proper perspective with her combination of realism and optimism about the future. We are now left with a very short transition period, in effect. It is true that one of the realities of that transition period is that there is a reformed LegCo existing alongside something new which that has been created by the Chinese authorities. In that sense, looking back on our debate of two years ago, what was expressed by the two distinguished former governors of Hong Kong—the noble Lords, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn and Lord MacLehose of Beoch—has in fact proved to be right. We have to recognise that the Chinese commitment to abolish the reformed LegCo is now beyond doubt.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, was absolutely right two years ago when he reminded us that the LegCo is only one carriage in the so-called through train which has many other carriages. In that debate the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, to whom we listened again with great interest this evening, added that the engine of the through train remains the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, and that it is vital to try to keep those in good order.
The Prime Minister, in the very notable speech that he made in Hong Kong recently, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, drew attention to how much has been achieved under the Joint Declaration, as against the difficulties which have arisen over the LegCo. He mentioned the agreements on Hong Kong's membership of international bodies such as the World Trade Organisation; agreements on the Court of Final Appeal; agreements on the future of the defence lands and on the network of international treaties applying to Hong Kong.
I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, the author of the original negotiations, that our wisest course in the months that remain is to concentrate on underlining to China how the inter-dependence in Hong Kong of its various facets—the integrity of the Civil Service, the inviolability of the commercial law system, the academic freedom of the universities, its citizens' right to travel—all hang together. They form a seamless web essential to the continuation of Hong Kong's economic success. As Hong Kong's 7 million people generate a GDP nearly a quarter of that generated by China's 1 billion plus population, any damage to Hong Kong's economy as a world trading city will do massive damage to the whole Chinese economy. That is by far the best argument to Chinese self-interest in living up to its commitment to "one country two systems", under the Joint Declaration.
Hong Kong's role as part of China depends upon the confidence of the international trading community. The Joint Liaison Group, which has been mentioned, will
1216
continue to function during the critical additional transitional period—in a sense a confidence building period—until the year 2000. The guarantees in the Joint Declaration run for 50 years until 2047. Those are significant factors, and it will be the responsibility of the British Government to make sure that what the Prime Minister said about ensuring that the international community backs all those undertakings is honoured.
In the meantime, the Government have their own heavy responsibilities in confidence building. We on these Benches welcome the Government's three-quarter U-turn on the issue of wives and widows of ex-servicemen from Hong Kong. But I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I am totally baffled as to why, on this sensitive and emotional issue upon which there has been so much debate, when the Government decide that they are going to make this concession they have to do it by a Private Member's Bill. We shall want a clear explanation about that from the Minister in his winding up remarks. There seem to be great advantages from the Government's point of view and the British point of view to have a wholehearted, urgent government Bill to deal with this matter.
Then there is the case of the 5,000 members of non-Chinese ethnic minorities born in Hong Kong who face the possibility of being stateless on 1st July 1997. That is an issue that my friend the late Lord Bonham-Carter made his own cause over many years, as was mentioned. The Government moved from what I always regarded as weasel words when they said that they would,
"consider with considerable and particular sympathy",
their case for entry if under pressure to leave. They expanded on those words when the Prime Minister said that they are "prepared to guarantee"—and he repeated the word "guarantee"—entry in an emergency. I cannot believe that my colleague the late Lord Bonham-Carter would have been satisfied with those words.
Why cannot the Government now abandon their paranoia about immigration? It is a paranoia that in some ways matches Beijing's paranoia about modest democratic changes in the LegCo. Why do not the Government at this stage, as a parting gift, present those 5,000 with the right to a full British passport? After all, as the Prime Minister said, they are hardly likely to want to leave a home where the top rate of tax is 15 per cent. (paid by only 2 per cent. of the taxpayers) unless something goes badly wrong. I hope that the optimism of the noble Baroness is justified. I share it. But if something goes badly wrong the Government would have to admit them anyway. Having made that concession, why do they not reap the benefit of it, not only for themselves, but also for the reputation of this country?
The noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, in his final remarks raised the case of the Vietnamese immigrants. According to the LegCo, I understand that the Government are seeking to wash their hands of the problem, saying that it belongs to Hong Kong alone. That surely cannot be right. The LegCo made a series of requests to the Government for more action and assistance. I hope that there will be a positive response.

1217
I am told that today the LegCo is debating an Immigration (Amendment) Bill which raises serious human rights issues inside Hong Kong. If enacted, it would make it impossible for Vietnamese asylum seekers, some of whom have been detained for years, successfully to challenge their detention in the courts. There is a danger of the Bill being rushed through the LegCo in Hong Kong in a single day. From these Benches we certainly support the call of Jonathan Daw, the legal adviser to the LegCo, seeking to delay matters until there can be proper representations from the various interested parties in Hong Kong, including representations that some of us received from an organisation called Refugee Concern.
None of those matters depends upon the decision of Beijing. They are within the power of decision of Her Majesty's Government. Within the limits of our country's freedom of action, and this very difficult situation in relation to Hong Kong, it would greatly help to sustain morale in Hong Kong and their reputation in Hong Kong were the Government to take the action I am suggesting. Besides, they are the right things to do.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, unlike my noble friend Lord Dubs, who has been to Hong Kong quite recently, unfortunately it is now three years since I was there. But, like him, I feel privileged to speak in a debate in which so many of those who have spoken have so much expertise.
This is a most opportune debate, coming at a time of renewed concern about the Chinese approach to the way in which Hong Kong is governed when it ceases to become a colony in just over one year's time. That concern was reflected in a number of the speeches made this evening, and we on these Benches share it. Indeed, this has been a debate where there has been a remarkable degree of agreement on all sides.
However, we must be careful not to exaggerate the problems. China is still committed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, said, to the one-country/two-system formula which was the basis of the negotiated agreement between the UK and China on the colony's return to Chinese rule. Unacceptable though it is, China's recent announcement that it intends to set up a provisional body which will actually replace LegCo after the takeover should have taken no one by surprise.
The Chinese Government made it clear that they would not accept the reforms introduced by the Governor after talks broke down the year before last. When I visited the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing 18 months ago, I was told in no uncertain terms that was the case. Indeed, China also made it clear that it would eventually dismantle all three levels of elected government. It rejects those bodies on what it claims to be legal grounds since they were created without its prior agreement. However, some commentators have suggested that at least the existing elected members of the municipalities and the districts will be reappointed to provisional bodies. Let us hope that they are right.
1218
In saying that it is not surprising, I am not in any way endorsing the position China took in resisting democratisation during those earlier negotiations. Nor am I endorsing the Preparatory Committee's decision to set up a provisional LegCo. It would surely be far better, as many speakers have said, to allow the existing LegCo, which was elected on a fair and open basis, to run its full term.
The new body appears to have been constructed on the narrowest of electoral bases—just 400 people. In reality, it is an appointed body. The important constitutional questions now are, first, how we get to 1st July 1997 without unacceptable confusion between the role of the new provisional council and the existing LegCo? Secondly, how do we secure from China further commitments that after 1997 new elections will take place as soon as possible to replace the provisional council, which abide by the Basic Law and the Joint Agreement and that will not in any way renege on earlier agreements because China does not like the possible outcome of such elections? For example, China cannot be allowed to believe that manipulation of the system to exclude the democrats from elected positions would be acceptable. The Basic Law commits it to making 30 of the seats directly elected by the third post-1997 legislature and eventually all 60.
Perhaps when he replies the noble Lord opposite speaking for the Government would indicate whether his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary referred to the timetable for elections with his opposite number in Beijing when they met recently in the Hague.
I do not often agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher. However, I share her optimism and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, in regard to Hong Kong. I remain optimistic, as I have always been and as I believe she is, that China will not be so foolish as to jeopardise business confidence in Hong Kong by initiating political change that goes back on earlier agreements and which, as such, will be unacceptable not just in Hong Kong, but also in the UK and in the international community.
My noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, mentioned corruption. Again, I should like to be optimistic. However, there are, as a number of other speakers have mentioned, one or two signs that China has not entirely understood the importance of curbing its authoritarian tendencies. I ask the Government whether they have raised with China its treatment of Frederick Fung, who voted against the setting up of the Provisional Council. Can he confirm that it is true that Mr. Lu Ping demanded unanimity and has told Mr. Fung that he is unfit to serve on the Provisional Committee or on the committee to select the territory's first chief executive? If that is the case, have the Chinese been asked to reconsider his exclusion?
Elaborating a little on the earlier questions from the noble Lord, Lord Maclehose, can the Minister also tell the House what is the position of the UK Government on the role of the Provisional Committee up until July 1997? How, for example, will decisions about the 1997–98 budget be agreed? What can be done to prevent conflict between existing bodies and the new one? Even

1219
though LegCo is, in some senses, the consultative arm of an executive-led government, conflict over exerting power and influence between the two bodies in the coming year could be very unsettling.
The Chinese Government's attitude towards the Civil Service in Hong Kong has been raised and is a matter of concern. There has been, as other speakers have already mentioned, a very welcome retreat from the quite unacceptable requirement that top civil servants demonstrate their support for the incoming regime by declaring that they back the new provisional LegCo. Again, as has already been said by the former Governors of Hong Kong, the noble Lords, Lord Wilson and Maclehose, the neutrality of the Civil Service must be preserved. If this were threatened, it would affect morale and put at risk the whole transition. The appointment of the first post-1997 chief executive is of the utmost importance in helping to maintain confidence in Hong Kong as well as in ensuring a smooth transition. Without saying whom it should be, she or he must have the appropriate experience, skill and intelligence, to do what will be undoubtedly a very demanding job.
Other speakers have raised the issue of the future rights of Hong Kong's ethnic minorities. Does the noble Lord speaking for the Government accept that it is already clear that these minorities will not enjoy the same rights as the ethnically Chinese majority after 1997? For example, because of the race-based nature of Chinese nationality law, they will not be able to become Chinese nationals, and only Chinese nationals will be eligible for certain political offices under the Basic Law in the post-1997 constitution.
We very much welcome the Prime Minister's pledge made when he was in Hong Kong recently to allow the ethnic minorities the right to settle in the UK, should they come under pressure to leave Hong Kong after 1997. However, I ask the noble Lord opposite to say, when he replies, whether it would be fairer to go a little further and agree to restore full British citizenship to this relatively small group. We on these Benches also strongly endorse the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and others, on this matter. We also support the point that has been made about the need for a Government Bill, not a Private Member's Bill—a point made by my noble friend Lord Dubs and by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth—on the widows of servicemen.
On the more general question of human rights, perhaps I may pick up the points, again made by other speakers, on the unfortunate fact that China is not a signatory to the UN covenants on civil and political rights and on economic, social and cultural rights. Hong Kong, however, has been covered by these covenants since Britain ratified them some 20 years ago. Moreover, the Joint Declaration, I believe, made it clear that they should continue to be in force after 1997, and this is embodied in Article 39 of the Basic Law. As the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, and others have indicated, if this is to have any meaning, future Hong Kong governments must report to the UN's human rights committees. When the noble Lord opposite replies, can he reassure the House that the
1220
Government intend putting further pressure on China to agree special arrangements for Hong Kong to make such reports? Surely, this is a minimal safeguard which the people of Hong Kong deserve. There must be procedures for the international monitoring of human rights in Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty.
Let me end by saying that we on these Benches have not always been in agreement with the details of the Government's handling of every aspect of the changes that have been instituted in Hong Kong nor with every minor detail of the way they have been handled by the Governor. But we share with the Government and with the governor the wish that Hong Kong should remain not only prosperous and economically successful, but that it should continue to be governed in a way that is totally consistent with the rule of law and with the freedoms referred to by a number of speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in particular, to which its people have become accustomed; and freedoms which we must ensure they continue to experience after 1997.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey is extremely sad that she is unable to be here for this debate tonight. I am, too. I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for initiating this debate. Hong Kong has always, and will always, occupy a special place in the knowledge and affections of this House. Again, the range and quality of the contributions from all sides of the House this evening have confirmed that. They included contributions from two distinguished former Governors of Hong Kong and from the former British Prime Minister who signed the Joint Declaration. They have amply justified my noble friend's initiative in bringing the subject of Hong Kong's future before us. I pay particular tribute to the contribution to our deliberations by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn: her wisdom and experience in these matters are unrivalled.
As has been stated, it is some 700 days since our last full debate devoted to Hong Kong in May 1994 and much has happened in Hong Kong in that time. I expect that at least as much will happen in the 400 days or so remaining until the transfer of sovereignty.
As other noble Lords have done, before looking forward to the handover and beyond, I shall go back just a little to what has been achieved in and for Hong Kong since our last debate. At that time, in May 1994, LegCo had not finally decided the arrangements for the final cycle of elections under British rule. The arrangements which it then adopted were, and are, fully consistent with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law and the other agreements and understandings between Britain and China. They were duly implemented in elections to the district boards in September 1994; in the elections to the two new municipal councils in March 1995; and, most significantly, in the elections to the Legislative Council itself last September. In all three sets of elections more Hong Kong people than ever in the

1221
territory's history registered to vote and more than ever turned out on polling day and exercised their democratic choice.
The success of those elections and of the representative assemblies they produced in contributing to the governance of Hong Kong make it all the more regrettable that China has indicated that those elected to serve on those bodies will be replaced in 14 months' time. In the case of LegCo, China's plan is apparently to put a provisional legislature in its place. Neither the Joint Declaration nor the Basic Law provides for any such body. We have made it clear to the Chinese, both in public and in private and from the highest levels, that we see no reason for this. We consider it would be a reprehensible and unjustifiable step for China to take. We believe that the members of LegCo duly elected on 17th September should be allowed to serve their appointed four-year term.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister stressed those points to Premier Li Peng in Bangkok on 29th February. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary did the same with the Chinese Foreign Minister in The Hague on 20th April. Vice-Premier Qian Qichen confirmed that until 1st July 1997 China accepted the sole authority of the Governor, LegCo and the Privy Council with regard to the government of Hong Kong. But we look to China to show that the promise of Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong will be honoured in the spirit as well as in the letter. As the handover approaches, it is inevitable and right that Hong Kong people should look increasingly to the incoming sovereign power for reassurance about their future. As Hong Kong turns to China, so I hope that China will listen to the Hong Kong people—to all Hong Kong people, including those whose views China does not much care for.
I have already referred to the meeting which my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had with the Chinese Foreign Minister last Saturday. Apart from the provisional legislature, one of the most important subjects covered in their discussions was continuity in the Hong Kong Civil Service—something which I am sure the whole House agrees with, as has been stated. I am sure that this is vital for Hong Kong's future success. Vice-Premier Qian told the Foreign Secretary that China hoped that all civil servants would stay on to serve the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and reaffirmed China's commitment to a politically impartial civil service. The two Ministers also agreed that civil servants should remain loyal to the Hong Kong Government before 1st July 1997 and to the SAR Government thereafter. That important statement has already been widely welcomed in Hong Kong.
I would just like to mention here that I am pleased that earlier today the Queen in Council made two orders under the Bill for the payment of compensation; that is, the Overseas Public Servants Act, as it is now. That is compensation by the British Government to Hong Kong overseas officers. The orders will also allow the Governor to permit them to take early retirement. I am sure that this news will be welcomed by the officers concerned.
1222
Many of those who have spoken today have placed our policy on Hong Kong in the wider context of relations with China. We will not hesitate to speak openly and frankly on matters like the future of LegCo. But, wherever possible, we believe it our duty to try to reach solid and lasting agreements with China which will safeguard Hong Kong's future stability and prosperity.
Overall, we have achieved some improvement in our relations with China. My right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister visited China in May last year in his previous capacity. He will do so again next month, travelling on to Hong Kong. I can confirm to my noble friend, Lord Willoughby de Broke that Hong Kong will be high on the agenda at those meetings with the senior Chinese officials. In the past six months my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has had no fewer than three meetings with the Chinese Foreign Minister.
This engagement with China, which extends to all levels, is important in its own right between two permanent members of the UN Security Council. It is also important to secure practical, positive results for Hong Kong in the last year or so of British rule. Let me give some examples.
In June 1994, we reached agreement with China on the future of the military estate, enabling the Hong Kong Government to sell for development real estate worth some 65 billion Hong Kong dollars. In November that year we at last reached agreement on financial arrangements for Hong Kong's magnificent new airport. As my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke said, Hong Kong is an extremely important regional training centre and has the world's busiest container port. The expansion of this port is vital for the continuing prosperity of Hong Kong and the wider region. Therefore, we very much welcome the Chinese Foreign Minister's agreement during the Foreign Secretary's visit to Peking in January that China would accept whatever arrangements the consortia agreed among themselves on the redistribution of stakes in container terminals 1 to 9. The consortia are now holding extensive discussions to this end. We hope that they will find an early solution.
In June 1995, we agreed with China on setting up a Court of Final Appeal for Hong Kong which will fulfil the role now performed by the Privy Council here in London. We have also reached a large number of agreements on mainly technical issues, all of importance for Hong Kong's future prosperity. This year the Joint Liaison Group will hold four rather than three plenary sessions, a measure of both sides' determination to complete the transition agenda.
All this painstaking and persistent work has rested on the firm foundation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984. The principles which it enshrines in treaty form—of Hong Kong enjoying a high degree of autonomy and its current social and economic systems, rights and freedoms for 50 years after the handover—govern all our exchanges with China. The Chinese Government have regularly repeated their commitment to the Joint Declaration. Meanwhile, Hong Kong has

1223
prospered, as has been mentioned by many noble Lords here. It has been a wonderful example of how hard work and sensible attitudes can be so successful.
I would like to turn now to try to cover as many of the points raised by noble Lords as possible. However, if time runs out on me, I shall certainly write to them on any matters that I have not been able to cover.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, mentioned Chinese interference in Hong Kong's economic autonomy. We believe that a level playing-field for business is one of Hong Kong's strongest assets. It is imperative for Hong Kong's continuing prosperity that nothing is done to undermine this and that Hong Kong enjoys the high degree of autonomy promised in the Joint Declaration. We welcome recent Chinese reassurances on these points.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Willoughby de Broke and Lord Skidelsky and the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, mentioned human rights, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in relation to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Bill of Rights ordinance which implements in local law the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is entirely consistent with the Joint Declaration and Basic Law. We have expressed our serious concern over the proposals made last year by the preliminary working committee to amend the Bill of Rights ordinance and to reinstate earlier versions of six other ordinances which were amended to ensure that they were in line with the Bill of Rights. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary urged the Chinese Foreign Minister to leave this issue to the Special Administrative Region Government to decide in due course.
We are in no doubt that China is obliged under the Joint Declaration to ensure that the provisions of the international covenants as applied to Hong Kong remain in force. That includes the requirement to report to the UN treaty-monitoring bodies, as mentioned by a number of noble Lords. We are continuing to urge China to accede to the covenants and to press the Chinese on how China will report on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary raised this issue with his Chinese counterpart during their meeting on 20th April.
A number of noble Lords were asking about the assurances to and the situation of ethnic minorities. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister, as has been stated, announced in Hong Kong that we would guarantee to members of this community admission and settlement in Britain in the unlikely event that they came under pressure to leave Hong Kong after the transfer of sovereignty. This commitment reinforces the Government's existing commitment to this group and will remove any doubts that may exist about whether they would be admitted to Britain. This group, whose families have been in Hong Kong for many generations, want to remain in Hong Kong. We believe that this reassurance will give them the confidence that they need to stay there.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and the
1224
noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, mentioned statelessness. No member of the community will be stateless after the transfer of sovereignty. They can apply for a BNO passport before 1st July 1997. If they do not and would otherwise be stateless, they will automatically become British overseas citizens. Moreover, their position in Hong Kong is secure. The Joint Declaration and the Basic Law guarantee their right of abode in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region after the handover. There have been suggestions, including recently—
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but my question and that of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was: why will the Government not give that relatively small group of people British nationality?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, negotiations are going on at the moment. Indeed, I was just about to announce that there have been suggestions, including recently from Chinese officials, that the ethnic minorities in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region might be granted Chinese nationality. We continue to press for early expert talks with the Chinese, during which we hope to obtain clarification on that and other points. While that is going on, there is certainly nothing that this Government should do.
A number of noble Lords asked haw pressure to leave will be determined. The Prime Minister undertook in Hong Kong to consider whether we should seek to identify specific circumstances that should be met. We are still considering the issue. However, the Prime Minister also made clear his view that setting down in advance a specific set of circumstances would not necessarily give better protection than the broad guarantees already in place and that it would not therefore best serve the interests of the ethnic minorities. In any case, I am sure that the Ministers of the day would not interpret Britain's commitment narrowly. We continue to accept that evidence of discrimination could be a relevant factor.
I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, that the Executive Council discussed on Tuesday the request for co-operation from the Preparatory Committee. We hope to respond soon on that point. On his question about agreement on procedures for the 1997℃98 budget, to which other noble Lords also referred, I should say that the optimism may be a little premature. Discussions on arrangements for the 1997–98 budget are still continuing. We remain committed to the closest consultation and co-operation with China in that area without compromising the Hong Kong Government's authority until 1st July 1997.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, among others, asked why there is to be a Private Member's Bill for wives and widows. The Government believe that a Private Member's Bill is the easiest and quickest way of getting the provisions onto the statute book at a time when the legislative programme is full. The effect will be exactly the same.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, asked about representations on the timetable on LegCo. We have stressed the view that China should stick to the timetable

1225
set down in the Basic Law. We have repeatedly raised the question of Frederick Fung with China and the need for his involvement in the transitional institutions.
I turn now to the point about Vietnamese migrants. It remains our firm objective to complete the repatriation of Vietnamese migrants before July 1997. Recent developments have been encouraging after the set-backs last year through factors beyond our control. The international steering committee on this issue met in Geneva in March and underlined the fact that the only viable option for non-refugees was to return to Vietnam. When the Minister of State, Mr. Hanley, visited Vietnam earlier this month, the Vietnamese Government promised their full co-operation in accelerating the return programme. We hope that the brake on voluntary repatriation caused by an initiative in the US Congress has now been lifted and that all migrants will quickly realise that their future lies in Vietnam.
On the release of non-nationals, the Hong Kong Government have released over 250 Vietnamese migrants covered by the terms of the Privy Council judgment on 27th March. That relates to migrants who claim that they are not Vietnamese nationals and who will therefore not be accepted back by Vietnam. We are continuing to discuss the issue with the Vietnamese authorities. The Minister of State, Mr. Hanley, raised it during his visit there earlier this month when the Vietnamese Government undertook to look at the problem again.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, mentioned the legislation being introduced on Vietnamese migrants. The Privy Council judgment exposed loopholes in the law. The judgment could have a disastrous impact on the number of migrants volunteering to return to Vietnam and is likely to encourage many more migrants to fabricate or destroy evidence of their nationality. Any of the 4,600 ethnic Chinese migrants in Hong Kong camps could potentially be released if they were to claim to be non-nationals. Substantial releases would cause an outcry in the community. The legislative amendments put forward by the Hong Kong Government would limit the scope of the Privy Council judgment to those migrants who have been rejected by the Vietnamese Government. The amendments are compatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
I must now move on to my final comments. On 30th June next year Britain's relationship with Hong Kong will change, but it will not end. The Joint Liaison Group will continue its work until the turn of the century. The Joint Declaration will remain in force for 50 years. As the Prime Minister said in Hong Kong, Britain will have continuing responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong, responsibilities we intend to do all in our power to fulfil, responsibilities which include holding China to the promises made in the Joint Declaration.
As the Prime Minister also suggested, our continuing commitment to Hong Kong stems not just from a sense of moral and legal responsibility under the Joint Declaration, essential though both of those are, but from a powerful awareness of our continuing direct stake in Hong Kong
1226
after 1997: 3 million British passport holders, 1,000 British companies, nearly £3 billion-worth of British exports each year and tens of billions of pounds' worth of British investment. It was with that awareness that the Government decided to offer visa-free access to Britain next year to more than 2 million or so holders of the Hong Kong SAR passport who would otherwise require visas to enter Britain. That was an earnest of Britain's continuing commitment to Hong Kong, as was the Government's decision to support legislation granting British citizenship to the wives and widows of ex-servicemen.
Looking back at Britain's record in Hong Kong over the past 50 years and over the past five years, I believe there is much of which we can be justly proud. Under British sovereignty, Hong Kong and its people have succeeded like few other places on earth. Our efforts to secure the best possible future for the people of Hong Kong have been unremitting. They will continue now, in the next months and years, and well into the new century.
Chris Patten has been a magnificent Governor, the best we could possibly hope for. He has stood up for Hong Kong's interests with skill and courage. He enjoys popularity ratings in Hong Kong that would be the envy of any western politician. He will end our stewardship of Hong Kong on a high and honourable note.
Next summer, Hong Kong will undergo a transition unique in modern history. Sovereignty over 1,000 square kilometres of territory and 6 million people will be transferred from one great power to another. There will be much at stake—for Hong Kong, for China and for Britain. As we enter the final 14 months before that historic handover, the British Government will redouble their efforts to secure the best possible future for Hong Kong, in co-operation with China. We look to China to join us in this great enterprise—
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he can give us an assurance about the Bill on war widows. A number of noble Lords have raised the point. Can we at least have an assurance that the Bill will go through during this Session of Parliament? I think that that is what concerns everybody here. The method that is used is as important as the timing. We are talking about old ladies in Hong Kong. Time is not on their side. The background noises suggest that nothing much is happening. If my noble friend could dispel that, we would all be grateful.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, wheels have been set in motion to ensure that the legislation is enacted as soon as possible. We are very keen that it should happen in this Session. Meanwhile, the wives and widows can come to Britain to settle whenever they wish.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. When I tabled this Motion several noble Lords felt that perhaps it was not the right time for a debate on Hong Kong, for quite understandable reasons. However, having heard the quality of the speeches tonight, I am

1227
clear that this is absolutely the right moment to have a debate on Hong Kong. The presence here of my noble friend Lady Thatcher is a great indication of confidence that, while she is here to defend Hong Kong, none of us in this House will ever be allowed to let the subject go. I share her concern.
The noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, made another outstanding contribution. She embodies the spirit of Hong Kong during the dark days following Tiananmen Square. It is a great honour to hear her speak again tonight. It is also a great honour to have with us two distinguished past Governors of Hong Kong. I thank them for their contributions. My noble friend Lord Skidelsky flew in today from America particularly to take part in the debate. I should like to thank him for his most stimulating speech, with which I agree wholeheartedly.
It falls to me to thank my noble friend the Minister for his courteous answers to all the questions put to him tonight. He has said that if questions have not been answered he will write to noble Lords on the subject. I believe that those who have listened to this debate or read about it in Hong Kong can only be encouraged by the robust assurances that my noble friend gave on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that we will maintain and fulfil our commitment to Hong Kong up to and beyond 1997. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Law Reform (Year and a Day Rule) Bill
8.52 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill was taken through another place by my honourable friend Doug Hoyle, MP, chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party. It arose from the hard work undertaken by my honourable friend Alan Milburn, Member of Parliament for Darlington. He pressed the Government for three years because of a tragic case involving his constituent, Michael Gibson. Mr. Gibson was assaulted in an unprovoked attack in April 1992. Because he did not die until August 1993, his assailant was given a two-year prison sentence for grievous bodily harm. In the event, that person was released from prison two months after Mr. Gibson's death. Society owes a great deal to Mrs. Gibson for the unrelenting pressure that she has brought to bear in seeking to have the law changed.
The need for this Bill, therefore, arises from an 800 year-old rule whereby a person can be charged with murder only if the alleged victim dies within a year and a day of the act which was the cause of death. My honourable friend the Member for Darlington in his campaign to change the law came across no fewer than five recent cases which were dealt with under the year and a day rule. The Gibson case received a great deal of publicity in the north east of England, and indeed in all parts of the country. It gave rise to widespread public criticism.
1228
The rule is a legacy of a time when medical science was so rudimentary that, if there was a substantial lapse of time between injury and death, it was unsafe to pronounce on the question of whether the defendant's conduct or some other event had caused the death. Medical science has now progressed to a point where it is possible accurately to link injury with death even if there is a significant time lapse. Moreover, advances in technology mean that seriously injured patients can be kept alive for long periods. This can have the effect, as in the case of Michael Gibson, of rendering impossible a prosecution for murder simply because of the year and a day rule. One can fully understand the additional distress that this must cause to a victim's family.
The Bill before us provides an opportunity to abolish this outdated rule and prevent such distress in future. The rule has been examined by the Law Commission and the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place, both of which recommend that it should be abolished. The Government agree that, subject to certain safeguards, the rule should be abolished. The purpose of the Bill, to which I trust your Lordships will give a second reading tonight, is to abolish without replacement the year and a day rule in homicide.
The Bill extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland and contains only three clauses. Clause 1 abolishes the rule for all offences in which death is an element. Although the precise scope of the rule is unclear, it certainly applies to murder, manslaughter, infanticide and aiding and abetting suicide. It may also apply to motoring offences in which death is an element. causing death by dangerous driving; causing death by reckless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs; and aggravated vehicle taking causing death.
Clause 2 provides a safeguard against prosecution in two types of case. The consent of the Attorney-General is required before a prosecution may be brought where the injury alleged to have caused the death was sustained more than three years before the death occurred or the person whom it is intended to prosecute for a fatal offence has already been convicted of an offence committed in circumstances alleged to be connected with the death.
This is a sensible safeguard. If there is a realistic prospect of conviction, prosecution should not be rendered impossible just because there is a long time lapse between the act that led to death and the death itself. Nevertheless, it is right that such cases should be carefully considered at the highest level to weigh public interest for and against prosecution. Similarly, the consent of the Attorney-General is required before prosecution whenever there is a risk of double jeopardy; that is, where a defendant has already been convicted of a non-fatal offence arising out of the same incident. Clause 3 sets out the Bill's short title, commencement and extent.
I believe that the abolition of the year and a day rule is universally regarded as a sensible measure and one that is long overdue. For the sake of emphasis, I repeat that the Law Commission and the Home Affairs Select Committee of another place recommend that it should be abolished. Most importantly, the families of victims of crime want it abolished.

1229
My honourable friend Alan Milburn, MP, is from the North-East. I come from the North-East. We are both proud that our region should play a part in such an important change in national legislation, especially since it arises immediately from a tragedy that occurred in the north east of England.
I am particularly grateful to the Government and to the Ministers (both of whom I see on the Front Bench) for assisting in the passage of the Bill so far and for their continuing support.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Dormand of Easington.)
8.59 p.m.
Lord Tope: My Lords, I intervene briefly to place on record the support of the Liberal Democrat Benches for this Bill. As the noble Lord has said, it is a measure that is long overdue, and it is one that has our wholehearted support.
9.00 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington, both for introducing the Bill in this House and for explaining its purposes, provisions and safeguards with such clarity. The law in this area has failed to keep pace with developments in medical science which can now prolong life following serious injury for periods which could never have been contemplated as a possibility even 20 years ago. Pathology, too, has developed to a degree where causation of death can now often be established with certainty after a lengthy delay between injury and death in cases where, even a relatively short time ago, it would have been speculative to try to do so.
In the recent past families of victims of crime have, on occasion, suffered additional distress because this outdated law remains in force. It is unfortunate that it has taken the death of Michael Gibson and the energy and dedication of his mother to bring pressure to correct this injustice for the future. In a real sense, this Bill is his Bill. His Member of Parliament, the honourable Member for Darlington, who campaigned for the legislation, together with the honourable Member for Warrington North, who piloted the Bill through another place, both also deserve praise and our gratitude.
No one should as a result of a technicality such as this be able to escape punishment for a serious crime which they have committed and which results in the death of another. Nonetheless, I am glad that safeguards have been incorporated into the proposed legislation to guard against any risk of double jeopardy. If, as I hope, the Bill reaches the statute book as it deserves to do, I believe that it will make a real contribution towards relieving the additional distress which the families of victims of crime can suffer in these peculiar and dreadful circumstances. From these Benches, the Bill has our full support.
9.2 p.m.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I should like, first, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, on his introduction of the Bill. I should also
1230
like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Tope, for their support for this important Bill to abolish the year and a day rule. This is a reform of the law to which the Government give unqualified support.
I should also at the outset like to add my voice to the tribute paid to Mrs. Pat Gibson, who has campaigned tirelessly for the abolition of the year and a day rule since the tragic death of her son Michael. At the same time, I should also like to congratulate the honourable Member for Darlington on piloting the Bill through another place and, indeed, to thank the honourable Member for Warrington North for the work that he has carried out on the legislation.
It is entirely understandable that the families of those who become the victims of crime should want to see an end to the rule. Their view is shared by the Government and, I believe, by your Lordships' House. We have heard something of the history of the rule. It was right that there should be a careful assessment of the implications of abolishing a rule that has been with us for 800 years. We asked the Law Commission to advise us and it concluded that the rule should be abolished for all purposes and with certain safeguards. The Home Affairs Select Committee of another place also endorsed abolition of the rule.
I am confident that we are dealing with a law that, as the noble Lord, Lord Dormand, said, must be abolished. There is now little difficulty in proving the link between an injury and eventual death, particularly in those tragic cases where the victim enters a long coma. It can only add to the devastation felt by a victim's family if they know that their loved one's assailant will escape prosecution because of this ancient rule.
I shall not delay progress by repeating what has already been said about the contents of the Bill. It meets all the concerns of the ,Government which were set out in our response to the report of the Home Affairs Committee of another place last July. In particular, it provides that abolition of the rule should be accompanied by certain safeguards, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, to prevent inappropriate prosecutions. The Government appreciate the sensitivities involved in prosecuting offences long after they were committed. We believe that the provisions of Clause 2, which require the consent of the Attorney-General to institute proceedings in certain cases, strike the right balance between the public interest and the rights of defendants.
There is a very wide measure of support for the abolition of the year and a day rule. I trust that your Lordships will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading, and that it will complete its remaining stages smoothly and quickly. I commend it to the House.
9.4 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and my noble friend Lady Mallalieu for their very supportive contributions. I am sure that no one in the

1231
country would oppose this long, overdue change in the law. I commend the Bill to your Lordships and ask the House to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Civil Aviation (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
9.5 p.m.
The Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMIEES (Baroness Nicol) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Applications of criminal law to United Kingdom-bound foreign aircraft]:
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("inserted") to end of line 9 and insert (""or (subject to subsection (1A) below) a foreign aircraft".").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 7 which are tabled in my name. Amendment No. 2 is the core of this series of amendments. It imports into the Bill the principle of dual criminality. The effect of the amendment is to limit the jurisdiction of the courts conferred by this Bill to those offences committed on board foreign aircraft whose first landing after the commission of the act is in the United Kingdom, where the act in question is an offence both in this country and in the state of registration of the aircraft.
The United Kingdom regularly opposes attempts by other countries to impose their laws on United Kingdom companies or nationals, when outside the territory of the state concerned. There have, for example, been attempts recently by some countries to impose their laws on the conduct of people in British aircraft flying to their countries, to the detriment of the airlines concerned. We resist these attempts by foreign states to impose their laws on our companies and therefore we cannot seek to impose our laws on others in similar circumstances.
The purpose of the Bill is to give our courts the power to hear cases where an offence takes place on board a foreign aircraft. In almost all cases, the kinds of crimes which are, regrettably, committed on board aircraft will have the requisite dual criminality.
Some noble Lords at Second Reading expressed concern that the inclusion of a dual criminality provision in the Bill would make it more difficult to investigate offences and convict offenders. Of course I should not have proposed such a provision without first consulting those who will prosecute those offenders. However, in view of the concerns expressed by some noble Lords at
1232
Second Reading, and following a constructive meeting with my noble friends Lord Hacking and Lord Brabazon and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, I have gone back to the prosecuting authorities to put the points to them. I am pleased to report to the Committee that the prosecuting authorities consider that the dual criminality provision, as expressed in the amendments, would give rise to no significant difficulties in the prosecution of offenders.
The last part of Amendment No. 2 inserts a new subsection (1B) into Section 92 of the Civil Aviation Act, which provides that an act or omission punishable under the law in force in any country is an offence under that law for the purposes of dual criminality however it is described in that law. This provision together with the provisions of Amendment No. 4 should make it more simple to determine the requirement of dual criminality. Under the provisions of Amendment No. 4, the dual criminality test is deemed to be satisfied unless the defence shows grounds that it is not. If the defence is able to show grounds that the test is not satisfied, it will then be for the prosecution to prove that it is, though, in the Crown Court, that will be a matter for the judge alone to decide. These provisions taken together should ensure that the dual criminality test places no undue burden on the prosecution.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 6 amend the definition of foreign aircraft in the Bill. The amendments are necessary to ensure that all non-British controlled aircraft are covered by the term "foreign aircraft", even those which have no official state of registration. Amendment No. 1 in effect deletes the definition in the unamended Bill and Amendment No. 6 inserts the new definition.
Amendment No. 7 is consequential to the change in the definition of foreign aircraft achieved by Amendments Nos. 1 and 6. It concerns the powers of a consular official to investigate offences on board a foreign aircraft and restricts that power to situations where the courts would have jurisdiction over the offence. I beg to move.
Baroness Mallalieu: There are two aspects of this group of amendments which the noble Baroness has just introduced which concern me.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I wonder whether it might be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed the two amendments that are amendments to my amendments and then had one debate on the amendments to my amendments and my group of amendments. That might cut down the time we spend on the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Nicol): That is a rather complicated procedure to try to follow. I think it might be better if we proceeded in the normal fashion. As I understand it, I shall call Amendment No. 2 and then the amendment to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blotch Baroness Blotch moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("() After that subsection there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Subsection (1) above shall only apply to an act or omission which takes place on board a foreign aircraft where—

(a) the next landing of the aircraft is in the United Kingdom, and

(b) in the case of an aircraft registered in a country other than the United Kingdom, the act or omission would, if taking place there, also constitute an offence under the law in force in that country.

(1B) Any act or omission punishable under the law in force in any country is an offence under that law for the purposes of subsection (1A) above, however it is described in that law.".").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
Lord Hacking Lord Hacking moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3:
Line 13, at end insert—
("(1C) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument, subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament, repeal subsections (1A)(b) and (1B)".").
The noble Lord said: If this is a convenient moment to address the Committee on my amendment to my noble friend's amendment, I certainly do so. In tabling this amendment and addressing the Committee on it, I was trying to find a position between the Bill as introduced by my noble friend Lord Brabazon and the position that my noble friend the Minister has taken in her amendments. I was trying to find a compromise position.
The effect of my amendment is exactly the same as the effect of my Amendment No. 5, and that is to give an opportunity to the Government—after the Bill, hopefully, has come into law and the dual criminality test has come into being—to review the progress of this Bill and how the dual criminality test is working. Then, if the Government find that there are difficulties—I am concerned that there are difficulties both in substantive law and procedural law—it will give the Government an opportunity to address that without having to go back to primary legislation. It is by the affirmative resolution so there would have to be a resolution affirmatively put before both Houses of Parliament. It is not something that we are going to slip under a secondary legislation door, but it is nonetheless an easier way, in my submission, for the matters of difficulty, that I apprehend exist in my noble friend's amendment, to be dealt with.
The precedent for this lies in the Arbitration Bill which has recently passed through this House. In Clause 88 of that Bill precisely such a device was used and approved by noble Lords to deal with the problem of domestic and international arbitrations. Clause 88 of the Arbitration Bill gives power to the Secretary of State to remove this distinction between domestic and international arbitrations after the further consultation period which the Minister of State agreed to undertake. Under my amendment the Government would be in that position without having to come back to the House with primary legislation. That is the purpose of my amendment.
I am entirely in the Committee's hands. Perhaps it would be convenient if I commented on my noble friend's amendment. If the Committee would like me to make those comments later, I shall do so. However, I wished to explain to the Committee the purpose of my amendment.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: This might be an appropriate moment for me to raise my anxieties in relation to the whole of the debate on various options raised by the amendments. Two aspects of this part of the suggested changes to the proposed legislation cause me concern.
First, I believe that we are all most anxious that the Bill should reach the statute book with as few obstructions as possible to the successful prosecution of those who commit crimes in the air. I am, therefore, concerned that Amendment No. 2 introduces into the draft Bill the concept of dual criminality which must necessarily mean that acts and omissions which are crimes in this country, and are committed on an aircraft bound for the United Kingdom which then lands here, cannot be prosecuted here.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reassure me. I should like to know from where the impetus for this change to the draft Bill comes. Have the other countries which have already introduced legislation of this nature—I understand from the debate at Second Reading that they include the United States, Canada, Australia, France and Belgium—included dual criminality in their legislation? If so, can the Minister tell us whether difficulties of proof or delays in prosecutions—I am concerned about both if these changes are made—have resulted?
If those countries have not incorporated dual criminality into their legislation, why is it necessary for us to introduce it into ours? It will undoubtedly cause a legal complication in some cases. For my part I should like to be further reassured that it is a necessary and beneficial change.
My other anxiety at this stage concerns Amendment No. 4. The Minister was good enough to write to me and to other noble Lords. In her letter of 19th April she said:
"The amendments are drafted in such a way as substantially to shift the burden of proof onto the defence which must show grounds for believing that the behaviour which is prosecuted is not a criminal offence in the country of origin".
My reading of Amendment No. 4 is that the burden of proof does not shift. Indeed, I would be greatly concerned if it did. What Amendment No. 4 appears to establish is a presumption that the act or omission constitutes an offence under the law in the country of registration unless and until the defence contends otherwise, either by notice or, if it does not give notice, with leave of the court. In that case, the prosecution is required to prove that it is an offence. As I read Amendment No. 4, it is not for the defence at any stage to prove that an act or omission is not a crime in a foreign country. In other words, the burden remains on the Crown to prove that it is a crime if there is any query about it.

1235
I am always concerned about criminal legislation which is introduced in which the burden of proof is placed on the defence. It seems to me to be contrary to the general principles of our criminal law, to be generally undesirable and permissible only in exceptional circumstances.
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me, notwithstanding the wording of her letter, that under the proposed amendments it will not be for the defence to prove that the matter was not a crime in a foreign country and that, if there is any query, the burden remains on the Crown to establish the matter.
Those are my concerns. I hope that the Minister may be able to meet them.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am grateful to my noble friend for having introduced the amendments. I am grateful to her also for having sent me, and I think others, explanatory notes on the amendments, together with a most useful copy of the Bill as it will appear if and when these amendments are carried.
I have listened to the arguments on all sides as regards dual criminality. My principal aim is to make the Bill as simple as possible. We should be able to prosecute the people who committed the crimes to which I referred at Second Reading and make it as easy as possible for them to be brought to book.
On the other hand, like my noble friend I oppose the efforts of certain foreign governments to introduce extra-territorial legislation which does not always suit our book. In my experience in the Department of Transport, I came across issues where there were difficulties with a government on the other side of the Atlantic and also governments in other parts of the world. Therefore, to include the issue of dual criminality is worth while, it does not give other governments a stick with which to beat us about the head, if they try to introduce extra-territorial legislation which does not meet with our approval. For example, there is the issue of smoking on board aircraft bound for the United States and drinking alcohol on board aircraft bound for certain countries to the east. There are other cases where something is clearly not an offence in this country and we would not wish to see such an activity banned on our aircraft, but nor would we wish to give the government at the other end the opportunity to say: "Well, you did this with your legislation, therefore we can do it with ours". I do not say that it will prevent them doing it; it attempts to do so and at least it leaves us fireproof.
My noble friend gave me the assurance which I wanted to hear that the prosecuting authorities perceive no problem with the additional measure. There will be no difficulty in prosecuting those who commit offences when they arrive in this country. I believe that the extra subsection which puts the burden of proof on the defence is useful.
As to the other amendment on the definition of "foreign aircraft", it is helpful in that foreign aircraft is defined as anything which is not British. That is straightforward and simple. I find it hard to understand
1236
that any aircraft would arrive in this country with no registration; but if my noble friend thinks it might be a problem, then who am I to argue? As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, we want as few obstructions to the provisions as possible and no delay in prosecutions. I hope that with the assurances that my noble friend has given, it will be the case.
In his Amendments Nos. 3 and 5, my noble friend Lord Hacking seeks to introduce a procedure for removing the hurdles to an affirmative instrument. I have no view other than that, like anyone who sits in this House, I am well aware of the resistance of the House to secondary rather than primary legislation. We shall have to see. If there is a problem, then it will be necessary for the law to be changed. However, from what has been said, I do not foresee a problem and therefore I wholeheartedly support the amendments moved by the Minister.
Baroness Blatch: First, I shall respond to the amendments of my noble friend Lord Hacking. I am grateful to him for explaining the purpose behind his amendments, and I recognise the anxieties which lie behind them. However, the Government are convinced of the need for a dual criminality test and that is why I have brought forward amendments to introduce it into the Bill. As I said, we do not seek to export our criminal law to other countries, and we believe it essential to preserve ourselves against attempts by other countries to impose their laws on us. If we were not to do that, we should leave ourselves very vulnerable. As I have already made clear, I do not believe that the dual criminality test will in practice cause any difficulty in regard to the sorts of criminal behaviour which have led the Bill's sponsors to come forward with their proposals.
I have given an assurance to my noble friend, which I hope he will accept, that, if the requirements of dual criminality introduced in the Bill do, nevertheless, prove unworkable, we will certainly look at the matter again. But that cannot be anticipated in the manner proposed by my noble friend. While subordinate legislation is often a very useful device, we do not consider that it would be right. First, that is a well-established principle on the part of the Government, and an important one. Were the provisions to be repealed, our view is that that should be done through primary legislation.
The issue of protecting ourselves from the territorial incursions of the laws of other countries is important. I know that Members in another place will agree that it is a matter of fundamental importance. The place for any proposal which might compromise that protection is, as I have just said, in primary legislation.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. As I made clear earlier, the prosecuting authorities have no significant concerns about this procedure, for which there is an exact precedent. I do not believe that the courts would lightly set aside the requirement on the defence to give notice of the intention to challenge dual criminality grounds and to set out the grounds for such a challenge.
However, the noble Baroness is absolutely right in her interpretation of how the law would work. I spoke in my letter about shifting the burden of proof. I was

1237
referring to precisely the point made by the noble Baroness. We are creating a presumption that the conditions for dual criminality have been met; and it would be for the defence to serve notice of a claim that it has not been met and to seek leave of the court. So the prosecution would then be required to prove to the court that the dual criminality condition had been met. The noble Baroness's interpretation is absolutely right. To give just one example of a precedent, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 contains an exactly similar provision. I am not aware, again, that it has caused any difficulties.
I turn to the other point made by the noble Baroness about other countries, and in particular America. We know that the Americans have not introduced dual criminality. We also know that that has caused a substantial degree of concern to a number of other countries. My understanding is that the United Kingdom has joined 17 other countries in protesting to the United States about the fact that it has not introduced dual criminality. I cannot give any particular instance of any of those countries having in fact introduced it; however, it can be inferred that, if they are concerned about the US not having introduced it, they must consider it an important principle. While I cannot name the countries, I can say that a number of countries are concerned about the fact that dual criminality is not an issue for the United States. We assume that it is an issue for those 17 countries.
The Government take the view that this is an important measure that should be on the statute book. I hope that my noble friend will feel assured that we will monitor the working of this Bill and believe that to be important. I should be the first to say, if we thought that either spurious legal delays or administrative burdens were getting in the way of this measure being used in a sensible way and in the manner we all wish, that we should want to return to it.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hacking: I should like to intervene again and address my concerns in a little more detail. I believe they are important and that the Committee should be addressing them now. Therefore I am somewhat disappointed that my noble friend the Minister is not accepting the opportunity that I am giving her to monitor the performance of this Bill and to test the difficulties that have already been expressed to my noble friend in the meeting that she kindly convened, and which I express again now.
My noble friend talks about this being a well-established principle. I take it that she refers to the dual criminality test. She speaks of an exact precedent, and then refers to some computer legislation. Unfortunately, I have not had an opportunity to examine that. But, other than that precedent, I certainly do not know of the dual criminality test as an established principle of English law.
Perhaps I could just remind my noble friend that her office, the Home Office, issued a paper on these proposals. It was a paper that was commenting upon an Opinion which I wrote with two very learned counsel—two more learned counsel than myself: Mr. Robert
1238
Webb, QC, who is listening to this debate, and also Mr. David Hart. When this opinion was being considered by the Home Office there was a reference to some other part of it to do with the Extradition Act 1989. This is what the Home Office paper says,
"there are two drawbacks to [the mechanism in] the Extradition Act of 1989. It only applies where an act is committed which is an offence both in the country of jurisdiction and in the UK."
So in March of 1995 there was perceived to be a difficulty in using the device of the Extradition Act to deal with a problem which we were addressing in this opinion of June of 1993, because—and I stress "because"—of the dual criminality issue. Therefore it is somewhat puzzling to hear that my noble friend is speaking of this as a well-established principle. It is a principle which has been tried out in the Sexual Offences Bill which is going through the House; but so far as I know, it is not an established principle.
As your Lordships know, a number of other countries have been addressing the issue of crime in the air for a number of years. And, as your Lordships know, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, France and Belgium—to cite five countries—have-all had in place for some time legislation which gave extra-territorial jurisdiction to crimes committed on foreign aircraft landing at their airports.
I should say specifically concerning the United States of America that that legislation has been in existence for 40 years. So far as I know—and my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—there has not been one single protest by a British airline or another foreign line over the United States exercising this extra-territorial jurisdiction. Indeed, it has been welcomed by airlines flying into the United States of America because it is the captains of those airlines who radio ahead to the airport of destination, who ask for the assistance of the federal agents, and who are grateful to have that assistance. Therefore, to present this as something that is intrusively extra-territorial in my submission is not the correct way to identify this issue.
I have difficulty as to the procedural aspects which the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, addressed to your Lordships and I also have difficulties on the substantive law. Perhaps I may start with the procedural issues because the noble Baroness raised those in her speech to your Lordships. Then my noble friend said that the view of the noble Baroness about the burden of proof not shifting from the prosecution to the defence was a correct interpretation. We have at least established that.
The difficulty of this Bill is in its application. I am aware that views have been expressed by the prosecuting authorities but, nonetheless, it is helpful for all of us who have some experience in these matters also to express our views. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, has immense experience in dealing with criminal matters. She stayed at the Bar many years after I left, and very successfully too. The trouble arises when one looks at the actual application of this proposed measure.
When a person has allegedly committed an offence on an aircraft, when the arrest at the gate at the request of the aircraft commander has happened and when the

1239
alleged offender has been taken into custody, he may well be an offender who, for example, does not speak English. So the first thing that has to be done is to tell him that he has rights under our law. Those rights are for the defence to serve a notice on the prosecution setting out whether, in the defendant's opinion, this is an offence—not in his country—but in the country of registration of the aircraft.
Secondly, he has to show that there are grounds for that opinion. How on earth can a non-speaking alleged offender in a cell at Heathrow comply with all those requirements without assistance? He will need some form of assistance. He will probably not be eligible for legal aid and there will be language difficulties. From the beginning there are difficulties for the alleged offender. We pride ourselves, do we not, on having a law which is fair in its prosecution process and fair to all defendants?
In my submission, the very beginning of the process presents difficulties. Then, because the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, the difficulties are taken over by the prosecution—the difficulties being that the prosecution then has to go through a process of proving that the offence which allegedly took place in the aircraft is an offence also in the country of registration of the aircraft. That will require expert evidence, an affidavit from a person who is qualified to give an affidavit in the law in the country of registration and possibly the production of statutory law from that country and so forth. So it opens up many procedural difficulties. Most significant of all, as I have tried to emphasise to the Committee, it introduces a process which is not fair on the accused and places a burden on him. Even if the burden of proof does not shift, it still places a burden on that non-speaking alleged offender who is now in a cell at Heathrow or Gatwick Airport. But there are also substantive difficulties. The laws of other countries are not the same as ours. I am not speaking about the more complicated realms of law which also ought to be addressed: laws relating to conspiracy, fraud, telecommunications and so on.
Let me just deal with the kinds of incident that can occur on an aircraft. They rarely occur, but when they do they are extremely unpleasant for all the passengers and crew and cause a great deal of upset. I cited a case at Second Reading concerning threatening behaviour when the offending passenger did not physically hit someone but put his fist in the face of a couple travelling with a child and threatened to hit them in front of the child. It caused a great deal of distress. Under English law such threatening behaviour is an assault because one does not have to hit someone physically to commit an assault. One has to have the capacity to carry out the physical violence and that is sufficient.
Under French law, for example, that is not per se an offence. Therefore, there could be a situation of a serious assault—threatening behaviour by a passenger in an aircraft which is extremely offensive to another passenger—which is an offence under English law but is not under French law; so in that example the accused could not be prosecuted.
1240
Let me give one other example which concerns sexual offences. Unfortunately, offences of a sexual nature happen on aircraft. Some of them are extremely unpleasant. One case was cited by my noble friend, relating to the near rape of an air hostess.
In the time available to me, I have not been able to carry out any full research. However, I must tell the Committee that the age of consent to sexual intercourse for women under the law of Thailand is 15 years. Even more worrying is that there is no limit on the age of consent for males. So a sexual offence can take place with a consenting male down to the age of a baby and that is lawful under the Thai law, as it has been conveyed to me. For another example, under Turkish law it is permissible for a male to have sexual intercourse at age 15 years on a consensual basis and for a woman at 14 years. Both those ages are again beneath our ages of consent.
Those sorts of things can happen on an aeroplane, and the result of the introduction of these amendments by the Government is that the prosecution process cannot go through. That is unsatisfactory, and for that reason I am asking my noble friend the Minister at least to take the opportunity to get some experience about this issue.
The news will not go back very easily or very frequently from the cell in Heathrow with a non-English speaking alleged offender. This is not something which will see the light of day very easily, as all of us who have been involved in the prosecution process know.
I feel strongly about this. However, I feel more strongly that this Bill should go onto the statute book, even if it does have what I believe to be the imperfection of the dual criminality test. I truly want the Government to have the freedom to keep this under review. That is really the emphasis I am placing upon this matter. I give way to my learned friend.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I am not your learned friend; I am your noble friend. I might have an advantage not being a lawyer and trying to inject a bit of common sense into this Bill.
Will my noble friend expand on his point about sex between consenting adults on a Turkish basis if the age of consent is 15? Quite honestly, if two consenting Turks are on a Turkish airliner coming into this country, what business is it of ours to say what they should do? It may be an offence in this country and undesirable as far as we are concerned, but what business is it of ours?
Lord Hacking: It is the business of anybody who is concerned when an offence has been committed on an aircraft which is an offence under English law.
I will cite just one example. I will not name the airline, but there was a sexual activity which took place in an airliner which was flying from London to Chicago. That sexual activity caused such offence to some passengers that there ended up being a fight in that aeroplane. When the aeroplane arrived in Chicago, not only were the two persons who perpetrated the act arrested—and they were both well over the age of consent for the activity they were indulging in—but it

1241
ended up at the gate of Chicago airport that six passengers had to be arrested by the police for the disturbance that had been created in that aircraft.
We do not live in an isolated world. It may not upset my noble friend that certain forms of activity take place, but it does offend other people. The purpose of our laws is to create stability, and particularly in relation to this Bill to create stability in an aircraft.
Baroness Blatch: I note how strongly my noble friend feels about these matters, but some of his case is rather exaggerated. The concern that he has about somebody who does not speak English arriving in this country accused of an offence on board an aeroplane being somewhat disadvantaged is true. But that disadvantage is just as much a disadvantage whether the condition of dual criminality has to be met or not. It is nevertheless something which has to be dealt with. I can say to my noble friend that the person will be entitled to legal aid; he will be entitled to an interpreter if he cannot speak the language; he will be entitled to put the prosecution to prove dual criminality if there are grounds upon which he can do so. Again, that is unlikely if the offence is what we expect it commonly to be; that is, one of assault.
There are other examples. The Criminal Justice Act 1993 contains the provision and, as my noble friend said, the sexual tourism Bill which is going through this House and another place, also contains it. Work is going on within government on the extension of territorial jurisdiction. It would be quite wrong for us to include in this Bill alone the provision proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that, if it turns out in practice not to be working very well—having already given the promise that we shall be monitoring it—the Home Secretary can exercise a power to remove the provision.
We have taken the view that it is an issue; that it should be monitored; and that it should be addressed if it turns out to be a problem. We oppose attempts by other countries to impose their laws on the United Kingdom. We have a strong view that if we are not to include dual criminality in this Bill, we leave ourselves vulnerable. We know that the Americans are anxious to impose their laws on other countries and it is for that reason that, not only the United Kingdom, but also 17 other countries, are extremely concerned that the Americans did not include dual criminality in their own laws and are making protestations on that matter.
My noble friend made much of sexual offences on board aeroplanes. I note the point that he made. However, I do not share his view that the introduction of the dual criminality test will cause difficulties in the prosecution of sexual offences. Non-consensual sexual offences such as rape and sexual assault are, of course, offences in foreign countries and in the case of those offences, which I know are crimes which rightly concern the Bill's sponsors, the dual criminality test will in practice cause no difficulty. Under the Bill, the vast majority of sexual offences committed on board foreign-registered aircraft will be offences which will come within the jurisdiction of our courts.
1242
I am aware that the age of consent for sexual intercourse differs throughout the world. In some countries it is lower than in the UK; in others it is higher. But that is a matter for the authorities of the country or territory concerned, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon said, which will no doubt have framed their legislation in the light of the social and moral climate of their own societies.
If we were to seek to take jurisdiction over sexual acts which were not offences in the country in which the aircraft was registered we would, in effect, be exporting our own laws. Parliament would be claiming authority to legislate in respect of conduct which takes place elsewhere and which is not considered to be an offence in the place where it occurs. No doubt Parliament would resist attempts by the legislative bodies of other countries to purport to legislate for conduct which takes place within its jurisdiction and it would wish to consider very carefully before taking such powers to itself.
I do not believe in practice that that is likely to be a problem in relation to the operation of this Bill. An offensive act (albeit consensual) performed in the presence of other passengers, is likely—by the very fact of being done in public—to constitute an offence in other jurisdictions, as well as in our own. It is inconceivable that some of the more serious acts referred to by my noble friend—if they were consensual and were so disturbing and offensive to other passengers—would not become some form of public order offence and therefore could be coped with under the Bill.
My final point is in no way intended as a threat; it is a matter of fact. We wish to support my noble friend's Bill. It is a good piece of legislation. It will go a long way towards addressing some of the anxieties held by the carriers of passengers by air. But the Government are not in a position to accept my noble friend's amendments. If he insists on the Committee accepting them, we shall have to withdraw our support for the Bill as amended by those amendments.
Lord Hacking: It is my turn to take a position on my amendment. I do not intend to press my amendment. In addressing the Committee, my desire was to draw attention to what I believed to be the difficulties under substantive law and under procedural law following through on the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I have advanced those arguments. I have cited one case. It can result in a public order issue. In the time available I have not had time to research the matter. An enormous map has been opened up on which to consider each and every criminal act, whether it is a criminal act in any country of the world which has registered aircraft which fly into this country.
I certainly do not want to part company from my noble friend—I shall cease calling him "my learned noble friend" because he does not seem to think that that is a compliment. He is to be congratulated on bringing this Bill before your Lordships. On the basis that I have made my concerns known, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

1243
Amendment No. 3, as an amendment to Amendment No. 2, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 2 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 9, at end insert—
("() After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) The requirement in subsection (1A)(b) above shall be taken to be met unless, not later than the rules of court may provide, the defence serve on the prosecution a notice—

(a) stating that, on the facts as alleged with respect to the act or omission, the requirement is not in their opinion met;

(b) showing the grounds for their opinion; and

(c) requiring the prosecution to prove that it is met.

(2B) The court, if it thinks fit, may permit the defence to require the prosecution to prove that the requirement is met without the prior service of a notice under subsection (2A) above.
(2C) In the Crown Court the question whether the requirement is met is to be decided by the judge alone.".").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 5, as an amendment to Amendment No. 4, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 4 agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No 6:
Page 1, line 10, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("() In subsection (5), after the definition of "British-controlled aircraft" there shall be inserted—
"'foreign aircraft' means any aircraft other than a British-controlled aircraft;".").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Provisions as to evidence in connection with aircraft]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 7:
1244
Page 2, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("() In subsection (4), for the words from "any" to "Kingdom" there shall be substituted "—

(a) any offence has been committed on a British-controlled aircraft while in flight elsewhere than in or over the United Kingdom, or

(b) there has taken place on board a foreign aircraft an act or omission which constitutes an offence by virtue of section 92(1) above,".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Short title and extent]:
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: This amendment removes the commencement provision in the Bill. The effect is that the provisions in the Bill will come into force immediately the Bill receives Royal Assent. This is a sensible Bill which gives our courts much needed powers. We are grateful to my noble friend Lord Brabazon for bringing the Bill before the House. I hope the Committee will agree that its provisions should be available to the courts at the 'earliest possible moment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Education (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Committee in the Moses Room with amendments and ordered to be printed as amended.
House adjourned at six minutes before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Committee on the Education (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]
Wednesday 24th April 1996.
Official Report of the Committee on the Education (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

  The Committee met in the Moses Room at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi) in the Chair.]
  [Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
  Clause 24 [Grants: requirements]:
  Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 11, line 28, at end insert—
  ("(1A) The power of the Secretary of State to make regulations shall be exercisable only after consultation with bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of bodies or persons whose interests are, or are likely to be, substantially affected by the regulations which he proposes to make.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. These are good practice amendments. They seek to establish a principle that when the Secretary of State is making regulations covering details of the legislation, he is required to consult with those bodies and those persons who will be affected by the legislation. That seems to me a principle worth putting into the Bill, if only for the reason that it would ensure that the Secretary of State is informed when he is making orders and regulations, which is no bad thing in itself. That is the general principle and is a worthy general principle to see enshrined in the Bill.
  If this proposal goes through as it is intended, as the noble Earl the Minister has said from time to time it should be on the basis of partnership. By accepting these amendments the Government would be indicating their good faith in pursuing a policy of partnership by a commitment to consult those bodies and organisations which will be directly affected by any subsequent details. It may be that the Secretary of State does not wish to consult and receive informed opinion, mainly because informed opinion does not seem to support the proposals in the first place. I beg to move.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Obviously in this context consultation is important. The Scottish Consumer Council indicated in its advice to us that it thought it important that people should be carried along with the ideas which were being put into practice. So we shall need to know from the noble Earl the Minister the form the consultation will take. I do not know whether it has to go into the Bill, but it would be interesting to hear what he has to say about this.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Lindsay): The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, raises an important issue in moving Amendment No. 26 and speaking to Amendments
  CWH 52
  Nos. 27 and 28. The amendments are designed to require the Secretary of State to consult with interested parties before determining the requirements under which grants made under Clause 23 are paid. They also seek to require the Secretary of State to have regard to certain important matters in determining the requirements. I should like to suggest to the Committee that our actions speak loudly. The noble Lord, Lord Sewel, mentioned good practice and I hope that we have a track record which suggests that we are intent on good practice.
  The Government have consulted extensively throughout the course of the development of the pre-school education voucher initiative. In August last year we issued a consultation document on the future of pre-five educational provision.
  We also issued towards the end of last year an invitation to all Scottish local authorities to submit informative schemes for participation in the initiative's pilot year. In that invitation we requested local authorities' views on a range of issues concerning the voucher system.
  The department consulted extensively on a draft of the profile of education provision which is a key factor in determining which providers will be admitted into the system. I am now in a position to make copies of the finalised profile available to members of the evidence-taking committee and these will be sent out very shortly. We will also consult shortly on the detailed curricular guidelines on pre-school education which have been prepared by Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
  Over and above these formal consultations Ministers and officials have discussed the voucher initiative with a range of bodies, including the four pilot authorities, CoSLA, the Scottish Independent Nursery Association and the Scottish Pre-school Play Association.
  I hope it will be clear from this that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is committed to very full discussions, both formally and informally, on the operational aspects of the voucher initiative. We do have a policy of partnership, which the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, mentioned.
  I hope that the extent of the consultation which I have been able to detail to my noble friend Lady Carnegy will also reassure her regarding the questions she asked. The effect of these amendments would be to introduce unnecessary and potentially awkward rigidities into the development of the voucher system. As I said at the beginning, our track record proves that our intentions on consultation and partnership underpin the whole nursery voucher initiative.
  Lord Sewel: The Minister has drawn attention to the consultations that have taken place as regards the development of the proposal and the bringing forward of the Bill. These amendments seek to establish consultation, once the Bill becomes an Act, in terms of the various aspects of the implementation of the provisions. It will be necessary for the Government to give some clear and detailed assurance, preferably in the Bill itself, on the nature and scope of the consultation

  CWH 53
  during the actual implementation of the provisions. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I am sure it is a matter to which we will wish to return.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I wish to oppose the Question that Clause 24 stand part of the Bill. That is consistent with our previous approach that Clause 23 should not stand part of the Bill. Perhaps I could save the time of the Committee in relation to Clauses 26 and 27 standing part of the Bill, because all these clauses together constitute Part II of the Bill to which we, as an Opposition party, are implacably opposed and want to see removed from the Bill. We will not achieve that today, and we reserve the right to return to this matter at Report stage. I need not bore the Committee by repeating the arguments that I made on the Question that Clause 23 stand part. Clause 23 deals with the provision of nursery vouchers although, as I have said so often, the word "vouchers" is not used anywhere in the Bill If we want that provision taken out of the Bill we also require the grants provision and the various other provisions in Part II to be removed. We will return to this matter at the Report stage and in the meantime it is not my intention to press it today.
  Clause 24 agreed to.
  Clause 25 [Delegation of functions]:
  [Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 30:
  Page 11, line 42, after ("person") insert ("(or any employee of his)").
  The noble Earl said: Clause 25 enables the Secretary of State to delegate the grant-making functions accorded to him by Clause 23. It will enable him to delegate certain functions, such as the payment of grant or the arrangements for issue of vouchers to parents, to a private-sector contractor. Such arrangements will ensure that the administration costs involved in the voucher initiative are kept to the minimum possible level. Amendment No. 30 makes clear that the functions so delegated may be exercised by the employees of a contractor and removes any doubt that such activity by them could be unauthorised sub-delegation. It is, a technical amendment which does not change the policy behind Clause 26 and I commend it to the Committee.
  I turn to Amendment No. 32. It clarifies the intention of Clause 25; namely, that the Secretary of State in exercising his powers under that provision to delegate grant-making functions can also choose to delegate them partially, or only in specific circumstances. Clause 25 does not allow the Secretary of State to delegate the power to prescribe the definitions of children eligible for vouchers. That must be done by statutory instrument and will be subject to the control of Parliament. In relation to his other powers, however, it would be a hindrance to the efficient administration of the voucher
  CWH 54
  system if the Secretary of State were to be restricted as to the extent of any individual functions, or to the range of functions, which he could delegate.
  This is another technical amendment intended to clarify the Secretary of State's powers in relation to his grant-making functions. It is modelled on existing provisions in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, and it is also consistent with the corresponding provisions in the Nursery Education and Grant-maintained Schools Bill. These amendments do not change substantive policy and I commend them to the Committee.
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford: It is five months since the Bill was first printed and presented to your Lordships' House. I would have thought that the Minister, in moving the amendments to change its text, could have given us some background to the proposal of the change. They may be technical amendments, although I do not fully accept that they are, but it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us just a little more about where the thinking came from to insert these changes.
  The Minister described the amendments as technical but they give the right to the Secretary of State to delegate to a private organisation—no doubt the company which has been contracted for a year to administer the pilot scheme—the power to make grants. That is one of our objections. It is our view that this is public money; it is local authority money. All right, the Government say they are going to put in £31 million of additional money but that will not take place until the year 1998–99 when this Government will not be in office and the scheme will not be operating. However, that is all beside the point.
  Our discussions take place in the context of the terms of the legislation that is before the Committee. These amendments, technical though they may be, as the Minister said, give the Secretary of State powers to delegate to a private organisation the right to use public money to make grants. It is a repeat of the local enterprise companies but this time extended to education.
  Where does all this stop? To what extent are public funds to be given to private organisations to disburse in grants? I hope that the Minister, given the fact that the Bill is now five months old, will tell us where the thinking for the amendment comes from.
  3.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Lindsay: These amendments are technical; they do not change policy. They are designed to make the policy that has always been in the Bill work better. An important point is that given time it is possible to continue addressing certain issues within the department and also through continuing consultation and dialogue. From that consultation and scrutiny one inevitably finds better ways of delivering the same policy. It can be done through clarification; it can simply be fine tuning of a mechanism which is otherwise intended to remain on a certain course.
  Clause 25, enabling the Secretary of State to delegate some grant-making functions, seeks to achieve economies of scale and a low unit cost across the

  CWH 55
  administration and delivery of pre-school education. It is vital that operational efficiencies are achieved so that the public money at stake delivers the best possible return not only to the taxpayer but to the beneficiaries and the recipients, namely, the pre-school four year-old children. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will accept the amendments.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 32:
  Page 12, line 1, leave out from ("above") to end of line 2 and insert ("may make provision for the functions concerned to be so exercised—

  (a) either wholly or to such an extent as may be specified in the arrangement, and

  (b) either generally or in such cases or circumstances as may be so specified,

  but shall not prevent the functions concerned from being exercised by the Secretary of State.").
  The noble Earl said: I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 25, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I wish to place on record that I shall be returning to this matter at Report stage. As I said earlier, it is part of Part II of the Bill. We cannot change the situation here today. I therefore place on record that we shall return to it at the next stage.
  Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 26 [Disclosure of information]:
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 12, leave out lines 3 to 13 and insert—
  ("() This section applies to—

  (a) civil servants in the Scottish Office and any other persons who carry out the administrative work of that Office, and

  (b) any person exercising any function by virtue of section 25 of this Act and any persons who are employed by (or are directors or other officers of) any such person or who carry out the administrative work of any such person.

  () The Secretary of State may supply to any person to whom this section applies any such social security information as the person may require for or in connection with the exercise of any function in pursuance of section 23 of this Act.
  () Any person who is or has been a person to whom this section applies").
  The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall also be speaking to Amendments Nos. 34, 35 and 46. The purpose of Amendment No. 33 is to ensure that the provisions of Clause 26 are entirely clear. The clause is intended to give the Secretary of State—in practice, the Secretary of State for Social Security—the power to disclose information to Scottish Office officials and to any other person to whom the Secretary of State's grant-making functions under Clause 23 have been delegated.
  It is important that the persons to whom the Secretary of State may disclose information, and to whom the offence of unlawful disclosure therefore applies, are defined reasonably clearly. After careful consideration
  CWH 56
  we have come to the conclusion that the clause as it stands does not achieve this end. It does not expressly authorise disclosure to civil servants, the reference to persons "employed by the Secretary of State" is not technically apt for civil servants, and references to persons employed are uncertain in scope and may not cover all those who should be covered.
  The amendment makes clear that disclosure may be made to Scottish Office civil servants, secondees and others doing work for the Scottish Office, and to persons exercising delegated functions, who in practice will be the voucher management company, and those working for it.
  Amendment No. 35 follows as a consequence of Amendment No. 33 in that it deletes a clause which would be redundant.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 34. In view of the fact that Amendment No. 33 defines persons to whom the section applies, Amendment No. 34 substitutes a simpler test of the circumstances in which it is an offence for a person to disclose social security information.
  Instead of it being necessary to show that the information was,
  "obtained or held in connection with the exercise of any function under section 23 of this Act",
  it will be sufficient to show that the person acquired the information while acting as a person to whom the section applies. As this avoids the need to establish the purpose for which the information is held, it will make the offence easier to establish while not substantively changing its scope.
  I turn now to Amendment No. 46. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the disclosure of information provisions of Clause 26 to the whole of the United Kingdom. At present, like the rest of the Bill, these provisions extend only to Scotland. This is not satisfactory for the following reasons.
  First, it must be competent for the Secretary of State for Social Security to disclose, for the purposes of the Bill, social security information held anywhere in the United Kingdom. It would be plainly ridiculous if the voucher system was frustrated merely because the child benefit centre's records of eligible Scottish parents happened to be held in an English office.
  Secondly, it must be the case that the unauthorised disclosure of information by civil servants and others to whom the Secretary of State's grant-making functions are delegated should be an offence if it occurs in any part of the United Kingdom. If such an unauthorised disclosure was not an offence merely because it occurred in Carlisle rather than Coldstream the Bill would be flawed. This amendment's extension of Clause 26 remedies these defects.
  Taken together, Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 35 and 46 bring the Bill into line with the corresponding provision of the Nursery and Grant-maintained Schools Bill. Those provisions have a similar definition of the persons to whom information may be disclosed and they already extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford: These are important amendments and, as the Minister has rightly said, they deal with the disclosure of information. We are clearly not happy with the way in which this information is to be disclosed and are aware of the dangers surrounding the circumstances in which that information may be used.
  Perhaps I may press the Minister a little further on this. In the repeal clause of the Bill there is no reference to repealing parts of any social security legislation. Can the Minister say whether, when we come to Report or even Third Reading, the Government will be tabling repeal amendments in respect of social security legislation, dealing with the fact that there are social security departments which will release the information in the first place, and whether any part of the legislation will have then to be repealed as a result of what the Minister is moving here today?
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I should like to ask my noble friend a question or two about this? Clearly it is very important and it is an area in which I am not precisely clear how it will work. From my own recollection I know of no other case where the term,
  "civil servants in the Scottish Office",
  is included in Scots legislation. Could my noble friend tell the Committee the definition of a "civil servant"? If the matter were argued in court then the phraseology of any Bill could be argued. Is this a sound bit of drafting? It is unfamiliar to me, although it may well be that I simply do not remember seeing it before.
  In addition, can the Minister tell the Committee whether extending this section to England, Wales and Northern Ireland has an effect on paragraph (b) in Amendment No. 33:
  "any person exercising any function by virtue of section 25 of this Act and any persons who are employed by (or are directors or other officers of) any such person or who carry out the administrative work of any such person"?
  Can those be people in England? Is that implied? Presumably the civil servants in the Scottish Office do not become civil servants in England by dint of Amendment No. 46, but what will be the scope of the Bill if this amendment is accepted?
  The Earl of Lindsay: The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, wondered whether there should be any repeal of social security legislation. I am advised that is not the case. If between now and Report stage he feels that there are technical requirements for such a repeal, I would suggest we discuss it prior to Report stage in case technical explanations are needed.
  My noble friend Lady Carnegy raised three points, the first of which was the definition of a civil servant and the second, whether paragraph (b) of the amendment is soundly drafted. My draftsmen assure me that it is sound drafting. I am also advised that the definition of a civil servant is an employee of a central government department. The formulation in Clause 26 is modelled on the Social Security Administration Act, therefore it is well precedented.
  CWH 58
  On the point my noble friend raised about the extension of the clause to incorporate the whole of the United Kingdom, one of the principal reasons is so that the offence, for instance, of unlawful disclosure of information can be applied to a civil servant anywhere in the United Kingdom.
  I would just add for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that the effect of the amendments is to permit for this particular purpose the disclosure of information which would be prohibited by social security legislation. To repeal any of the general social security legislation would go far wider than is necessary. I hope that may be helpful.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: Anyone who has been in the other place and has represented a constituency will know that Members of Parliament spend a fairly large part of their lives in contact with the social security offices. I have a high respect for those offices. This, however, is a slightly different issue from most of them—this is more in the education field. I hope that steps will be taken to emphasise, through the area managers, just how delicate this matter is, not just to the family but particularly to the young student or the young child who is going to school. It is vital for the self-respect of people that there is total confidentiality.
  Lord Sewel: I wish to reinforce that point. It extends to those non-civil servants who are charged with the administration of the scheme. Real care has to be taken to make clear to these people, who perhaps are not aware of the public service to the extent that civil servants are, that they have a very strong duty not to reveal anything of a highly sensitive nature at all and that great penalties will properly fall upon them if they do.
  The Earl of Lindsay: I agree with the points made by both the noble Lords. The sensitivity of much of the information held by the Department of Social Security is such that we are determined that robust measures should be in place to prosecute any unlawful disclosure of that information. The only information to be released from the child benefit database will be parental names and parental addresses. Members of the Committee may be aware of the strict confidence in which the Department of Social Security holds the very sensitive information which it receives on the personal financial circumstances of members of the public. That point was well made by both the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel.
  It is incidental to the voucher system, but it requires access to some peripheral and uncontentious parts of that vast database—essentially the names and addresses of pre-school year children. Yet rightly, every detail of social security information is protected by stringent statutory provisions. This clause is designed to allow access to the information required for the voucher system, and only such information, while still retaining all the necessary controls over the use of personal information. We agree with the emphasis that both noble Lords have placed on the importance of providing that protection.
  4 p.m.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I wish to comment on the effect of these amendments on one another. Does Amendment No. 46 alter the meaning of paragraphs (a) and (b) of Amendment No. 33?
  The Earl of Lindsay: It does not affect the meaning.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 12, line 15, leave out from ("person") to end of line 16 and insert ("which he acquired while acting as a person to whom this section applies.").
  The noble Earl said: I have just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 35:
  Page 13, line 16, leave out subsection (8).
  The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 35 when moving Amendment No. 33. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 26, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford: There is no need to repeat myself. I merely give notice, yet again, that we shall return to this matter on Report when we shall take the opportunity to pursue it further.
  Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 27 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My previous comments apply also to Clause 27.
  Clause 27 agreed to.
  Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
  Clause 30 [School Boards: conflict of interest]:
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 36:
  Page 17, line 13, after ("theirs") insert ("or any appointment committee").
  The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment but it is quite important. It seeks to address a conflict of interest which might arise when school board members are acting as members of a local authority or a sub-committee, for instance, and an appointment committee. We are trying to show that a conflict of interest may arise as regards the appointment of similar staff, which is an important part of the school board's functions. Members of the board should be required to declare an interest if, for example, they are teachers who work or have recently worked, in the same school as one of the applicants. In such circumstances, that applicant may or may not have a marginal advantage over the others. However, members of the board should be required to declare an interest. It is a very simple amendment which improves the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Addington: This is a very sensible amendment which would improve the Bill. I believe that such
  CWH 60
  amendments, and indeed the provisions in Parts III and IV of the Bill, are far more appropriate to today's procedure than were the provisions in Part II. Less direct political conflict is involved and we can achieve a greater consensus as a result of our discussions.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, whether he is referring to appointment committees not of the school boards but of the local authorities in respect of posts in the school to which the board relates? Is that what he is talking about, or is he talking about appointment committees within the school board?
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I was not aware that school boards made appointments of this nature and therefore I assume that they would be local authority appointments. I have a feeling that the Minister is in sympathy with the amendment and, whatever changes he makes, he empathises with what I am trying to do. A member of a selection committee who has strong interests in a candidate must be required to make that clear and, if possible, should not become involved in the selection process.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, is saying. If the amendment is referring to an appointment committee of a local authority that should be stated. If it says "any appointment committee" it could be something that had nothing to do with the matter, unless the drafting of the rest of the clause precludes that. I am slightly surprised by the noble Lord's reply. I am not quite certain what the implications are but I wonder whether the definition is clear enough.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I can see that there may be a problem of semantics here. Someone on the committee may have nothing to do with normal appointments and know someone; one cannot stop that. Someone may be on the committee of a bowling club with one of the members. But we are speaking here on purely official levels. At whatever the level, it should be declared, but it would be up to the committee to decide whether a person should be sitting on a selection panel. There is a certain semantic argument here that I am sure that the Minister will have cleared up for all of us.
  The Earl of Lindsay: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for moving the amendment, which he described as important and which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, described as sensible. Amendment No. 36 would extend the conflict of interest provisions set out in new Section 5A as inserted by Clause 30 to include an appointment committee set up under Schedule 2 to the School Boards (Scotland) Act 1988. Where an education authority intends to appoint a head teacher, a deputy head teacher or an assistant head teacher to a school, Schedule 2 requires the authority to set up an appointment committee comprising nominees of the education authority and the school board, where there is one. For posts below head teacher, the appointment committee also includes the head teacher.

  CWH 61
  Serving on an appointment committee is one of the most influential and important duties carried out by a school board member. In principle, therefore, we are sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, for bringing the matter forward. However, if I may beg patience from the noble Lord, I should like to take away the drafting that he has submitted to the Committee and bring forward a government amendment on Report.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 30 agreed to.
  Clause 31 agreed to.
  Clause 32 [Placing requests]:
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No.37:
  Page 18, leave out lines 30 to 36.
  The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of your Lordships' Committee if I also refer my remarks to Amendments Nos. 38 and 39. These are probing amendments. The first two amendments deal with the question of the reservation of places in schools within a certain travelling distance. They deal with the problem where these travelling distances inhibit the schools in urban areas from reserving places because of the 3.2 kilometres distance in the case of primary schools and the 4.8 kilometres distance in the case of any other designated school. Some of our urban schools are quite badly overcrowded because of those travelling distances. It may well be that the urban schools are disadvantaged in respect of the proposals contained in the legislation. I hope that the Minister will have a look at this point.
  The final amendment deals with the proposal in the Bill that the Government themselves would prescribe maxima. In other words, the Government themselves would say what is the maximum number of places that may be reserved. The point I want to make is that the local education authorities will know the number of children who are likely to go to a particular school and will therefore know the number of places that are likely to be required to be reserved. In our view there is no need to prescribe a maximum number of places. It should be left to the discretion of the local authorities.
  We on this side of the Committee support the proposal contained in the Bill to reserve these places. It comes back to an exchange between the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and myself yesterday when we were discussing the whole question of the placements legislation and the right of parents to choose the school to which they want their child to go. Of course, the amendment arises very much from a situation that arose in the Secretary of State's own constituency when, at Balfron High School, children who were living in the catchment area could not be admitted to the school because the school was overcrowded. We have no criticism of the proposal to reserve places. It is right and proper. Indeed, in the area where both the noble Earl,
  CWH 62
  the Minister and myself have our homes there are primary schools which are really bursting at the seams. Methilhill Primary School is possibly the best example of primary schools in Fife which are bursting at the seams but which could fall outside the criteria prescribed in the legislation.
  It is in a probing sense that I propose these amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten the Committee as to the possibility of the Government having a second look at these proposals and, if necessary, coming back at Report stage with the required amendments. I beg to move.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It is refreshing to know that the noble Lord's party is enthusiastic about choice of schools. That has helped the support of parents for the schools which they choose to be greatly enhanced.
  The problem is that where schools are close together in an urban area—and they may be very close together—it will be possible to refuse to admit people who want to choose a certain school by claiming that people are likely to come and live in that area and that places must be kept. Those same claims may be made for a second school which is quite close by. I am not sure that this whole arrangement really fits into the urban area scene. It is intended for places where there is but the one school in the catchment area. I wonder whether that can be explained to us.
  Lord Sewel: I wish to speak very briefly in support of the amendment. The great benefit of the amendment is that it helps communities become established and helps children become integrated into the community. Those of us who from time to time have moved home with young children realise the difficulties encountered by those children in becoming part of the community into which they are moving. One of the greatest helps in assuring that integration is attending the local school and building up a whole network of relationships with school mates and friends that starts at the school and flows over into the wider community. If, because of the pressure on places, people moving into an area cannot have their children attend the local school, there will be quite significant social consequences and I would hope that we could avoid them.
  4.15 p.m.
  The Earl of Lindsay: I say immediately to the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, that it is for that very reason that the Government want to enable places to be reserved for children moving in as a family into the catchment area of a certain school.
  The noble Lord, Lord Ewing, has raised some interesting issues. As the Committee knows, Clause 32 amends Section 28A of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to enable education authorities to retain places at certain schools for pupils moving into an area. Amendment No. 37 would have the effect of allowing the education authority to hold back unfilled reserved places for incoming children even if there is an equivalent school within reasonable walking distance.
  I would first make the general point that we consider it very important that parents should have the right to choose which school they want their children to attend.

  CWH 63
  For that reason the proposals in the Bill on placing requests have been tightly drawn. We should always remember that a place retained is a place denied to a pupil seeking admission by placing request. Therefore places should be retained only where the case for giving the place to a pupil likely to move into an area is stronger than that for a pupil applying by placing request.
  Where there is no other equivalent school within a reasonable walking distance, the case for retaining places for incomers is very strong. Otherwise, such pupils could be faced with travelling some distance out of the local area to school. Where there is another equivalent school reasonably near, the need to retain places is patently less as the inconvenience and travel is likely to be reduced.
  Using our common sense we realise that on the whole there is likely to be greater flexibility in terms of the provision of school places where there is more than just one school within a certain radius, and we therefore defined the manner in which places can be reserved and focused it on those areas where there is no equivalent school within a certain distance. There is no specific prejudice against schools in urban areas. The rules under the formula apply to all schools, whether they be urban, semi-rural or indeed rural.
  The Bill seeks to strike an equitable balance between the interests of children outwith the catchment area and the interests of children moving into that area. We take the view that this amendment could reduce parental choice unduly and therefore we are not attracted to it.
  Amendment No. 39 links directly to Amendment No. 38 as it would remove the definition of equivalent school necessary for the purposes of Section 28A(3B). The definition of "equivalent school" in new 28A(3E) ensures that the alternative school under consideration in any given case is a similar type of school.
  Amendment No. 38 would remove that part of new Section 28A(3C) which would give the Secretary of State power to prescribe by regulations the maximum numbers of places that an education authority could reserve for children who may move into a school's catchment area. I recognise that the new section elsewhere requires education authorities to reserve only the number of places that are regarded by the authority as reasonably required for incomers. There are therefore checks and balances to help ensure that an authority does not reserve so many places that the interests of pupils seeking a place by placing request are unreasonably compromised.
  Nevertheless, I hope Members of the Committee will appreciate that we regard the right of parents to choose the school which they wish their children to attend as most important, both as a basic right and as a means to improve standards. That is why we consider it important that a power should be taken to enable regulations to be made to limit the number of places being reserved if that proves necessary. I say "proves necessary" because the reservation of a number of places by regulation would only he an option for the Secretary of State.
  CWH 64
  As the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, said, local authorities are often best placed to estimate the likely number of incoming parents with children within a certain year and therefore, in general, we would expect the local authorities to be able to determine that number of places which should be reserved. The Secretary of State does, however, retain this option to set numbers by regulation in case he feels that the numbers of places being reserved are unreasonable.
  Whether that option of the Secretary of State were adopted would depend on circumstances and regulations would not be enacted without close consultation with those involved in operating them. If such an option were to be adopted, it is clear that different numbers would very likely have to be prescribed for different categories of schools, given the diverse sizes of both schools and catchment areas.
  The power to prescribe limits to the number of places which may be retained is part of the overall pattern of checks and balances to secure maximum freedom of action for the authorities to decide on local arrangements and also to provide necessary safeguards for parents and pupils.
  In the light of the explanation and assurance that I have been able to give on this area, I hope the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford: In the light of the Minister's comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.]
  Clause 32 agreed to.
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford Lord Ewing of Kirkford moved Amendment No. 40:
  After Clause 32, insert the following new clause—
  FURTHER EDUCATION BURSARIES
  (". In section 12 (Boards of Management) of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 1992 after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(2A) Subsection (2) above does not confer power to grant and make payments in pursuance of bursaries, scholarships or other allowances to persons over school age for which provision can be made under section 49(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.").
  The noble Lord said: This new clause deals with the whole question of higher education bursaries and is indeed a very important issue, particularly for local authorities in Scotland. I hope the Minister will explain to us what actually happened when the Secretary of State took his decision to transfer from the local authorities to the higher education authorities and the colleges the right to allocate grants and bursaries for higher education. That decision was taken without consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and it was taken only a week after the Secretary of State gave an absolute assurance to the National Union of Students that the allocation of grants and bursaries would be left with the local authorities. There has been no explanation of why the Secretary of State, first, did not consult with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and, secondly, why he

  CWH 65
  changed his mind within seven days of giving the assurance to the National Union of Students that this function would be left with the new unitary authorities. So the purpose of the new Clause is to enable the return to the local authorities of this function, which has been taken away from them without, as I say, any consultation by the Secretary of State. It is, indeed, a very important function, and the funding of that function will obviously be taken away from the local authorities as well and given to the colleges of higher education. In these brief comments, I hope that I have given the Minister a platform on which to explain to us how on earth this all came about. There was no consultation with CoSLA and a guarantee to the National Union of Students was within seven days, without any notification to anyone, just overturned. I hope that I have said sufficient to allow the Minister to explain just exactly what happened behind closed doors. I beg to move.
  Lord Addington: In dealing with further education, surely those authorities who know the conditions for further education in relation to jobs and practical tasks are the people best placed not only for providing the funding but also knowing where it should go. The amendment seems to be very straightforward. It deals with an area of concern. I hope the Minister will give some assurance that local authorities will still have a very close control and influence over where the funding for further education goes.
  The Earl of Lindsay: As from 1st April 1996, each incorporated further education college is responsible for dealing with the applications for bursaries for students attending their college. Following a consultation exercise with regional and islands Councils, £45 million was transferred from the aggregate external finance settlement to the colleges for 1996–97. The consultation did take place.
  The unitary authorities retain responsibility for further education bursaries for students not attending one of the 43 incorporated colleges. In recognition of that, £4.7 million remains in the AEF to assist authorities in meeting these residual responsibilities.
  Using financial and student information provided by the local authorities, the 1996–97 bursary allocations have been issued to each college in line with their historical position. Bursary policy guidelines have been issued which are based heavily on those issued by CoSLA and hitherto operated by the local authorities on their bursary scheme. To assist colleges in their preparation, we have distributed instructions on eligibility and residency; we have issued a national policy document; a commentary on its application; guidance on an appeals and complaints procedure; a "standard" bursary application form for session 1996–97, and indeed a student guide. These measures will ensure that there is minimal disruption to the service being provided to students, and it is the students, as recipients and beneficiaries, who we see as being the priority in terms of how the arrangements are made.
  CWH 66
  Linking bursaries to other college responsibilities will enable colleges to deliver an integrated service to students. The responsibility transfer will enable greater control to be operated, in that funding and payment cancellation decisions can be made and implemented more quickly. It will also be possible for students to know whether they have been successful in obtaining a study place and bursary award at the same time.
  Given that there was consultation with the regional and islands councils on this, that the financing has been worked out fairly on information provided to us by the local authorities and students; and given that the arrangements reflect the fact that we want the students themselves to be the beneficiaries, I hope that the noble Lord feels more reassured than he did when he stood up to move the amendment.
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I am sorry to say that I am not more reassured. I do not doubt that consultation took place with local authorities that were on their death bed. They were going out of existence. I do not doubt that, but I would like to see an account of the consultation that took place because the report that I have is that certainly no consultation took place with CoSLA. It is normal practice in local government in Scotland that consultation on issues that will affect all the local authorities, all the education authorities—in this case regional and island councils—takes place with the organisation representing the local authorities, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
  The Minister has not referred to the fact that there was a joint bursaries working group between the Scottish Office and CoSLA in which new regulations had already been prepared in order that the new unitary authorities coming into being, as they did on 1st April this year, would administer these bursaries. I hope the Minister was not trying to present a case that the students wanted this change, because far from the students wanting this change, the record shows quite clearly that the students did not want the change, and indeed their representations to the Secretary of State were to the effect that they did not want the change. The Secretary of State gave them an assurance. The Minister has not dealt with this. He gave the National Union of Students an absolute assurance that the allocation of bursaries would be left with the local authorities.
  The Secretary of State's original thinking was that he would give the function to the company that administers the student grants, but then he was approached by the colleges. It was not the Secretary of State who thought about giving the function to the colleges; it was the colleges that thought about getting the function from the local authorities. On being approached by the colleges, the Secretary of State then decided that he would transfer the function from the local authorities to the colleges. The Minister must be aware that it could not have happened at a worse time. Here we had new unitary authorities coming in, in a year in which they had been preparing their administration, and part of that administration was the allocation of bursaries. They were all geared up for that, but colleges are not geared up. From the reports I have the colleges are struggling to come to terms with administration of the scheme, and

  CWH 67
  they are very fortunate indeed that, notwithstanding the fact that the function has been removed from the local authorities, the local authorities through their chief executives, chief education officers and finance departments are giving assistance to the colleges in order to administer the scheme. The whole thing is absolutely crazy. It was taken away from the local authorities which then, of their own volition, give assistance to the colleges to administer a scheme that has been taken away from people who are experts at administering the scheme. The local authorities are giving this assistance because they do not want the students to suffer. This is about the only point on which the Minister and I agree on this issue—it is crucial that the students should not suffer.
  I should like to hear more. I simply cannot accept the not lame but certainly flimsy explanation that was given about the Secretary of State's approach to this matter, because all the evidence that I have is that it was the intention of the joint working group that was set up between the Scottish Office and CoSLA to leave this with the local authority. The new regulations were already in being and were part of the discussion that was ongoing in the joint working party, and yet suddenly the feet were cut away from it all because the Secretary of State in a blinding flash decided to accede to the request of the colleges and give this work to the colleges. We need a much more substantial explanation than we have already had. I hope that the Minister is now better prepared to give us a much more substantial explanation.
  4.30 p.m.
  The Earl of Lindsay: I have been prepared from the beginning to give the noble Lord a substantial explanation, but he perhaps disagrees in principle with the fact that something has been devolved from the local authorities to the colleges in the running of their own affairs. In the same way on a broader scale we are seeking in the Scottish Office to devolve down some of our current powers to local authorities. This is one of a number of measures that we are encouraging, or guiding, local authority duties further into the community or into the institutions over which they otherwise have control. There was consultation with the regional and islands councils. The Secretary of State himself on 10th November 1995 met with CoSLA representatives and outlined his intention to transfer responsibility for further education bursaries to further education colleges from 1st April 1996.
  As I have explained, the unitary authorities retain responsibility for further education bursaries for students not attending one of the 43 incorporated colleges. The noble Lord quite rightly said that the students themselves are one of the most important factors in that they should not suffer. We have guided and assisted the colleges very heavily in this matter. We have used the guidelines that CoSLA itself issued in the operation of bursary schemes. We have issued other instruction and guidance in other matters to ensure that students have to suffer minimal disruption from such changes.
  CWH 68
  At the end of the day we want the colleges and the students to benefit from a more integrated service, the greater control that colleges can have over their affairs and, indeed, the speed with which they can make decisions on various matters without having to await those decisions being made by local authorities. The consultation existed. CoSLA was informed and the maximum amount of help was given to the colleges to ensure that they took on these new duties efficiently. I hope that the noble Lord, on reflection, will feel that the picture he paints is much worse than what exists in reality.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This is not an animal with which I am enormously familiar. I have not spoken so far on this topic but re-reading what CoSLA said I personally see the merit of the colleges doing this work. The problem CoSLA faces is, to a large extent, a problem for the staff. The local authority bursary staff who are doing the job will lose it while the colleges will have to take on people. Does the Minister have any information about whether it is possible to facilitate the move of local authority staff to the colleges? Those working within the local authorities feel that the colleges lack understanding and knowledge of the system, which is natural. Of course, at the moment that is the case because they have not been doing it: those people reside in the local authorities. One has some sympathy with people who find themselves in that position. This is quite a big part of the argument that CoSLA is making to Members of the Committee. Does the Minister have anything to say about that? Is he able to look at it?
  The Earl of Lindsay: I can promise both the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and my noble friend Lady Carnegy that I will write if there is any information which could usefully be given that I have not already given. My noble friend makes a very good point. The transition had to be smooth and the transfer of functions had to take place with minimum disruption. I repeat that that is why we issued bursary policy guidelines along the lines of those which CoSLA issued.
  We set out to assist the colleges in every possible way we could. We distributed instructions on eligibility. We issued a national policy document and a commentary on its application. We issued guidance on the appeals and complaints procedure and also a standard bursary application form for the session 1996–97 as well as the student guide. We wanted the colleges to assume these new duties simply, quickly and efficiently and we wanted the students to benefit from the transition similarly.
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford: I would like to press the Minister further. I am impressed by his ability to defend the indefensible but he is never really very comfortable when doing so. If, as the Minister says, the Government wanted the colleges to administer these bursaries, wanted to help the colleges all they could, and wanted to provide support and advise them on the complaints procedure and the appeals procedure, why was there not

  CWH 69
  a joint working party established? Why were there not new regulations applicable to local authorities to enable that to happen?
  The Earl of Lindsay: I am sure it is not unusual for different parts of the public arena to be exploring the same issue in different directions. While one policy was perhaps unfolding towards the transition which then took place, I imagine that the joint working party itself might have been working to an agenda that preceded our intentions articulated on 10th November 1995 by the Secretary of State to the CoSLA representatives. I find nothing unsurprising in different aspects of the same policy being simultaneously pursued.
  We may have a problem of principle here between the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, and myself in that the Government feel strongly that if a function or decision-making power can be devolved downwards to the point where it matters most, we would like to see that happen, whether it be in the health area, schools or indeed any other area. That is why we have been in such extensive discussions with CoSLA to see how many duties we have in the Scottish Office that are not necessarily for the Scottish Office Ministers to pursue but could be better performed by local authorities.
  The local authorities have perhaps been a little more reluctant to give up duties and see them devolved downwards into the community than we have in our efforts to devolve powers to local authorities and others. However, we feel strongly that such duties should be delegated downwards.
  This is perhaps not too far from the principle that divides us on nursery education vouchers in that we want to see parents making the decision as to where children are sent for their pre-school education rather than the local authority being the sole arbiter and, as it were, monopoly-holder of such matters. We may well be back on a well-argued principle that was aired earlier in our discussions on the Bill.
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford: We are obviously not going to receive an explanation. The Scottish Office has changed substantially since my days there when civil servants took their guidance from Ministers. Now we are told that it is nothing unusual for civil servants to be pursuing one course of action while the Minister is pursuing a completely different course of action. I suppose that that encapsulates the whole approach of the Government. It must be absolute chaos in the Scottish Office. One of the first jobs of my noble friend Lord Sewel on entering the office will be to sort it all out and get the place on an even keel.
  We shall not get any further on this. We have had no explanation as to why the Secretary of State did not consult CoSLA. He just went and told them in November 1995. There is no explanation of why he changed his mind within seven days of meeting the National Union of Students. We are not to get any explanation. I should like to put on record my admiration of the Minister's ability to defend the indefensible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 33 agreed to.
  Clause 34 [Regulations and orders]:
  Lord Sewel Lord Sewel moved Amendment No. 41:
  Page 19, line 20, leave out ("annulment in pursuance of a") and insert ("approval by").
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is self-evident. It is clearly to provide that regulations under the Bill, when it becomes an Act, should be subject to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. Why? Quite simply, the Bill is replete with clauses giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations. Indeed, there has been a ghost almost, not so much in the debate but a ghost within the Bill.
  We all know that the main part of the Bill is about a voucher scheme for nursery education. The word "voucher" does not appear at all. That part of the Bill becomes operative only as a result of regulation. Indeed, the policy objectives of the entire Bill can be secured and will be given flesh only through regulation and order.
  Given the disproportionate importance of the orders and the power given to the Secretary of State to make regulations and orders within the Bill, surely it is appropriate that the affirmative procedure is adopted so that the opportunity for Parliamentary scrutiny is widened. That is particularly relevant and necessary when the Bill is silent about what it is seeking to achieve; that is, the introduction of a voucher scheme.
  Lord Addington: We should all recommend and encourage the department to discuss provisions which will be introduced by regulations. The affirmative procedure gives us the opportunity so to do, and thus it should be used wherever practically possible.
  In agreeing to the scheme, as the noble Lord has just said, the beef, if we can use that expression at this particular time, is not here, but will be served at some later date so that at least we will be able to pass some opinion on the quality of the cut.
  4.45 p.m.
  The Earl of Lindsay: I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, mentioned the word "ghosts" in moving this amendment. It was a refreshing departure from the speech which I had been expecting from him. I would remind the noble Lord that, although he sees some kind of shadowy vacuum in Part II, the Secretary of State, under Section 23 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, already has the power to make grants to persons for the provision of education. The noble Lord may see ghosts in the Bill where is a hard profile of what we are seeking in the 1980 Act.
  Lord Sewel: Will the Minister accept that the word "voucher" does not appear in any legislation relating to nursery provision?
  The Earl of Lindsay: I was talking about the Secretary of State's ability to make grants. I cannot immediately tell him how often the word "voucher" appears in Scottish education Acts.

  CWH 71
  This amendment would require that every order or regulation made under this Bill by the Secretary of State for Scotland would be subject to affirmative resolution by either House of Parliament. I suspect that the drafting of the amendment did not intend the "either" to be the case, but that is the way the amendment is focused on the Bill as presently drafted.
  Members of the Committee will be aware that the affirmative resolution procedure is now used quite sparingly. There is good reason for this. Negative resolution procedures allow efficient use of limited parliamentary time while allowing for proper scrutiny to be made where necessary. Affirmative resolution is used only where the power in the enabling Act is such that it would be inappropriate for the positive consent of Parliament not to be sought.
  There is no discretionary element in the Bill which is of a nature which would demand that Parliament be required to debate its exercise. I would assure the Committee, and specifically the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that in any event negative resolution retains Parliament's ultimate control. We feel that that is absolutely vital and should be the case. On that basis, in addition to the technical observation on the drafting of the amendment, I hope the noble Lord can withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Sewel: I am intrigued at what the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, thought I was going to say—perhaps we can have a conversation afterwards. I find his answer totally unconvincing. At this stage I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment but it is again something to which we may wish to come back.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 34 agreed to.
  Clause 35 agreed to.
  Clause 36 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
  [Amendments Nos. 42 to 45 not moved.]
  The Earl of Lindsay The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 46:
  Page 20, line 1, leave out from first ("to") to end of line and insert ("subsections (4A) and (5) below, this Act extends to Scotland only.
  (4A) Section 26 of this Act extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well as Scotland.").
  The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendment No. 46 when moving Amendment No. 33. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.
  Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove moved Amendment No. 47:
  Page 31, column 3, leave out lines 4 to 7.
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment perhaps I may speak also to Amendment No.48. The amendments ensure that education authorities retain some discretion with regard to how they discharge their functions as education authorities. The repeals procedure will, by deleting the word "general" from each of Sections 2 , 19(1) and 65F of the Education
  CWH 72
  (Scotland) Act 1980, give the Secretary of State power respectively to prescribe requirements to which every education authority shall conform, which are to apply to the premises and equipment of educational establishments under the management of education authorities and relating to the conduct of schools making provision for recorded children or recorded young persons. There is concern that the Secretary of State, by being empowered to make regulations prescribing requirements, rather than general requirements in relation to the matters outlined above, will be able to restrict education authorities' ability to discharge their functions. We should therefore like the Minister either to take this matter away and see whether there is going to be a diminution of power of the education authorities to discharge their functions, or accept the amendment in some form that will allow them to discharge their functions much as they have done for a very long time. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Lindsay: I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, immediately that the repeals set out in Schedule 6 are not so draconian that we are removing all discretion from the education authorities—I believe he used terminology along those lines.
  Amendment No. 47 would delete the repeals in Schedule 6 and the word "general" in Sections 2 and 19(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980. Amendment No. 48 would delete the repeal in the same schedule and the word "general" in Section 65F of the 1980 Act. These repeals are minor technical changes responding to doubts raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in the other place as to the vires of regulations made under Section 2 of the 1980 Act. The grounds of concern were that the wording of Section 2 might allow the prescription only of broad principles and not the making of detailed requirements. The power had previously always been interpreted as a power to prescribe requirements which are general in the sense of establishing rules which apply to education authorities across the board, but which prescribe duties in detail.
  The purpose of the change to Section 2 and other similar powers in Section 19(1) and Section 65F of the 1980 Act is therefore to respond to the joint committee's criticisms and make clear that it is competent for regulations to impose detailed requirements where appropriate, and not merely to prescribe general requirements. The change has no policy significance. The Government remain in favour of less regulation not more regulation, as the entire Committee knows.
  It is against that background, and the assurance that we are not seeking to clip in a draconian fashion the discretion of the education authorities, that I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have listened carefully to what my noble friend has said. This is a very interesting point. I quite see how the drafting schedule has arisen, but he will have to ensure that the interference, as they see it, in local authority affairs by central government will not be made possible inadvertently on a number of other detailed issues

  CWH 73
  because of this. The point being made is that it will have wider repercussions than intended in the Bill. It might not be possible to respond at this moment, but it would be nice to have some reassurance that the application is not wider than that which is precisely related to the Bill.
  The Earl of Lindsay: Rather than risking misleading my noble friend Lady Carnegy I will write to her and copy the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, on this specific point.
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford: Before we leave this matter, I am interested in the noble Earl's response to my noble friend Lord Carmichael in that this schedule is in response to the concerns of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. We are dealing with primary legislation and it is a House of Lords Bill. This Bill has never been before another place, so how does a House of Lords Bill of this nature—primary legislation—fit into the powers, duties and functions of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments? To whom was the advice from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments given? Was it, for example, given to the Scottish Office or was it given to the parliamentary draftsmen? Should there not have been reference at Second Reading to the fact that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had commented? It is normal practice that when the joint committee refers to legislation, it is intimated to either House that the joint committee has commented on the proposed legislation. This has never been intimated until today, and, with great respect, this matter should have been intimated at the start of our proceedings, certainly at Second Reading. An indication should have been given that the joint committee had commented on this so that we were all aware of the background to the repeal provisions that are contained in Schedule 6 to the Bill. I find it very interesting indeed, having at one time been a member of the Select Committee on Procedure in another place. We are dealing here not with a statutory instrument but with primary legislation.
  The Earl of Lindsay: I would point out to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, that the Notes on Clauses deal with this matter and that those Notes on Clauses were published and made available to the House immediately after Second Reading.
  Lord Ewing of Kirkford: After Second Reading?
  The Earl of Lindsay: Yes, as is customary. I believe that we always endeavour to make Notes on Clauses available after the Second Reading of a Bill. I would refer the noble Lord to the final page dealing with Schedule 6 and I will endeavour to get a copy of it for him if that would help.
  The history of this matter may be of interest to the noble Lord, given the specific questions that he has asked. When the School Pupil Records (Scotland) Regulations 1990 and the Further Education Student Records (Scotland) Regulations 1990 were made under this power, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew them to the attention of both Houses of Parliament and cast a doubt on their vires.
  CWH 74
  The joint committee took a similar approach over the Testing in Primary Schools (Scotland) Regulations, which have since been revoked. The grounds of concern in both cases were that the wording of Section 2 might allow the prescription only of broad general principles and not the making of detailed requirements.
  I hope that that casts some light on the noble Lord's doubts.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I would not for a moment suggest that the noble Earl was other than trying to be helpful. If the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, grasped what he was saying, she has the great advantage of having a copy of the Notes on Clauses. I understand that the Notes on Clauses may have been in the Printed Paper Office, but I also understand that the normal courtesy—I am sure that it was not the Minister himself at fault—is that at least the Opposition Front Bench is sent a copy or is told that the copies are now available. When there are these complicated Bills with back references, most of us jump at the idea that there will be Notes on Clauses. It is a great help. I certainly had no intimation that there was such a thing.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The whole thing seems to me to have been entirely normal. Notes on Clauses were published after the Second Reading. I picked them up in the Printed Paper Office, as I always do. I see that there is an explanation here of the repeals that are referred to in Schedule 6. I had not spotted that until the discussion began. But that is completely normal. I do not know what normally happens to Opposition Front Benches because I have not been on one. I have always picked up Notes on Clauses of any Bill after the Second Reading, and if it is a Private Member's Bill one has to produce them oneself.
  The Earl of Lindsay: Perhaps I may put the record straight. First, if any of the normal courtesies were ignored, I apologise. Secondly, I can make sure that a copy is delivered to noble Lords opposite. Thirdly, I can assure the Committee that the Notes on Clauses were made available as I said they would be in my Second Reading speech on 11th December. I refer Members of the Committee to col. 1146 of Hansard on that occasion. It is always our intention to make Notes on Clauses available in order that technical details will be pursued through that avenue.
  Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: I thank the Minister. It is obviously one of these mix-ups. I usually run to get a copy of Notes on Clauses to make some sense out of what the draftsman is saying. I can only blame myself that I did not do so on this occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
  Schedule 6 agreed to.
  Bill to be reported with amendments.
  The Committee adjourned at one minute past five o'clock.

  Israel: US Policy
  Israel: US Policy
  Israel: Proposed Security Agreement with US
  Israel: Proposed Security Agreement with US
  Sharm El Sheikh Summit Follow-Up Meeting
  Sharm El Sheikh Summit Follow-Up Meeting
  London Transport: Financial Objectives
  London Transport: Financial Objectives
  Medicine Names
  Medicine Names
  Firearms Amnesty
  Firearms Amnesty
  UK Regional Trade Balances
  UK Regional Trade Balances
  Agriculture Council, 1st to 3rd April
  Agriculture Council, 1st to 3rd April
  Beef Producers and Slaughterers: Support Measures
  Beef Producers and Slaughterers: Support Measures
  Pesticides Safety Directorate: Targets
  Pesticides Safety Directorate: Targets
  BSE Compensation Payments
  BSE Compensation Payments
  BSE: Dr. Narang's Test
  BSE: Dr. Narang's Test
  BSE Cases in the European Union
  BSE Cases in the European Union
  BSE Cases by Herd Type
  BSE Cases by Herd Type
  BSE Cases by Region
  BSE Cases by Region